[HN Gopher] The theft of a Churchill portrait
___________________________________________________________________
The theft of a Churchill portrait
Author : prismatic
Score : 51 points
Date : 2024-09-17 03:28 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (thewalrus.ca)
(TXT) w3m dump (thewalrus.ca)
| yawpitch wrote:
| > A simple image amplified and focused by hand, through _delicate
| rotations of plates of glass_ , and filtered toward a _tiny
| mirror contained inside a camera that projected the reflection
| toward a viewing screen_. When Karsh opened the shutter for one-
| tenth of a second, he exposed an eight-by-ten sheet of light-
| sensitive nitrocellulose Kodak film to the reflection of Winston
| Churchill, creating a negative that later needed to be developed
| in darkness.
|
| Karsh used an 8x10" monorail camera... there were no "delicate
| rotations of plates of glass", such cameras don't use helical
| focusing, instead a lens with fixed optical glass is moved back
| and forth using linear movements of either or both of the
| vertical stanchions.
|
| There also is no "tiny mirror" reflecting anything... while (a
| very few) 8x10" reflex cameras have been built, they require an
| 8x10" mirror, and in any case this wasn't a reflex camera at all.
| Karsh would have set the rough focus by moving the rear stanchion
| sufficiently far from the front stanchion to get rough focus at
| that distance from the film plane with the lens he was using,
| then he would have achieved fine focus by viewing a ground glass
| plate slightly larger than the negative set in the rear
| stanchion, light projected directly through the lens onto that
| ground glass forming an image flipped both vertically and
| horizontally from reality (Churchill's head would have been on
| the bottom and any text on the cigar would have been flipped left
| to right)... no mirror of any size was involved. Once focus was
| set a light tight film back was inserted, replacing the ground
| glass with a sheet of film at the same distance from the optical
| center of the lens, hence the same focal distance. The lens's
| shutter would then have been closed, a dark slide would have
| lifted to allow light to strike the film, and then the exposure
| was ready to be taken whenever Karsh (and Winston) were ready
| (-ish, in the case of Winston).
|
| Lastly all film negatives, sheet or otherwise, had to be
| developed in the dark... the thing that made nitrocellulose
| special was that it _really_ needed to be developed and stored
| away from flame.
| galago wrote:
| About a year ago, I had an opportunity to use an 8x10 field
| camera. This description is correct. I didn't have any film, so
| I loaded the film holder with paper and developed it under a
| safelight in the darkroom. This isn't a typical process though
| and film has very low ISO. I then contact printed through the
| paper. The resulting image wasn't particularly sharp. It was a
| fun exercise though, and I'd like to borrow the camera again.
| Using it is a very slow and formal process. The film is as one
| would expect, expensive.
| Molitor5901 wrote:
| In this case the buyer of the print is out of his money, the
| hotel got the print back, the criminal apparently caught, but
| really should not the auction house be on the hook for the money?
| Unless it comes back via the criminal, it would have been the
| auction house's job to verify this was not stolen. Not always
| possible, I understand, but.. ?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| >> it would have been the auction house's job to verify this
| was not stolen.
|
| The auction house is a facilitator of a transaction between the
| parties. Unless they purchase the object from the seller first,
| they are not even a middle man. They are akin to ebay, a
| platform rather than a dealership. I'd bet that somewhere in
| the fine print is even a statement that any appraisals remain
| the opinion of the individual appraiser and are not the
| responsibility of the auction house.
| jccooper wrote:
| Yeah, that's a fishy claim. You could perhaps say it's
| technically true he currently holds title... until a court
| rules otherwise. Which is certainly would, unless Italy is
| doing something very unusual.
|
| I expect that's the statement of a lawyer in CYA mode; at some
| point he goes from unknowing victim to knowingly holding stolen
| property, which can start to cause legal issues.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| The theft of it wasn't even noticed for months. It got sold
| some months before they realized it was stolen.
|
| I can't find the article, but the buyer had stated that
| Sotheby's mostly reimbursed him. Maybe he was out shipping or
| VAT? It also said, the buyer, an Italian lawyer, technically
| could have kept it, but chose not to.
| thmsths wrote:
| I wonder if the fact that he was a lawyer had a significant
| impact on the decision. It is my understanding that in some
| jurisdictions lawyers are held to high ethics standards. I
| could see the local bar association taking disciplinary
| actions had he chosen to keep a painting he knew was stolen.
| seanc wrote:
| A report in The Globe and Mail indicated that the buyer was re-
| imbursed for most of the purchase cost. So very likely
| Sotheby's insurance provider is ultimately on the hook.
|
| https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-italian-who...
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Experts long said the photograph's real value was hard to peg.
| Previous sales of The Roaring Lion have fetched as much as
| $85,000 at auction. Though the actual stolen portrait managed to
| fetch only about $7,500 from a London auction house
| (significantly less than the $25,000 it was once insured for),
| Geller, as the lead investigator on the case, insists that the
| resale price didn't matter to him as much as what it represented.
|
| So priceless in the way that all unique things are priceless.
| dave333 wrote:
| Interesting that so called great photographs are often the result
| of simple emotional tricks - pulling his cigar from his mouth in
| Churchill's case and for the Duke and Duchess of Windsor being
| told a story about a dog that had died to get their famous
| melancholy expression.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-17 23:01 UTC)