The PSA Type System: Should it follow the photography market?

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by sphere and ash

I don’t understand enough about how the self-issued promo photo is made to know why it isn’t a vintage print. Can you explain the arguments for and against?

I wouldn’t have any trouble accepting the composites as vintage, but I understand the other side of the argument.

From PSA:

Type I – A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type II – A photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).

Type III – A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

Type IV – A 2nd generation photograph (or 3rd or later generation), developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during a later period (more than approximately two years after the picture was taken).


The "original negative" is the issue. Composite images are the pre-digital photo-shop. They are made from pieces of other images, or the original image with graphics added, that are put together and made into one image. The Dempsey-Tunney, for example, has a photo of Soldier Field with cameos of Dempsey, Tunney and Rickard added to it. Then the composite is reshot as a single image and printed. PSA will label it a Type III and kill the value for those who use the slab as a shorthand for everything else. Yet it is a contemporaneously issued photo promoting a very significant contest, the famous "Long Count" fight where Tunney got 14 seconds to recover because Dempsey violated the newly enacted neutral corner rule after knocking Gene on his ass.

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.

[drcy]

Collages and photos with before and after images (Current Babe Ruth next to a child Babe Ruth) are interesting examples.

Vintage is strictly about age. Original is vintage, but also has to be made from the original negative and by the photographer or official entity (ala magazine).

Also, in photography, vintage doesn't mean just 'old' (ala anything from before 1970) but from the time the image was shot. It's akin to a 'vintage 1976 wine.'

[Exhibitman]

They are interesting because the elements added to them can make them more desirable than the original image. I mean, an image of Soldier Field from 1927 is nice. An image like the one I posted is way more significant. But the base image of Soldier Field is a Type I and mine is a Type III. A person who pays more attention to the slab--a shocking idea, I know--than the item might think it is a more valuable image simply by reason of the designation.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

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.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

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.

Within his comment he states why this was done - they get lost and they wear out. Reusing a negative over and over again can damage it. Putting a negative strip into a neg holder, it looks like a waffle iron with a rectangular opening in the middle for the negative you wish to print, over and over again can cause scratches if the person printing is not careful. Additionally the light can affect the emulsion, especially on color negatives and transparencies (slides). It is was very common for photographers who shot transparencies to make dupes. There is this tube you can attach to your camera with an attachment on the end that can hold a slide. You can then take a picture of the slide, creating a duplicate. There is also a tabletop machine that can do the same. Some labs would also make internegatives from transparencies. These were 3x4 or so negatives made from the slide that could be used to make prints. One of the pro labs I used years ago would make internegatives for me when I was getting concert photos printed.