Submitted by
Users who Dugg This
Bojan Radusinovic
686 Followers
BannedOnTheWeb
1793 Followers
Stuart Foster
75 Followers
bobosmitor
5468 Followers
Daily Telegraph
5157 Followers
BannedOnTheWebJul 29, 2010
Talk about a bargain at a yard sale!
amyvernonJul 30, 2010
Seems very likely they weren't Ansel Adams pix. A shame, as it made a great story. But Brooks is a pretty damn good photographer if experts mistook his work for Adams'.
cedexJul 30, 2010
But now the negatives are worth nothing because a famous name is not associated with them.
dteleJul 30, 2010
Ansel re-used his negative plates.
Well, thats what I read about 20 years ago when I was studying Zone system photography.
thereverendbillJul 30, 2010
My photog professor said that Adams would shoot one print from a negative, then destroy the negative before developing the print. I guess the negative could be "destroyed" in a fashoin that would allow re-use, but I had always envisioned him going ape-s**t on the negative...
bloodwineJul 31, 2010
There was an interview on NPR the other day saying that even if it were Ansel Adams then the negatives still wouldn't be worth all that much because Ansel's development process is what made his photographs so great and unique. He would change his development techniques over his lifetime to tell different stories and adjust what people focus on.
I am no photography buff, but I found that information interesting since everybody has been going apes**t over these possible negatives.
begbegbegbegbegJul 31, 2010
Your prof is an ignoramus who probably wasn't even born when Ansel died.
(From someone who took a master class with Ansel in the late '70s.)
notahackJul 30, 2010
Bet the owner of the negative plates is just thrilled with this Brooks relative. TWO HUNDRED MILLION turned to what? Broken dream.
superkendallJul 30, 2010
Nope, don't buy it.
Sure they look similar. But as the article says, a LOT of photographers photograph that exact tree.
What is more telling to me is that they are not the SAME photograph. If you go up there with a big 4x6" view camera, why would you take two exposures of the same tree? It's not like digital where you can crank out four or five shots "just to be sure". It means it would have taken the time, and significant expense to take at least two shots of the exact same tree. That just makes no sense to me given the equipment they had, and doesn't explain the similarities of the other photos to other stuff Adams had taken.
If those are really Earl Brooks images, they should be able to find printed examples that are the same, not different but similar.
68024Jul 30, 2010
But the same goes for if they were Ansel Adams photos. Where are the surviving prints of those negatives?
publiclurkerJul 30, 2010
I don't know about you, but I would definitely take multiple pictures after going all the way out there. while the material was expensive, so is the cost of travel, etc. I'd hate to waste the trip just to find that something stupid happened to ruin the photo.
Closed AccountJul 30, 2010
did you scroll over the pic and see the photos overlapped? The camera is in the exact same position with the exact same shadows, and the tree is in the exact same condition. The clouds are the only thing different, and clouds move--pretty fast sometimes. And the list of people who could have taken the photo was actually pretty small. There weren't a lot of people taking photos there. There were about three or four people who doing that in that area at the time and one of them was proven to be taking photos somewhere else on the day those pics were marked. The chance of this all being a coincidence is pretty low. I wanted the pics to be from Adams, but it looks unlikely.
loudmusicJul 30, 2010
Seems like there was a Digg post a while back discussing the difference in value of things based on who created them rather than the object itself.
wwwspiritJul 30, 2010
They look similar but are clearly not the same. More likely Uncle Earl was a wannabe to tried to copy Ansel. I know the standards of journalism have dropped pretty low but you should have to have something MORE to make the news that a story you just make up. How about checking / verifying stories before you publish things as if they were true, hmm? Too damn lazy?
craigmatthewsnyJul 31, 2010
With regard to your comment about verifying stories or publishing things as if they were true, would you care to point out exactly which items in the article are false?
lordskywalkerJul 30, 2010
An authentic photo of Jesus, the FSM or something like that is worth $200 million. Not some old random nature shots.
superkendallJul 30, 2010
But 60 old Adams shots, some never seen? That would easily be worth $200 million. If you don't think so you have not been paying attention to the prices of Ansel Adams stuff.
68024Jul 30, 2010
A slightly clearer comparison of photos here on cnn... it sure looks similar, look at the clouds...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/29/ansel.adams.alternatives/index.html?iref=allsearch
6thaccountJul 30, 2010
This is f**kin stupid. Let's say they are authentic, are they better? If they are fake, are the pics of lower artisitc merit?
If you're spending 200 million because they are from Ansel Adams, and not Joe Shmoe; you are f**kin dumb. If you can't tell the difference you obviously don't give a damn about artistic merit, you're buying the name. In that case, I can sell you Salvador Dali's s**t, literally his poop. He came over my house and took a dump and I saved it, just so I could sell it to some assh**e who doesn't care what he buys, as long as it from someone famous. In fact, I also got Frieda Kahlo's tampon, wanna buy?
cedexJul 30, 2010
Isn't there that saying... something about a fool and money....
Closed AccountJul 30, 2010
Dugg for Frieda Kahlo's tampon. And the fact that you're right.
digideliaJul 30, 2010
how much you want for the tampon
6thaccountJul 31, 2010
$750,000
rocketpopJul 31, 2010
This account has been closed by the user
asus3000Jul 30, 2010
The cloud formations of each photo were different. Case closed.
whodoneitJul 30, 2010
I don't think you understand.
What do clouds do? They move.
Had Earl Brooks brought his camera up there, he could have made a couple of negatives. Preferred the first cloud formation on the first negative and stored negative two in a box, never to be used.
It might only take 10 minutes for the clouds to change, especially when we are dealing with high altitude, like that at Yosemite.
asus3000Jul 31, 2010
Indeed it's evidence, but in a murder investigation you need to match the right bullet with the right gun and you must have the body.
apextekJul 30, 2010
but the leaf formations are identical. remember, tres braches and leaves grow and fall off.
to have identical leaf patterns they would have had to be shot in a very close period of time from virtually the same angle.
craigmatthewsnyJul 31, 2010
The only reason I didn't bury asus3000's comment is because I want people to see WhoDoneIt's reply.
captspauldingJul 30, 2010
I think Neal Caffrey is involved somehow.
eodp3Jul 31, 2010
good show.
what's a thayer?
solidaridJul 30, 2010
The AOL news site is breaking for me. Try CNN:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/07/29/ansel.adams.alternatives/?hpt=C1
Closed AccountJul 31, 2010
I'd be pissed at her
riverstyxJul 31, 2010
Looks like I was right...So much for your "expert opinion" by ex-law enforcement. I told you the justice system was a sham. Last time I checked, I was the only one who wasn't taken in by the speculation.
http://digg.com/business_finance/Experts_Ansel_Adams_photos_found_at_garage_sale_worth_200M?t=34045089#c34045089
This is why I question Everything. So now you know.
codymanJul 31, 2010
Check out a documentary called "Who The f**k Is Jackson Pollock"
A 73 year old woman found a painting for $5 at a thrift store, and there's a debate whether or not it's a Jackson Pollock worth $50+ million (it's on veehd.com, search "pollock")