|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I've seen a few glass negatives at auctions and most have some wear and tear from being handled constantly -- fingerprints, dirt, scratches, stains, etc. Plus, the negatives were exposed out in the sun, with the constant flow of harsh UV rays. Over time the negatives probably got lighter and the image therefore got darker and blurrier. I remember reading a story that Mathew Brady's glass plate war negatives were liquidated and purchased at an auction. The man who bought them used them to line the roof/ceiling of his greenhouse. Imagine that. After a few years the glass plates were practically transparent due to the UV exposure. Last edited by SetBuilder; 12-09-2018 at 01:23 PM. |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Resolution is very relevant to identifying an original versus reproduction. However, some processes, including albumen, can fade with age. The other problem with more modern photos is that they can be slightly blurry due to the photographer not having it in focus.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It's all about the paper it seems to me. The photo itself can easily be faked. Scan of original 1970's photo from 35mm negative mark fidrych.jpg 4 x 5 negative scanned marlin stuart1.jpg Last edited by SAllen2556; 12-10-2018 at 01:17 PM. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Resolution is different than contrast. I agree that photos can become washed out in time. I heard that same story about the Brady glass negatives. As I recall the two Atlantics CdVs had comparable contrast. Yet the one at the Library of Congress shows noticeably better detail. Assuming the photos were printed at the same time from the same negative, are you saying that phenomena can be explained solely by how they were stored over the years? I say that as a question, not a statement, which is why I made the post in the first place. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
BTW, all N172s are photographs of photographs. That is why N173s, which are first generation photographs, are oftentimes sharper than N172s.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
Very few baseball cards are original in the photograph, sketch or painting sense. The graphics are usually reproductions of original art. After all, you can buy the original art for many cards-- 1953 Topps paintings, Exhibit photos, etc.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Side question: can anyone please recommend a 'light read about the history/anecdotes involved in historic photography (whatever the correct term is). Nothing too serious or advanced, but for a relaxing evening of reading as the snow comes. I've found this thread pretty interesting and figure learning a little will def. Help my appreciation of it.
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
https://www.amazon.com/Looking-Photo.../dp/0821226231 |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Difference between Type 1 and Type 2 Press Photos... | jgmp123 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 38 | 05-05-2024 05:40 PM |
Type 1 photos - 1922 World Series program - photos used for cards | horzverti | Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T | 4 | 10-17-2016 03:58 PM |
Desktop upgrade of the hobby type | mjkm90 | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 08-16-2016 02:33 PM |
Are 70's unopened wax packs safe to buy or are there problems in the hobby? | mutoscope | Postwar Baseball Cards Forum (Pre-1980) | 8 | 08-23-2012 02:46 PM |
Original Photos / Type I photos and Autographs | CharleyBrown | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 12 | 12-05-2011 12:38 AM |