Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
A good question.
Luckily, I have a few thoughts on the answer.

While it is nice, for future students of the process and history, to have similar materials in a single collection or a single geographical area, this is not my favorite solution.

First of all, wars and natural disasters happen.

Secondly, for large institutes such an item would be just another number in a long list of numbers, while at a smaller place, it might be more likely to be displayed and displayed more often.

Thirdly, in this case, I think that in a way, the process is perhaps more important than the image per se....

Recreation being what it is, the image is (a sort of) proof,
but the process used to produce the recreation must be more important than any single image produced by it.

Lastly, (I am sleep typing) it would be nice to "celebrate"
both the process, and it's recreator
rather than incresing the wealth of an institute already up to it's armpits in gold dust.

A few thoughts from the sleeping typist...

Appreciate the observations Ray.

I agree that the top objective shouldn't be to 'get paid' (although we all have our price lol..). Far more important should be a guarantee for the protection/longevity of the image, the appreciation of Hill's process, and the effort that was undertaken to reproduce that process. Storing it in some warehouse a la Indiana Jones as merely Item #534-9586 wouldn't feel appropriate either. Periodic public display, long-term curation, and respect/appreciation for it's importance to the history of the art (as well as concrete proof of Hill's process) - that sounds fitting to me.

Unfortunately, as I'm not familiar with - well - ANY parts of this world (rare photographic images/antiquities/museum collections/you name it), this will obviously be a learning process!