Studio Cabinets

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Moving from art to photography. Any photo buffs out there? How did they get auction shots in the old days?<br /><br />Also, a trivia question, are there any prewar sets with color photographs?<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>In early photography, long exposure was required. Thus there are very few real outdoor action photos. Almost all 1800s baseball photos have the player(s) standing still for the camera. The reason you see those balls hanging from strings on the Old Judges is because the photographers couldn't photograph a moving ball. <br /><br />The first true color photograph was invented in 1907, so there would be no 1800s photos with true colors. Of course, one could color a black and white photo.<br /><br />I don't know what issue was the first to have real life colors (from a color photo as opposed to colorized in), but I would imagine it was after WWII.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim Clarke</b><p>I second what David said!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Just want to be sure I understand what you're saying. Were those first color photos (1907) made by colorizing a black and white negative (thus creating colors determined by the colorizer's tastes, as opposed to the real life situation)? And if so, are you saying that the first color negatives (thus negating the need to colorize the negative to get the color print, as well as creating the real-life colors) did not appear until after WWII?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>I have no interest in colorized photos, because you can take any black and white photo and colorize it. I'm interested in the first color photography that was used on a card set.<br />I'll take a wild guess, '53 Color Bowmans.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I got my date a bit off. The first true color photograph was the autochrome, which was a glass photo invented in 1904, but didn't hit the market until 1907. By true color, I mean it showed the true colors of the subject-- it wasn't a black and white photo colorized.<br /><br />I don't know, but would guess that Peter is correct that the 53 Bowman Colors are the first 'true color' baseball cards-- meaning true colors of the subject and no colorization of black and white images. The Bowmans aren't photographs, but have true color images. There are earlier magazine covers and pictures that are true color, but evidently it took a while for baseball cards.<br /><br />The 1957 Topps baseball have true color images, and I've seen the original color transparencies auctioned. A transparency is the same thing as a negative, and used just like a negative, except the images are positive not negative. If you hold a transparency to the light the image look normal like a normal photo.<br /><br />For normal, everyday paper photography (ala Kodak family snapshots), color photographs can be found in the 1930s but examples are rare. 1940s more common, but still unusual. For example, how many true color images have you seen of Babe Ruth, Albert Einstein or Lou Gehrig? Can you think of a Humphrey Bogart movie that was in color? Color photography was around (1939's Wizard of Oz was in Color), but it wasn't used often.<br /><br />Collectors can find early 1900s autochromes for auction, including on eBay, thought rarely if ever of sports scenes. As historical objects they can be valuable, and often have neat images to boot. As they're glass, you don't have to be a photo expert to be confident you have the real item and not a home computer reprint.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar but intrigued with early photography, there is a whole series of photographs on glass, and a collector could specialize in just glass photographs. This includes the autochrome, ambrotype (essentially a tintype on glass), orotone (backed in genuine gold giving a gold color), opaltype (on white glass), glass slides (including colorized silent movie slides) and glass negatives. I've seen baseball examples for all of these except the autochrome. All Charles Conlon's Pre-War original negatives were on glass, and, in an article, he wrote how he was forced to destroy many of them as they running him out of his house. <br /><br />And the nice thing for collectors interested in glass photographs is they quit using glass for photographs a long time ago. So if you pick up a glass photo at an antique store, you can be confident it's vintage.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>David,<br /><br />A friendly bump for interesting information on color photography and cards.<br /><br />Peter C.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Wouldn't 1952 Topps be considered color photography? They are touched up a bit and not as pure as 1953 Bowmans, but they aren't drawings- they are photos.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>You might be correct, Barry. The problem in picking the first is there might be some regional color issue I hadn't thought of. The 51 and 52 Bowmans and 53 Topps are all from paintings<br /><br />I'm not sure, but I thought that Upper Deck Studio had insert cards that were actual color photos (not lithos but photos). Those actually might have be first color photograph cards. I've seen in person one of these cards, so I'm not certain they were photos but they advertised as if they were.<br /><br />I know for some of the recent painting-style cards, the original art is digital/computer. Donruss or Fleer or Topps auctioned of the original art for some of their baseball cards, and some of them were digital. Some also were the traditional paintings.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob Lemke</b><p>The first true color photos used on baseball cards are the 1948 Signal Gasoline Oakland Oaks.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>jay wolt</b><p>Bo b - Signal gas are neat cards, didn't know they were the first<br />color ones though.<br /><br /><img src="http://www.qualitycards.com/pictures/11859895.jpg">