If you haven't seen this already, the Rephotographic Survey does exactly this sort of thing. It is a great example of how things change, sometimes over very short periods of time, others over a century.
I was listening to CBC Radio 2 yesterday and Tom Allen was talking about this.
He was speaking about this in the context of "those generally useless things that people buy at garage sales that usually have no value, but infrequently turn out to be worth a lot of money".
I got to thinking about these glass plates and realized that I would have considered buying them and would most likely would enjoy owning them even if I knew that they had no market value, because I just think that they are neat.
Perhaps another arguement for finding them, having been discarded as they were. Um, that would be a NO, Tom.
Originally Posted by Toffle
"Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti
That tree/bristlecone? photo isn't imo in the tripod holes
Ansels tree is bowing the other is reaching
Bowing tree seemingly blocks a nipple-like peak on the horizon
I figure anyone with a camera up at that tree would have taken a photo
How popular of a spot is it?
It doesn't seem the snowpack is the same, either. Completely identical? I see quite a few areas that don't match up and the ones that do probably match up much of the time
On video, of course
Doesn't mean he didn't make separate trips, either ..but same day same time same channel?
I've taken a few photos that were remarkably similar to anothers work I saw a year later
Ansel Adams Negs-The Real Story
Just thought I would give you all of the story re the Ansel Adams lost negatives. The evidience is so overwhelming as to make your head spin. So in a nutshell here are the facts;
Shot on 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 glass plates with a Korona as confirmed on page 3 of Ansels book Examples. This was one of his primary cameras of the 1920's. By coincidence, I also own the same camera.
Several images have definite fire damage due to his studio fire in 1937.
Virginia Adams handwriting are on the paper sleeves. Confirmed by independent hand writing analysis.
These are definitely in the style of Ansel's work as they evolved over a period of time. To see them as I did you could just feel his presence.
Lastly, one of the plates are an almost exact match to 2 5 X 7 images in The Center for Creative Photography in Tuscon. This is an image of a Jeffries Pine and close examination show the distant snow pack to be identical, meaning these images were taken moments apart. The is undeniable proof.
Lastly, these negs were originally found in LA after the time Ansel was here in LA teaching at Art Center. I believe he brought them down as teaching tools.
All of this evidence has convinced me without a shadow of a doubt that these are indeed lost treasures of Ansels early work that survived his fire. I am so honored to have been chosen to be a part of this team of experts and my knowledge of both Ansel's work and of being a working large format photographer has helped make this what I believe to be an airtight case. Why Matthew Adams and the Foundation continues to discredit this work, especially in light of the fact he has never seen them is a mystery to us all. It has been an incredible experience to hold these images in my hands. They are the real deal.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Many years ago,under slightly bizarre circumstances, I came across a scrapbook of prints that appear to be by Frank Meadow Sutcliffe. Hardly as renown as Mr. Adams, but a fairly well known and respected British photographer of the late 19th and early 20th C.
Despite a great deal of circumstantial evidence (such as the prints being signed "F.M.S", which was a bit of a hint!) the people who own the Sutcliffe estate were also rather negative, claiming they were not Sutcliffe prints. Later I visited the Bradford museum of Photography, who own a Sutcliffe collection, and they has sequences of certain prints, taken a short time apart. I clearly had 'missing' prints from some of these sequences. It was pretty conclusive, but on reapproaching the custodians of the Sutcliffe estate they were again most uninterested and dismissive. In my case what I have is only of curiosity value, they are only prints, not negatives and of no real financial value, but the knee jerk 'they can't be genuine' reaction did seem very familiar!
I think I said before this must be like finding a long lost Rembrant or Picaso in your grand mothers attic.
The problem is that famous artists and now photographers are afraid they'll lose control of and flow of any monetary income.
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit"
The video won't play for me---------I would be curious as to how the guy who sold that box for $45 happened to be in posession of them----------very interesting.
It seems like finding a box of Ansel Adam's old boots. Not much value.
We know AA went back to sites year after year to get a negative that would express his vision.
And we know how hard he worked to make the print. These plates, if they ARE his, probably should go to the big trash can.
I can hear Brett Weston telling him right now, " See, smart guy, I TOLD you to smash those old things into powder !"
What is unspoken is the potential of financial gain if copyright can be swept away
and a bunch of, a) Adams rejects, or, b) not Adams negs, can be reproduced and marketed.
It won't come down to 'proving' their authenticity, but gaining the copyright. That is all that keeps the market from being flooded with pictures attributed to AA, diluting the value of the real stuff.
I can't see how the plates, if genuine, don't belong outside the Adams Trust.
I can think of many reasons why. Foremost, AA's reputation is firmly established, it isn't something you'd want to affect in any potentially negative way. Also, suppose there were a reason why those shots were given up. There may also have been some theft or sale or such... it may not be a chapter that the family wishes to reopen. The simplest theory I can imagine is that an established artist, looking back at his career and his reputation, might well discard substandard items or give them away with the understanding that they'd not be exhibited. And as we all know, Adams cultivated and guarded his reputation quite actively.
Originally Posted by patrick alt
So... absent any indication from Adams himself that he wanted these images printed and publicized, and also absent any indication that they were stolen or somehow mistakenly misplaced, why would the family or foundation want to lend their name to this?