View Full Version : A Question for my education
GrayGhost
09-04-2009, 09:04 PM
I see King of Clout and others posting "Type one , Type three" photographs. etc. Could someone enlighten me as to the difference in all types, and which are best, etc to own, value wise? Thanks in advance for your help. Scott.
Forever Young
09-04-2009, 09:57 PM
See the bottom of the link which quickly defines the types. TYPE 1 is the most valuable/best/rare..etc..
http://www.psadna.com/photo_process.chtml
I also suggest you buy the book:
"A Portrait of Baseball Photography " by Fogel, Marshall and Khyber Oser and Henry Yee
The book will help you define types on your own and shed light on what is important in life. :)
GrayGhost
09-04-2009, 10:03 PM
Thanks very much.
Forever Young
09-04-2009, 10:16 PM
You are welcome. Hope you enjoy the read!
thekingofclout
09-05-2009, 12:41 AM
for anyone interested or curious about Baseball Photography. It's an interview by net54's own SlantyCouch with photo guru Henry Yee. Do yourself a favor and read this...
http://tinyurl.com/l52fdf
Best regards, Jimmy
In short, type 1 = original.
D. Bergin
09-06-2009, 12:53 PM
I found it interesting true "Wire" photos produced the same day are considered Type III.
While I prefer Type I's myself I noticed over the last 10 or so years of selling mostly boxing press/wire photos that a lot of collectors will pay just as much and sometimes more for a Type III as a Type I, as long as is vintage to the image date.
I agree. They are being collected as historical artifacts not original photos. Unless the moment is incredibly significant (ala Kennedy being shot) I wouldn't price it that way. As photos for viewing purposes, originals are better quality and they are, well, originals-- the original should be priced higher. Though, wirephotos are period and were made in limited numbers, so there may only be a handful in existence of a particular example. The other nice thing about wirephotos is the date in the image caption is the date the wirephoto was made. In other words, unlike with many other photos, it's easy for for anyone to determine the age.
I think with many sports collectors, especially baseball card collectors, the 'vintage' is one of the major components (if not the only one). If a collector collects 1930s Yankees items, he wants items to be from 1930s. He doesn't want a 1970s premium showing Babe Ruth in the 1930s. He wants a 1930s premium of Ruth. Thus, a 1930s AP wirephoto of Ruth isn't original photo but it is from the 1930s, and that satisfies a key quality to the collector. The collector is specializing in artifacts from the period.
baseballart
09-06-2009, 01:24 PM
How is it possible to tell Type 1 from Type 2 (ie the two year difference), other than with a date stamp on the photo? Absent any date stamp, I would think the lack of change of photographic paper during the period would make it virtually impossible to tell a type 1 from a type 2.
What is a photograph printed from the original negative other than "during the period" (more than 2 years after photo was taken, but with no apparent time limit, other than the "period")?
Max
Most photos printed later from the original negative were usually printed a long time period after, so it's usually easy to tell. Looking at an original, you can often determine that it was made from the period the image was shot. Things that help you determine age include stamps (date stamps, company stamps), caption tags, age of paper, image aging, etc. Many news companies existed for finite periods of time (ACME, United Press, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood, Bain News Service, etc), so the presence of their stamp shows what general period it was made from.
There are examples were you can't be sure when the photo was made, and you simply don't know. If you don't know, you don't know. You don't make up a date. And there are many photos that are clearly reprints made many years later.
Photos printed from the original negative but printed a good time later, are commonly called "original printed later." That's the term I use. With "original printed later" photos, you do your best to give a good idea when it was printed. Saying "original printed later' without discussing the "when printed" usually isn't enough info. Obviously, there is a difference, including in $$, between a Cap Anson in 1895 photo "printed later in 1920s" and the same photo "printed later in 1990s." If one says the terms "printed later" and Type II are awfully vague as far as saying when the photo was actually made, I agree. In baseball card collecting, the term "reprint" is just as vague in describing when the reprint was actually made. This is why card collectors say stuff like "modern reprint" and "1970s Dover reprints of the 1933 Tattoo Orbits."
Many famous photographers like Ansel Adams made "original printed later" photos.
A majority of reprint sports photos are clearly reprints because 1) The image is rough and clearly not made from the original negative and 2) The photo itself, including paper and stamping, is clearly modern. Years later sports reprints from original negatives exist but are uncommon.
D. Bergin
09-06-2009, 02:36 PM
How is it possible to tell Type 1 from Type 2 (ie the two year difference), other than with a date stamp on the photo? Absent any date stamp, I would think the lack of change of photographic paper during the period would make it virtually impossible to tell a type 1 from a type 2.
What is a photograph printed from the original negative other than "during the period" (more than 2 years after photo was taken, but with no apparent time limit, other than the "period")?
Max
I think 2 years was just an arbitrary number those guys came up with. A lot of it is educated guesswork based on the paper type, style of credit stamp on the back, any identifying marks, etc..
Most press photo's there's not going to be any reason for them to be reprinted again.........or if they are it's so far apart from the original date it's usually easy to tell it's a later print.
In the 1990's Jim Stinson was doing lots of signings with boxers. On occasion and when possible he would also have them sign some press and wire photos. Some were vintage ones he had in his collection while many of them it looked like he ordered them directly from the AP. They were complete with dated tags and were crystal clear as if they had been from the original neg. However it was obvious just looking from the stock of the paper and tag they were produced recently. He was selling the autograph and not the photo (and didn't charge a premium for the photo type) so it wasn't really an issue, just an interesting aside.
Sometimes it's possible everything is missing. Tag, credit stamp, date stamp and you basically have only paper type, size, provenance of collection it came from to tell the period.
The easiest way to tell a Type III is when a caption is printed directly into the front of the photo. Sometimes this is trimmed off but looking at the photo under magnification or even with the naked eye you can see the waves of the wire transmission. You do sometimes get really clean transmissions you need to look at under a loop to tell.
As a whole press photos are fairly easy to categorize.........I think most complications arise from original non-press photos and being able to tell a Type I from a Type II.
Somebody like George Burke who sold prints of his photos over a period of decades I imagine can be hard to quantify unless you have an exact record of his changing of reproduction formats, stamps, etc. from year to year. What's really to say a print from a picture he took in 1933 was reproduced in 1936 and qualified as a Type II instead of a Type I?
Same can be said for many other photographers, sports magazine premium type photos, etc..