Can you call them original Ansel Adams?? That's open to debate, but it really isn't important as long as everyone is fully aware that Ansel didn't print them. Was Ansel a master printer??? You bet a, but he taught a lot of people to print over the years as well. Are they exactly what Ansel would have done with the negative? Probably not. Are they as collectible?? I doubt it but I wouldn't call them worthless either. Ed Weston prints have been made long after he was gone by others, and they are hardly worthless. Isn't it Brett that learned to print from Ed and still from time to time works with those negatives?? It wouldn't have been that rare for others to "help out", and after working with a given photographer for a long time it would be reasonable to expect the work to be in the spirit of an Ansel Adams print, even if Ansel didn't make it.
No one could really know for sure if it was Ansel's wife that made the notes. One handwriting expert may say yes, and another no. A misspelled word isn't conclusive either. How many times have you been to a place where you make a note in a hurry and have a senior moment? How many times she may have been to a location or even knowing for sure she knew how to spell any given word, doesn't mean she wasn't in a hurry and just simply made a mistake.
We won't really ever know for sure. I am not sure Hoax is the right word. A hoax is intentional. Maybe this one is, and if we later find out that someone else made out those envelopes with an intent to deceive, the word definitely applies. We have no evidence of that at this time. Right now what we have is conflicting information, and we likely will never know the truth. Maybe in time other facts will come to light to clarify it. Yet the plates just as any images does, has value. Not $200 mil but value
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: what a find
From: Andy <adoller@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, July 28, 2010 12:37 pm
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Anyone that has worked with AA says that he was able to work magic on even the worst negative through his printing skills. They may be his plates but the prints that are obtained from them now surely cannot be and are therefor worthless.
-Andy
On Jul 28, 2010, at 1:12 PM, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, July 28, 2010 11:22, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
>> gosh!
>>
>> http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/picture-this-45-garage-sale-purchase-worth-200-million/story-e6frfmd9-1225897918042
>
>
> I'm hearing it asserted online that the family (um, I mean Adams' family)
> is denying that these are his work; but I can't find any reference to that
> more authoritative than random people in mailing lists. There's certainly
> no mention of it on the major Adams web sites, or in articles Google News
> finds me.
>
> Unfortunately, both claims and denials may have more to do with jockeying
> over money than with trying to determine if the pictures are really by
> Adams.
>
> If the pictures are in fact by Adams, and haven't been published before,
> it seems like they're still in copyright, and the copyright would be owned
> by his heirs (or somewhere the copyrights were formally transferred to;
> copyrights cannot be transferred "informally"), which would seem to
> interfere with publication by others. However, if the family is actually
> denying these are Adams' work, then presumably they can't claim copyright
> ownership....
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/
> Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
> Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
>
