MY newest Gehrig pick up and a question for the photo guys.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

White areas would not be the result of a negative being "worn". Scratches or wearing off of the emulsion surface would allow more light through the film resulting in black areas on the print. White areas on the print would be a result of something opaque blocking any light from passing through the film in that area, hence my suggestion that there may have simply been dirt or something on the film at the time the prints were produce that has since been cleaned or simply brushed away. I don't think any of the prints shown so far were produced from duplicate/copy negatives. Other than the colorized one I showed, which was produced by Brace from the original negative but at a later date, all of the others appear to have been produced by Burke. Exactly when in Burke's "reign" they were produced is tough to say.



The back only had "Gehrig, Lou" penned at the top in Brace's usual hand (I say had, because I no longer have the photo, just the scans). That particular print was done by Brace at a later date for use in production of his Bra-Mac photo series, which were smaller "colorized" versions of Burke's photos of players from the 1930's. He used 8x10 prints, sometimes original Burkes from the 1930's, sometimes more modern restrikes, that were colored by hand by painting or colored pen, then re-shot them to produce the smaller 3x5 photos that he sold in groups of 24 over a period of several years.

Hah, Now Im starting to wonder if Bens Photo is a Bra-Mac photo that was done later as the cropping on his is more like your color version! Ben what stamping is on the back of your photo?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Hah, Now Im starting to wonder if Bens Photo is a Bra-Mac photo that was done later as the cropping on his is more like your color version! Ben what stamping is on the back of your photo?

Ben's is ORIGINAL. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

(And he'll probably kick your butt if you suggest otherwise to his face )


This is what the final 3x5 Bra-Mac photo looked like:

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Ben's is ORIGINAL. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

(And he'll probably kick your butt if you suggest otherwise to his face )

Lance, You might be right!

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Ben's is ORIGINAL. There is no doubt in my mind about that.

(And he'll probably kick your butt if you suggest otherwise to his face )


This is what the final 3x5 Bra-Mac photo looked like:

Lance,
Since Im not as versed in how the photos were made maybe you can answer a question for me then. How come on mine and marks photo the corners are rounded in the photo and the paper. But yours and bens and the Bra Mack photos have square corners? Wouldnt that indicate the possiblity of another negative for the photo. And can another negative be made of the same photo? Just curious. I do believe ALL the photos shown are the real deal just that they were all made maybe at different times.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Lance,
Since Im not as versed in how the photos were made maybe you can answer a question for me then. How come on mine and marks photo the corners are rounded in the photo and the paper. But yours and bens and the Bra Mack photos have square corners? Wouldnt that indicate the possiblity of another negative for the photo. And can another negative be made of the same photo? Just curious. I do believe ALL the photos shown are the real deal just that they were all made maybe at different times.

The rounded/clipped corners has nothing to do with the negative at all. It is a feature of some of the standard photo stocks, similar to how you see deckle-edged prints. There are no deckle-edged negatives. Burke used a wide variety of photo stocks for his prints, including both "rounded" and "squared" corner types, glossy, silk and matte finishes, single and double-weight thicknesses, and some standard RPPC stock (though most of the RPPC's you see with the pre-printed divided backs were produced after Burke's death).

As to whether he used certain stocks during certain periods, that is very difficult to tell since he did not date his prints, and is not something that I've looked into as yet. And when I refer to Burke's "reign" as photographer, I'm talking 1929 to 1948. Prior to 1929 he wasn't photographing ball players, and in 1948 he had a career-ending heart attack at which point he turned the business over to George Brace. Any photo with George Burke's stamp on the back would have been produced in that time frame.