Conlon Type 2
 

Happy to add this to my collection. Eventhough its not vintage it still came from Conlon's original negative.

http://i450.photobucket.com/albums/q...pse3280f33.jpg

Aren't all of the photos John Rogers creates from Conlon negatives and sells, technically 'Type II'?

If they come from the original negative then I would think so. Just read a quick bio on rogers.Never heard of him until now

Something that I hadn't thought of until just now, with all this talk of what scanners to use for slides and negatives: What would a print produced by scanning an original negative and then printing from the digital file be considered as far as Type classification? I'm thinking it's actually very similar to a wire photo process (though with better-looking results), so it would be a Type III or IV (depending on how far removed from the date of the original shot), right? What with the print being produced through an intermediary process rather than directly from the negative and all, whereas to be a Type I or II, it would have to be printed directly from the negative (i.e. a "wet print" vs. a digital print).

I don't know what process John Rogers' guys use (never looked into it), so none of these wandering thoughts are intended to reflect on him. I guess it would depend on his method of print production as to what Type those modern prints are considered.

Have any of you ever seen this photo before?

I have, Joey, though I never knew it was a Conlon! It's actually the subject of a painting I'm doing for a video in the coming months.

For the record, the image was taken on April 22, 1920, his first game with the Yankees during the regular season. Apparently he strained his side and leg during batting practice. He insisted on starting, but only lasted an inning. I'm not sure exactly when he came back, but from the newspaper reports, it seemed like it would only be a few days.

Regardless, great pick-up!

Graig

I would think if the photo was reproduced digitally from the original negative via a high-res scan it would technically be a type 4 because there is a conversion step between the negative and the photo on the paper no matter how high the quality is.

Lance, I was kind of alluding to the fact that it doesn't matter - the print has to be described accurately, and you can't tell enough just from a type number and a front image.

You should read Rogers' description of how his prints are created - it's interesting. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only forum member who has every purchased any of them as I've asked for reviews from others and haven't gotten any.

I think of a scanned of original negatives scanned and made into digital prints as as originals, but it's a digital photograph not a real photo. Different things, at least in my book. Like an original photograph versus an original lithograph. Duly note I'm not talking about an originals printed at the time by the photographer, and not talking about photos scanned 50 years later by third parties. I'm not suggesting the Rogers digital photos are originals.

You have to take into consideration that in making art there is a process and steps. Rembrandt made sketches and practice paintings before he made the final painting, yet the final painting is called the original. The sketches were part of the process making the paining. And in digital photography and negatives to digital prints there is also a process.

But based on the type system it wouldnt be a type 1 because the photo paper would be different and the new scanned copy isnt vintage to the period it was taken

I rewrote my post before I read your response. Neither the UPI or the John Rogers are type Is, in parts because they were printed years later and because Charles Conlon didn't make them . I was just saying that negative to digital print in and of itself doesn't disqualify something from being original. Just in my opinion. It won't kill me if someone disagrees. If someone says an original digital print can only be when the image was photographed digitally, I understand what they are saying.

For me, deciding whether a work of art is original depends on what the artist envisioned the final work of art to be-- a digital print, house, painting, sculpture, collage-- and taking into consideration that there are steps to reach that goal. It would be silly to expect Frank Lloyd Wright to make an original, unique house without intermediary steps-- sketches, models, etc etc. He might have made a mini version of the house in his back yard. Artworks don't happen, start to finish, in the blink of the an eye.

And, for the record and under normal circumstances, I would consider a paper photograph that is scanned and printed out digitally to be a reprint.

As with art and 'rookie card,' the definition can be in the eye of the beholder. Someone out there would probably claim the Mona Lisa isn't original because there are sketches of the same image by Da Vinci from months earlier.

Based on the type system do you think theres that much of a significant difference in value between a type 1 and type 2?

Yes. Type ones are originals. All other qualities equivalent, the original is always worth more.

I've had similar made later UPI photos of Pre-War baseball and thought they were good quality. Nothing wrong with collecting them and nothing wrong with your purchase, in part because they are official and limited-made photos by UPI with their stamp on back. But clearly they aren't $$ valued as the vintage original printed by Conlon.

My initial post was intended to be strictly about original negative to digital print conversion. I didn't even once offer my opinion that the PSA type system is for the weak and ineffectual.

Amen! (with a capital A)...and I obviously agree with you David.

Scott, sorry, I probably should have deleted the quote of your post once my mind started wandering. I started off just responding to your question, then realized it was rhetorical, backed up, and wandered down a side-trail without covering up all my tracks. I really need to get more sleep... :o

So to answer one of my questions, I've been told that while John Rogers' Conlon prints would technically be Type II's, PSA does not authenticate any modern prints produced by individuals from vintage negatives, so it's a moot point as far as ever seeing anything like that in a PSA slab. One reason being that it discourages the flood of wacko homemade pieces and souvenir glossies that they already get a lot of (and turn down).

In light of that, I suppose the question of classification of prints produced from digital scans of original negatives is pretty much academic. My contention would still be that the process of scanning the negative into an intermediate digital format that is then used to produce a laser print (literally using a combination of lasers to expose photographic paper, which is what I think David was alluding to) is very close to the wire photo process so that prints produced that way would be Type III (if from a modern shot taken within 2 years of the scanning/print production) or Type IV (if from a vintage negative).

I would also agree that a printed photo (lots of tiny dots) and a true photographic print (exposed photo paper) are two different animals, regardless of the originating source of the image.

Now, to stir the pot a little more, where do you think a photo originally shot with a digital camera and then laser-printed onto true photo paper would fall? Still a moot point as far as PSA authenticating them (not sure why anyone would want that for a modern digital shot anyway), but fun to discuss. I think. If not, I'll shut up now and keep my rambling thoughts to myself :p

(Joey, sorry too for further hi-jacking your thread.)

Ask Henry.

A digital photo can be original, type one (depending on the condition on which it was shot of course), but is a digital photograph not a real photograph. I volunteer in a art gallery, and many artist make digital photos these days with no film in involved.

I was at a reception looking at a French artist's photos on large sheets of aluminum and said to her "Are these digital or real photogaphs?"
She said "Digital is a real photograph."
I said "No it isn't.'

Other than that, we had a pleasant conversation. Hers were digital.

And, yes, she was cute and spoke with a French accent.

Also, original isn't ordinarily used in vacuum. In normal language attached to something else "original photo" "original digital print" "original T206." It's usually in context to the words it it precedes. Original in the absolute sense is a philosophical topic. You can say original has somewhat different meanings in different context. The images on the 1933 Goudeys are reproductions of photographs, most will say its fair to call one "an original 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth." Maybe original isn't the perfect term ('Oxford dictionary definition b'), but it's used within the context of cards and communicating to other collectors. And I'm sure most collectors are aware that the images on 'original' 1952 and 53 Topps are reproductions of paintings.

Also, something to think about, an original straight from the camera digital image posted online is an original image viewed by many on their computers.

But, yes, I think digital photographs can be type 1s.

For the record, 'weak and ineffectual' was just a line from Seinfeld.