[Leica] Ansel Adams Has Gone West

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	George Huczek [SMTP:ghuczek@sk.sympatico.ca]
> Sent:	Wednesday, January 20, 1999 6:02 PM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	[Leica] RE:  Ansel Adams, Yosemite NP, and Moonscapes
> 
> At 08:05 AM 20/01/99 -0500, Jeffrey wrote:
> >I may be missing something here, but who cares and why does it matter?
> Is
> >there some speculation that he "faked" it? 
> 
> Jeffrey:
>    You are missing something here.  Photo history is important to some.
> It
> matters in the same way as it matters when a painter produced a particular
> painting.  To some, there is a need to know these things.
> 
	Granted.  I don't know much about the study of art history, do
people actually spend time and effort trying to figure out exactly where in
Giverney and at what hour, o.k., hours, Monet painted the water lilies?  Do
they want to know exactly which Sunday in the Park with George (Seurat)?
Strikes me as crazy but, hey, that's me.

>    Someone else posted that "Adams had not been forthcoming with the date
> and time."  Well, not exactly...
> The issue is not whether or not he faked it, but _when_ it was made.  I
> think Beaumont Newhall had to correct Adams on several occasions about the
> first date of publication of some of his images.  For more on this, see
> "Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs" by Adams.  
>    Adams states, "Because of the unfortunate disregard for the dates of my
> negatives I have caused considerable dismay among photographic historians,
> students, and museums -- to say nothing of the trouble it has caused me.
> 
	Adams is, alas, no longer with us.  I just don't see why the woes
should haunt us to this day.

> _Moonrise_ is a prime example ... It has been listed as 1940, 1941 ... At
> the suggestion of Beaumont Newhall, Dr. David Elmore of the High Altitude
> Observatory at Boulder, Colorado, put a computer to work on the problem.
> Using data from a visit to the site, analysis of the moon's position in
> the
> photograph, and lunar azimuth tables, he determined that the exposure was
> made at approximately 4:05 P.M. on October 31, 1941." (p.43, Examples)
> 
	APPROXIMATELY  4:05 p.m. on October 31, 1941!?!?!?!

>    Whoever posted this first query mentioned an article appearing recently
> in a newspaper or magazine regarding this.  If so, it may be a
> re-examination of Elmore's analysis, but the first actual dating took
> place
> many years ago, and the issue has probably been settled to (almost)
> everyone's satisfaction.
> 
	Thank God!

		Buzz