Quote:
Originally Posted by prewarsports
This is just as "original" as any other Ruth Red Sox image as far as the vintage goes.
|
And so are pictures of Ruth from 1918 publications.
The "duplicate negative" makes all the difference. Doesn't matter how close to 1915 it was printed if it is of inferior quality due to not being printed from the original negative.
One of the things I've hated to see happen since vintage photos took off in popularity, is all the 'collectors' who are now collecting photos the way cards are collected. Photos are great because of the clarity and composition of their images on the print. It's super-great when you can find a print made from the original negative very close to when the negative was created; however, we can also appreciate great prints made many years later from original negative. On the other hand, it's tough to appreciate a blurry print made from a second-generation negative, then trimmed down to tiny size.
Two enthusiastic thumbs down.