Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2010/07/31

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] AA or Uncle Earl?
From: richard at (Richard Man)
Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:38:21 -0700
References: <>

Hi Frank, here's the excerpt in question, copyright by John Sexton etc.,
reproduce without permission (sorry):


First of all I want to state that I have NOT seen any of the glass plates in
question, nor have I seen any actual prints made from those negatives. I
have however seen reproductions of many of the images since the first round
of media coverage quite some time ago. I have looked at the statements
claiming to verify that these negatives were indeed made by Ansel, but
personally can find no ?proof? to indicate that such is the case.

I do believe these images were made by a talented and competent photographer
who, like many photographers then and now, was drawn to photograph places of
great beauty like Yosemite. A friend or acquaintance of Ansel might even
have made these images.


Looks to be the opinion is more than "possible they were not." :-)

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:22 PM, <red735i at> wrote:

> Richard, I have read the Sexton commentary..... he does not say thet were
> NOT made by AA, just that it is possible they were not.  BTW, for those not
> on John's newsletter, he has stated that he has not inspected any of the
> negs.
> He makes one very important argument... the plate holders markings ( or
> shadows, if you will) would be unique to each and every plate holder, and
> "embedded" in each plate.  An examination of known negatives of AA and 
> these
> of question, by someone who knows about such things, would say if they were
> exposed by known AA plate holders.
> But, even if they were, there is no known way to proove that AA did
> actually expose the negs..... and never will be.
> But, if you want to own a "Earl or AA" print (or is that "AA or Earl"
> print?) , $7500 will get you one....and if it were an authentic AA neg, it
> would probably be worth it, and if you actually like the image, it
> definitely be worth it......and a digital print at $1000 or 1500 is 
> certinly
> worth while......
> Frank
> BTW, as far as I know, these are the only negs attributed ( by anyone)to AA
>  that exist outside the Trust.....or the Center where his negs now
> reside......
> >
> >John Sexton, who was assistant to Ansel Adams, just sent out a newsletter
> >disputing the validity. From the sound of it, it looks like he wrote that
> >before the Uncle Earl revelation. His biggest argument? Adams would have
> >made prints, but none exists for these 65 plates, which is
> uncharacteristic
> >of Adams.
> >
> >I think Case Closed. I wonder if "Taken By Uncle Earl" will become a new
> >photography lexicon.
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See for more information

// richard <>
// icc blog: <>
// photo blog: <>
[ For technical support on ImageCraft products, please include all previous
replies in your msgs. ]

Replies: Reply from kcarney1 at (Ken Carney) ([Leica] AA or Uncle Earl?)
In reply to: Message from red735i at (red735i at ([Leica] AA or Uncle Earl?)