"Ansel Adams" plates found at garage sale

[David Karp]

There is an interesting story in the LA Times about a man who found some glass plate negatives for 75 cents each, and who is convinced they were made by Ansel Adams. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ansel21apr21,0,3958588.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines

The story mentions a discussion with Adams's assistant at the time of his darkroom fire, who said that he does not remember any glass plates damaged in the fire. Not to take sides, because I have no way of knowing whether they are AA's or not, but wasn't "Monolith" made on a glass plate? It was one of the negatives damaged in the fire.

People sometimes get caught up in quests of the type described in the article. Apparently it is causing tension with his wife, and it has cost him a lot of money. Of course, if they are AA's glass plates, then they are probably worth lots more.

[John Z.]

It is an interesting article. I got the impression after reading it this morning that the plates were not taken by Ansel; there were just too many experts and people that worked with him in the early years saying they were not, and not a single one saying they thought they were. It was especially telling when his early assistant stated that Ansel would not have composed the way some of these photos were taken, and his son said the handwriting was not his.
I wonder who did take them; another early Ansel Adams-like photographer who ended up unknown.

[tim atherton]

yet there's also the common hint from the experts that these weren't good enough to be Adams - yet like all photographers, he took some really crappy pictures - especially in his early years. I've also just been looking through tons of his manzanar pictures - there's an awful lot of duffers in there too.

[Rob_5419]

He's sick of weak-willed experts, their hopeful words in private melting away in public. "I'm 100% certain, no matter what they feel," Norsigian said. "I've got all this evidence."


I found the story a little saddening - how the fruit of his labour is divisiveness between himself and his wife; how the obsession with the belief that he holds Ansel Adams' work has to be true, and if an expert refutes this, then Norsigian seems to slide into conspiracy theory & paranoia, and on another tangent journey to find someone else to back him up.

This is all the more impressive from a man who claims to have known nothing about photography before he purchased the collection of plates.



Page after page yielded coincidences.

Adams, who was born in San Francisco in 1902, worked early in his career with 6 1/2-by-8 1/2-inch glass-plate negatives just like the ones Norsigian had found.

For a "blue collar worker" who knew nothing about photography to suddenly decide that a whole plate collection of negatives shot in 1902, had to be the work of Adams is a little extreme. Whole plate photography was universal in 1902 - anyone who's seen plate photographs and ceremonies of Queen Victoria's death in 1901 in England will know that.

If Norsigian was gracious enough to loan the plates to a public gallery, then his journey (and spiralling costs) might be a turning point in his diminishing returns.

[JW Dewdney]

Seems fingerprint analysis might be the way to go about this if he really cares about it?

[Bill_1856]

What a wonderful story, David. Thanks for posting it.
At last, photography may have an "attributed to Ansel Adams," like the old paintings..."attributed to" one old master or another.
I wish him luck.

[David Karp]

"Seems fingerprint analysis might be the way to go . . . ."

Apparently they tried it. No luck.

The sad thing about the story is that most likely the quest is ultimately about money. If those plates are AA's, then they are worth a lot of $$. If the result so far is failure, anxiety, dissatisfaction, mistrust, and marital discord, then that is the real shame.

[Brian C. Miller]

The photos look nice, but I don't think they are Adam's. The LA Time's photo #5 has a road in it, and I don't think Adams would have framed it that way. The photo #7 in the guy's hand (attached) doesn't like Adams.

I wonder if these were from Albert Bender, the guy who owned a 1926 Buick and was Adam's road buddy. Consider it: who else photographs their car?

[Ernest Purdum]

To me, the question might be what is the quality of the images, regardless of who made them. If they are of the quality associated with Adams, maybe there is a great unknown photographer waiting to be discovered.

[Marko]

Another interesting detail comparing photos #1 (real Adams) and #4 (unknown). Judging by the height of the trees at the top of the cliff, especially the pine tree closest to the fall and accounting for the difference in angle of view, it would seem they were taken at approximately the same time, give or take a couple of years or so.

If so, Brian may be on to something wondering about Bender...

[Jim Jones]

If Norsigian has all that money to spend on an Ansel Adams wild goose chase, I can probably come up with some equally convincing photos by Leonardo da Vinci for him to check out. That should really bring in the loot from a Leonardo collector like Bill Gates. I'd be tempted to do it myself, but I've wrestled with Windows too long to want any more to do with Microsoft.

[Kirk Fry]

I don't get it. Here is a box of negatives that for all we can tell, even if they were from Adams, never got printed. Outtakes? OK, tell me why they are interesting. The University of Arizona has hundreds to thousands of Adams' outtakes. Even the library in Los Angles has Adams negatives, some of which did get printed. Interesting to photohistorians, maybe, valuable in any true sense as "Art", no. And if they are not Adams'? ...

[artedetimo]

I agree that there isn't too much value in the images artistically... but its always fun to speculate. Sad that this guy lost that sense of fun, and turned a hobby into an ruinious obsession, though we all might be guilty of that to some extent ;)

As for the images; the light is totally wrong for someone who mastered to art of knowing when, and in what light to shoot. Even in his early days I am not sure AA would have shot some off at any old time.

All the old nature guys who had to lug around pounds and pounds of plates and camera gear would never shoot something in the wrong lighting if it could be avoided. They shot very conservatively for the most part, according to what I have read. They waited for the right time of day and right light. In all those "out-takes" maybe the composition was off or they never quite got what they were looking for (or more likely nobody was interested in in the subject) but from what I understand they never wasted a shot if they thought there was a better shot to be had at a different time or from a different angle.

The images in question all seem to shot in the middle of the day with the light coming in at a bad angle. Also the road is something that evan an early AA would have avoided if possible, I would think. That shot has it composed right into the scene. I agree, I think the images are from a traveling companion or assistant or somebody that was watching AA work and decided to do some of his/her own.

[tim atherton]

The images in question all seem to shot in the middle of the day with the light coming in at a bad angle. Also the road is something that evan an early AA would have avoided if possible, I would think. That shot has it composed right into the scene. I agree, I think the images are from a traveling companion or assistant or somebody that was watching AA work and decided to do some of his/her own.

c'mon - Ansel wasn't above making midday look like midnight and having a good go at trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I love how so many people seem to think Adams never took a bad shot or took 10 or 20 tries at something to get the one that worked

before (straight work-print)

3253

after (final print)

3254

[Jim Galli]

I found it an interesting read. My first thought was how many people were running around with a full plate camera in the glass plate era? 1000's. How many took pictures of places in California? 100's Yosemite and San Franciso? 40? I think the evidence is against them being Adams. The most telling to me is Michael and his wife going to the guys house in good faith and in the interest of history and immediately thinking out loud it isn't Ansels writing.

I think it would be wonderful if the guy would investigate who Ansels earliest camera club shooting buddies were and go find their relatives to compare hand writing. I'd be fascinated to hear of someone finding Cedric Wright's lost plates, etc.

Also, the lack of quality doesn't make me think they couldn't be Ansels. Emulsion technology in the glass plate era and the earliest stages of the photographer could easily preclude the later quality. I'm sure Ansel filled his own dempsey dumpster just like the rest of us.

Me, I'd get some finger print dust and look on the glass itself. I hope the identity is ultimately found even if they're only worth what the fellow paid in the first place.

[scrichton]

I must admit they look close to adam's work. Although I'm sure no matter how good ansel was at the time there were people taking comparable shots of the same area. The most publicly gifted are the only ones we know about!

I think he has found 5 minutes of fame and nothing more. As everyone says close, but not exact enough to say yes to the authenticity.

Still on the whole a good story in the "filler" section rather than woman with a 2 headed cat or something as trivial.

Steven

[Brian Ellis]

Albert Bender was Adams' financial patron and the backer of other artists including Edward Weston and Robinson Jeffers. As always, I certainly could be wrong but FWIW I'm not aware that he was Adams' "road buddy" or even a serious photographer.

[Brian C. Miller]

I still bet that the photographer is the owner of the 1926 Buick in that photo.

[paulr]

yet there's also the common hint from the experts that these weren't good enough to be Adams - yet like all photographers, he took some really crappy pictures - especially in his early years. I've also just been looking through tons of his manzanar pictures - there's an awful lot of duffers in there too.

And it's more likely for the duffers to end up in the 75 cent bin than the masterpieces!

This happens a lot ... work that the artist kept around for personal reasons, or no good reason, ends up in the public's hands after they die. And unfortunately you rarely see a disclaimer that says "ansel only kept these around to line the cat box--don't take too seriously." I've seen Strand and Weston prints on gallery walls that I'd bet anything were never meant for public consumption. Half of what Kafka wrote he'd wanted destroyed. Buyer/viewer/reader beware.

[MIke Sherck]

And it's more likely for the duffers to end up in the 75 cent bin than the masterpieces!

This happens a lot ... work that the artist kept around for personal reasons, or no good reason, ends up in the public's hands after they die. And unfortunately you rarely see a disclaimer that says "ansel only kept these around to line the cat box--don't take too seriously." I've seen Strand and Weston prints on gallery walls that I'd bet anything were never meant for public consumption. Half of what Kafka wrote he'd wanted destroyed. Buyer/viewer/reader beware.

An interesting point. Some fuss has been made over Brett Weston's decision to destroy his negatives at the end of his life rather than to leave them for others to print: had that philosophy been more widespread there certainly would be fewer crummy prints made of deceased photographer's negatives in order to fill out a gallery or museum show.

On the other hand, feelings change and if everyone did as Brett did we'd never have recognized some really exciting photographers. There are arguments on both sides of the coin.

Me, I don't save negatives for "posterity". I'm just a pack rat! :rolleyes:

Mike

[apeter]

I am the entertainment attorney who has been working with a group of experts for the past three years to once and for all prove that over 60 glass negatives purchased at a Fresno garage sale were in fact created by Ansel Adams. Our experts included two court qualified hand-writing analysts, the former Curator of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and a meteorologist who was engaged to examine an authenticated Ansel Adams print and one virtually identical negative among those found at the garage sale. The task of this expert was to determine whether by looking at the cloud formation, shadows and snow drifts, it was possible to determine if the two images were captured on the same day and at the same time. Last but not least, on our team was Mr. Patrick Alt who I had the pleasure to work with and learn from. His expertise in this area is beyond reproach. After obtaining written reports from these experts, we asked a former FBI Agent and Section Chief and a former Assistant United States Attorney and Legal Commentator on ABC News to tell us if the evidence was sufficient under the highest standard used in US courts (beyond a reasonable doubt). In essence, we put the negatives on trial. We anticipate releasing the final results of our investigation later this month. If you are interested in being notified of the results and findings, please register at www.ricknorsigian.com. As an added inducement, those individuals who register on the website will have the opportunity to view before anyone else in the world 17 never before seen photographs we believe were created by Ansel Adams.

[Steve M Hostetter]

The photos look nice, but I don't think they are Adam's. The LA Time's photo #5 has a road in it, and I don't think Adams would have framed it that way. The photo #7 in the guy's hand (attached) doesn't like Adams.

I wonder if these were from Albert Bender, the guy who owned a 1926 Buick and was Adam's road buddy. Consider it: who else photographs their car?

Brian,,

This is most pleasing and mysterious

[Brian Ellis]

I am the entertainment attorney who has been working with a group of experts for the past three years to once and for all prove that over 60 glass negatives purchased at a Fresno garage sale were in fact created by Ansel Adams. Our experts included two court qualified hand-writing analysts, the former Curator of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts and a meteorologist who was engaged to examine an authenticated Ansel Adams print and one virtually identical negative among those found at the garage sale. The task of this expert was to determine whether by looking at the cloud formation, shadows and snow drifts, it was possible to determine if the two images were captured on the same day and at the same time. Last but not least, on our team was Mr. Patrick Alt who I had the pleasure to work with and learn from. His expertise in this area is beyond reproach. After obtaining written reports from these experts, we asked a former FBI Agent and Section Chief and a former Assistant United States Attorney and Legal Commentator on ABC News to tell us if the evidence was sufficient under the highest standard used in US courts (beyond a reasonable doubt). In essence, we put the negatives on trial. We anticipate releasing the final results of our investigation later this month. If you are interested in being notified of the results and findings, please register at www.ricknorsigian.com. As an added inducement, those individuals who register on the website will have the opportunity to view before anyone else in the world 17 never before seen photographs we believe were created by Ansel Adams.

When you say you are putting the negatives "on trial," do you mean you're presenting these various expert opinions in a court or administrative proceeding so that the "other side" (i.e. the Adams family and anyone else who disagrees) have an opportunity to cross-examine these various experts and/or to present their own witnesses? Or is only your side being presented?

Without knowing anything about this question other than what I've read in this thread and a few newspaper accounts, it strikes me that this is a situation in which one "side" (i.e.your client) cares greatly about the attribution of these images and so has gone to a whole lot of time, trouble, and expense in an effort to obtain the result he wants. But that those holding an opposite viewpoint (i.e. those who disagree with his desired attribution) don't have a sufficient interest (monetary or otherwise) to put forth a similar amount of time, effort, and money in an effort to obtain the opposite result. So that this is like a trial in which only one side shows up.

[EdWorkman]

Dang, when somebody sez "lawyer" I just gotta wince- like I would trust ANY statement made by one-NOT!

[Robert Hughes]

Dang, when somebody sez "lawyer" I just gotta wince- like I would trust ANY statement made by one-NOT!
That's unfair. My lawyers have been informed and helpful in my time of need, and earned their money. If I were in legal proceedings without a lawyer I'd be SOL.

[Eric Woodbury]

As I understand it, Brett only destroyed a few negs, mostly as show.

About the Fresno negs, there are some things that were not mentioned in the article. First, of the negs that AA lost in the 1938 fire, many had been printed or proofed before and these images of those burned negs survive. Is it not odd that a print or proof of none of the Fresno negs has been found? Second, there are a number of negs in the Fresno negs that are of a subject not ever known to have been photographed by AA. Maybe these are the "17" that "apeter" talks about above.

[Photomagica]

apeter,
Definitive evidence that these plates were or were not associated with Adams might be obtained by microscopically comparing the edges of the images on these plates with plates known to be made by Adams in the same period. The plate holder edge leaves a shadow on the plate that is a unique "finger print".

If these shadows are sharp and clear enough, a match would provide unequivocal evidence that these plates were made in holders used by Adams for other images.

I expect your experts are on top of this already, as museum professionals familiar with photography would expect to see the edge examination and comparison data as part of the evidence brought forward. I wish you well with your work to identify the provinence of these plates.
Bill Peters
Vice-President
Alberta Museums Association

[iamjanco]

Not sure if this has been posted already:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/07/27/ansel.adams.discovery/index.html?hpt=C1

[Darin Boville]

The story is mostly old but what i new to me is the plan to sell prints from the negs--a quick Google and here we are:

http://ricknorsigian.com/norsigian_purchase.html

A mere $7500 a pict...

But at least we get to see the images (at last) and make our own conclusions about whether they are Ansel's or not...

--Darin

[John Bowen]

with tongue firmly in cheek....

I fully expect this "flooding the market" of Ansel's work to result in a significant DECREASE in the price of actual AA original prints. If we all wait 3 weeks we ought to be able to pick up a Genuine AA print for about $130......

[Peter De Smidt]

Those are some pretty high prices.

[Drew Wiley]

I always get a kick out of the way someone will spend five times as much for something at an auction as it costs at even a retail gallery. I remember when some of
AA's most famous images were selling for around $6500 just before he died. Then you
started seing auction sales in the thirty to forty grand range, every started selling, and
the prices dropped right back down. Now we're apparently in for another round; but
overall, his images aren't all that rare. It's all about supply and demand.

[rdenney]

The story is mostly old but what i new to me is the plan to sell prints from the negs--a quick Google and here we are:

http://ricknorsigian.com/norsigian_purchase.html

A mere $7500 a pict...

But at least we get to see the images (at last) and make our own conclusions about whether they are Ansel's or not...

--Darin

That makes the Special Edition prints, which are expertly made prints by Alan Ross from AA's original negatives, a real deal at a few hundred bucks.

Rick "wondering if these guys will hire a printer as good as Alan Ross" Denney

[Curt Palm]

if the A.A. trust were to acknowledge the negs. were A.A.s, who would own the rights to the images, which would be different, i think, then who owns the negatives. ?

[rdenney]

if the A.A. trust were to acknowledge the negs. were A.A.s, who would own the rights to the images, which would be different, i think, then who owns the negatives. ?

If they were created before the Copyright Law of 1978 went into force (which they were), then their protection by copyright would depend on being so marked. Then, that copyright protection would have lasted for a term of 28 years, which could be renewed once. Registration would have been required to get protection during the renewal period.

So, if the photos were made before 1950, and the copyright never marked or registered, they are in the public domain and nobody owns the copyright.

If they were created before that time and copyrighted by AA and subsequently renewed, then they would have been under copyright protection when the new law went into effect, and would be protected until 90 years after his death (2074).

But, of course, had they been registered, there would be no argument about whether he made the photos in the first place. The presence of that argument indicates to me that they were not registered. If they fell into public hands without an attached copyright notice, it could be argued that they fell into the public domain. That seems to me the most likely possibility.

Thus, it is likely that nobody owns the copyright to these images. And if that's the case, then the owner of the negatives themselves must control how they provide access to the negatives. If they allow someone to make prints, it will either be considered work for hire, allowing the negative owner to claim copyright in the resulting print, or at least the fine-printing techniques applied to that print, or the copyright on the print with those techniques would be owned by the printer.

Without documented copyright registration, I don't believe AA's descendants or the trust can claim ownership of the copyright unless they can show that the work was treated as copyrighted material, which is clearly not the case (else how would they have gotten in someone's garage?). Also, one cannot claim copyright ownership to something whose provenance they have discredited.

I suspect that Ansel Adams's name has been registered as a trademark, however. That would restrict the ability of the negative owners to use that trademark without being able to prove the provenance. And it may not be trademark but some other protection owing to a person's name.

Rick "doubting the value of prints made from the negatives even if they are authentic" Denney

[iamjanco]

I duuno, with scepticism (and money) the way it is today, $7500 is an awful lot of money for a photograph that's not actually printed by AA himself even if the plate used in the process *might* have been made by AA (I'm still not convinced). Still, you know what they say about fools and their money, especially those who have a lot of it to burn.

Couldn't help but chuckle at the notion that there's "gold in dem dar garage sales."

Also, now that the cat really appears to be out of the bag, I'm curious to see if AA's Trust will now attempt to do anything about it. Simply because of what the LA Times printed back in 2007 ("William Turnage, the trustee who propelled Adams to financial success, dismissed any interest in Norsigian's negatives, warning that the trust " owns all rights to Ansel's name and likeness" and that any unauthorized use would be referred to attorneys.").

[Drew Wiley]

This could backfire big time. By trying to establish some kind of exhorbitant value to
this sort of collection, the IRS can come in and tax you for it. You could end up owing
them for a helluva a lot more than the collection is actually worth. Works both ways.

[Brian C. Miller]

It doesn't matter if the glass negatives were created by Adams. Adams created lots of images, and the real majority of them weren't that great. I didn't see one stunning image in the bunch. One of them is even labled as an "aerial view."

If someone has the money ($7,500) then I think the person would purchase a known good print.

[Michael Kadillak]

Nobody with half a brain is going to plop down any large sums because it is not 100% conclusive that these are genuine and without question AA's. The potential buyer would be in the same position trying to maintain the value of what he paid and similarly attempting to find the document or other "proof" they are what the seller hopes they are.

In the game of collectibles it is about documentable provenance. Without it it is throwing craps in Vegas and the people that have this kind of jack hire people to advise them on decisions like these.

AA spawned droves of wanna bees even in his early days and this trend continues to this day. I would bet that someone else with considerable proficiency made these negatives at the time they are claiming and that when it is all said and done they will sell for the low six figures and possible the high five figures and that will be it. A considerable return on a meager investment. An auction in the millions I do not see because the owners of these negatives have been trying to prove they are genuine AA for over 10 years and the questions linger and will continue to do so for a very long time.

[Michael Kadillak]

As a follow up I do not "buy" the results of investigator hired by the owner of the negs and his conclusion that these materials were in fact produced by Ansel. Where the pavement will hit the pedal for me will be the sales price that will be finalized when the auction concludes. I assume that they will strike while the news is hot and it will take place fairly soon. This will tell us if the participating buyers are arriving at a similar conclusion as those being boldly stated by the author of the article.

Put this into perspective. If this cache of suspicious origin is worth $200 MM can you imagine what the family is legitimately holding in irrefutable AA produced materials? Can you say SELL?

The latitude of today's authors masquerading as journalists is simply amazing.

[PenGun]

I have some of my grandfathers glass negs from India. Pretty nice but not a lot of resolution, I have no idea how they were made.

Easy to scan ... that's fer sure.

[Frank Petronio]

Where is that dude who got on my case for marking up a lens I bought for a low price? He really needs to call these people out and set them straight!

[Michael Kadillak]

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. — A trove of old glass negatives bought at a garage sale for $45 has been authenticated as the lost work of Ansel Adams and worth at least $200 million, an attorney for the owner said Tuesday, but the iconic photographer's representatives dismissed the claim as a fraud and said they're worthless.


The love of money and greed in its purest form are convalescing to try to pull a rabbit out of a hat and even the corporate news picked up in this story this evening. The $45 innocuous "garage sale purchase" is likely going to cost the owner that cannot accept mediocrity his life's savings chasing a rabbit down a hole. It is simply sad. Reminds me of the stubborn engineer that invented the intermittent wiper that Ford stole that Greg Kinnear played in movies.

[DanK]

I don't see how they could do anything with the plates beyond selling them outright...

Maybe I just don't 'get it'....

I REALLY don't understand how they could produce copies of something they didn't actually create....especially without some sort of acknowledgement from the artist, or heirs...or something...

If I were rummaging garage sales and found an original AA print, I surely wouldn't feel I could make prints of it because I had 'found' it....nor if I had bought the print in a gallery....

Same would be the case of an original negative, ambrotype, tintype, etc...

Thanks,
Dan

[John Bowen]

It's the lead story on the online Wall Street Journal....

[DanK]

Even the printer doesn't seem convinced....

Kalisher commented that, “I am thrilled to be part of the process to bring these remarkable photographs to light. Whoever captured these images was a photographer of immense talent.” (http://ricknorsigian.com/norsigian_purchase.html)

Dan

[Allen in Montreal]

It's the lead story on the online Wall Street Journal....

Slow news day,
and since the Feds have made it illegal for media to get close to the oil spill......:(

[Merg Ross]

As I understand it, Brett only destroyed a few negs, mostly as show.

Eric, partly true. The negatives that he burned in his fireplace on his 80th birthday were for show; the international press was there for the occasion and the burn party was typical Brett. He was a true "Pyromaniac", in more than one sense.

However, the majority of his negatives were otherwise destroyed, except for a few in the vault when he died. Also, there were a few, which Cole showed me at the 80th birthday celebration, that were punched with holes and are at CCP in Tucson.

Now, to the topic of Ansel and the garage find windfall. Suppose, for the sake of arguement, that they were Ansel's images; so what. At that point in his career, the summer of 1937, he was not so far behind with his printing to not have printed what he thought was worthy. So, assuming that these are in fact his negatives or plates, they would have already been rejected by him as representations of his best vision. We all go through this process, some save and some discard.

So, at best, we have discarded Ansel Adams negatives that are going to be printed by printer Mr. X (not Alan Ross) and be sold for huge amounts of money. Perfect nonsense for the evening news tonight: "Ansel Adams Prints Found at Garage Sale Worth $200,000,000. I don't think so.

There were other photographers who used Ansel's darkroom in Yosemite before the fire, working in similar formats and with similar subject matter.

My old friend Rondal said it best when shown the great garage find: "Oh no, not Ansel. These are not compositions Ansel would have made". Ron might know, he was there the night of the darkroom fire and was also Ansel's assisstant.

[Mark Sawyer]

Each of us can only hope our own bones are so thoroughly picked after our deaths. It is, perhaps, the truest form of artistic validation, regardless of whether such images are actually our own or not...

[wager123]

please see below this excerpt from a email i recieved from my friend Alan Ross




Dear Mitch,

This is going to be a quick message in response to numerous emails I have received concerning some glass plate negatives purchased by a Mr. Norsigian at a California garage sale, and which he attributes authorship of to Ansel Adams. He now seems to be claiming that the plates have been "authenticated" at a value of $200,000,000. The Norsigian group contacted me earlier this year, and I have seen jpegs of all the images. I do not believe they ARE the work of Ansel Adams. See below for my opinion.

Cheers,


alan@rossimages.net
www.alanrossphotography.com



CNN Newsbreak:
"Experts: Ansel Adams photos found at garage sale worth $200 million"

Interestingly enough, the New York Times has not seen fit to provide coverage of this claim as yet.

The images in the Norsigian collection do seem to be the work of a competent photographer working in Yosemite, San Francisco and Carmel. In a format used by AA in the late 20's. The camera locations are similar to known Adams favorites - but then, most of those were primary tourist viewpoints offering an obvious place to plant a camera.

Some of the images are of yachting scenes on San Francisco Bay. Nothing of any similarity in subject or format exists in the Adams Archive. LIkewise some utterly bland images of a Spanish-style mission.

A major claim in the voice for authenticity is that one image - I believe of the Jeffrey Pine on Sentinel Dome - shows some same/similar cloud formations as exist in a known Adams image. Anyone who knew Ansel also knows that he very often had fellow photographers at his side - either by invitation or coincidence - when he was out photographing. The clouds could easily have been recorded by a different camera a few feet away.

The plates seem to show signs of fire damage. Yes, Ansel's Yosemite darkroom caught fire in 1938 and a number of prized negatives were lost. For me, this is the weak-link/downfall of the authenticity claimants. Ansel was working with a 6.5x8.5 plate camera when he did Monolith in 1927. The fire was in 1938. A good number of negatives made prior to the fire had been printed many times - Pine Branches in Snow comes to mind, for one example. As well as I know Ansel's work, and as far as I have otherwise heard, not ONE authenticated AA print from ANY of the Norsigian plates is known. If it was a good image - and some of these are - Ansel couldn't have NOT resisted making more than one print of each - and even then SOME would have survived to exist in Ansel's own archive or in the collections of photgapehr and Sierra Club friends.

They are some nice images, but I cannot believe they are the work of Ansel Adams.

And 200 million dollars is ______. You fill in the blank.





Alan



This message can be forwarded - so if you have anyone in mind who would be

[Joseph O'Neil]

Here is something I don't understand. I haven't seen the negs or any image or images myself yet in the news, so I have no idea if the photos are great, lousy, or whatever.

But the point is, regardless if these photos are great or terrible (and I am not sure just how you gauge "great" or "terrible", but that's an arguement for another thread) these prints are only going to be worth money if they can be proven to be taken by AA. We could have the most fantastic negative that ever existed in the entire universe, but the value all depends on who shot it, not the negative itself, or so it seems.

The second issue I have, it's the print, not just the negative. In fact, when it comes to AA's work, could we not argue that in the case of some of his prints the real "magic" was the work he did making the print? The cropping, the dodging & burning, the type of paper and paper developer he used, and so forth?

Depends on the photographer in question, but for some people, not all, isn't much of their "art" in making the print more than making the negative? So unless you have a "kickass printer" who can do the negatives justice, what real value are they?

That leads to the next problem, if somebody else makes a print from an AA negative, is it still a "real" Ansel Adams photograph?

..and then one more evil thought - if the negatives are digitally scanned (I know, heresy to the max :) ), and prints made on a computer to match the style of AA, are they still authentic then, and worth 200 million?


Comments from the peanut gallery = OFF
:D

[rdenney]

I REALLY don't understand how they could produce copies of something they didn't actually create....especially without some sort of acknowledgement from the artist, or heirs...or something...

As explained previously, copyright protection isn't indefinite, and was far more limited for works produced in the past than today. If a picture has fallen into the public domain, anyone can copy it for any reason, including to sell to some unsuspecting soul. I have a number of reprints of old books and also a number of orchestral music scores that Dover found in the public domain and reprinted to sell. Nothing even remotely creepy about that.

If you found some public-domain glass plates in your garage, thought them worthy, and made prints, you could sell them as you wished, owing nothing to the original artist or his heirs.

But using that artist's name may be another matter. I notice that the PRT and family has stated that they have exclusive use of the Ansel Adams name, which is not at all the same thing as having exclusive use of every one of his products. Copyright can only protect tangible expressions, not ideas. And that protection is very limited for works that were not registered before 1979, as these clearly were not.

Thus, it would seem to me likely that the owners of these plates can print them and sell the prints however they like, but that they may run afoul of a trademark if they claim them to have been made by Adams. Without that claim, of course, the photos will have to stand on their own merits.

Of course, anyone can buy real prints made from unreservedly authentic Adams negatives for just a few hundred dollars, which sets a ceiling on the market value of prints not made (and signed) by Adams himself, even using his negatives.

Rick "artists and their heirs do not own their work forever" Denney

[rdenney]

That leads to the next problem, if somebody else makes a print from an AA negative, is it still a "real" Ansel Adams photograph?

Adams's own intentions and that of his heirs is known on this question. See here:


To see more Ansel Adams images see our Ansel Adams Gallery Exclusives for :
Archival Replicas - superb reproductions of Ansel Adams photographs available in a variety of sizes. Starting at $129
Yosemite Special Edition Photographs - 24 hand-crafted Gelatin Silver photographs of Yosemite. Printed by Ansel's assistant, Alan Ross, from Ansel's original negatives at $225

Ansel Adams Gallery (http://www.anseladams.com/category_s/71.htm)

The Special Edition prints are real Ansel Adams photographs. They are not AA prints. We cannot constrain the definition of photograph just to the print.

But the fact that the prints are not made by AA his-own-self has a significant effect on their market price. Adams's signed prints are priced from $5000 to $50,000 at that gallery.

Rick "thinking this argument has added up to maybe 0.000001% of the arguments concerning the authenticity of Rembrandt's paintings and drawings, some of which were even signed" Denney

[Chuck Peacock]

With 47 negatives he'd need to sell more than 550 prints each at $7500 to come up with $200 million.

Did Ansel ever sell 550 prints of any of his images -- at any price?

I suspect the Alan Ross prints that Yosemite Gallery sells for $225 may surpass 550 each, but others??

I think the $200 million figure comes from the same calculator that new outlets use to calculate the "street price" of a drug shipment.

Chuck Peacock

On a different note, I'm happy I got my copies of the Alan Ross prints back when they were only $100 each!

[Michael Kadillak]

What an interesting dialog. It is exciting to see interest in photography garnering front page news but discouraging to learn of the details.

This case reminds me of the "Deal or No Deal" game show that drives me crazy. Invariably the participant discards common sense and rational behavior and shoots for the moon only to have the laws of averages slam the door shut for them with lunch money when they could have walked with a significant windfall.

[David Karp]

I saw a story or two about the most recent developments and heard a short piece on the local radio station. None of them discussed whether other, unaffiliated, experts agreed or disagreed with the conclusions reached by buyer's the panel of experts. All of the news outlets seemed to accept the confirmation. Are there any naysayers among the experts? Does the analysis by the handwriting expert identifying Virginia Adams's handwriting change things for the experts who rejected Adams as the source of these photos in the past? Have this expert's conclusions been evaluated? Still lots of questions.

Of course, that does not impact the question of whether prints made by someone other than Adams will have the value set by the owner. After all, we are not talking about Edward Weston negatives printed by Brett Weston. We know that beautiful AA photos printed by as masterful a printer as Alan Ross are worth far less than those printed by AA.

[Michael Jones]

There were other photographers who used Ansel's darkroom in Yosemite before the fire, working in similar formats and with similar subject matter.



If I recall from the Day Books, wasn't Edward Weston in Yosemite at the time of the fire?

OMG! These are really lost Weston negtives worth billions...

I wonder if the entertainment lawyer (Brian: is that the specialization you would have selected?) is working on an hourly fee, pro bono, or a contingent basis?

Mike

[Curt Palm]

Quoting from the final report at ricknorsigian.com:

"PATRICK ALT WAS ASKED TO BRING THE KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF A WORKING LARGE FORMAT PHOTOGRAPHER AND THE WEALTH OF INFORMATION HE HAD ACCUMULATED IN 40 YEARS OF MAKING IMAGES AS WELL AS STUDYING THE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHIC TECHNOLOGIES AND THE HISTORY OF PHOTOGRAPHY. MR. ALT IN PARTICULAR HAD BEEN A STUDENT OF ANSEL ADAMS’ WORK FOR MANY YEARS, HAVING READ MOST OF HIS BOOKS AND SEEN HIS WORK IN PERSON IN MANY EXHIBITIONS OVER THE YEARS."

--

I bet at least half of the members of this forum would qualify as A.A experts if judged by the last sentence.

[Chuck Peacock]

Quoting from the final report at ricknorsigian.com:

"MR. ALT IN PARTICULAR HAD BEEN A STUDENT OF ANSEL ADAMS’ WORK FOR MANY YEARS, HAVING READ MOST OF HIS BOOKS AND SEEN HIS WORK IN PERSON IN MANY EXHIBITIONS OVER THE YEARS."



Gee, I own most of those books, even the long out-of-print ones from pre-1960 -- and I actually attended one of the AA Workshop's in Yosemite.

If Alt is an expert, what does that make me?

Chuck Peacock

[Jim Galli]

Rondal wouldn't get excited about Adams negs in any case. Tell him I think I found a box of film shot with a Rollei and it says something about Dorothea on the sleeves. Yes, it was a yardsale in Castroville.

[Brian Ellis]

I saw a story or two about the most recent developments and heard a short piece on the local radio station. None of them discussed whether other, unaffiliated, experts agreed or disagreed with the conclusions reached by buyer's the panel of experts. All of the news outlets seemed to accept the confirmation. Are there any naysayers among the experts? Does the analysis by the handwriting expert identifying Virginia Adams's handwriting change things for the experts who rejected Adams as the source of these photos in the past? Have this expert's conclusions been evaluated? Still lots of questions.

Of course, that does not impact the question of whether prints made by someone other than Adams will have the value set by the owner. After all, we are not talking about Edward Weston negatives printed by Brett Weston. We know that beautiful AA photos printed by as masterful a printer as Alan Ross are worth far less than those printed by AA.

The media accepts the guy's claims that the prints are by Adams because it makes a great story - "plates worth $200 million were bought for $40 at a garage sale." If these aren't Adams' plates there would be no story. The media isn't going to write a story that begins "Today it has been proven that photographic plates purchased for $40 at a garage sale are worth $40." So the media pretends that there's unanimous agreement about the authenticity of the plates rather than accepting, or even discussing, the version that's no story at all. What a surprise.

[Brian Ellis]

I saw a story or two about the most recent developments and heard a short piece on the local radio station. None of them discussed whether other, unaffiliated, experts agreed or disagreed with the conclusions reached by buyer's the panel of experts. All of the news outlets seemed to accept the confirmation. Are there any naysayers among the experts? Does the analysis by the handwriting expert identifying Virginia Adams's handwriting change things for the experts who rejected Adams as the source of these photos in the past? Have this expert's conclusions been evaluated? Still lots of questions.

Of course, that does not impact the question of whether prints made by someone other than Adams will have the value set by the owner. After all, we are not talking about Edward Weston negatives printed by Brett Weston. We know that beautiful AA photos printed by as masterful a printer as Alan Ross are worth far less than those printed by AA.

The media accepts the guy's claims that the prints are by Adams because it makes a great story - "plates worth $200 million were bought for $40 at a garage sale." If these aren't Adams' plates there's no story. The media isn't going to write a story that begins "Today it has been proven that photographic plates purchased for $40 at a garage sale are worth $40." So the media accepts the version that allows them to write a story rather than the version that's no story at all. What a shock that the media would slant a story to suit it's own interests.

[Andre Noble]

Slightly off topic:

I have seen Ansel's work both in photography books on in a show at Los Angeles County Museum of Art in Los Angeles.

The book reproductions looked a lot nicer to me, believe it or not.

It may be that my eye is trained to modern fiber print materials - which I think are superior to what was available 40 or 50 years ago.

Ansel is a pioneer because of his tireless belief in the medium, his documentation of the American West, and his scientific mastery of B&W photography.

I place him at or near near the top with Henri Cartier Bresson in terms of being pioneers with lasting influence.

however, I would guess there are at least 10 guys who contribute to this forum who can print just as well or even better than he did. This opinion based on the prints I saw of his at LACMA.

I am not sure if these 65 plates are Ansel's but there sure appears to be a lot of greed involved in the search for the truth - on both sides.

I have created a poll for you to vote whether these images are legit or not: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=65042

[Joseph O'Neil]

Gee, I own most of those books, even the long out-of-print ones from pre-1960 -- and I actually attended one of the AA Workshop's in Yosemite.
If Alt is an expert, what does that make me?
Chuck Peacock

I suppose it all depends not on credentials, but on whether or not your opinion is going to make money for somebody.
:rolleyes:

On the other hand, one of my dad's favourite sayings is "An expert is somebody who come from more than 100 miles out town." Maybe they've got one of those kind of experts looking at the negatives.
:D

[Heroique]

I noticed that the AA family’s Response (http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.com/) to the matter has appeared on The Ansel Adams Gallery web site – it’s not too long, very interesting, and worth a read.

I’d like to hear your reaction to this insightful article.

Written by Matthew Adams (AA’s grandson), and based on his November, 2009 inspection of the available evidence, the piece is, I think, remarkably open-minded, and his inclinations – which clearly lean toward “not his” – are considerate of all the multifarious evidence.

Just two of the writer’s interesting observations, which might not occur to those who didn’t know AA or Virginia Adams personally, include:

1) “…several of the titles, including “Bridal Vail Falls”, “Happy Iles”, “Washborn Point”, [and] “Glaciar Point” are misspellings of common place names in Yosemite. Virginia had lived in Yosemite every year of her life, and at the time of the darkroom fire, she was 33 years old. Virginia was an intelligent, well read young woman, enjoyed Yosemite and the outdoors, and it is inconceivable to me that she would misspell any Yosemite place names.”

2) “What is less clear is how Ansel would have let negatives get out of his care, in any circumstance. Particularly after the [1937 darkroom] fire, Ansel was very careful about his negatives. He kept them in a bank vault in San Francisco, and would go to the bank to pull a negative to work with. How 61 negatives could get out of his possession is hard to fathom.”

-----
What I also find interesting about the family response is the absence of any evaluation of the aesthetic quality of the work (and the sparse comments about the stylistic attributes). Certainly, if this “family effort” comes off as seeming fair-enough and balanced, it also leaves behind a slightly “forensic” after-taste, which may be appropriate for a potentially explosive situation.

[Richard M. Coda]

On a different note, I'm happy I got my copies of the Alan Ross prints back when they were only $100 each!

I got mine when they were $60! :D

$200 Million... that's a "lawyer" number. The local paper had an article today: [headline] Lawyer: Negatives verified as Ansel Adams' lost work"... first problem... it started with "Lawyer". Also the fact that the guy who verified them is the gallery owner who stands to make money if any of them sell... sounds pretty fishy to me especially since everyone who (is still alive that) knew Adams says otherwise.

There is a new photo exhibit opening up at the Phoenix Art Museum tonight. The curator, Dr. Becky Senf, of the CCP in Tucson, as a PhD in Ansel Adams. I plan on asking her take on this.

[QT Luong]

The person supervising the print sale (http://ricknorsigian.com/) is Jesse Kalisher. In case, like me, you've been so disconnected from the photography scene that you don't recognize his name, he is "America's most popular living photographer" (verbatim from http://www.kalisher.com/who_we_are.html). How to doubt after such an endorsement ?

[David Karp]

The media accepts the guy's claims that the prints are by Adams because it makes a great story - "plates worth $200 million were bought for $40 at a garage sale." If these aren't Adams' plates there would be no story. The media isn't going to write a story that begins "Today it has been proven that photographic plates purchased for $40 at a garage sale are worth $40." So the media pretends that there's unanimous agreement about the authenticity of the plates rather than accepting, or even discussing, the version that's no story at all. What a surprise.

That is one take. However, the story as originally presented, was this person's quixotic attempt to prove that these photos were AA's, in spite of the expert's opinions to the contrary. Now there is a controversy, with experts disagreeing with the conclusions of prior experts, with (supposedly) millions of dollars at stake. That sounds like an even better "story" for the media.

In a way, I think that there is laziness and lack of resources involved here. No time to investigate, no time to look back at what was written before, shrinking staffs, less institutional memory, etc. So often now, media just reproduce press releases.

[Jim Galli]

24X30 digi prints for $1500 sold from a 14kb .jpg. I'm thinking I would take one of the multi-million dollar offers for the collection and call it a day. :D:D

[Brian C. Miller]

The person supervising the print sale is Jesse Kalisher. In case, like me, you've been so disconnected from the photography scene that you don't recognize his name, he is "America's most popular living photographer" (verbatim from http://www.kalisher.com/who_we_are.html). How to doubt after such an endorsement ?

Why, just like we recognize Thomas Kincade as America's most popular living painter! :D
Interior Design Magazine and Southern Neighbor are not my main photography magazines!

[Heroique]

I noticed that the AA family’s Response (http://theanseladamsgallery.blogspot.com/) to the matter has appeared on The Ansel Adams Gallery web site – it’s not too long, very interesting, and worth a read.

I’d like to hear your reaction to this insightful article.

Written by Matthew Adams (AA’s grandson), and based on his November, 2009 inspection of the available evidence, the piece is, I think, remarkably open-minded, and his inclinations – which clearly lean toward “not his” – are considerate of all the multifarious evidence.

Just two of the writer’s interesting observations, which might not occur to those who didn’t know AA or Virginia Adams personally, include:

1) “…several of the titles, including “Bridal Vail Falls”, “Happy Iles”, “Washborn Point”, [and] “Glaciar Point” are misspellings of common place names in Yosemite. Virginia had lived in Yosemite every year of her life, and at the time of the darkroom fire, she was 33 years old. Virginia was an intelligent, well read young woman, enjoyed Yosemite and the outdoors, and it is inconceivable to me that she would misspell any Yosemite place names.”

2) “What is less clear is how Ansel would have let negatives get out of his care, in any circumstance. Particularly after the [1937 darkroom] fire, Ansel was very careful about his negatives. He kept them in a bank vault in San Francisco, and would go to the bank to pull a negative to work with. How 61 negatives could get out of his possession is hard to fathom.”

-----
What I also find interesting about the family response is the absence of any evaluation of the aesthetic quality of the work (and the sparse comments about the stylistic attributes). Certainly, if this “family effort” comes off as seeming fair-enough and balanced, it also leaves behind a slightly “forensic” after-taste, which may be appropriate for a potentially explosive situation.

I should add a 3rd observation by Matthew Adams. It’s just too interesting: his request for a chemical analysis of scorch marks on some of the negatives, presumably to make a connection (if any) with the Roosevelt-era darkroom fire.

Now that’s getting forensic!

And somewhat like testing pieces of the Shroud of Turin.

[lenser]

It's been quite a while since I've re-read Adams' autobiography, but I seem to recall that he stated that the fire caused minimal damage and that there were very few lost negatives. The claim in the article is that thousands of negatives were lost.

Is my memory faulty or is this another part of the story that is graphically inflated?

[SAShruby]

So, now we have a great discussion about something which clearly lack the definition, what is the photograph?

Is it the glass negative (let's assume that it is AA's work, but I clearly remember everyone points that negative is just a medium carrying the image, not a photograph!!!) from any printer makes a print which intents to sell it for $7,500 or, is it an actual AA's final result on a photo paper, printed by himself or Alan Ross?

Now I guess we could guess what answer probably is...

[Ash]

When Norman Parkinson moved to America, he gave all his working/test prints to his assistant, Angela Williams. It's taken decades for the NP Archive to even acknowledge her, let alone accept the value of her prints for part of Parkinson's legacy.

I've see the prints exhibited, they look good.

She's not really in it for the money, just for the respect.


These glass negs may not be AA's, but it'll take more than a decade and a few lawyers to decide beyond reasonable doubt *and* have the family's approval.

[QT Luong]

So, now we have a great discussion about something which clearly lack the definition, what is the photograph?

Is it the glass negative (let's assume that it is AA's work, but I clearly remember everyone points that negative is just a medium carrying the image, not a photograph!!!) from any printer makes a print which intents to sell it for $7,500 or, is it an actual AA's final result on a photo paper, printed by himself or Alan Ross?

Now I guess we could guess what answer probably is...

I think it is because of AA's emphasis on the print as "performance" - and making a "fine print" his hallmark - that AA's images printed by others are not as highly regarded as AA's prints. This doesn't apply to other masters (ex: HCB), who didn't even print themselves.

[Drew Wiley]

They had a good splash on this on the local evening news last nite, and even showed
a number of the images. While that's no substitute for looking at the real deal, they
certainly didn't look anything like compositions of AA's I've seen, other than nominal subject matter. Virtually everyone in the know who was interviewed strongly denied
they were taken by AA. But you know lawyers - for a price they can come up with
"expert witnesses" who will say anything. I have little doubt that this is a trolling
experiment to foist away a relatively ordinary collection of old negs to some wealthy
sucker a ridiculously inflated price. For his forty bucks, that guy should have quit while he was ahead.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . But you know lawyers - for a price they can come up with "expert witnesses" who will say anything. . . .

Interesting observation. But the price for an expert witness is paid to the expert witness, not the lawyer. A more accurate observation would be "But you know expert witnesses, for a price they'll say anything."

[Drew Wiley]

Now you're talking like a lawyer, Brian. Anyway, one of the shots I saw which allegedly came from AA was the unsual bent juniper on the mini-dome on the way
to Glacier Point. It's been done millions of times, and was probably photographed
hundreds of times before AA ever arrived on the scene. If his experience was anything like mine, all you have to do it set up a camera in a popular spot like that
and folks will start congregating around with their own cameras. So much for that
astronomical time/place evidence. Yosemite was in fact already a famous and
heavily visited tourist area. And what seems to be completely ignored in this silly
media frenzy is that there were professional scenic photographers operating in
Yosemite for half a century before AA, and they had already found many classic
viewpoints. And back then, none of them used digital cameras! It would be interesting to see more of these images, but the handful I saw didn't seem to have
even a germ of that talent one identifies with AA. Certainly he took a lot of routine
and commercial shots, and his style evolved, but you'd expect something analogous
in sensitivity at least. I my neighborhood growing up, not far from the park, this kind of stuff turned up frequently. I found the old tintypes and so forth more interesting.

[Chuck Peacock]

Why, just like we recognize Thomas Kincade as America's most popular living painter! :D
Interior Design Magazine and Southern Neighbor are not my main photography magazines!

I'm happy to be able to say that my local "Thomas Kincade - Painter of Light" Gallery has gone out of business.

More room for some real art in downtown Wyandotte!;)

Chuck Peacock

[Merg Ross]

It's been quite a while since I've re-read Adams' autobiography, but I seem to recall that he stated that the fire caused minimal damage and that there were very few lost negatives. The claim in the article is that thousands of negatives were lost.

Is my memory faulty or is this another part of the story that is graphically inflated?

In his letter to Stieglitz after the July, 1937 fire, Ansel wrote, "..we had the misfortune to suffer a fire which consumed half of our new darkroom and burned up a lot of my good negatives. However, the negatives that burned had the highest commercial and lowest aesthetic value of the lot. One fortunate thing--I lost many inferior negatives, and can start the slate clean in several directions. Edward Weston and I had just returned a half hour before the fire from a fine trip in the high mountains; it was a spectacular sight to see four photographers toil into the dawn removing films from soaked envelopes and pouring them into a bathtub full of water. In this way we saved many films that would have been hopelessly spoiled".

The four photographers to which he referred were; himself, Edward, Charis, and his assistant, Rondal Partridge.

[D. Bryant]

And somewhat like testing pieces of the Shroud of Turin.

Please! Let's not get carried away. Ansel hasn't been beatified yet.

Don Bryant

[Joseph O'Neil]

One good thing about all this controversy is that we might see, is an increased interest and appreciation of large format photography in general, which cannot be such a bad thing for all of us.
joe

[Merg Ross]

http://www.foxreno.com/news/24432262/detail.html

[Brian Ellis]

Now you're talking like a lawyer, Brian. Anyway, one of the shots I saw which allegedly came from AA was the unsual bent juniper on the mini-dome on the way
to Glacier Point. It's been done millions of times, and was probably photographed
hundreds of times before AA ever arrived on the scene. If his experience was anything like mine, all you have to do it set up a camera in a popular spot like that
and folks will start congregating around with their own cameras. So much for that
astronomical time/place evidence. Yosemite was in fact already a famous and
heavily visited tourist area. And what seems to be completely ignored in this silly
media frenzy is that there were professional scenic photographers operating in
Yosemite for half a century before AA, and they had already found many classic
viewpoints. And back then, none of them used digital cameras! It would be interesting to see more of these images, but the handful I saw didn't seem to have
even a germ of that talent one identifies with AA. Certainly he took a lot of routine
and commercial shots, and his style evolved, but you'd expect something analogous
in sensitivity at least. I my neighborhood growing up, not far from the park, this kind of stuff turned up frequently. I found the old tintypes and so forth more interesting.

I'm not sure I understand. I just pointed out a mistake you made in a previous post. You seem to be trying to convince me that these aren't photographs made by Ansel Adams, which is unnecessary since I've already expressed my skepticism in several previous posts.

[Drew Wiley]

The Uncle Earl explanation hit the prime time news pretty good yesterday. Apparently
the family still has prints which look a helluva lot like some of those negatives. Time will tell, but Earl from Fresno makes a lot more sense than AA at this point.

[Brian Ellis]

That is one take. However, the story as originally presented, was this person's quixotic attempt to prove that these photos were AA's, in spite of the expert's opinions to the contrary. Now there is a controversy, with experts disagreeing with the conclusions of prior experts, with (supposedly) millions of dollars at stake. That sounds like an even better "story" for the media.

In a way, I think that there is laziness and lack of resources involved here. No time to investigate, no time to look back at what was written before, shrinking staffs, less institutional memory, etc. So often now, media just reproduce press releases.

I have to disagree with your first paragraph. An argument among experts over attribution of a photograph would be of little interest to the general public. But someone paying $40 for something that turns out to be worth $200,000,000 - now that's a story!

[David Karp]

Negatives on trial!

Here is some reasonable doubt, which was posted over on The Online Photographer: http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html

[Merg Ross]

Negatives on trial!

Here is some reasonable doubt, which was posted over on The Online Photographer: http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html

Dave, also on this forum, Post #83. I'm betting on Uncle Earl!

[David Karp]

Ha,

Merg, don't know how I missed that one!

[Richard K.]

The Rick Norsigian site seems to be down?
I must say I found it optimistic of him, to say the least, to ask those prices online without publishing a detailed summary of the investigation. There is no doubt in my mind that Uncle Earle's Jeffrey Pine was taken within minutes of the one shown by Norsigian thus completely calling into question ALL of the negs. I too have a nice photo of that Jeffrey Pine!

[Eric James]

In the *Jeffery Pine on Sentinel Dome* shots, the snow level on the distance peaks is identical and the three clouds to the left of the tree look VERY similar. The Norsigian site is likely down to post their 50% OFF sale details..."and if you act now we'll throw in..."

[Heroique]

Hmm, it’s looking like Uncle Earl might put Rick Norsigian’s “experts” to shame.

● Michael Nattenberg and Marcel Matley, two independent hand writing experts
● George Wright, a meteorological expert
● Bob Moeller, the former Curator of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts
● Patrick Alt, a large format photographer with over 40 years of experience
● Thomas Knowles, Former FBI Agent and Section Chief
● Manny Medrano, Former Assistant US Attorney and Legal/Supreme Court Reporter for ABC News

And maybe Matthew Adams missed his true calling – a well-rounded investigator.

-----
But we should stay tuned – I can see the next plot twist from here: It’s been 10 years since the garage sale, but the seller recalls seeing both Rick Norsigian and Uncle Earl’s niece on that fateful afternoon…

;)

[Richard K.]

But we should stay tuned – I can see the next plot twist from here: It’s been 10 years since the garage sale, but the seller recalls seeing both Rick Norsigian and Uncle Earl’s niece on that fateful afternoon…

;)

What twists do you envision if she WAS there?!? (I doubt it)
The print she showed doesn't look hurried off...

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - the best way to pull off a scam is to do it so big that nobody uses ordinary
common sense. Reminds me of when a simple Chinese farmer colored rice paste to glue
together the sandstone tail of a dromaesaur to the body of an Jurassic bird skeleton.
A museum paid a hundred grand for it, to preempt any other institution acquiring the
priceless fossil first, and all the experts at Natl Geographic fell for it so thoroughly that
they published a feature article on it. But all it would take is a high school student with
a 4X magnifying glass to notice that the sandstone grains in the tail section were at
a right angle to those on the rest of the piece, or that several intermediate vertebrae
were missing. It's the old puff of smoke thing so you don't notice what the magician is
really up to. By putting a ludicrous figure of 200 mil on this collection of negatives,
they've managed to start a media stampede before anyone had any reasonable facts.
And frankly, I hope some of the "experts" get some real egg in the face for it, because
it seems they never looked at alternative photographers as potential "suspects".

[Brian C. Miller]

And frankly, I hope some of the "experts" get some real egg in the face for it, because it seems they never looked at alternative photographers as potential "suspects".

Well, I doubt that Earl Walton ever had a showing for his photographs. It would have to be someone in the family who still had a print or two to make the connection.

[SAShruby]

Nothing is proven yet, even the uncle's Earl work. Again, it looks similar. Let's wait, then judge. ;)

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - I wasn't suggesting that they should have suspected Uncle Earl along when nobody really knew about him, but about the sheer probability it could have been
someone else. Maybe the uninformed general public thinks that AA discovered Yosemite, but the fact is, it was a famous photographic destination for half a century
before he arrived. And back then big tripod mounted cameras were routine. Even in this
digital age it wouldn't be uncommon to encounter two persons with view cameras photographing from the same "scenic turnout" at the same time in the Park. After all,
we're not talking about some obscure location like Hernandez NM. Professional scenic
photography has a long tradition in the Park, and some of those folks were every bit
as good as AA, even if their individual styles were different. Around here all you have
to do is visit one of the antique shops specializing in Calif historical memorabilia, or the
Oakland Museum itself, to get the clue.

[Kevin Crisp]

When I read that the experts dismissed the idea of the negatives being made by an amateur because they were of too high quality I had my doubts about their expertise. That and the fact that the dollar estimate was simply so ludicrous.

[Jon Shiu]

Just wanted to note about copyrights. If the work was unpublished, then it would still be under copyright for the life of the photographer plus 70 years.

"All works published in the United States before 1923 are in the public domain. Works published after 1922, but before 1978 are protected for 95 years from the date of publication. If the work was created, but not published, before 1978, the copyright lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years. However, even if the author died over 70 years ago, the copyright in an unpublished work lasts until December 31, 2002. And if such a work is published before December 31, 2002, the copyright will last until December 31, 2047."

source Stanford Copyright FAQ

Jon

[Drew Wiley]

Kevin brings out another important point. At that season in time Ansel was not the master craftsman that he later became, but other photographers in the area potentially already were. There was a prolific scenic photographer named Fisk doing work slightly before him whose work could easily be mistaken for some of AA's own earlier images. The fact that the museum experts etc have mainly paid attention to the pictorialists of this era does not mean that skilled landscape photographers doing work similar to the f/64 movement slighty later were not already active, or are unknown to a different set of experts. Maybe they didn't group together with a manifesto or a dialectic agenda, but plenty of their photographs still exist, and some have been published. Besides this, there were quite a few pro photographers right into the middle of the 20th century who barely recognized AA, but who could take a generically similar shot in Yosemite, and even print it with similar technique. AA deserves credit for the poetic majesty of his best compositions, fine-tuning this with the zone system, and for his historic contribution to the expansion of the Park system, but in certain other respects he wasn't all that unique in his selection of subject matter or in his ability to use equipment professionally.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey, has anyone talked to Rondal Partridge, since he was helping save Adams' negatives from the darkroom fire? He's still alive, isn't he?

[David Karp]

See above. He is a friend of Merg Ross. Merg reports that Mr. Partridge told him that he does not believe that these are AA's photos.

[Merg Ross]

See above. He is a friend of Merg Ross. Merg reports that Mr. Partridge told him that he does not believe that these are AA's photos.

Slight correction, yes Ron is a friend going way back and, yes, he is alive at 93.

However, it was Norsigian who approached Ron with the photos and Ron's response is buried in a previous posting to this thread. In a nutshell, he dismissed the possibility that they were the work of Ansel. Not the answer that Norsigian wanted to hear.

[David Karp]

Slight correction, yes Ron is a friend going way back and, yes, he is alive at 93.

However, it was Norsigian who approached Ron with the photos and Ron's response is buried in a previous posting to this thread. In a nutshell, he dismissed the possibility that they were the work of Ansel. Not the answer that Norsigian wanted to hear.

Oops. Poor memory.

[Merg Ross]

Oops. Poor memory.

Dave, not poor memory,my poor writing skills. Ron's words were a quote from the original article, but not to me. However, he would tell me the same: "Not Ansel!" And it appears that he might just be correct in his analysis.

[gainer]

Wow, $200,000,000 worth of Adams negs or Uncle Earl...
http://www.ktvu.com/news/24432262/detail.html

[philip964]

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/29/ansel-adams-garage-sale-mystery-apparently-solved/

This has the mouse over feature where you can immediately compare the photos.

[Darin Boville]

Oh my:

http://ricknorsigian.com/lost_reports/Norsigian_Response_Press_Release.pdf

--Darin

[ic-racer]

Oh my:

http://ricknorsigian.com/lost_reports/Norsigian_Response_Press_Release.pdf

--Darin

Why do they have any contact with Ansel Adams trust? These are Uncle Earl's negatives.

[Brian Ellis]

Dave, not poor memory,my poor writing skills. Ron's words were a quote from the original article, but not to me. However, he would tell me the same: "Not Ansel!" And it appears that he might just be correct in his analysis.

But why should we accept his word against that of all the experts Mr. Norsigian has lined up - after all, Rondel Partridge (sp?) is no burden of proof expert, nor does he likely have Patrick Alt's many years of experience - in woodworking.

[ROL]

Ahaa! It was Uncle Earl, in the parlor, with the candlestick!

(my earlier blog (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/news/the-norsigian-negatives_2010-07-28-09-28-04) on the matter.)

[Heroique]

Oh my:
http://ricknorsigian.com/lost_reports/Norsigian_Response_Press_Release.pdf


I understand that William Turnage has a long and continuing business relationship with the AA family, and even worked with AA himself on business matters.

According to CNN:

1) William Turnage, the managing trustee of Adams’ trust, called Norsigian and those working with him “a bunch of crooks” who “are pulling a big con job.”

2) Turnage said Norsigian’s strategy is to line up a long list of hired experts to tell “a big lie.” "Hitler used that technique," Turnage said. "You don't tell a small one. You tell a big one."

Bad move.

Everything I’ve read indicates to me that Rick Norsigian is an honest man, who may have fumbled on his selection of “experts” and PR people (including the author of the hot-under-the-collar press realease above).

But they’re not the Gestapo.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, they seem to have gone out of their way to detour the opinion of anyone directly connected to the alleged source of the negatives, or who had relevant direct experience handling AA's negatives. That kind of lopsided approach to the question should be enough in itself to make someone suspicious.

[ic-racer]

Everything I’ve read indicates to me that Rick Norsigian is an honest man,

Everything I have read about him on his web site and in news articles indicates he is a crook.

[philip964]

Ahaa! It was Uncle Earl, in the parlor, with the candlestick!

(my earlier blog (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/news/the-norsigian-negatives_2010-07-28-09-28-04) on the matter.)

Nice website.

Negatives have value. Glass negatives from prior to 1930 taken by unknown novices usually sell for 10 to 30 dollars. Better the picture higher the price. Most collectors are looking for images that show the era, not landscapes that could have been taken yesterday. (if your buying something old, you want it to look old)

Dry plate glass negatives were wide spread prior to 1930, so to me it is no big deal the negatives in question are glass negatives.

Back then everybody shot big negatives 4x5 was pretty standard for most negatives as most drug store prints were contact made. So it seems also normal for a semi-pro to shoot 5x7

In the Uncle Earl's photo it appears the tripod is in the exact same spot and height. Today we do that with AA photos, but I doubt people were doing it in 1930. The photos appear to have been taken about 3 to 5 minutes apart, as the clouds are different but the shadows are not.

Maybe AA was sharing the tripod with Uncle Earl.
(that was a joke)

[Heroique]

Everything I have read about him on his web site and in news articles indicates he is a crook.

Let’s be careful to put on our critical hats. ;)

“Irresponsible” would be a more suitable characterization for Rick Norsigian.

In the mean time, it might be wise to defer to Matthew Adams:

“While Matthew Adams is unconvinced [reports CNN], he doesn’t doubt that Norsigian is sincere in his belief that he has Ansel Adams negatives. ‘I think that they do believe it, but I don't think that they have proven it,’ he said. He doesn’t agree, however, with Turnage's charge that it's a ‘con job.’ ”

[Jim Galli]

It would doubtless be a roller coaster of a ride. I don't know anything about Norsigian, but if you found those and spend perhaps your life savings hiring lawyers and experts to arrive at a pre-arranged conclusion and have hopes of worlds of fortunes then it all comes crashing down because of Uncle Earl...........yikes. So it goes with this worlds fortunes. I'm investing in the next.

[J D Clark]

As far as I'm concerned, let's do the thought experiment that assumes the negatives are absolutely, incontrovertably Ansel's negatives. To the best of my knowledge, Ansel never printed any of these negatives, so what makes them different from any of the other tens of thousands of negatives that he didn't print?

For that matter, haven't the Special Edition Prints set the price ($225) for prints of Ansel's negatives printed by someone else?

That said, from what I've read, I don't believe they are authentic Adams negatives, and that's all that I want to say, or read further about this...

John Clark

[Bill_1856]

I wonder if AA took these? Must be worth a pretty penny, er, quid.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/38501032#38501032

[archer]

Dear Heroique;
I agree with you completely and am astounded by the vitriol being spewed by Mr. Turnage. I met Ansel Adams in 1956 and remained friends with him until his death and I can assure you that as important as his photographic legacy was to him, he was also the most generous, kind and gentle man, with the greatest sense of humor and ardent passion for his work and he would be appalled by this uncalled for behavior by someone he admired very much. Merg Ross knew Ansel much longer than I did and I'm sure he would agree with me. While I don't believe these negatives are by Ansel, for many different reasons, I certainly am not willing to convict those who believe otherwise, of being likened to the greatest villain who ever lived. What, in God's name, has become of civility in our country?
Denise Libby

[Brian Ellis]

Well, they seem to have gone out of their way to detour the opinion of anyone directly connected to the alleged source of the negatives, or who had relevant direct experience handling AA's negatives. That kind of lopsided approach to the question should be enough in itself to make someone suspicious.

Exactly. Anyone at all knowledgeable had to be suspicious just from looking at the panel of "experts" - a "burden of proof" expert whatever that is, a former prosecutor, a camera maker and refinisher, etc. Where were the curators, historians, former Adams assistants, someone from the Adams archives at the University of Arizona , Alan Ross who's probably printed more Adams negatives than Adams himself, et al. The obvious answer is that whenever he went to people like that (e.g. the Adams family and Rondel Partridge) he got answers he didn't like. Which is why IMHO he wasn't just an innocent who got carried away with his obsession. That may be how he started but I think he began seeing dollar signs and thereafter became a total fraud.

[Kevin Crisp]

I think it unfair to disparage Patrick Alt as just a woodworker or refinisher. He is an excellent photographer too. He showed me his work when I bought his darkroom sink many years ago. Whether he has the expertise to authenticate unknown negatives is another story. I also don't know what a 'burden of proof expert' is and I've been a civil trial attorney for almost 30 years.

My vote still goes with Uncle Earl. Even if they were Ansel's, and he never printed any of them in his long and productive life, what does that tell you? I know what I think of my negatives I've never bothered to print. The $200M valuation is so ridiculous it is hard to give the authentication project any credibility whatsoever. You can order inexpensive real photographic prints made from real Ansel Adams negatives from the library of congress. Or special edition prints printed by very good printers.

[Merg Ross]

Dear Heroique;
I agree with you completely and am astounded by the vitriol being spewed by Mr. Turnage. I met Ansel Adams in 1956 and remained friends with him until his death and I can assure you that as important as his photographic legacy was to him, he was also the most generous, kind and gentle man, with the greatest sense of humor and ardent passion for his work and he would be appalled by this uncalled for behavior by someone he admired very much. Merg Ross knew Ansel much longer than I did and I'm sure he would agree with me. While I don't believe these negatives are by Ansel, for many different reasons, I certainly am not willing to convict those who believe otherwise, of being likened to the greatest villain who ever lived. What, in God's name, has become of civility in our country?
Denise Libby

Denise,

Yes, I do agree with your remarks about Ansel.

One would have thought, or at least hoped, that with his degree from Yale and study at Oxford, Bill Turnage could have been more eloquent in his speech. Or perhaps, as suggested, defer to Matthew Adams as spokesman for the AA Publishing Rights Trust.

[Andre Noble]

If decent glass negatives that are 80 years old by an advanced amateur go for only about $30, then why are genuine Ansel Adams prints so damn expensive?

One print he made and signed sold for $700,000 (Moonrise?)

Why Ansel's picture worth almost a million and not Uncle Earle's?

[Drew Wiley]

Andre - that $700,000 sale was basically an auction fluke. It was his most famous image, but he made lots of prints of that. But I'd have to reiterate what was just
pointed out a moment ago - if this set of negatives found in Fresno actually was AA's, and even he didn't bother to keep track or them, or basically discarded them, why should they be considered so valuable now? I can think of a lot of photographers I'd rather collect than AA, but to the general public this is the only name they recognize. That's why so many museums advertise AA exhitibions - they need to somehow sell tickets to raise money. He was just one of a string of famous photographers working in Yosemite, and a century from now might end up as obscure to the general public as some of the others are today. But a handful of very famous images just keep turning up over and over again. Let's just say that the AA
"brand" has been much more shrewdly marketed than that of Carleton Watkins, for example (whose work also suffered from fire). Frankly, if I had to keep looking at AA images, I'd like to see some new ones. But now with lawyers involved, that
beating a dead horse image we frequently see on this forum is going to be more
relevant than ever.

[Jim Galli]

If decent glass negatives that are 80 years old by an advanced amateur go for only about $30, then why are genuine Ansel Adams prints so damn expensive?

One print he made and signed sold for $700,000 (Moonrise?)

Why Ansel's picture worth almost a million and not Uncle Earle's?

Silly question and the answer is obvious. Because someone will pay it.

[lenser]

Concerning Bill Turnage's unfortunate choice of figures to cite, he did not in fact compare Mr. Norsigian to the monstrous Adolf Hitler, only the tactics in use to promote these negatives as being made by AA. Those tactics are the same used by just about every politician, promoter, attorney, defender of the gulf clean up situation, and/ or swindler of every ilk in history. Perhaps if he had used Bernie Madhoff to cite instead, the vitriol would not have been as extreme in reaction from the Norsigian camp.

This is most certainly a favorite tactic by any lawyer/promoter with an agenda to sell on behalf of a client, especially when huge money is part of the equation. Please note the source of the CNN response about Turnage and consider the agenda.

Turnage could just as easily have chosen P.T. Barnum, many lawyers, tons of advertising copy writers, most people in political office currently or in the process of running for office right down to a pair of candidates for local prosecutor who are fighting it out with their lies about each other right here in southwest Missouri at this moment. The big lie is an almost universal tactic and it is alive and well in this forum in terms of accusations going both ways.

My personal feeling is that it is not likely that these are Adam's negatives. Since I recognize that this is only a gut feeling, I'm going to watch the dust settle and see how things fall out with the true experts and hope that the outrageous accusations and rhetoric calm down both about, and by all parties while deferring to Shakespeare's wisdom about lawyers.

Now, is there a way to scientifically prove that these plates could be from the same darkroom fire, such as comparing chemical residues of the burned areas of samples from Adam's archive to charred samples from the trove being promoted by Mr. Norsigian? If they match spectrographically, that's a big plus for Mr. N's claim.

How about chemically comparing the wrappings or envelopes on the found batch to those actually in the Adams archive that were unquestionably signed or notated by Ansel or Virginia? What about carbon dating of those same items? DNA residue from either of their skin oil secretions that may still be impregnated in the papers? Fingerprints found on the Norsigian group's wrappings and or envevlopes? Using perfected archival and forensic testing like this seems much more appropriate to finding truth and proof, than through the thus far cited experts, especially those who's expertise relies only on stated opinion such as the hand writing experts.

[AgentX]

I am the entertainment attorney who has been working with a group of experts for the past three years to once and for all prove that over 60 glass negatives purchased at a Fresno garage sale were in fact created by Ansel Adams.

So your expert group set out to prove the negatives were made by Ansel Adams, not to investigate who might have made the negatives...

There's a big difference.

[Paul Ewins]

Andre, the key factor in print prices is supply and demand. The prints that make auction records are usually vintage prints, made at around the same time as the negative. You can buy brand new AA prints for $225 that are every bit as good as older ones that sell for many thousands more. The supply of the new ones is pretty much unlimited, while the supply of old prints is very small. It is a collector thing, not a rational thing.

The problem with the discovered plates (apart from who made them) is that any prints from them aren't "vintage" and never will be. There is no clue as to whether the person who took them even thought them good enough to print from. The "smoking gun" Uncle Earl print is different to the discovered plate, so if the plate was taken by Uncle Earl at the same session then even he chose a different version to print, so the plate wasn't good enough for UE let alone AA. Why would you buy a print from a neg that the photographer thought inferior?

Ten years ago I went to a commercial gallery show of photographs by Norman Lindsay. Lindsay was a famous children's author and an infamous artist (denounced by Bishops and MPs etc) - they made a film about him (Sirens) starring Sam Neill. Anyway the one thing he wasn't famous for was photography. It turns out that at one stage he tried taking photographs for reference rather than using live models or sitting in the landscape. He didn't like the results and gave up pretty quickly. The crappy results were indeed crappy but the gallery had somehow got access to the negs and were selling prints from them at $500 - $1000 based on the name alone.

[Drew Wiley]

For the ludicrous value assigned to the collection, you'd think DNA or fingerprint
evidence would be the first thing they'd look at, not the last. AA's fingerprints did end up on some of his known negatives. Again, rather than going down the obvious
path, they're taking an elliptical one. Why? I wouldn't personally go so far as to use
the term "crooks", but maybe just wishful thinking that already has so much invested that it's hard to back down.

[Richard K.]

CNN tonight repeated the $200,000,000 verification a WEEK after Uncle Earl!! What's with them? And we're suppose to trust them for our news information?!?

[Mark Sawyer]

Nobody's even mentioned the really scary part so far...

"I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far less evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and burden-of-proof expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian to help authenticate the plates.

(from CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html)

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe they should have listed Judge Roy Bean as one of their persuasive experts.

[Photo Explorer]

Went to a lecture last year and listened to A.A.'s son talk of his father's work. Just a great power point presentation. I learned, as some of you already know, A.A. was a grand master in the darkroom. I saw the image of "Moonrise" as a direct print from the original negative without manipulation along side one of the final prints A.A. made from this "bad" negative and it was amazing. Apparently he was rushed because he was losing light and had only a chance to shoot the one neg. What an incredible final image he created from this "poor" negative. He kept records of dodging and burning instructions etc. for each negative he had. My point (finally) being is that isn't it more of a treat to have one of his final images rather than one of his negatives . . . ?

[Merg Ross]

Nobody's even mentioned the really scary part so far...

"I have sent people to prison for the rest of their lives for far less evidence than I have seen in this case," said evidence and burden-of-proof expert Manny Medrano, who was hired by Norsigian to help authenticate the plates.

(from CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/28/ansel.adams.negative.dispute/index.html)

One good thing these days, it is easy to check into exactly who these Ansel Adams experts are. A quick Google returns that Manny Medrano is a former prosecutor and now a news reporter for a Los Angeles station. A "burden of proof" expert indeed.

I'm still sticking with Uncle Earl.

[Richard K.]

A few more details here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1299227/Has-Ansel-Adams-mystery-garage-sale-negatives-solved.html

I've e-mailed the Norsigian people asking them to explain Uncle Earl before I consider buying. No reply yet.

[ic-racer]

I wouldn't personally go so far as to use
the term "crooks"

Well they seem well setup to take people's money using AA's name on the internet site...getting pretty close to "crook" in my book.

[Jerry Bodine]

"Flying pretty low" might also be appropriate. Now we have an opportunity to purchase an "Aerial View of the Yosemite Valley" that shows lots of shrubbery in the foreground. :D

[ic-racer]

A few more details here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1299227/Has-Ansel-Adams-mystery-garage-sale-negatives-solved.html

I've e-mailed the Norsigian people asking them to explain Uncle Earl before I consider buying. No reply yet.

Hey, the caption in the photo for that news item is WRONG. They have the AA and the Uncle Earl prints together. You can see they are quite different.

Here is the correct comparison of the unknown negative vs the Uncle Earl print (lined up in photoshop).
http://www.petapixel.com/2010/07/29/ansel-adams-garage-sale-mystery-apparently-solved/

[ic-racer]

CNN tonight repeated the $200,000,000 verification a WEEK after Uncle Earl!! What's with them? And we're suppose to trust them for our news information?!?

If I were in posession of those negaitves, I'd take them up on that $200,000,000 offer.

What....it wasn't an offer to buy?

Oh, so no one would really pay that much for them? So, I guess that wasn't a very good apprasial. ;)

[cowanw]

Wow, that layover at petapixel is pretty convincing. There might be a MOMA exhibit for Uncle Earle in the future.
Regards
Bill

[Drew Wiley]

If they want to sell cute nostalgic digital prints of these images, I don't see anything
wrong with that. Selling them as AA's own work would appear to be wishful thinking at
best, fraudulent at worst, leaving them open to lawsuit. Stylistically, absolutely no way. This fellow (whether Uncle Earl or someone else) had some talent, but simply didn't look at things the way AA did, despite the generically similar genre. Alt's analysis is the most pitiful, being an LF photographer. At that point in AA's career, there were probably thousands of photographers around who could expose and develop negs just as well as he did, and no doubt some of them showed up at Yosemite each year. These are all parking lot or scenic viewpoint shots, not backcountry themes like one would expect an example or two of, if they really belonged to AA.

[Gary Nylander]

I have been watching these stories about the supposedly lost negatives of Ansel Adams with a great deal of interest. I just can't imagine how negatives printed by someone less can be worth so much money, its a little like finding a long lost half-finished painting by Rembrandt and having someone else complete the painting and charging millions of dollars for the painting.

Here are a couple recent links, one by the New York Times and the other by the Wall Street Journal, I particularly enjoyed the Wall Street Journal article.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html?_r=1&src=sch&pagewanted=all

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704901104575423392180989062.html?mod=rss_Arts_and_Entertainment

[Jon Shiu]

another article:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/14/2041934/doubt-develops-over-fresnans-photo.html

Jon

[ic-racer]

David Streets, the Beverly Hills appraiser and art dealer who pegged their value at up to $200 million, stands to make money by selling prints from the negatives. The New York Times on Friday reported that Streets has a criminal record that includes fraud convictions.

There is a good quote!

They indeed are criminals.

[sanchi heuser]

There is a good quote!

They indeed are criminals.


Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html

I like to point at another point:
What answer have Mr. Norsigian and his fabulous team to the question,
how the negatives found the way to the garage seller?

sanchi

[Richard K.]

Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html

I like to point at another point:
What answer have Mr. Norsigian and his fabulous team to the question,
how the negatives found the way to the garage seller?

sanchi

They're being um...circumspect about it...see their latest press release:

http://ricknorsigian.com/lost_html/pressreleases/81510.html

[sanchi heuser]

They're being um...circumspect about it...see their latest press release:

http://ricknorsigian.com/lost_html/pressreleases/81510.html

Seems as if everybody wants to have a piece from the virtual 200 million cake:eek:
No information in the sense of provenance
Provenance> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance

If that case is closed maybe some more people will understand
that if two photographers make a picture of the same tree or whatever,
there can lie worlds between the resulting negatives not to mention the prints.
And they'll understand that the different values of that negatives/prints are
not just because one of the photographers has a famous name now,
but from the outstanding vision and the constant labour and countless efforts
to realize it.


sanchi

[philip964]

Ansel Adam's trust has filed suit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7168359.html

Not surprising. However, I assume if it goes to trial one way to win would be to prove they were actually Ansel Adam's negatives.

[Michael Kadillak]

Ansel Adam's trust has filed suit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7168359.html

Not surprising. However, I assume if it goes to trial one way to win would be to prove they were actually Ansel Adam's negatives.

The lawyers really get their game on when they feel that the opposition has taken a swift kick in the groin which I feel is the case here.

The "experts" from the Adams trust will request that the court force Norsegian to make the negatives available so that a chemical analysis of the emulsion and the chemicals used to develop the negatives can be properly ascertained. They will also evaluate the film holder marks on the glass plates under magnification to compare these plates to known holders that AA used previously. It is my understanding that plate holders from various makers have a very unique signature that can be identified. The hardest part here will be the protracted period until trial because I cannot fathom a settlement unless the guy that sold him the glass plate negatives tells Norsegian that he knows for a fact that these are Uncle Earls. Up to this point the seller wants some monetary compensation.

What a bag of crap.

[Drew Wiley]

Enjoy this while you can - it's not that often such an entertaining farce arrives in the world of large format. I sure wouldn't want to be in Norsigian's shoes right now.

[Brian C. Miller]

The hardest part here will be the protracted period until trial because I cannot fathom a settlement unless the guy that sold him the glass plate negatives tells Norsegian that he knows for a fact that these are Uncle Earls. Up to this point the seller wants some monetary compensation.

The pre-Norsigian seller can be subpoenaed for his information, but that will happen only if this goes to trial.

The Norsigian team will have to prove that the negatives are definitely from Adams. This means that they (Mr. Norsigian) will have to pay for someone to match the holder marks, and that is going to take a lot of time. I think that Norsigian will fold.

[Michael Kadillak]

The pre-Norsigian seller can be subpoenaed for his information, but that will happen only if this goes to trial.

The Norsigian team will have to prove that the negatives are definitely from Adams. This means that they (Mr. Norsigian) will have to pay for someone to match the holder marks, and that is going to take a lot of time. I think that Norsigian will fold.

If this is about damages for activities that have already occurred as in sold photographs fraudulently represented as AA or a host of reputation legal speak violations then Norsigian can't just fold up the tent and "Go Away". He will be hunted down like a rabid dog and throttled financially to the limits of his earthly possessions. I would be surprised if the AA trust would even let Norsigian publicly state that his acts were completely fraudulent along with a public apology because they want to send a message ethically and legally that the fine reputation that Ansel created over the years is not to be screwed with EVER.

[Mark Sawyer]

Ansel Adam's trust has filed suit.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/top/all/7168359.html

Not surprising. However, I assume if it goes to trial one way to win would be to prove they were actually Ansel Adam's negatives.

I suspect, given the law, that this will all be argued under copywrite law. (Well, actually, I suspect this will never get anyhwere near a trial with actual arguments.) More abouts rights to the Ansel Adams trademark than who's actually right...

If the original photographer's identity was the issue, then the Adams Trust would have to prove by preponderance of the evidence (since this is a civil trial) that it cannot be reasonably believed by a reasonable person that these were Ansel Adams negatives.

Such lawsuits "prove" nothing but who has the deeper pockets and is crazy enough to dig deep enough to bankrupt the other guy first. Who is the ultimate winner? Ansel Adams or Uncle Earl? The Adams Trust or the School Maintenance Department Painter? Nope, none of them. The winner is... the lawyers on both sides.

I love America!

[Brian C. Miller]

Personally I doubt that Norsigian, et al, have sold any prints. A few posters as memorabilia pieces (like Vaughn wanted), sure, but not $1500 or $7500 prints. So no damage there. Norsigian is in a world of hurt, and I don't see any good way out for him.

The AA Trust team isn't going to put more money into this than they can get out of Norsigian. Any "message" they might "send" will be forgotten a couple of months after the final news story comes out. Norsigian will declare bankruptcy to avoid paying the AA Trust anything, and that will be the end of it.

This circus is probably the closest that we are ever going to get to arcrylic Jackson Pollock paintings found stashed in rental lockers. Personally, I've been considering "painting" my Wrangler in Pollock style. At least the hood, it kind of needs it. Maybe I could use Liquid Light on my doors and put something nice there.

[Drew Wiley]

The burden of proof would lie on Norgian, because he was marketing these as having AA provenance. Since the AA trust derives substantial income from both the
original work of AA and from his artistic reputation per se, they have every ground
to sue, and probably also have the financial clout to easily do so. But it would be
surprising if this ever does go to trial, because Norsig has no real evidence on his side to work with, and has probably lost a lot of money on the entire scheme, so
no figure of money the trust cite in order to collect as their own loss. But if this is
the worst that happens to him, he'd be lucky. If the party who first broadcast this two hundred million nonsense is indeed a convicted felon, what's to stop authorities from following this civil suit with an actual criminal indictment for fraud, just to shut down this fellow awhile, in which case Norsig could become an accessory to the crime. Of course this would greatly complicate things, because the burden of proof would now be on the state to show intent. Either way, some turkeys are going to get roasted, and we might get a little more to chatter out of this.

[Paul Ewins]

Seems to be a slam dunk, whoever made them. As I understand it, copyright for older images is applied from the time they were first published. Unless they can provide evidence that these images were published in the past they must be treated according to current copyright laws (Life + 70 I think). They are claiming that these are unpublished AA works, therefore they have to wait another 44 years until the copyright lapses. I don't think they are that patient.

[patrickjames]

It is sad that Norsigian is going to bear the brunt of this, but the only conclusion I can see is that he just plain old got greedy, probably at the behest of the lawyers involved. Norsigian will end up bankrupt, the lawyers will get theirs no matter what (maybe that is why they took this on in the first place even though the IP rights on this are VERY clear, and any competent lawyer should know that). Norsigian could have sold the negatives and lived comfortably off of the proceeds. Now he is pretty much screwed. He only has himself to blame though.

[cowanw]

Since the negatives are used to create a print are these not then derivative images.
See
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/arts/design/06prin.html?_r=2&ref=arts&oref=slogin
Seems to me if you can take a photo of a photo and claim it is your original art, then the production of a print from a negative can be also so claimed; Norsigian has never claimed the prints were by Adams.
Regards
Bill

[Drew Wiley]

Patrick - sell the negatives? To who? Maybe all this controversy has increased their
value a little, but basically, all they're really worth at this point is forty bucks! He can't sell them as AA negs because he'd be right back into the tar pits for fraud. And
these things don't have any real artistic value. It's not like someone discovered an unknown master. The whole scam only works if someone naively believes these images were made by AA and that a modern digital print has collector value.

[Merg Ross]

Patrick - sell the negatives? To who? Maybe all this controversy has increased their
value a little, but basically, all they're really worth at this point is forty bucks! He can't sell them as AA negs because he'd be right back into the tar pits for fraud. And
these things don't have any real artistic value. It's not like someone discovered an unknown master. The whole scam only works if someone naively believes these images were made by AA and that a modern digital print has collector value.

Yep, that pretty well sums it up as things now stand.

[Brian Ellis]

It is sad that Norsigian is going to bear the brunt of this, but the only conclusion I can see is that he just plain old got greedy, probably at the behest of the lawyers involved. Norsigian will end up bankrupt, the lawyers will get theirs no matter what (maybe that is why they took this on in the first place even though the IP rights on this are VERY clear, and any competent lawyer should know that). Norsigian could have sold the negatives and lived comfortably off of the proceeds. Now he is pretty much screwed. He only has himself to blame though.

Yeah, I'm sure there are some lawyers who go from door to door asking people if they happen to have any photographs that might have been made by Ansel Adams. And then when they find someone they encourage that person to start selling prints as photographs by Adams, knowing that the person will get sued by the Trust and then the lawyers will make money off the suit.

Norsegian himself actually had nothing to do with promoting the photographs as Adams' work, it's the lawyers who are manipulating him so that they can make a lot of money from the trial. If left to his own devices Norsegian wouldn't have had any idea that the plates might have been made by Adams and never would have done anything with them. It's the lawyers who put him up to it all.

But one question - if Norsegian only has himself to blame, why are you sad that he has to "bear the brunt of this?" And if he doesn't want to "bear the brunt of this" couldn't he just stop selling anything made from his plates? Or are the lawyers holding him under lock and key to make sure he can't stop it?

[ic-racer]

Norsigian could have sold the negatives and lived comfortably off of the proceeds.

Live comfortably off of $45?

[IanG]

Well after 80+ years Earl Brooks work is going to be exhibited alongside the work of Ansel Adams and his assistants in November, So The Norsigian "Uncle Earl" negatives will have increased in value.

Who knows his $45 investment may be worth $450 or even $4,500 in the future :D

Ian

[patrickjames]

IF he can get someone to authenticate the negs, they have value far beyond the money he paid for them. It is within his right to sell them as Ansel Adam's negs just as it is your right to resell a print by Ansel that you own. There is a market for the negs. I forget where I have read it at this point, but another photographer's negs sold for a princely sum not too long ago. In the secondary market, how many Adams' negs are out there for sale? How about none. So these negs that we are talking about are RARE. All of Adams' negs are at CCP in Tuscon and will never be sold. To an Adams collecter it is a rare opportunity, even though we know that it is the print that is important, the negs have a real value. How much have Ansel's cameras sold at auction over the years? Artistic value and market value are two different beasts. Don't get them confused. Don't be a righteous purist to art. It is a business, nothing more.

The problem with a lot of these discussions is that people just don't have a grasp of IP rights, so a lot of half baked, half assed opinions get involved based on moral judgments or old ideas. There is no "the way it should be" with the law, there is only the way it is. The Ansel Adams Trust has a trademark on his name. That means that no one besides the trust can profit from it. Even if these negs we are talking about are Ansel's, Norsigian has no right to use Ansel's name to produce any products beyond what he owns. That means he can not profit from the sale of prints from the negs in Adam's name, because he does not have the right to do that. The right to do that is owned by the Adam's trust. To put this plainly, do I have the right to photocopy the front of a Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, because I bought it at the supermarket, and put the photocopy on my own box of cereal and sell thousands? Of course I don't. I do have the right to resell the box of cereal though. There is no difference between these two scenarios.

The reason why I say that it is sad for Norsigian, is that it seems to me that he was sucked into the current scenario by the other people involved, even though ultimately he will bear the brunt. I seriously doubt anyone involved will share the liability of "his" actions. Lawyers aren't that stupid. I don't trust lawyers farther than I can throw them, but unfortunately not everyone has that opinion. It seems to me that Norsigian believed the $$ signs that were put before him, even though the responsibility is his to bear, regardless of whether he understands what is going on legally. It is possible for this to turn out ok for him though. If the Adams Trust can make money off of the scenario, they probably will go with it. Who knows how it will turn out.

Apparently there will be a documentary about all of this released this fall, so we will be able to see a little more behind the scenes. Albeit, the documentary will probably be one sided from what I have read.

[Michael Kadillak]

IF

The reason why I say that it is sad for Norsigian, is that it seems to me that he was sucked into the current scenario by the other people involved, even though ultimately he will bear the brunt. I seriously doubt anyone involved will share the liability of "his" actions. Lawyers aren't that stupid. I don't trust lawyers farther than I can throw them, but unfortunately not everyone has that opinion. It seems to me that Norsigian believed the $$ signs that were put before him, even though the responsibility is his to bear, regardless of whether he understands what is going on legally. It is possible for this to turn out ok for him though. If the Adams Trust can make money off of the scenario, they probably will go with it. Who knows how it will turn out.

What??

From what I have read Norsigian was the puppet master here orchestrating his selected band of experts for the shot at the big bucks. When he did not get the answer he wanted he offered a percentage of the proceeds for the "right" interpretation. That is where several ethical folks got off the train.

This is in direct conflict with your comments above laying the blame of this issue on the lawyers. Not so.

Norsigian is getting precisely the antithesis of what he sought in his pursuit of a financial windfall without thinking of the consequences. Every step of his journey was a series of egregious missteps over a period of ten + years that simply spelled greed.

This is not a very pretty chapter in the world of photography. But it will be a harsh judgement and it will be forgotten very quickly.

[Merg Ross]

IF he can get someone to authenticate the negs, they have value far beyond the money he paid for them. It is within his right to sell them as Ansel Adam's negs just as it is your right to resell a print by Ansel that you own. There is a market for the negs. I forget where I have read it at this point, but another photographer's negs sold for a princely sum not too long ago. In the secondary market, how many Adams' negs are out there for sale? How about none. So these negs that we are talking about are RARE. All of Adams' negs are at CCP in Tuscon and will never be sold. To an Adams collecter it is a rare opportunity, even though we know that it is the print that is important, the negs have a real value. How much have Ansel's cameras sold at auction over the years? Artistic value and market value are two different beasts. Don't get them confused. Don't be a righteous purist to art. It is a business, nothing more.

The problem with a lot of these discussions is that people just don't have a grasp of IP rights, so a lot of half baked, half assed opinions get involved based on moral judgments or old ideas. There is no "the way it should be" with the law, there is only the way it is. The Ansel Adams Trust has a trademark on his name. That means that no one besides the trust can profit from it. Even if these negs we are talking about are Ansel's, Norsigian has no right to use Ansel's name to produce any products beyond what he owns. That means he can not profit from the sale of prints from the negs in Adam's name, because he does not have the right to do that. The right to do that is owned by the Adam's trust. To put this plainly, do I have the right to photocopy the front of a Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, because I bought it at the supermarket, and put the photocopy on my own box of cereal and sell thousands? Of course I don't. I do have the right to resell the box of cereal though. There is no difference between these two scenarios.

The reason why I say that it is sad for Norsigian, is that it seems to me that he was sucked into the current scenario by the other people involved, even though ultimately he will bear the brunt. I seriously doubt anyone involved will share the liability of "his" actions. Lawyers aren't that stupid. I don't trust lawyers farther than I can throw them, but unfortunately not everyone has that opinion. It seems to me that Norsigian believed the $$ signs that were put before him, even though the responsibility is his to bear, regardless of whether he understands what is going on legally. It is possible for this to turn out ok for him though. If the Adams Trust can make money off of the scenario, they probably will go with it. Who knows how it will turn out.

Apparently there will be a documentary about all of this released this fall, so we will be able to see a little more behind the scenes. Albeit, the documentary will probably be one sided from what I have read.

The reason that this topic is still under discussion, is because the plates have not been authenticated. Hence, they are of little value.

After ten years of opportunity, the owner has not made an honest effort to do so. In an attempt to hoodwink an unsuspecting public, he has traveled the road in search of a desired result. The detours have been many, most notably avoiding all of the real experts who had enlightened him to the truth along the way. I do not know the man, so will not comment on his character. However, I can say, that in an effort to support his dream he seems to have amassed a cast of unsavory characters.

[David Karp]

Yeah, I'm sure there are some lawyers who go from door to door asking people if they happen to have any photographs that might have been made by Ansel Adams. And then when they find someone they encourage that person to start selling prints as photographs by Adams, knowing that the person will get sued by the Trust and then the lawyers will make money off the suit.

Norsegian himself actually had nothing to do with promoting the photographs as Adams' work, it's the lawyers who are manipulating him so that they can make a lot of money from the trial. If left to his own devices Norsegian wouldn't have had any idea that the plates might have been made by Adams and never would have done anything with them. It's the lawyers who put him up to it all.

But one question - if Norsegian only has himself to blame, why are you sad that he has to "bear the brunt of this?" And if he doesn't want to "bear the brunt of this" couldn't he just stop selling anything made from his plates? Or are the lawyers holding him under lock and key to make sure he can't stop it?

Oh yes. It is amazing. All of the lawyers who force their clients to do things that they would otherwise have had no intention of doing! Everyone loses their ability to think or do for themselves, and then their lawyers force them do the wrong thing.

Sure, Norsigian must have said to his lawyer: "Please help me determine the true provenance of these glass plates that I might wrongly suspect are Ansel Adams's plates. Help me find the truth." No way he hired a lawyer for the purpose of proving what he wanted to prove, that the plates were AA's. No way. It had to have been the lawyer who forced the issue. :rolleyes:

Good for you Brian, but I don't think there is any profit in arguing against people with that viewpoint. You won't get anywhere.

[patrickjames]

What??

From what I have read Norsigian was the puppet master here orchestrating his selected band of experts for the shot at the big bucks. When he did not get the answer he wanted he offered a percentage of the proceeds for the "right" interpretation. That is where several ethical folks got off the train.

This is in direct conflict with your comments above laying the blame of this issue on the lawyers. Not so.

Norsigian is getting precisely the antithesis of what he sought in his pursuit of a financial windfall without thinking of the consequences. Every step of his journey was a series of egregious missteps over a period of ten + years that simply spelled greed.

This is not a very pretty chapter in the world of photography. But it will be a harsh judgement and it will be forgotten very quickly.


I have to say Michael, that reading quickly back over some of the posts of A.D. Coleman (http://nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/), which is the most complete source I have run across so far, perhaps I was mistaken that Norsigian was hoodwinked by the lawyers. I was mistaken that the lawyer for him contacted Mary Alinder, when in fact it was him. Regardless of that, the lawyer and dealer for Norsigian are at the forefront now. All of the statements and the "spin" come from the lawyer and the dealer. At the least, they are enabling this bizarre state of events to continue and they are the only ones who know why they are doing what they are.

I agree with you that he is getting the opposite of what he is seeking due to greed, and I think this is evident in my statement above. Regardless of his journey of ten years, none of this controversy had come to a head until others became involved, and I doubt anything ever would have come of it otherwise. The experts all put him at arms length when he approached them, that should tell you something right there. I believe I read that the attorney for him is in fact the one that put together the "expert" panel, and I believe he said that himself. Regardless of all of this, if you went to an attorney with this case, and he had even a basic understanding of IP rights, why would he agree to help you when the facts are so clear? Any answer to that question other than "he wouldn't" will be a convoluted one in which I do not want to participate.

I don't know if I agree with you that this will not be a pretty chapter. Like everything of this nature that happens, it brings attention and that brings moolah. As they say in LaLa land, there is no such thing as bad publicity.

I am pretty dispassionate about all of this because it doesn't matter to me what happens one way or another. I have little doubt that the Adams Trust will win in the end though.

[patrickjames]

The reason that this topic is still under discussion, is because the plates have not been authenticated. Hence, they are of little value.

After ten years of opportunity, the owner has not made an honest effort to do so. In an attempt to hoodwink an unsuspecting public, he has traveled the road in search of a desired result. The detours have been many, most notably avoiding all of the real experts who had enlightened him to the truth along the way. I do not know the man, so will not comment on his character. However, I can say, that in an effort to support his dream he seems to have amassed a cast of unsavory characters.


I agree with you 100%, that is why I started my statement with a capital IF!

[Merg Ross]

I agree with you 100%, that is why I started my statement with a capital IF!

Patrick, thanks. I caught the capital "IF"!

Where can I learn more about the proposed documentary?

Thanks,
Merg

[patrickjames]

A.D. Coleman talks about it on his blog. The lawyer, Peter, asked him to be in it, with "compensation" of course, and he refused.

http://nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/

[Richard K.]

A.D. Coleman talks about it on his blog. The lawyer, Peter, asked him to be in it, with "compensation" of course, and he refused.

http://nearbycafe.com/artandphoto/photocritic/

SLOW loading, but VERY interesting!!

[Richard K.]

I guess I have to agree with Eddie to the extent that there's too many threads on the Norsigian topic. Maybe those of us that have an interest confine our finds and comments to this thread?

[Kerik Kouklis]

Isn't it the moderators' job to police the forums and not those who are here to peddle their wares?

[Brian Ellis]

IF he can get someone to authenticate the negs, they have value far beyond the money he paid for them. It is within his right to sell them as Ansel Adam's negs just as it is your right to resell a print by Ansel that you own. There is a market for the negs. I forget where I have read it at this point, but another photographer's negs sold for a princely sum not too long ago. In the secondary market, how many Adams' negs are out there for sale? How about none. So these negs that we are talking about are RARE. All of Adams' negs are at CCP in Tuscon and will never be sold. To an Adams collecter it is a rare opportunity, even though we know that it is the print that is important, the negs have a real value. How much have Ansel's cameras sold at auction over the years? Artistic value and market value are two different beasts. Don't get them confused. Don't be a righteous purist to art. It is a business, nothing more.

The problem with a lot of these discussions is that people just don't have a grasp of IP rights, so a lot of half baked, half assed opinions get involved based on moral judgments or old ideas. There is no "the way it should be" with the law, there is only the way it is. The Ansel Adams Trust has a trademark on his name. That means that no one besides the trust can profit from it. Even if these negs we are talking about are Ansel's, Norsigian has no right to use Ansel's name to produce any products beyond what he owns. That means he can not profit from the sale of prints from the negs in Adam's name, because he does not have the right to do that. The right to do that is owned by the Adam's trust. To put this plainly, do I have the right to photocopy the front of a Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, because I bought it at the supermarket, and put the photocopy on my own box of cereal and sell thousands? Of course I don't. I do have the right to resell the box of cereal though. There is no difference between these two scenarios.

The reason why I say that it is sad for Norsigian, is that it seems to me that he was sucked into the current scenario by the other people involved, even though ultimately he will bear the brunt. I seriously doubt anyone involved will share the liability of "his" actions. Lawyers aren't that stupid. I don't trust lawyers farther than I can throw them, but unfortunately not everyone has that opinion. It seems to me that Norsigian believed the $$ signs that were put before him, even though the responsibility is his to bear, regardless of whether he understands what is going on legally. It is possible for this to turn out ok for him though. If the Adams Trust can make money off of the scenario, they probably will go with it. Who knows how it will turn out.

Apparently there will be a documentary about all of this released this fall, so we will be able to see a little more behind the scenes. Albeit, the documentary will probably be one sided from what I have read.

What's the basis for your opinion that Norsegian got "sucked into this scenario by other people" or that he "believed the dollar signs that were put before him?" While I haven't seen a detailed time-line of exactly when he did what, from what I've read it looks like he came up with the idea that he might have Adams' plates on his own and then proceeded from there. I could be wrong but I've certainly seen nothing to indicate that he was sucked into anything by people who dangled dollar signs in front of him. So what have you seen that leads you to this conclusion.

[Drew Wiley]

I've known any number of lawyers who were idiots, and a few went to jail for it, or were disbarred. Greed sometimes gets the best of their judgment too. If one were legit in this case, why would he allow Norsig to go down such an obviously risky path?
The sad thing is that money can be made just over all the hype, if one of the characters manages to land a prime-time TV interview, for example. And they may well need the cash if they don't throw up the white flag quickly. There are any number
of ways the AA trust could skin them, including copyright, but it wouldn't surprise me
if it was a whole barrage of things, just to make sure the job gets done. We'll see.

[Michael_4514]

Yeah, I'm sure there are some lawyers who go from door to door asking people if they happen to have any photographs that might have been made by Ansel Adams. And then when they find someone they encourage that person to start selling prints as photographs by Adams, knowing that the person will get sued by the Trust and then the lawyers will make money off the suit.

Norsegian himself actually had nothing to do with promoting the photographs as Adams' work, it's the lawyers who are manipulating him so that they can make a lot of money from the trial. If left to his own devices Norsegian wouldn't have had any idea that the plates might have been made by Adams and never would have done anything with them. It's the lawyers who put him up to it all.

But one question - if Norsegian only has himself to blame, why are you sad that he has to "bear the brunt of this?" And if he doesn't want to "bear the brunt of this" couldn't he just stop selling anything made from his plates? Or are the lawyers holding him under lock and key to make sure he can't stop it?

Quite right Brian. When I was in law school, there was a special course in going door to door to stir up litigation. As you know, lawyers have a monopoly on greed, and I can't tell you how hard it is to get a client to bring a lawsuit for anything or accept a large settlement. Little known fact: Bernie Madoff was slicing pastrami in a neighborhood deli until he was discovered by the legal brotherhood. He's one of our greatest achievements.

My own theory is that Ansel Adams led a double life, and "uncle Ernie" was in fact ol' Ansel himself. I haven't quite figured out how the lawyers were involved in that twist, but I have no doubt that they were.

[Drew Wiley]

The Coleman link was vaguely interesting but hardly unbiassed in its own way, and just
more media spin as far as I'm concerned. None of these guys has outright interviewed
AA's living assistants with first-person knowledge of these things. Nor has forensics
even gotten to first base. From what has been said, no one has even looked for fingerprints on these plates, or on the emulsions. AA did leave fingerprints at times,
even on famous images, which required print retouching! All of this still makes me
convinced the Norsig team knows they are trying to hoodwink folks and simply don't
want to allow a real investigation of the negs to go forward, lest they learn the truth
they probably already know and dread.

[Brian Ellis]

I've known any number of lawyers who were idiots, and a few went to jail for it, or were disbarred. Greed sometimes gets the best of their judgment too. If one were legit in this case, why would he allow Norsig to go down such an obviously risky path?
The sad thing is that money can be made just over all the hype, if one of the characters manages to land a prime-time TV interview, for example. And they may well need the cash if they don't throw up the white flag quickly. There are any number
of ways the AA trust could skin them, including copyright, but it wouldn't surprise me
if it was a whole barrage of things, just to make sure the job gets done. We'll see.

"If [the lawyer] were legit in this case, why would he allow Norsig(sic) to go down such an obviously risky path?"

I don't know exactly what you mean. Is Norsigian a little kid who just does whatever his lawyer tells him to do? He can't make any decisions on his own, he just blindly does what others tell him to do? I seldom encountered a client that malleable. In my experience clients made their own decisions after I provided them with the pros and cons of the available alternatives. Perhaps Norsigian is different. Maybe he really is just letting his lawyer lead him around by the nose. But I seriously doubt it.

And if by "an obviously risky path" you mean the path of trying to prove that these plates are Adams' work, how do we know what role, if any, his lawyer played in that decision? Couldn't Norsigian have made that decision himself? Or perhaps made it with the advice of the gallery owner? Or of someone else? Or of any number of different people?

I have no doubt that you've met some lawyers who were idiots. Considering the number of lawyers in the United States it would be amazing if some weren't idiots. Of course there are idiots in many other walks of life too. For example, I've met some photographers who were idiots. Some even went to jail (e.g. the Shutterbug guy whose name escapes me). So what?

[tgtaylor]

IF he can get someone to authenticate the negs, they have value far beyond the money he paid for them. It is within his right to sell them as Ansel Adam's negs just as it is your right to resell a print by Ansel that you own. .. To an Adams collecter it is a rare opportunity, even though we know that it is the print that is important, the negs have a real value...

The Ansel Adams Trust has a trademark on his name. That means that no one besides the trust can profit from it. Even if these negs we are talking about are Ansel's, Norsigian has no right to use Ansel's name to produce any products beyond what he owns. That means he can not profit from the sale of prints from the negs in Adam's name, because he does not have the right to do that. The right to do that is owned by the Adam's trust. To put this plainly, do I have the right to photocopy the front of a Kellogg's Corn Flakes box, because I bought it at the supermarket, and put the photocopy on my own box of cereal and sell thousands? Of course I don't. I do have the right to resell the box of cereal though. There is no difference between these two scenarios.

Playing Norsigian's counsel I'd point out that, unlike the Corn Flakes Box senario, the sole purpose of a negative is to make a print from it and that Norsigian is not representing that Ansel made, or is making, the prints from those negatives and clearly sets out in the advertising that the actual prints are being made by another photographer/printer.

[cowanw]

Playing Norsigian's counsel I'd point out that, unlike the Corn Flakes Box senario, the sole purpose of a negative is to make a print from it and that Norsigian is not representing that Ansel made, or is making, the prints from those negatives and clearly sets out in the advertising that the actual prints are being made by another photographer/printer.

This is what I was trying to say in post 159 in that it is derivative work and THAT has been clearly permitted in the past.
Regards
Bill

[ic-racer]

I think the title of this thread should be changed. The only relationship between the glass negatives under discussion and Ansel Adams is the potiential for litigation. Otherwise Ansel Adams has nothing to do with those glass plates.

[Brian C. Miller]

Right, "Ansel Adams photos (not) found at garage sale"

[David Karp]

I think the title of this thread should be changed. The only relationship between the glass negatives under discussion and Ansel Adams is the potiential for litigation. Otherwise Ansel Adams has nothing to do with those glass plates.

Actually, I think that this thread was originally entitled "Interesting Article in LA Times." I think that it was edited after I started it. You can see the original title on the posts right after the first post.

[QT Luong]

David is correct. As I merged several threads related to this subject into this one, it inherited the "Ansel Adams Photos found at garage sale" wording from one of the merged threads. I've just changed it (slightly) for accuracy.

[tgtaylor]

Playing Norsigian's counsel I'd point out that, unlike the Corn Flakes Box senario, the sole purpose of a negative is to make a print from it and that Norsigian is not representing that Ansel made, or is making, the prints from those negatives and clearly sets out in the advertising that the actual prints are being made by another photographer/printer.

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

[Sirius Glass]

It does not even matter whether or not Ansel Adams took the photographs. All the foundation has to do is stop any of the photographs from being sold. The game is already over.

Steve

[tgtaylor]

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

Looks like the plaintiff doesn't have a defense on this forum.

WHEREFORE defendant files the above as Affirmative Defense and moves the court for a Summary Judgement on the pleadings herein.

[Alan Curtis]

Has anyone seen a print produced from any of the negatives? I can't believe that any print made from a 80+year old glass negative stored in a box in the garage isn't going to have a world of blemishes, that the best retoucher in the world could fix.
By the way you can buy a very nice print of one of AA negatives (printed by Alan Ross) for about $200 from AA galleries in Yosemite.

[Scott Davis]

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

If they are NOT Ansel's, then using his name in conjunction with the plates is not only trademark infringement, it is also fraud. Regardless, what Norsigian owns is the physical object, NOT the intellectual property therein. He does not have the copyright, nor does he have a legally executed transfer of copyright document. I would think that it would be up to Norsigian to prove his assertion, and that the Adams Trust assertion to the contrary would be fairly compelling. Were I on the jury that might hear this case, I'd want evidence as compelling as a paternity test before I'd allow that these were indeed Adams' negatives, and from what I've seen of the evidence and counter-evidence presented so far, nothing compels me to conclude these were indeed Ansel Adams' work.

[Sirius Glass]

Again, playing the role of Norsigian's defense counsel, I'd further point out that the best that could be said about the negatives, assuming that they are in fact Ansel's, is that they were abandoned by him 80 or more years ago!

Now that's what I call a coup de grace.

How could it be proved that it was abandoned and not just lost? To prove that, they would have to prove the intent to abandon.

So legally it is coup de crappé.

Steve

[Drew Wiley]

Maybe this will evaporate as Norsigian finds himself printing more disclaimers than
actual prints. Somone should frame one of these.

[philip964]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

[Don7x17]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/lost_reports/WSJ_Statement.pdf

[David Karp]

I read in the paper today, but I can't find the story on line that one of the experts has said he made a mistake and that the true photographer appears to be Uncle Earl Brooks.

Here is an article on the subject from the Los Angeles Times: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/09/ansel-adams-photography-norsigian.html

[Eric Woodbury]

I like the LA Times, but I have found their reporting of this slow and shallow.

[John T]

But the Times "broke" the original story back in 2007 (I think)

[Mike Anderson]

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/lost_reports/WSJ_Statement.pdf

Why the heck does someone try to communicate by posting on their website a PDF file which is basically a bitmap image of textual statement? Is this obfuscation intentional, or Norsigian's media/communications person quit too?

Anyway, allow me to quote a bitmap image:

http://www.handcraftedweb.com/junk/norsigain-statement.jpg

So Ms. Walton doesn't have proof her Uncle Earl took those photos (because she doesn't have the negative), so it's possible AA did take the picture possessed by Ms. Walton, and either Uncle Earl lied about it or Ms. Walton is lying about now. And apparently there are more missing negatives out there.

...Mike

[Drew Wiley]

Now that all this is approaching rigormortis, Mr Norsigian should look at the bright
side: he won't have to fuss with this much longer, and will finally have time to kick
back in front of the TV and watch some re-runs of "The Price is Right" and "My Name is Earl".

[AgentX]

Schadenfreude, thy name is LFF.

[philip964]

I know that this may be old news, but I wondered how this all ended. This was the largest thread on this subject, but it did not have the conclusion, so I will post it here in case anyone else looks.

The two parties have reached a confidential settlement.

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/html/pressreleases/03142011.html

[Jim Ewins]

This may be important to those who collect big names and certainly Adams produced some lovely monochromes. Today there are exhibited international many truly inspiring and technically beautiful prints that rival anything Adams did.

“Photography like any other medium used for individual expression is dependent upon emotion. It is emotion in the first instance, which acts as a driving force in our perception of a suitable subject, and the success of our presentation depends entirely on the capacity of our photograph to rouse a similar emotion when viewed by an observer.”
Daisy Wu, Hong Kong 1958

[ic-racer]

Shouldn't they be called the "Found Negatives?" If they are "Lost" how can we see them?

[Brian Ellis]

Shouldn't they be called the "Found Negatives?" If they are "Lost" how can we see them?

If you use the zone system you'll be able to see them.

[Bruce Watson]

I know that this may be old news, but I wondered how this all ended. This was the largest thread on this subject, but it did not have the conclusion, so I will post it here in case anyone else looks.

The two parties have reached a confidential settlement.

http://www.ricknorsigian.com/html/pressreleases/03142011.html

A clear win for the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust. And so ends yet another tempest in a tea pot.

[ic-racer]

And so ends yet another tempest in a tea pot.

Yes, it looks like they are "Lost" and "Soon Forgotten" also...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/Trend.jpg

[SamReeves]

Back into somebody else's garage. :D