Controversy over 'lost' Ansel Adams photos turns negative

[35mmdelux]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/cel...nsel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html?hpt=C1

 

[Ranchu]

Wow. So bitter, those Adams people. All about the benjamins.

😕

 

[naruto]

As with all insane debates, the Hitler card has been played. 🙂

Update: Godwin's Law - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[maddoc]

Bringing Hitlers name into the game reminds of the "famous" diaries of Hitler ...

As fascinating as the story is, I also have may doubts about "proving" the glass plates to be authentic ...

 

[t.s.k.]

It's a shame.

Certainly they shortcutted to Godwin's law.
Of course now all dialog is pointless.
Surely Ansel would not approve.

I think I'll wait for the movie though.

 

[jljohn]

First, let me say that I am a fan of Adams work. As photographers, we owe a lot to him. But let's consider what these glass plates are if they are, in fact, his.

First, Ansel took thousands (or maybe tens of thousands) of images, and he only chose a few each year to print--Let's say a couple hundred in his lifetime. These plates were not among those he printed. In fact, some of the plates appear to be rejected versions of images printed from other negs (e.g. the Jefrey Pine plate).

Second, while Adams was very good at making negatives, his real genius was in the darkroom. He was a master printer.

Finally, (at least to me) the goal of the photographic process is a finished or printed image.

It seems to me that the pates are nothing more that negatives that were among the thousands that Ansel discarded as unworthy of printing. These are not original prints, which carry and exhibit the full genius of the artist, and they are an incomplete product of the photographic process. Surely this is an interesting find, but the passions that have been stirred up and the dollar amounts that are being discussed seem absurd to me.

 

[filmfan]

jljohn-- well said.

 

[David Murphy]

No doubt the value is inflated, but I side with the little guy here.

 

[David Murphy]

The owner of the lost negatives is now selling prints on his Web site - looks pretty cool to me:

http://www.kapincheva.com/lostnegatives/lost_html/prints.html

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

When I lived in Santa Fe, one could purchase original prints made by Adams himself for less than they're asking for these prints that were not made by him or under his direction. I think they're getting a bit greedy, regardless of whether the photos are really Ansel Adams' negs.

 

[naruto]

The owner of the lost negatives is now selling prints on his Web site - looks pretty cool to me:

http://www.kapincheva.com/lostnegatives/lost_html/prints.html

Maybe it's the web scan, those prints look awful compared to some of other Adam's works.

 

[Fujitsu]

As with all insane debates, the Hitler card has been played. 🙂

Yeah, morons...

 

[David Murphy]

When I lived in Santa Fe, one could purchase original prints made by Adams himself for less than they're asking for these prints that were not made by him or under his direction. I think they're getting a bit greedy, regardless of whether the photos are really Ansel Adams' negs.

They do seem pricey. I suppose the market will sort this out.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

They do seem pricey. I suppose the market will sort this out.

I guess. Real Adams prints, that is to say ones the great man made himself, are available in a huge price range depending on the age of the print (older costs more), the size (bigger costs more), condition, and rarity/popularity of the image. Andrew Smith in Santa Fe and a couple other galleries regularly had original Adams prints starting at around $1000. The very valuable ones cost much, much more....some have gone for hundreds of thousands at auction....but these prints being sold from the 'lost negs' are not original Adams prints (He didn't make them), they're not vintage prints (meaning they were not made close to the time the neg was made), and they were not made under his supervision and of course they're not signed and his family has disavowed them. I can't see them having any real money value, though they're of academic/historical value and ought to be printed in a book, which I'd buy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

This seems to me an odd thing to get excited about, much closer to the cult of celebrity than to anything much related to art. This is evidenced by the key words in the CNN link. Basically, unless they've got a financial stake in it, WHO CARES?

As Chris says, a book of the images might be mildly interesting. Otherwise, end of story. I assume they're the usual faux wilderness shots, and we all need more generic AA shots, don't we?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Most of them were taken from points of interest in Yosemite. How many people have done the exact same photographs of the place?

At that time in history, not many I would suspect...and also with technical precision... perhaps none.

 

[Silva Lining]

This seems to me an odd thing to get excited about, much closer to the cult of celebrity than to anything much related to art. This is evidenced by the key words in the CNN link. Basically, unless they've got a financial stake in it, WHO CARES?

As Chris says, a book of the images might be mildly interesting. Otherwise, end of story. I assume they're the usual faux wilderness shots, and we all need more generic AA shots, don't we?

Cheers,

R.

I'm with Roger on this one.

 

[DougFord]

evidently, AA's got noth'n on Uncle Earl. 😀

 

[Pico]

FYI - the announcement concerning this affair was posted the day it was made, then withdrawn (last I looked), perhaps for revision.

The original is here: http://www.digoliardi.net/Final_Report_AP_072610.pdf

It strikes me as very weak, but what do I know? (and what do you know? we know?)

 

[Leigh Youdale]

OK. Fun's over. Anyone got a long lost relative named Earl?