P3D Re: value of everyday images

[fj834@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Dr. George A. Themelis)]

Peter Davis writes:

>NOTHING has any intrinsic value.  Things are only valuable to people
>who want them, and their value is essentially a measure of how much
>they want them.  If no one wants someone's old photo collection, then
>regardless of how painstakingly each shot was set up, or how beautiful
>the results, they have no value.  Of course, it's always possible that
>people would want such a collection if they knew about it, but this
>doesn't mean that the possessors of such a collection are wrong to
>give away (or throw away) such things.

I agree.  That's why it is important to dismiss the notion that amateur
stereo slides have no value.  We have to let the public know that these
slides have value and there are collectors who will buy them.

Ron Labbe talked about the accidental masterpieces.  In every collection I
have seen, there are interesting slides worth keeping.  Even among hundreds
of underexposed and out of focus slides that are there are usually a number
of slides that are very appealing and worth keeping.  This brings the
question of what does the collector do with a large collection after he has
kept the slides that are of interest to him?  Selling them or trading with
other collectors is the obvious answer, for a number of reasons:  1)
Generate funds to buy more, 2) Give others an opportunity to sample slides.
They might find pictures that are of historical value, of interest of them
because of different quality or artistic standards.  3) Reduce the clutter
of his own collection.

George Themelis


------------------------------