Quote:
Originally Posted by D. Bergin
Based on the lack of clarity of the tag, i'd say it's from the scan.
I also think there's way more photo's from copy negs out there, then many people realize..........and I don't think there's anything wrong with that, or should have much to do with value, as long as it's of the era, and the photo appears to be professionally done.
One of the biggest flaws in the type system is the use of the phase "developed from the original negative". Most vintage publicity photos are from larger format copy negs, so the graphic artist of the time period can work the photo into it's final presented format. A print from a skillfully cropped and produced copy neg should be almost impossible to tell from the original that came out of the camera.
Whether that Greenberg press photo is technically a "Type 1" or not, I'd guess they'd give it a "Type 1" designation, because that's a can or worms they likely do not want to open up.
|
That all makes sense to me, except the "original negative" part. If they're not willing or able to go there, why put it in the description at all?
It's true that a print from a well done copy negative is really hard to tell from a print from an original negative. They really should make that distinction some other way.
The difference between a print from the original negative near when it was taken and a much later print from the same negative is pretty crazy, especially if the modern print from the original negative might be better.
For art photographs the original print could also be printed years after the picture was taken.
http://anseladams.com/shop-online/