The Future of Type I Photos

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

Sorry Jim, you're obviously correct!


One aspect of photo collecting I do not understand is how type 1 photos are valued so much more than the original negatives. Shouldn't the 4 x 5 glass negative of the famous Ty Cobb sliding photo, for example, be worth more than a photo made from that negative? The negative is really the holy grail of that particular moment in time. It's the original source of all the other photos. And if you owned the negative, you could make a 16 x 20 or larger photo of it and it would be at least as crystal clear as any type I photo of that moment. So why pay more for the photo over the negative? They're both from whatever date that particular moment occurred.


I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.