I'll say it again: you have to consider each photo on its own, whether it's for desirability, value or Type classification. The Type classifications will NOT work for every photo. I have rarely seen them used (at least, not correctly) outside of the area of news photos, primarily because of the supporting information that is so often present in the form of back-stamping, paper captions, editor's notes, etc. I still haven't seen a blank-backed photo slabbed as a Type 1 (not saying they're not out there, but just haven't seen them), and I think David correctly states that it would be very difficult to verify such a thing without first-hand knowledge of its production.
That said though, there are PLENTY of circumstances where you can apply the Type classifications, Type 1 included, without having to have stood behind the photographer yourself as he was developing the print. The evidence may not be enough to convince David, and that's fine, he is certainly welcome to base his purchases on whatever he wishes. But to dismiss the entire Type system as a load of BS because it can't be applied in every single case is over-zealous to say the least.
If you don't like the terminology, don't use it. If you find it to be a useful short-hand to be applied in appropriate situations, then go ahead and use it, but do so correctly. Either way, if you are collecting photos, you should know what the terms mean so that you will recognize what is being said about the photo. If you only collect fine art photography, you will probably never run across a Type being stated, but if you're collecting sports-related news photos, you almost certainly will.
|