[drc]

Most photos printed later from the original negative were usually printed a long time period after, so it's usually easy to tell. Looking at an original, you can often determine that it was made from the period the image was shot. Things that help you determine age include stamps (date stamps, company stamps), caption tags, age of paper, image aging, etc. Many news companies existed for finite periods of time (ACME, United Press, Pacific & Atlantic, Underwood, Bain News Service, etc), so the presence of their stamp shows what general period it was made from.

There are examples were you can't be sure when the photo was made, and you simply don't know. If you don't know, you don't know. You don't make up a date. And there are many photos that are clearly reprints made many years later.

Photos printed from the original negative but printed a good time later, are commonly called "original printed later." That's the term I use. With "original printed later" photos, you do your best to give a good idea when it was printed. Saying "original printed later' without discussing the "when printed" usually isn't enough info. Obviously, there is a difference, including in $$, between a Cap Anson in 1895 photo "printed later in 1920s" and the same photo "printed later in 1990s." If one says the terms "printed later" and Type II are awfully vague as far as saying when the photo was actually made, I agree. In baseball card collecting, the term "reprint" is just as vague in describing when the reprint was actually made. This is why card collectors say stuff like "modern reprint" and "1970s Dover reprints of the 1933 Tattoo Orbits."

Many famous photographers like Ansel Adams made "original printed later" photos.

A majority of reprint sports photos are clearly reprints because 1) The image is rough and clearly not made from the original negative and 2) The photo itself, including paper and stamping, is clearly modern. Years later sports reprints from original negatives exist but are uncommon.