RE: [Leica] Ansel Adams, Yosemite NP, and Moonscapes

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

I'm sorry, in that case my original question still obtains, "Who cares and
why does it matter?"

	Buzz

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Khoffberg [SMTP:khoffberg@email.msn.com]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 20, 1999 11:13 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	RE: [Leica] Ansel Adams, Yosemite NP, and Moonscapes
> 
> I believe it goes something like this:
> 
> Ansel, while legendary for his scrupulous notes on the actual images
> themselves, was notoriously sloppy about taking down information like when
> he actually took the picture.  If you've read about Ansel, you know he
> tended to go back to places many times so confusion was inevitable.  You
> also know that we wracked up an amazing number of miles during his epic
> years during and after the war.  Shortly after Moonrise was made he
> accepted
> a project from the Department of the Interior to shoot the national parks.
> In one year alone he drove 75,000 miles so a bit of forgetfulness is
> understandable.
> 
> If there is a controversy over that picture it stems from the fact that
> during that time he was on a per diem from the DOI and thus any images he
> made while on their clock belonged to them.  For many years after he came
> up
> with all manner of reasons why he should keep possession of the negatives.
> Makes sense if you think about the care he took and the lack of care some
> civil service grade 9 would take.
> 
> Whenever Ansel was on assignment, he always made a point of taking time to
> shoot for himself.  During the time he was shooting for the DOI he
> actually
> charged very few days to them.  But out of all this arises the
> controversy.
> Is it possible that the image belongs to the DOI because it was shot on
> their per diem?  Ansel always maintained no because it was shot on his own
> time with his film.  Is that what really happened?  No one will know.
> 
> In later years two different science types went to great lengths and
> considerable processing time to calculate when the picture was shot
> working
> backwards from the data that can be gleaned from the print itself.  Fans
> of
> Ansel's will know that the science types were already in trouble given the
> amount of dodging, burning, and general monkeying around Ansel had to do
> to
> make an acceptable print from that plate.  With every passing year he
> printed it differently anyway.  The second guy who did the analysis came
> up
> with a different time and date than the first (duh!) because of he
> accounted
> for Ansel's jimmy janging in his calcs.
> 
> Now you know.
> Kevin Hoffberg
>