"Ansel Adams" plates found at garage sale

[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)

Attachment 3253

after (final print)

Attachment 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!

Mike