Extracts from the experts' reports being used to authenticate the
negatives are online at
<http://www.kapincheva.com/lostnegatives/lost_reports/Final_Report_AP_072610.pdf>
Point 8, "THE SIZE OF THE NEGATIVES ARE UNIQUE TO ANSEL ADAMS", is
interesting. And blatantly nonsense. So that doesn't look good.
(Glass dry-plate negatives of a unique size? Does that mean he had them
custom-manufactured for him, and a plate holder for the camera too?)
Anybody know more than me about dry-plate glass negatives? (Um,
probably nearly everybody does.) (Other references in the document
refer to the size and the camera as fairly standard, just not that
popular; a 6 ½ x 8 ½ inch Korona view camera.)
Points 2 and 3,
2.
ONE OF THE IMAGES IN THE NORGISIAN NEGATIVES IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO
AN AUTHENTICATED ANSEL ADAMS PHOTOGRAPH
3.
THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY THE EXPERTS IS THAT THE TWO VIRTUALLY
IDENTICAL PHOTOGRAPHS WERE
Also bother me -- taking two nearly-identical photos seems very much
contrary to how Adams presents himself as working. But I haven't
browsed the actual negative archives at U of A (I think is where they
are?) to see how they speak to the matter; and these negatives are much
earlier, so he might have done things differently then.
And with regard to #3, Patrick Alt is quoted as saying "AS TO WHETHER
THE SPACING BETWEEN THE POINTS OF COMPARISON MAY NOT MATCH, THAT IS
EASILY EXPLAINED BY HIS USING A DIFFERENT LENS, WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE
SPACIAL RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON THE FOCAL LENGTH OF EACH LENS." Um, no;
the focal length of the lens would NOT change the spacial relationships.
So now I'm questioning Patrick Alt's overall level of knowledge, and
whether I should care what he thinks.
So, one clear conclusion is that this document is amateurish, and has
not been carefully reviewed by knowledgeable people.
Now, if in fact these represent not-previously-published works by Ansel
Adams -- then, for those made after 1922, the copyright is clearly still
in force, and I believe would be owned by whoever owns the bulk of his
copyrights, probably the foundation or a museum. So, if the claims of
the negative finder are true, his actions in selling prints are clearly
illegal.
(I've just decided there's enough substance here that I'm turning this
into a blog post, too. Remember, you saw it on Photoforum first!)
--
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
