Ansel Adams Discovery
F/32 Eurydice
Ansel Adams Photographs Bought at Garage Sale Worth $200 Million
Nancy2
wrote:
Adams' son denies they are Ansel's, even though handwriting experts
and others say they are. Apparently, the owner has been trying to
prove they are Ansel's for a long time.
N.
Kris Baker
"Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
news:56c0326a-8b78-42bc...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
N.
----------------------------
Obviously, Ansel's son wants to limit the number of "one-off"
prints that are available. The only way that these items are
worth $200 million, are if they're used to produce more prints.
Otherwise, they are glass with images that will deteriorate.
This isn't the end of the story. The claims will go on forever.
David Nebenzahl
[weird non-standard quoting fixed]
> "Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
> news:56c0326a-8b78-42bc...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>> On Jul 27, 11:54 am, "F/32 Eurydice" <f32euryd...@sbcglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Ansel Adams Photographs Bought at Garage Sale Worth $200 Million
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/35x3dec
>>
>> Adams' son denies they are Ansel's, even though handwriting experts
>> and others say they are. Apparently, the owner has been trying to
>> prove they are Ansel's for a long time.
>
> Obviously, Ansel's son wants to limit the number of "one-off"
> prints that are available. The only way that these items are
> worth $200 million, are if they're used to produce more prints.
> Otherwise, they are glass with images that will deteriorate.
>
> This isn't the end of the story. The claims will go on forever.
Probably not. But to clarify, these are not the images that AA is well
known for; they're earlier works when he was still using glass plates.
His later work was done on film.So there's not really that great a
chance of diluting the market for his most famous images. And the images
on glass plates are probably just as permanent as any of his film
negatives, which after all were impeccably processed in his darkroom and
are as "archival" as anything.
--
The fashion in killing has an insouciant, flirty style this spring,
with the flaunting of well-defined muscle, wrapped in flags.
- Comment from an article on Antiwar.com (http://antiwar.com)
Kris Baker
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
news:4c5076f3$0$2386$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 7/28/2010 11:14 AM Kris Baker spake thus:
>
> [weird non-standard quoting fixed]
>
>> "Nancy2" <nancy-...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
>> news:56c0326a-8b78-42bc...@t2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >
>>> On Jul 27, 11:54 am, "F/32 Eurydice" <f32euryd...@sbcglobal.net>
>>> wrote:
> >>
>>>> Ansel Adams Photographs Bought at Garage Sale Worth $200 Million
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/35x3dec
>>>
>>> Adams' son denies they are Ansel's, even though handwriting experts
>>> and others say they are. Apparently, the owner has been trying to
>>> prove they are Ansel's for a long time.
>>
>> Obviously, Ansel's son wants to limit the number of "one-off"
>> prints that are available. The only way that these items are
>> worth $200 million, are if they're used to produce more prints.
>> Otherwise, they are glass with images that will deteriorate.
>>
>> This isn't the end of the story. The claims will go on forever.
>
> Probably not. But to clarify, these are not the images that AA is well
> known for; they're earlier works when he was still using glass plates. His
> later work was done on film.So there's not really that great a chance of
> diluting the market for his most famous images. And the images on glass
> plates are probably just as permanent as any of his film negatives, which
> after all were impeccably processed in his darkroom and are as "archival"
> as anything.
>
Some *are* of famous images; I'm sorry I can't remember which one
they gave as an example, but the snowmelt, moon angle, shadows
and (one other factor I forgot) show the image was taken within
two minutes of the famous version.
Kris
Nancy2
> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
I have a glass plate negative from a photographer's studio of me when
I was about 2 years old - that was almost 7 decades ago, and there is
no deterioration.
N.
Kris Baker
N.
----------------------------
Shhhh! You want it to deteriorate, in a sort of opposite
Dorian Gray manner ;)
Kris
Nancy2
>
> - Show quoted text -
True, true. LOL.
I saw a little headline today implying the glass negs might have been
taken by an uncle ... which would explain two different photographic
mediums taking essentially the same picture at the same time. Ansel
and the "uncle" (his brother?) working together. I didn't read the
article, so am not sure how the "uncle" fits.
N.
Kris Baker
True, true. LOL.
N.
---------------
I'm not seeing that they worked together, but there will be more.
What this COULD do, though, is deplete the value of Adams'
work -- if "Uncle Earl's" photos are of similar quality.
(About right now, I'm wondering if this "discovery" had anything
to do with Ms Walton....a cleverly-timed news article that could
raise the value of Uncle Earl's work.)
Uncle Earl Brooks, not even related apparently.
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html?cxntlid=cmg_cntnt_rss
OAKLAND, Calif. -- A Bay Area woman may have solid proof to support the
assertions of the Ansel Adams estate that negatives a Fresno man bought at a
yard sale were not taken by the famed nature photographer as he claims. She
thinks they may have been taken by her Uncle Earl.
News spread Tuesday about the Fresno man who claimed to have stumbled across
some of Adams' earliest works that were believed to have been destroyed in a
fire.
Contractor and painter Rick Norsigian said he bought the box of glass
negatives at a garage sale in Fresno for $45 a decade ago. A team of art,
forensic, handwriting, and even weather experts has authenticated the 65
glass negatives as the work of the iconic photographer.
Norsigan and his representatives claim the negatives could be worth as much
as $200 million.
Oakland resident Mariam l. Walton saw a picture of the famous Jeffrey Pine
on Sentinal Dome at Yosemite during a report about the find on KTVU Tuesday
night.
She said she immediately recognized the image as one taken by her uncle,
Earl Brooks, back in 1923.
"I thought 'Oh my God, that's exactly the same picture,'" said Walton.
Walton said her uncle lived in the Fresno area much of his life and often
took pictures at Yosemite.
The photo taken by Walton's Uncle Earl looks nearly identical to one of the
examples that Norsigan has claimed to be from Ansel Adams.
"I keep thinking that perhaps that box of negatives belongs to Uncle Earl,"
said Walton.
Scott Nichols of the Nichols Gallery in San Francisco has been studying
Adams and his photography for 30 years.
He visited Walton Wednesday to examine the photo. Nichols took measurements,
studied the lighting and angles of the image.
Nichols said the similarities between Uncle Earl's photo and Norsigan's
purported Adams original were striking. Only the clouds are different.
Nichols said that could mean Uncle Earl's photo is from another negative,
taken moments later during the same shoot.
"What I find very interesting is the shadow detail down in here," said
Nichols with the photo in hand. "The shadows in the sunlight over here and
over in here are almost identical."
When asked for his opinion whether Walton's long passed uncle had debunked
the alleged Ansel Adams discovery, Nichols indicated the photo presented a
strong argument.
"To duplicate those shadows, to have the camera sit in the exact same place
by two different photographers is virtually impossible," said Nichols.
Nichols took Walton's four pictures from her Uncle Earl in for further
study.
He said he'd like to compare them with Ansel Adams originals and those found
in Fresno to be able to tell with more certainty whether those new pictures
are Ansel Adams' or Uncle Earl's.
With all the publicity about the alleged "Ansel Adams" pictures bought by
Rick Norsigian at a Fresno yard sale over the past few days, the real
identity of the pictures may have come to light.
KTVU Channel 2 in Oakland broke the story on its evening news last night. As
soon as a local woman named Miriam I. Walton saw the pictures, she
recognized them as her Uncle Earl's. Earl Brooks was a lifelong resident of
Fresno, where the 65 negatives were found, and often photographed at
Yosemite. Mrs. Walton has four of his prints, one of which is nearly
identical to one of the Norsigian pictures, with the same shadows and what
look to be the same clouds after a few minutes of movement.
The evidence is as yet preliminary, but I hereby place my "all in" bet that
the Rick Norsigian glass plates turn out to have been taken by "Uncle Earl"
Brooks. (Even if they aren't, I'll still bet they're not by Adams. They just
don't look like him to me.)
You can read the story and see the video here.
I might add that KTVU Oakland has restored my shaky faith in the news media
somewhat. Finally-a little actual reporting, instead of the endless
repetition of a story that would be so very appealing if only it were true.
...Oh, and it looks like Uncle Earl is having a one-man show in Beverly
Hills!*
Mike
*I can't take credit for this great line. It's Brian's. Too good not to use,
though.
(Thanks to Brian Vahey)
----------------------
Kris
vince garcia
It was in my town these were found. Of late, a local family claims their
"uncle so-and-so from LA actually took them," and they were NOT Ansel
Adams
Kris Baker
"vince garcia" <vggar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4C5FF8...@ix.netcom.com...
Yeah, "Uncle Earl".
When it takes someone **ten years** to "authenticate" something,
it's obvious that something's wrong......especially when it takes
only two more days to dash those hopes:
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24563454/detail.html
It took ten years to "authenticate", because it had to be done
carefully, employing only people who'd give the required
opinion that they were Adams' work. If they had taken the
slides in to all experts, they'd not have received the results
they'd hoped for.
Plus, that $200 million for 65 slides? Highly inflated.
Kris
Kris Baker
> "uncle so-and-so from LA actually took them," and they were NOT Ansel
> Adams
This article offers up THE proof that the photos were taken by Uncle
Earl:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/08/ansel-adams-photographs.html
"As telling as the identical photos showing the park entrance
road, said Nichols, were flaws in one of the slightly different
waterfall pictures. The Norsigian negative of the falls and the
almost-identical print belonging to Walton had identical
scratches and white spots, Nichols said Saturday, meaning
they were taken by the same camera, whose internal
imperfections -- possibly, specks of dirt -- registered the
same on each image."
Kris
David Nebenzahl
You know, it's this kind of writing that gives journalism a bad name,
and tends to further muddy the waters surrounding already-murky matters
like this dispute over the provenance of these negatives.
Yes, those spots and scratches *do* seem to prove that that negative was
used to make those prints. That's just a simple matter of matching up
the imperfections in each, something any amateur photographer could do.
Doesn't take a forensic scientist. But it has *nothing* whatever to do
with the camera used to take the picture.
Dust on camera optics, and even for the most part dust elsewhere inside
a camera, does *not* leave tell-tale spots on a negative. It's a myth
that even very large specks of dirt in a lens somehow show up on a
negative; they do not. At worst, they reduce the contrast of the overall
image. Spots on negatives come from dust sitting *on the film*. Dust is
almost impossible to completely eliminate from a large piece of film
(4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 inches). I know; I've tried. And scratches on a
large-format negative like this come from handling the film--loading it
in the film holder, unloading it and processing it in trays or tanks.
So this paragraph above was written in profound ignorance of the
photographic process--no doubt a journalist trying to make the best
sense of information they got--and tends to cast doubt on the rest of
their reporting. Although it does appear that the negatives are in fact
"Uncle Earl's" and not Uncle Ansel's.
David Nebenzahl
> Dust on camera optics, and even for the most part dust elsewhere inside
> a camera, does *not* leave tell-tale spots on a negative. It's a myth
> that even very large specks of dirt in a lens somehow show up on a
> negative; they do not. At worst, they reduce the contrast of the overall
> image. Spots on negatives come from dust sitting *on the film*. Dust is
> almost impossible to completely eliminate from a large piece of film
> (4x5, 5x7 or 8x10 inches). I know; I've tried. And scratches on a
> large-format negative like this come from handling the film--loading it
> in the film holder, unloading it and processing it in trays or tanks.
In the interest of accuracy (after all, that's what my whole post was
about!), replace "film" with "plate" in the paragraph above, since the
negatives in question are glass plates.
Kris Baker
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> On 8/9/2010 11:24 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>
>> Dust on camera optics, and even for the most part dust elsewhere inside a
>> camera, does *not* leave tell-tale spots on a negative. It's a myth that
>> even very large specks of dirt in a lens somehow show up on a negative;
>> they do not. At worst, they reduce the contrast of the overall image.
>> Spots on negatives come from dust sitting *on the film*. Dust is almost
>> impossible to completely eliminate from a large piece of film (4x5, 5x7
>> or 8x10 inches). I know; I've tried. And scratches on a large-format
>> negative like this come from handling the film--loading it in the film
>> holder, unloading it and processing it in trays or tanks.
>
> In the interest of accuracy (after all, that's what my whole post was
> about!), replace "film" with "plate" in the paragraph above, since the
> negatives in question are glass plates.
I understood it.
I was trying to find the other explanation, that shows the same spots
and scratches on some of the plates, as on Uncle Earl's prints.
One explanation (heard, not read) is that plate photographers used
the same holders over and over, so you could forensically examine
the plates to determine if they all exhibited similar wear marks.
Apparently, the finder never submitted his plates to anyone who was
a photographic expert.
Kris
David Nebenzahl
> "David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote in message
> news:4c604aa8$0$2378$8226...@news.adtechcomputers.com...
>
>> On 8/9/2010 11:24 AM David Nebenzahl spake thus:
>>
>>> Dust on camera optics, and even for the most part dust elsewhere inside a
>>> camera, does *not* leave tell-tale spots on a negative. It's a myth that
>>> even very large specks of dirt in a lens somehow show up on a negative;
>>> they do not. At worst, they reduce the contrast of the overall image.
>>> Spots on negatives come from dust sitting *on the film*. Dust is almost
>>> impossible to completely eliminate from a large piece of film (4x5, 5x7
>>> or 8x10 inches). I know; I've tried. And scratches on a large-format
>>> negative like this come from handling the film--loading it in the film
>>> holder, unloading it and processing it in trays or tanks.
>>
>> In the interest of accuracy (after all, that's what my whole post was
>> about!), replace "film" with "plate" in the paragraph above, since the
>> negatives in question are glass plates.
>
> I understood it.
You did, but I wonder about the reporter who wrote that story.
> I was trying to find the other explanation, that shows the same spots
> and scratches on some of the plates, as on Uncle Earl's prints.
>
> One explanation (heard, not read) is that plate photographers used
> the same holders over and over, so you could forensically examine
> the plates to determine if they all exhibited similar wear marks.
>
> Apparently, the finder never submitted his plates to anyone who was
> a photographic expert.
Again, it has *nothing* whatever to do with the film or plate holders,
the camera, or anything else other than the film or plate itself.
It's not like firearms, where a bullet can be reliably matched to a gun
based on the pattern of scratches left on the bullet from imperfections
in the gun barrel.
The film or plate doesn't slide against anything (at least not if the
photographer exercises basic care, as one would presume Uncle Ansel
would). The film or plate holder merely holds the negative in place,
held in place by thin rails at the edges, otherwise not touching it at
all. So there's nothing to trace to any film or plate holder.
On the other hand, a particular *negative*--film or glass plate--can
rather easily be matched to a particular print or set of prints by
matching patterns of imperfections on the negative (dust specks or
scratches) to the print. All this takes is a magnifying glass and
knowing what to look for. Which is apparently what they did, based on
what can be gleaned from that article.
People who write about technical things (I'm referring to newspaper
reporters here, not anyone in this newsgroup necessarily) really ought
to know *something* about their subject before putting fingers to
computer keyboard.
vince garcia
Now the Adams estate is suing the guy to stop him from claiming the
prints are Adams' work
I have also heard that the 'expert' who authenticated the work as
Adams', works for the company trying to market the photos
Kris Baker
Yup. And he's another of the "no name" experts who were carefully
used to establish the claim.
I, frankly, don't even believe the buyer when he says he bought
them at a yard sale and didn't know what they were.
Kris
vince garcia
today it was announced that one of the guys who had 'authenticated' the
photos now says at least SOME were indeed made by Uncle Earl.
...which means ALL of them were
Kris Baker
Thanks -- I'd missed that!
....and you're right.
This is antiques, photography, crime and gossip all mixed up.
I love it.
Kris
nos...@nevis.com
Throw in a murder and we'd have a Lovejoy mystery ;~)
"Man I love this business"
Mike
Kris Baker
<nos...@nevis.com> wrote in message news:4c7ed325$1...@news.x-privat.org...
There's plenty of time for a murder.
Kris
Just Another Lurker
> Throw in a murder and we'd have a Lovejoy mystery ;~)
>
>
> "Man I love this business"
>
> Mike
.... and the obligatory dirty weekend with your "girlfriend" in that
old country mansion, owned by the grandfather of some old chum from
convent school. Girlfriend? well actually, somebody else's missus.
pssst.... mate!! want to buy and Ansel Adams print, here's one Tinker
made earlier.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/imageglenbourne/494171676/lightbox/#/
--
Ronnie
nos...@nevis.com
Small world Ronnie, I was just talking with Roy Dennis this evening. He
asked if I'd heard from either you or Jon Dennington and what you were
up to these days, so I sent him a link to some of your photography.
Lovely stuff by the way, you've a real talent.
Regards
Mike
nos...@nevis.com
BTW, I'm not getting anything from the link, just the rotating loading
symbol.
Mike
Just Another Lurker
Hi Mike,
Flickr has been a bit on the slow side these last couple of days. Give a
go again. Try this link ....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/imageglenbourne/494171676/lightbox/
Or try the front door, don't always like giving the front link.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/imageglenbourne/494171676/
--
Ronnie
Just Another Lurker
> Small world Ronnie, I was just talking with Roy Dennis this evening. He
> asked if I'd heard from either you or Jon Dennington and what you were
> up to these days, so I sent him a link to some of your photography.
> Lovely stuff by the way, you've a real talent.
>
> Regards
>
> Mike
Mike, I was thinking of Roy a few weeks ago. So did a search to see if
we was still active. Sure is. Seems he's still punting a few odds and
sods on eBay and doing a bit of community work. Good for old, Roy.
Haven't heard from Jon in donkeys.
--
Ronnie
nos...@nevis.com
The second link worked, great shot, reminds me of some B&W's took by a
friend of mine back in the 70's with his 4x5.
Mike
Kris Baker
"Just Another Lurker" <Lur...@thewindow.net> wrote in message
news:4c7ee85d$0$28006$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
Where was that taken? It's wonderful.
Kris
nos...@nevis.com
Every time I get an email from Jon and respond I seldom get a response
back. I know he's not been well, he's been suffering with some bone
disorder for the last six years.
Mike