Reversed image photos

[billyb]

Thanks Go,

The Ruth photo you are talking about, if it is Ruth just finished crossing the plate(it appears), and Ruth and umpire looking back at something (fairly close image of Ruth also), I was thinking of that photo when I posted the first question. Very nice image of Ruth, content excellent, clarity great, but on back is written "reverse". What a shame.
But the photo I am talking about has never been listed.

[prewarsports]

Press photos that are reversed were done intentionally so that the photo could be engraved for the newspaper. Some people like them to have an example or two in their collections but in general they are looked at as inferior images.

Rhys

[thecatspajamas]

If fairly unique, I could see them still retaining some value as they could easily be scanned and flipped digitally for reprinting or other use. But I would think that would only apply for a scarce image that you really liked and thought you would never see again in proper form.

Otherwise, I think your primary target audience would be the budget-conscious or beginning collector who wanted a striking photo but wouldn't have been able to afford it otherwise. Unfortunately, if you're the seller, the budget-conscious collector probably is not your ideal buyer So maybe not worthless, but definitely worth less.

[billyb]

Thank You Rhys, its just too bad that work done by photographers may have been printed out in error by an editor. I can't see the photographer making an error like that.

[prewarsports]

The editors did not print the photos so a photographers error is highly unlikely. These photographs would have been developed by the photographer themselves (or a developer that worked on behalf of all the photographers at specific agency). You would order prints from the service and could specify whether you wanted them reversed or not as some papers were heavier into engraving. Many times the service or the receiving paper would make note that a photo was "Reversed" and sometimes there were even stamps that would say "Reversed for Engraving" on them. If it is a press photo from an agency with a stamp on the back and it is reversed, it was absolutely intended to be reversed. I get why sometimes people don't like them (if it looks like Babe Ruth is coming home from First base for example after a Home Run) but they are really interesting pieces of photographic history.

These were big in the late 1910's through the 1920's and were obsolete with newer technology that made printing photographs by newspapers easier by the 1930's (and with the wider use of Wire Photo Technology).

[billyb]

Rhys,
Thanks for all the information. Thanks to everyone for all the input.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

The editors did not print the photos so a photographers error is highly unlikely. These photographs would have been developed by the photographer themselves (or a developer that worked on behalf of all the photographers at specific agency). You would order prints from the service and could specify whether you wanted them reversed or not as some papers were heavier into engraving.

Good point, and I hadn't considered the engraving angle and reversed prints actually being used as part of the printing process in some instances. Can I recant my earlier statement about all reversed prints being goofs?

[Lordstan]

I have one. I got it pretty inexpensively.




As has been stated already, I think in most cases the value would be less than the correct print.

I guess this guy disagrees...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Babe-Ruth-Lo...p2047675.l2557

LOL

[billyb]

Mark,
That is a nice photo. I understand that the reverse image is not valued much at all, but a photo like that is hard not to throw a few dollars in that direction. Mark, I don't blame you al all for grabbing that one.