The negatives are obviously 'shopped...

martissimo: Well, the example they show, Earl's pic is bigger than the negative, if it was smaller ok that could have been cropped in developing, but not bigger. Also the clouds don't match.

No one is saying it's the exact same photo, but one that was taken within a couple of minutes of the other from one immobilized camera. When you do this sort of photography you usually take multiple exposures.

How great are you really if people can't tell the difference between your work and Uncle Earl's?

I figured the find was a hoax in order to get more people out at garage sales and spending money to keep the economy going.

Donate the film to a photography museum and be done with it. They'd appreciate such old negatives, regardless of who took them.

thelordofcheese: Uncle Earl was a skilled amateur photographer and a convicted child molester.

Now let's never speak of him again.

Either way, that was a rather nice "Jerry Pine" shot. I'd be happy to have it even if it was Uncle Earl behind the camera.

"$45 for Uncle Earl's entire collection of glass negatives of awesome landscape photography from the 1920's? Um, yes please!

I mean, it isn't $200 million, but at least you got something nice out of the deal.

_{/Okay, yeah. On second thought, 200 million would be better}

From what I saw of them, I'd like a few Uncle Earl posters for my room -- Yosemite has changed a lot since then. Just not the ones of the children.

impaler: What good is an Ansel Adams negative, if Ansel Adams isn't making the print?

"The print" is what Adams excelled at.

What if some of Ansel's well-known work was actually Earl's photos?

The Earl of Fresno?

I think Ansel Adams stole Uncle Earl's work, and published it as his own.....


Or maybe it was Francis Bacon......

So these pictures when thought to be taken by Ansel Adams were valued in the millions but since they weren't now they're nothing special. I don't get it. They are the same pictures, nothing changed about them other than something completely intangible. Obviously there wasn't something magical about Ansel Adams' ability to take a picture back then since this person nobody has heard of took similar pictures so why should it matter who took them.

If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?

kokomo61: I think Ansel Adams stole Uncle Earl's work, and published it as his own.....


Or maybe it was Francis Bacon......

Pretty sure.....Bacon.....knew....basic.....punc...tu....a....tion........

I find it amusing that same photographs are worth either $200 Million or $2.00, depending on whether they were taken by Ansel Adams or Uncle Earle. Shouldn't the fact that they're indistinguishable from each other help level the playing field a little bit?

thelordofcheese: Uncle Earl was a skilled amateur photographer and a convicted child molester.



Fiddle fiddle fiddle

CSB:

Ansel Adams took this photo a mile or two from my house:

dead_dangler: How great are you really if people can't tell the difference between your work and Uncle Earl's?

My dad would kill me for saying this, but 'this'.

I can appreciate that Adams was good, but I never really went gaga for him. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?

Because clouds move. They can move very quickly too, and back then taking pictures (esp using the technique this photographer used) was a slow process.

So the claim is Uncle Earl took all the pictures over the period of the same day or days. He picked his favorite shot of the tree, printed it, gave it to his niece. Then packed the rest of the negatives away, and then they got sold somehow.

The Uncle Earl story sounds much more possible than them being actual Ansel Adams, but who knows?

Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?

Because clouds are dynamic systems that are constantly in a state of flux, and photographers seldom take just one single picture, instead relying on series' of many, many photos to get that one sigle great shot. If you look closely, some of the cloud banks do match, especially the more distant ones.

You know who really took these pictures? Jon Voight.

joegekko: dead_dangler: How great are you really if people can't tell the difference between your work and Uncle Earl's?

My dad would kill me for saying this, but 'this'.

I can appreciate that Adams was good, but I never really went gaga for him. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Since I see someone had already mentioned my "good point, bro," I'll take the other angle. The purported Ansel Adams photos would have been the only photos from this period in his life/career. They would have been valuable not based on their own value, but based on the context they would provide for his later work, which is generally lauded as iconic.

NorCalLos: I find it amusing that same photographs are worth either $200 Million or $2.00, depending on whether they were taken by Ansel Adams or Uncle Earle. Shouldn't the fact that they're indistinguishable from each other help level the playing field a little bit?

PT Barnum disagrees.

NorCalLos: I find it amusing that same photographs are worth either $200 Million or $2.00, depending on whether they were taken by Ansel Adams or Uncle Earle. Shouldn't the fact that they're indistinguishable from each other help level the playing field a little bit?

Well, in that case a painting that looks just like a Van Gogh painting should be worth millions too? A lot of people can emulate Van Gogh.

It's sad, but yes, the actual artist DOES matter as much as the work itself.

FTFA: "Although the Jeffrey Pine that stood on Sentinal Dome was a well known landmark and often photographed, the fact that the lighting in the photographs match exactly seem to indicate that the two photos were in fact taken in the same session."

I'm no expert (I can't tell anything from the pixels), but the lighting doesn't look the same to me. Neither does the focus. The mountains in the background are much more sharp in Uncle Earl's print.

Also of note is that I can see differences in the snow features on the mountains.

"Furthermore, notice how the branches and leaves in the two photos seem to match exactly."

... No. No, I don't notice that. In fact, my eyes caught several distinct differences in the branches, leaves (and cones?) just over the course of like 5 or 6 back-and-forth mouse hovers. If I spent more time, I'm sure I'd just come up with more.

"Keep in mind that we're doing this comparison based on low resolution screenshots of the two photos. If we had access to the real things, this technique might reveal an even higher degree of similarity."

That's one possibility. The other, more probable one, is that it would reveal a higher degree of difference between the two.

Yeah... sorry old lady with the amateur photographer uncle, I'm not convinced. And, article writer: you suck.

One final point: according to more than one expert that examined the glass slides in question, there's a literal orgy of evidence which proves that they were Adams' work, even down to handwriting on manila envelopes containing the slides which expert handwriting analyis confirms as that of Adams' wife. The fact that this lady's Uncle Earl's old photo of the same subject is similar - admittedly, remarkably so - does nothing to controvert all of the other evidence that shows the slides to be the work of Adams.

Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?


I don't think you are getting the gist of the article.

Camera position. It seems to be at exactly the same spot.Exactly. Two photos taken seconds/ minutes part. One known to be by Uncle Ernie, and the other of unknown verifiable evidence but decided to be from Ansel Adams by an 'expert'.

It suggests pretty much that the so-called Ansels are not really from Ansel.

GungFu: Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?


I don't think you are getting the gist of the article.

Camera position. It seems to be at exactly the same spot.Exactly. Two photos taken seconds/ minutes part. One known to be by Uncle Ernie, and the other of unknown verifiable evidence but decided to be from Ansel Adams by an 'expert'.

It suggests pretty much that the so-called Ansels are not really from Ansel.

Or that the so-called Earls are not really from Earl.

oogabooger: Well, in that case a painting that looks just like a Van Gogh painting should be worth millions too? A lot of people can emulate Van Gogh.

That's not what I said. I suggested the value might be a little bit closer, even italicized "a little bit" for ease of comprehension. You are obviously retarded.

dead_dangler: GungFu: Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?


I don't think you are getting the gist of the article.

Camera position. It seems to be at exactly the same spot.Exactly. Two photos taken seconds/ minutes part. One known to be by Uncle Ernie, and the other of unknown verifiable evidence but decided to be from Ansel Adams by an 'expert'.

It suggests pretty much that the so-called Ansels are not really from Ansel.

Or that the so-called Earls are not really from Earl.


The relative is lying? Or mistaken?

GungFu: dead_dangler: GungFu: Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?


I don't think you are getting the gist of the article.

Camera position. It seems to be at exactly the same spot.Exactly. Two photos taken seconds/ minutes part. One known to be by Uncle Ernie, and the other of unknown verifiable evidence but decided to be from Ansel Adams by an 'expert'.

It suggests pretty much that the so-called Ansels are not really from Ansel.

Or that the so-called Earls are not really from Earl.


The relative is lying? Or mistaken?

Maybe Earl bought some prints at a garage sale a while back...

"Give me $25 million and I'll shut up about my uncle Earl"...FTW!
/too late, though

timujin: impaler: I was more commenting on how the guy attention whored by saying he found $200 million worth of negatives.

Well, I honestly don't know what their final value will be. If they do prove to be authentic then I guess we'll see what the market will bear.

Of course, if I was the one who found them, I'd probably be trumpeting them as worth $200M, too. I mean, the guy's a yard sale scrounger, he's used to putting up one price with the expectation that the other guy's gonna haggle. I'm fairly sure he'll be happy to walk away with any amount, especially if there are six or seven zeroes at the end or it.

I'm still gonna wait around this guy's garbage can, just in case.

The author is a moron.

The tree doesn't match EXACTLY. Look at all the stuff on that tree that pops out of position! They were obviously taken at different times. Clouds are different too.

NorCalLos: joegekko: dead_dangler: How great are you really if people can't tell the difference between your work and Uncle Earl's?

My dad would kill me for saying this, but 'this'.

I can appreciate that Adams was good, but I never really went gaga for him. Eye of the beholder, I guess.

Since I see someone had already mentioned my "good point, bro," I'll take the other angle. The purported Ansel Adams photos would have been the only photos from this period in his life/career. They would have been valuable not based on their own value, but based on the context they would provide for his later work, which is generally lauded as iconic.

Even still, few would really see the development in his work, would be unable to get much off it. As such, it would be hard to sell a high volume of reprints commercially.

At that point I'm not sure how you get $200M. Because only a few people would "get it" but even them, they probably won't get $200M in value from seeing the older works (nor have that kind of money). They'd get reprinted, sure, which would make a nice book, but I don't expect a HUGE volume of high-dollar bookbuyers going after it.

dead_dangler: GungFu: dead_dangler: GungFu: Knucklepopper: If her claims are true, why don't the clouds match?


I don't think you are getting the gist of the article.

Camera position. It seems to be at exactly the same spot.Exactly. Two photos taken seconds/ minutes part. One known to be by Uncle Ernie, and the other of unknown verifiable evidence but decided to be from Ansel Adams by an 'expert'.

It suggests pretty much that the so-called Ansels are not really from Ansel.

Or that the so-called Earls are not really from Earl.


The relative is lying? Or mistaken?

Maybe Earl bought some prints at a garage sale a while back...

Wow, she might have prints worth millions!!!!