Quote:
Originally Posted by Forever Young
Actually, I do not believe this to be entirely true. Conlon DID lend out original photos and negatives to Underwood and Underwood. He had a working relationship with U AND U and was a freelance photographer as mentioned below by Hank.
Now... because of this, U AND U could certainly have printed off the original neg, then returned neg, and produced another neg later because they wanted additional/differnt images(which I have seen and have given an example below). BUT.. just because it has U AND U stamps does not mean it is not a TYPE 1 PHOTO off the orig Conlon neg (cuz of the numbers). In fact, numbers inside of a box suggests the exact opposite. Also, Conlon could have sent them originals unstamped and then UandU used their stamps.
|
Haha. I will further muddy the waters by repeating your first sentence, but this time regarding what you stated below it
The first thing I thought when reading this thread was...my understanding was that freelancers like Conlon ONLY sold original prints to U&U,etc., and that U&U could then add their own stamp to the back. I can't imagine Conlon sending an original negative to anyone, so this would be news to me, but I'm always glad to learn something new.
If I saw a nice clear photo with a Conlon stamp AND a U&U stamp, I would assume it was an original print from the original negative.
When determining if a photo is original, I always look at physical photo evidence first (not the stamping): clarity of image, type of paper, aging. Then I look at the stamp. If the stamp indicates it is original, but it failed the other tests, then it's not original. Basically, you could make a print from a negative on day 1, then make a print from that print on day 2 and give it a stamp. It wouldn't be original. Anyone who is making decisions entirely based on a back-stamping is setting themselves up.