Original negatives

[thecatspajamas]

Hey Ben,
Nice pick-up! I've got a few Burke negatives that I picked up a year (or two?) ago when a number of them were being sold through eBay seller "sfxarchive", though none as "high profile" as yours. I'm still not 100% sure where that hoard originated (as in, from a private collection, or an early testing the waters from the main Burke/Brace archive, or perhaps even from the negatives that made their way into the hands of Jim Rowe). I'm also still not sure how to deal with them. All will be re-sold eventually, but I'm leaning towards having a modern print made from each to better show the quality and pairing that with the original negative. Someday. When I get around to it.

As for copy negatives, I'm sure it varies from one photographer to the next, but I have a strong suspicion that Burke just took multiple shots if he needed multiple negatives rather than making copy negatives. I say this because there have been a number of instances where I spotted a negative that I recognized the player/pose as one of the ones commonly found, but upon close comparison, there were subtle differences. Definitely the same session, but not the exact same one used elsewhere. This also happens pretty regularly when comparing the shots used for photo postcards ordered from Burke/Brace vs. those used for Goudey and Play Ball card issues that used almost the same shot.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert though, and this is all based on observation rather than direct questioning of anyone with first-hand knowledge (which at this point, I suppose would be Mary Brace (George's daughter), or perhaps whoever it is with John Rogers' group who is handling the archive).

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Hey Ben,
Nice pick-up! I've got a few Burke negatives that I picked up a year (or two?) ago when a number of them were being sold through eBay seller "sfxarchive", though none as "high profile" as yours. I'm still not 100% sure where that hoard originated (as in, from a private collection, or an early testing the waters from the main Burke/Brace archive, or perhaps even from the negatives that made their way into the hands of Jim Rowe). I'm also still not sure how to deal with them. All will be re-sold eventually, but I'm leaning towards having a modern print made from each to better show the quality and pairing that with the original negative. Someday. When I get around to it.

As for copy negatives, I'm sure it varies from one photographer to the next, but I have a strong suspicion that Burke just took multiple shots if he needed multiple negatives rather than making copy negatives. I say this because there have been a number of instances where I spotted a negative that I recognized the player/pose as one of the ones commonly found, but upon close comparison, there were subtle differences. Definitely the same session, but not the exact same one used elsewhere. This also happens pretty regularly when comparing the shots used for photo postcards ordered from Burke/Brace vs. those used for Goudey and Play Ball card issues that used almost the same shot.

I wouldn't consider myself an expert though, and this is all based on observation rather than direct questioning of anyone with first-hand knowledge (which at this point, I suppose would be Mary Brace (George's daughter), or perhaps whoever it is with John Rogers' group who is handling the archive).

Lance, no doubt that is the case with Burke. I also own an original TYPE 1 photo that is very similar to the negative I just purchased below.
I was hoping, however, that there was science to determine original negatives from dupes created later. There are a lot of suspect "original acetate negatives" that cycle through ebay that I doubt are original. I think many are made later from a photo. I am guessing acetate didn't change as much as paper did(determine age of photos). It would be tough to determine even if it did. There are indicators on the Burke negs so I am assuming your right in that it varies from photographer to photographer. I would love to see your examples.

[thecatspajamas]

I am sure there are nuances with the film material itself, as with the watermark on the back of many photo papers, that could give an approximate date that the film itself was produced. I vaguely recall trying to research it when the ones I was looking at first started popping up, getting very confused by the scant information I was finding, and then just buying a couple to see for myself what they were. Once I was satisfied that they were original and not later copy negatives, I wound up buying quite a few more (probably 200+). Of course, with the number of negatives now flowing forth from the liquidation, that's just a drop in the bucket of what's out there.

If nobody else jumps in with real knowledge of the subject, I'll see if I can find (or recreate) the research I did at the time. And either way, I will try to scan some of the negatives I have after tomorrow night's eBay listings are up and running.

[71buc]

Ben,
I was watching that Ruth as well. It certainly found a nice home. Great pick up. I have purchased a few negatives. Nothing as significant as that Ruth. I obtained a Brace neg of Sam Hairston and a few news paper negatives.

I had always wondered what a modern lab could do with them. A couple of weeks ago I took them to a local photo lab and asked that they be printed in a dark room rather than digitally. It was expensive but worth the time and efffort. Did your Ruth come in an glassine envelope? My Brace neg came that way. The news photos all came in a small manilla paper sleve with a slip of notes that were to appear on the slug.

[kdixon]

Zach.

[Runscott]

Ben, I'm fairly sure you just picked up the original negative to your Type I photograph - great score!

Your print was made by straightening out the negative like this:

[GKreindler]

Great pick-up on the Ruth, Ben. Any idea whether the dark clouds behind Ruth appear on the negative? I would assume it was one of Burke's tricks to augment Ruth's silhouette. Very cool.

Mike, I LOVE that shot of Minnie. It would also make a killer painting!

I bought this one a few years ago for a steal. Well, sort of.



Since it has the unfortunate crack basically running through Ruth's face, I don't think anyone even wanted to touch it. But, I figured that in order to do a painting of it, all I would have to do is reconstruct his face using any of the 1000s of photographs of the great man. Granted, it doesn't 'fix' the original, but I guess that wasn't a huge concern for me.

So, I ended up only paying $100, which may seem like a lot for something so damaged, but I definitely thought it was worth the money in order to make a cool painting of a moment that few have ever seen before.

Graig