[removed]

I wonder if the “Santa Claus” photos are included

Are these not by definition public domain images. All the buyer gets is a vintage print of something anyone can get for free online. They don't get copyright or anything.

Then again there are people out there buying NFTs.

1. Buy photo
2. Create NFTs
3. Something, something, something
4. Profit

[deleted]

I’ve seen them. I don’t believe this claim.

[removed]

Yes, NASA has put so much of their material from that time online that you could probably find all of these for free and at high resolution. The article keeps referring to "vintage prints" so it might mean actual prints from that time and while they could have historic value printed photos love to degrade over time. Especially color ones from decades ago can fade a lot. One of the examples look like it was signed, obviously depending who that was could add value.

Long story short it's a shit article and who knows what they're actually selling. If it's just prints of old photos made today it's a rip off, if it's prints from decades ago maybe signed they might have more value but don't expect them to look all that great and they'll probably get worse in the future.

[removed]

Some NFTs come with copyright. Snoop Dogg’s NFT has him making all sorts of companies now using it as his logo

The Project Apollo Archive on Flickr has all the Apollo photos from every roll categorized by mission starting with Apollo 7.

Also the excellent Apollo Image Archive has them categorized by type of camera used.

Lmfao. NFTs, which are made to allegedly prove ownership, needs ownership protection. That's rich.

[removed]

[removed]

The Apollo Image Archive at ASU, funded by NASA, have the highest quality scans possible. They got some equipment from an unnamed Three Letter Agency to scan the high resolution images taken from orbit.

It never ceases to fascinate me how this subject triggers people to proudly show off their complete lack of education and research and their willingness to succumb to some dumb stuff they saw somewhere on the web.

It seems to be signed by Gene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17 & the rest of the Apollo 17 crew

Edit: Updated who signed

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

200 pixels/mm resolution? jeez

Well...raw tif images sizes are more than 1GB so anyone who wants to play with it in photoshop have a sh!tload of image data.

I knew about flickr, but not about the ASU website, which is a shame because i'm a big fan of the Apollo missions (especially Apollo 16)!

So what does « unpublished » mean in the context of the article? I’m confused…

[removed]

It means that the article writer is a hype man for an auction house stretching the truth.

These are prints, but consider that for photographic prints to be made, one has to take the film negative that went to the moon, load it into a darkroom enlarger, and print on photo paper. Nothing is said about the provenance of the reproduction, which could be from a contact copy of the film, or copy of prints for public dissemination by the thousands (while not using bulk printing and screening technology).

An original photographic print (meaning one printed directly off of the film used to take the picture, not a copy) is the photography equivalent of an original painting.

With analog processes, half the creative work is in the printing process. If any post work was done, these prints would have been what other copies were made from.

Same reason why you'll see original prints from Ansel Adams sell for unbelievable sums of money despite there being better looking modern prints of his work available. You'd be buying the physical object that the artist spent hours fine tuning, the actual original which all other prints copied - and keeping in mind the darkroom printing process is what inspired the modern photo editing platforms Lightroom, Photoshop, etc.