View Single Post
  #38  
Old 02-01-2019, 11:11 AM
SAllen2556's Avatar
SAllen2556 SAllen2556 is offline
Scott
Scott All.en
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Detroit
Posts: 600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Exhibitman View Post
The other thing that I am not sure has been explained well enough is that PSA doesn't really deal with the fact that in mass produced commercial photography, as opposed to fine art, virtually nothing we would handle is printed from the true original negative. Negatives wear out. They get damaged. This is especially true of glass negatives. Standard practice was for the photographer to safeguard the original negative and then create duplicate negatives for working uses: repeated printings, sending to news outlets and wire services, etc. When I picked a giant archive of Hollywood materials decades ago I learned all this firsthand when I found multiple negatives and transparencies in the files. I thought I had original negatives. I didn't. The originals were sent out for duplication and then returned to storage with the owner or photographer and the duplicates were actually used to create the prints that we all collect. So this whole "from the original negative" stuff is just a guess.
Pardon me, but I'm curious about this. When do you suppose these original hollywood negatives were sent out for duplication? And do you have any clue how this was done?

The reason I ask is because I did not think, at least with newspapers, that copies of negatives were ever created. Polaroid created a copy camera that would create a 4 x 5 negative from a photo, but I never heard of copying a negative from a negative.
Reply With Quote