Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/01/21
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Part of the question was who owned the photograph....was Adams actually working for the DOI when the photo was shot? If so, was a level of uncertainty an asset to Adams? If I ever did ANYTHING of value (doubtful! :) !) I sure as HELL wouldn't advertise the fact that I did it on someone else's "CLOCK" -- no, siree, I did it on vacation on my OWN shit......I OWN it!!! -- It is doubtful that even Adams (a much more reliable businessman than ANY of his peers) could have know the future value of a negative at the time of exposure.... but if he did, it would have been VERY wise to keep that time/date vague, IF he was on contract to the DOI at the time. INTERESTING!! WAlt y On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 09:15:42 -0500 Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org> wrote:Pa > > > > -----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 > > > >