> “The weather was bad over a rather long period,” he wrote in a letter. “None of the pictures were very good.” Before I read that statement my first thought w

> “The weather was bad over a rather long period,” he wrote in a letter. “None of the pictures were very good.” Before I read that statement my first thought was 'these are not that good'. [1] And in fact I actually question (despite what appears to be proof that they are Adam's photos ie 'given to the library' that they really are his photos. I did photography (and made money from it; had a darkroom at home growing up) and artistically it would be extremely odd for someone (especially of his caliber) to release photos that were not up to visual standards. It's part a sense of pride and partly just you don't show your work if it's not good. And you care about your work and you definitely care if the product is not quality and so on. I remember another photographer (whose last name ironically was also Adams) when I was in high school saying that 'nothing leaves my darkroom that isn't ready for printing or publication'. These photos are actually prompting me to see if there is anything about Ansel Adams that I should take into consideration that would change what I am thinking about this. Something doesn't add up or make sense. [1] I don't mean visually they aren't interesting. But they look quality wise (even considering he said the weather wasn't nice [2] to be very poor. I say that as someone who has printed photos and knows the difference. [2] That could also be part of the 'cover' story to explain why they aren't quality that one would expect.