Is this Ansel Adam’s work or? Solved: Kenny Rogers

[mtbdudex]

Well I’ve had this 25 years or so, and think it’s a Ansel Adam’s print but can’t confirm it.

Anyone recognize it?
Yes, I did a google on “ansel adams trees clouds lake” but nothing came up. I’m thinking to sell it as not fit in home decor anymore, just looking to establish a fair price.

Decent size, 26” x 30”, good condition frame.

Backside

 

[mollyc]

I can't find any other reference to it, but this site attributes it to Kenny Rogers, who was an acclaimed photographer (which I didn't know until tonight). It was allegedly published in his book titled either America or American Beauty.

 

[OreoCookie]

Valuable prints should at least be numbered and signed somewhere, me thinks.* If you can find nothing on the back of the photograph itself, I personally wouldn't expect to be able to sell it for much.

* At least that's been the case with the valuable prints and photos my parents owned.

 

[mollyc]

Valuable prints should at least be numbered and signed somewhere, me thinks.* If you can find nothing on the back of the photograph itself, I personally wouldn't expect to be able to sell it for much.

* At least that's been the case with the valuable prints and photos my parents owned.

yes but there are a lot of famous prints that are sold as posters and the like tgat aren’t signed.

 

[OreoCookie]

yes but there are a lot of famous prints that are sold as posters and the like tgat aren’t signed.

Sure, but that's reflected in the value, no? I'm not in the art scene (I'd have to ask my parents and/or one of their friends), but as I understand it the reason why some prints are numbered and signed: they are more exclusive and as far as I understand that at least for (non-photographic) prints, it is usually implied these are the only prints in existence.

And if they aren't numbered and signed, they could, in principle, be printed by me on my inkjet printer and framed. (If the photo is nice, who cares.)

@mtbdudex's photo is certainly professionally framed, so someone really spent some money here, but it might mean that the resale value of the photo is quite low. On the other hand, I had stuff I bought on a Japanese flea market professionally framed, and the frame was 20x what the piece of art was.

 

[mtbdudex]

I can't find any other reference to it, but this site attributes it to Kenny Rogers, who was an acclaimed photographer (which I didn't know until tonight). It was allegedly published in his book titled either America or American Beauty.

You've truly helped me, so the musician Kenny Rogers took this image and it got published in his 1986 book.
He's also in 2017 got into the International Photography Hall of Fame

Kenny Rogers | International Photography Hall of Fame

1938-2020 ABOUT IPHF’S FIRST LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD WINNER Kenny Rogers was a dedicated and talented photographer for nearly four decades. His best-known images are portraits of well-known singers, actors, and dignitaries from around the globe. In addition, he had an ongoing passion for...

iphf.org

It's also in this YouTube video, the below will take you to that spot.

 

[bunnspecial]

Sure, but that's reflected in the value, no? I'm not in the art scene (I'd have to ask my parents and/or one of their friends), but as I understand it the reason why some prints are numbered and signed: they are more exclusive and as far as I understand that at least for (non-photographic) prints, it is usually implied these are the only prints in existence.

And if they aren't numbered and signed, they could, in principle, be printed by me on my inkjet printer and framed. (If the photo is nice, who cares.)

@mtbdudex's photo is certainly professionally framed, so someone really spent some money here, but it might mean that the resale value of the photo is quite low. On the other hand, I had stuff I bought on a Japanese flea market professionally framed, and the frame was 20x what the piece of art was.

As someone who's been on one side of B&W printmaking(not that I'm much of a printer...) and looked at but never bought original prints by some photographers I admire(namely O.W. Link) there is-to me-a lot of value in a print made by the photographer themselves.

Ansel Adams likened the print to the "performance" in music, and there is a lot of truth to this. Even the most novice printers(where I'd probably fall, or maybe a small step above) makes decisions when working with a negative that can impact the look and feel of the final print. The two most basic ones are contrast and exposure. Once that's decided, one can work on dodging and burning or other manipulations to get a final result. The amount of manual manipulation, though, can mean that the final result isn't necessarily identical print-to-print(although a good printer within a given run will probably have them close).

To use a prime example, look at various prints of Moonrise, Hernandez, NM over the years. The negative was reportedly quite difficult to print, and Adams at one point had done something to it(I forget what) to try and intensify the lower half. Looking at it, though, you can see it get a bit more contrasty and IMO a bit "moodier" in later prints as compared to early ones.

 

[OreoCookie]

As someone who's been on one side of B&W printmaking(not that I'm much of a printer...) and looked at but never bought original prints by some photographers I admire(namely O.W. Link) there is-to me-a lot of value in a print made by the photographer themselves.

Man, you bring up so many memories and good points that I haven't thought of but should have. (My mom gave me a b&w photo lab for Christmas as few decades ago, which kindled my love for photography.) You are very right about the actual printing process being an integral part of photo making in the analog world. I feel stupid, thanks for reminding me!

To use a prime example, look at various prints of Moonrise, Hernandez, NM over the years. The negative was reportedly quite difficult to print, and Adams at one point had done something to it(I forget what) to try and intensify the lower half. Looking at it, though, you can see it get a bit more contrasty and IMO a bit "moodier" in later prints as compared to early ones.

Even in the digital world, this is difficult. I remember going to the biggest camera store in Munich (which has a floor dedicated to pros), and they couldn't give me a color profile for their printer/paper combo. Of course, I am no Ansel Adams, far from it, but I still wanted the reproduction to be as close as possible to what I saw on the (calibrated!) monitor.

 

[wilberforce]

I can't find any other reference to it, but this site attributes it to Kenny Rogers, who was an acclaimed photographer (which I didn't know until tonight). It was allegedly published in his book titled either America or American Beauty.

Pretty impressed you found that. Skill, knowledge or tenaciousness?

 

[mollyc]

Pretty impressed you found that. Skill, knowledge or tenaciousness?

probably tenaciousness. ? I took a screenshot of the photo of the photo in the original post, then cropped it down to just the image part and ran it through reverse image lookup in google. That slideshow I linked in my first post was the only instance I could find of the image, but it was labeled as Kenny Rogers, and there are lots of links to some of his work and his books. I just couldn't confirm the actual image anywhere, but apparently it was enough for mtbdudex to finish the research. ?

I'm actually an excellent internet stalker researcher.

 

[Allyance]

Is yours a photographic print or a reproduction? I have one original Ansel Adams photograph that was printed by the University Of New Mexico by his authority. If you like the print, hang on to it, being taken by Kenny Rogers is a bonus.

I bought my print at Yosemite in 1984, they had a 11x17 print that was $1100.00, if I had the money, it would have been a good investment.

 

[mtbdudex]

Is yours a photographic print or a reproduction? I have one original Ansel Adams photograph that was printed by the University Of New Mexico by his authority. If you like the print, hang on to it, being taken by Kenny Rogers is a bonus.

I bought my print at Yosemite in 1984, they had a 11x17 print that was $1100.00, if I had the money, it would have been a good investment.

I honestly don’t know if it’s a print or photo reproduction. Can’t easily tell, as glass on top and back is sealed.
Frankly I still have zero clue if this is “worth” .. $50, $150, or
I do like the print… it’s just not holistic fitting into my loghome space anymore .. been off wall 2+ years. My philosophy is if after 2 years something not used … it’s time …

I’d have to tear off this brown paper on the backside … to see what if anything is stated on the back .. a mystery . Part of me feels that nicely done brown paper adds and shows the attention to detail for the work.

 

[OreoCookie]

I would keep it intact and resist your curiosity. If you are desperate to make money on it, you need to talk to a professional, but I reckon you’d have to risk to have the beautiful custom frame touched. Is that risk worth it?

Another option is to gift it to someone who might appreciate it. That’s probably what I’d do.

 

[mtbdudex]

Bringing closure here:
This Kenny Rogers piece is hanging in my office / study / photo studio.
It was my wife’s craft room, I repainted it the deep red.

I added description on bottom as shown

I would keep it intact and resist your curiosity. If you are desperate to make money on it, you need to talk to a professional, but I reckon you’d have to risk to have the beautiful custom frame touched. Is that risk worth it?

Another option is to gift it to someone who might appreciate it. That’s probably what I’d do.

No, not desperate at all, fortunately I’m blessed with good job, 35 years same company, put 2 thru college. Was more curious the value.

 

[_timo_redux_]

Interesting story. I don’t have a Kenny Rogers print myself, but I do have something else hanging I recognized in your photograph:

 

[mtbdudex]

Interesting story. I don’t have a Kenny Rogers print myself, but I do have something else hanging I recognized in your photograph:

View attachment 2328804

Nice, I’ve stared into that image countless times.. it mesmerizes me.

Btw, you might like this thread I made in 2008 ..

Mystery solved: Albuquerque, New Mexico not Tucson, AZ street scene / location??

Note: The OP I made below assumed Tuscon, AZ, however forum members corrected me the location is Albuquerque, New Mexico. Still a neat picture. I figure someone here might have been to Tucson AZ and could recognize the street scene below from the late 1960’s. The picture has so much going on...

forums.macrumors.com