Mick Jagger, 1965.
The Stones made incredible music, but looking back they sure seemed like douchebags.
I think these were published in the Stones photo-biog book 'Tour of the Americas' in around 1975. Interestingly the book sells for around $500 if you have one.....
It doesn't explain in the story if the 'photographs' are prints or negs / transparencies. The difference being prints can be 'many of', the tranny or neg is the original image. Affects the price you know.
Photo #5 is cool because it shows a blues legend.
Wow! Photos of Brian Jones by a swimming pool? Creepy. Four years before...
average uninteresting snapshots, no photographic merit (shame the snapshotter didn't think to turn the camera to portrait format), scraping the barrel to milk the last £ or $ from whoever is silly enough to pay, methinks.
it's not about the artistic value, it's about the subject being photographed. I would love to see some boring unprofessional snapshots of Beethoven walking his dog. The crazy fans will be more than happy to see some pics they've never seen. For god's sake I heard that Elvis' barber managed to sell a jar of Elvis' hair, stranger things have happened.
Wow, I have a picture book on the Stones that was published in 1977, and these poolside shots are in it. Nice one, DP Review. Let's pehraps define "rare" first. shall we?
So who took the photos then?
Ah yes. The days before digital sharing. When it was easy to forget or misplace photos in a small envelope, (I'm sure that was the case here). Speaking of which, how of many of you have done the same, even finding unprocessed canisters? (raises hand). :)
I have some 'rare' photo's of me in college doing the same thing. I may call some auction houses, see what they're worth on the market.
Unless you were in a Rolling Stones equivalent band, I don't think you're going to get a reply.
Try eBay. Rare works every time on eBay.
tongue in cheek mister roboto, tongue in cheek
"Rare photos". What an odd phrase. What is rare about them? Think about it. Any definition that sort of works means that the vast majority of photos are "rare".
It's not that hard of a concept to grasp.
@deeohuu: Don't be so daft...
Rare just means you don't have 'them' or see the particular scenario in the photo every time you come out of StarBucks.
I think rare means there aren't too many.
so far I'm told it is easy to understand, I'm daft, the particular scenario is not common, or there aren't too many.
I don't understand the 'not too many' comment at all. At least now there are uncounted digital copies. If it means that there is only one original negative then all film based photos are rare.
If an unusual scenario makes them rare then the majority of photos are still rare and going rarer all the time. (And I DO have them now, so does the publication of the article end their rarity?)
Perhaps rare is meant to meant to mean they are noteworthy because of the significance of the subject. That is a sloppy use of language and there are many photos that are even rarer based on that definition but we don't see them promoted like this.
Telling me I'm daft or that it's easy to grasp doesn't really help without giving a clear explanation. Please help me in my daftness.
Probably what was really meant was 'unknown' or 'little known'.
It was an attempt at humor as the term rare, which was always vague, is now meaningless.
Your comment is pointlessly negative. I feel sorry for someone like yourself who spends their life in a "glass is half empty" state all the time. Try looking at the point of the article and the photos instead of beating up the author over semantics.
The article in question has already qualified it's use of the term "rare". And I would submit that it has been done to the satisfaction of the vast majority of readers. Here:
"Photos of the Rolling Stones are not hard to find, but the majority of images from the height of the band's career consist of on-stage performances and posed publicity shots. That's why a stack of photos uncovered at a Southern California estate sale have attracted a lot of attention recently. These candid images show the Stones as they have rarely been seen - relaxing and appearing to enjoy a day out of the limelight."
The sense in which they are using the term "rare" here is quite clear. You know, the vast majority of shots of the stones are in one context, but these few are in another.
Further, they are prints, not digital images that can and will be duplicated thousands of times due to the nature of the internet. Prints. Reasonably old prints too.
Time to move on I'd say.
Great to see pics of Brian Jones. Although the band obviously generated great music post Brian, I always felt the "Stones" as we had grown up with, died with him.
When I saw Jagger singing with Carrie Underwood the word "sellout" came to mind. Sooner or later they all do it.
Photos are interesting (to some) because of the subject matter. Photos done the exact same way of Aunt Edna would be worthless.
They all sell out? Did Neil Young sellout?
* crickets * crickets *...
Someone should ask Stanley Booth when he thinks these were taken. He'd probably know.His "True Adventures of the Rolling Stones" is probably one of the very best written and most interesting books about rock'n'roll ever written.
Great pics. The photog definitely is talented. But it's not like he's dead and these are like finding a Picaso hanging on the wall. For every famous person in history, there must be hundreds of pictures of them doing normal stuff. Maybe not captured with great composition like these.
I love photos from the 60s. To me it was a time that the technology had really matured, society was providing great source material and the girls were the prettiest ever. I missed the 60s, glad there are photos like these to enjoy.
I was kind of curious to see this pictures, but I mostly clicked on this article to see all the complaints about this post. And you guys did not disappoint. I never understand who bothers to take the time to write a comment just to say "who cares?" or "this is old news." I know there's no talk of megapixels and dials in these photos, and they're only interesting if you like photography and pop culture history, but if you don't want to look at them, why do you want to comment about how much you don't want to look at them?
Yeah. The disgruntled go to an awful lot of effort just to write "Meh".
There's little point in commenting about those types, because they post their drivel and run. They don't come back to read who responded to "meh".
i admit i did the same thing. Its sad that this forum community has become so horrible that we've come to expect this.
I do care what other photogs think, but these debbie downers on dpreview mostly make me not even care.
Amazing Candids, a great find
Any reasons why this is on a website with a D as the first letter of its name?Digital Photography Review?I don't get the connection.
"Photography", Amnon; that's the connection.Surprised you missed it, as it comes right after "Digital" in the full name of the website.Now, before someone posts a snarky reply about analog vs digital, consider that "digital" refers to computerized capture, storage, and transmission of data, the very means by which we recieve DPR, which then is simply a computerised review of photography-related subject matter... oh! that's this article - and all others like it. Wow! that's why it's on DPR!
Because DPreview does about one full camera review every six months and one lens review every two years. So they have to fill in the air with fluffy Buzzfeed-type articles like this.
@ Joe - not true at all, but don't let facts get in the way of a good rant.
Uhm. The photos were "D"igtally scanned in lieu of posting here? :)
I figured staff would reply. My comment was hyperbole. Nevertheless, I would love to see more reviews.
I'll bet none of these photos were covered in moss.
That Instagram fad has to die already
Where's the negs?
These were recently shot with a Hasseblad Lunar, which has the ability to let you go back in time, like Mr. Peabody's Way Back Machine. Hasselbald now rules with the most bitchin' technology (oh, wait a minute, its a Sony).
who gives a raats tail.....
You are an Idiot!
Five words and five periods tending to indicate an ignorance for many photographers and others alike that will find these very interesting. At very least, they add to the archive of Stones photographs, and that is something. And, as is referred to in the explanatory text, candids tend to be less representative in the whole body of photographs of the band. And these are candids that are well done. I haven't seen many others that capture the same tone.
No likey? No clickey!
Nothing like personal attacks to make the forum the best it can be.
even if they were not famous there are definitely five keepers in there from a compositional point of view.
I remember seeing these photos printed in a magazine or on a website several years ago, so those images are hardly "emerging" these days.
A rare photo of Stu! Funny to think of the Rolling Stones, almost royalty these days, cavorting around a motel swimming pool. No screaming fans!
I noticed the Stu pic too. Poor guy. Too ugly to be a "full" band member he was relegated to keyboard/tour manager even though he was one of the original members, and he took it all in stride.
Nobody is/was too ugly to be a member of the Rolling Stones.
Read up on it sometime. Stu wasn't considered hip or attractive enough because he was older and kind of large, so Oldham basically told him to stay behind the scenes.
Kodak moments that are worth something!Let me check my Kodak archives, "maybe a diamond in the rough"
A nice find for sure. Certainly early stuff with Brian Jones being included.
Can someone tell the focal length of these photos? I would guess 35mm. What do you think?
Pretty tight. Feels like a 50.
Edit, maybe even longer?
i would also say 50-85 its pretty compressed for beeing that near to the subject
Love these... and I'm surprised that they are staying in such a mundane type hotel/motel. Some are average type shots, but most are MUCH better than the average photos taken by joe-public.
I wonder if they were yet rolling in the $$$$ in 1965.
Dan W (above) stayed in the same hotel as the Stones in '66??? wow!
I'm not a Stones fan, but I appreciate their era of pop history.
It's true. This was no motel, though. My father booked a stay at the Kahala Hilton, a very nice place.
My father confirmed the reservations for 2 rooms before we left from Los Angeles but when we arrived, they had only one room for us. They blamed it on the Stones, saying they (and their entourage, I suppose) stayed longer than they had originally planned. Who could blame them, the place was beautiful. We "suffered" with one room for a night until the hotel found another room for us.
I remember seeing the Stones on the beach. They didn't look especially attractive but they had lots of girls with them. I was envious.
We also visited 3 other Hawaiian islands. It was a fantastic trip.
My family went to Hawaii in 1966. We stayed at the same hotel in Honolulu as the Stones. I remember seeing them, even rode in an elevator with one of them. I didn't know who he was, I just knew he was not Mick Jagger.
I should have taken photos.
That Kodachrome.. sigh.
Other than that, pretty portraits I would say? Very decent, I think whoever made them knew rather well what they are doing. They have certain "something" indicating that it wasnt just "any photographer". Somehow familiar style, just cant remember where I saw something like that..
Nice discovery anyway.
Doesn't look like Kodachrome, they look like prints to me. Of course they could be prints from Kodachrome hard to tell though as they seem to have faded...
I'm sure these are from Kodak color negative film. Vericolor? Is that what they were calling it back then? The camera was probably one of the bigger Instamatics.
The film is likely Kodacolor-X. And judging by how close the photographer is to the lads, I'm guessing they were taken by one of the band's girlfriends. Linda Eastman was photographing the Stones around that time, but I doubt she would leave uncredited work lying around unless they were outtakes.
probably someone took the photos or they where developed after the band left, and no one cared to send the pics
Love the "Motor Lodge" sign in the background of #6.
The next update of Instagram will have a "Stones '65" look... Pfffffff
Instagram lash out; such ground breaking contribution to a photo dialog.
dpr turned tabloid......
These photos are a welcome archive of days past and long forgotten.
The Stones probably don't remember much from the '60s because they were really there.
Nor the '70s, '80s, '90s....
I remember Ozzy saying he didn't remember recording a whole album in the 70's...
Robin Williams once said "if you remember the '70s, you missed the whole thing :)
Many people have cracked that joke but George Carlin said it first.
I got as far as number 7 before deciding that if I'd taken them they would have gone into the bin and never been seen by anyone!
You're missing the point. Composition and subject matter far outweigh pixel peeping technical perfection in most people's eyes. Go to a photography museum some day. You might cringe at the technical aspects of some of the pics. How many of your shots are in display in museums?
Then you'd only waste a chance to have your shots appreciated 48 yrs later.
I'm not really missing the point. If I had taken them I would have binned them. I've got better photo's of bands I've played in that I decided to keep. That's my point, just because it's of someone famous doesn't make it a good photo. Comprende?
Another snotty self-serving comment. You only keep pics of bands you pay in? But you're not famous, are you?
what are you talking about? these are great pics, very nice close framing and wonderful colors.
let's see your pics then… oh, your dog in the garden and some overprocessed HDRs from an uninteresting church? Aha…
Pixel-peep much? What do you not understand about history and the value of candid pictures taken by someone who probably was close to the band. Go back to taking photos of your cats...
Sad sad people is it just photographers or are other hobbyists just as bitchy?
To Hugo808 : I get your point, but when you keep old snapshots of people and they later become world-famous, how cool!
backayonder, it is a trait of many across all disciplines, but photographers, hobbiest and otherwise, can bring a color of bitterness that makes them the ones at the BBQ that nobody wants to hang around with.
The subject makes them of interest to some people. The photos look like any other snapshots from that time period.
That's what makes them rare - similar shots taken by others were binned long ago ...
wow hugo, so mature.. youre so great
fascinating cultural artifacts, both for who the snaps depict, but also as reminders of the US south during the '60s.
Absolutely. A Rolling Stones member and an African American porter in uniform, and both going about doing their thing in the same picture. A cultural moment from a not too distant past.
Porter? I posted already that it is a blues legend from another news story.
Real nsaps with the 60's look and feel, I have some just like those on family albums. Nice candids. Must have been someone close to them then.
Why did it take this long for the boys to start using Instagram?Oh wait...
Is that an Edsel in the background in picture number one?
Very nice love the 60's vib the portraits r especially nice & the colors classic vintage rocking it out
You have to admit, the photos themselves are average, but the rarity and subject makes them special!
I haven't had enough coffee today to find deeper meaning in that.
Well, quite good anyway for without coffee. What else more could one say?
Average is a whole lot better than pretentious or derivative though, ain't it?
um, wasn't this news about 6 months ago?
Classy boys! Love the 60's colour.