[Archive]

Posted By: davidcycleback

I've seen this around for a while. A saw a number of photos labelled as original that clearly were not. For example, a Jack Johnson in the ring photo that was made decades later. All the photos I saw appeared to legitimate press or similar photos, and many were original or otherwise vintage-- so I'm not suggesting they are computer reprints or made in someone's basement. It's just that their own definition of their photos is that they were made from the original negative soon after the image was shot and many of the photos did not fit their their own definition.