Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[drcy]

Depends on how the composite is made. The images can be made from the original negative, or can be second generation. Also, since there are multiple parts and images, some parts can be first generation and some generation. One individual image can be original, while another is a reprint.

In cases, a composite has the individual images printed one after another on a sheet of photo paper, each from the original single player negative, and meets any definition of original. It's just that the photo was printed in parts, and while one player was being printed, the rest of the photo paper was covered up. One the order of painting a painting, by painting the hand, then the leg, then the head.

In cases, the individual photos are literally pinned or placed on a background and the whole design is photographed. So the whole unique design is first generation original, but the individual photos within in are photos of photos. For example, there was a composite of individual player photos places amongst a physical wreath and handwritten design and text and that was photographed. The resulting composite was simultaneously first generation and second generation-- the photo of the whole design and wreath was original, but it contained already photographed photos within it.

In another case, a 1950 wirephoto may include two really old, rough quality second generation images from the newspaper's dusty archives printed side by side-- clearly different that the above two examples.

As I said, it depends how they are made.

Also realize that many composites are ornate and unique, and the background design and graphics can be original artistically, so the whole piece can be original in artistic sense, while the individual pieces are second generation. It's kind of like cutting up 1990s baseball cards are arranging them into portraits of Derek Jeter. Each piece is old, but the overall artwork is original and new.

A good example is a Horner cabinet of an individual player the above team composite. The cabinet and the postcard are different things. They look nothing like each other, they're different designs. The postcard is a unique design and creation, perhaps never seen before. Do you consider the postcard original or not? It's a matter of opinion and the way you look at it. Someone might even say "Both yes and no."

If you make a composite that has an original photo pasted next to ten year old reprint, is the composite original or reprint? That's a real question you get with many composites. Some may say the question itself is myopic and dubious. Some questions don't have either/or answers.

So composites are complicated and can have conflicting parts. And there can be legitimate differing opinions if the overall piece is 'original' or not.

This is a prime example where the type system doesn't answer all your questions. A composite can both be original and second generation-- have original and second generation parts or be an original design but with individual second generation parts. Something can be original in way of consideration but not another equally valid way. The question of if an piece is original can go beyond what the type system can tell you.

A valuation key with composite photos is the age of the photo. A vintage 1908 composite of the Detroit Tigers with Ty Cobb will be valued due to its age, even if technically the individual images are second generation and some shot in 1901. Is the above postcard, with old individual images in it, rare, valuable and prized by collectors? Yes, very much. It will cost you 10x more than many Type I Babe Ruth photos. If you say the postcard "Isn't type I" and the seller agrees with you, it's still cost you 10X more than that Type I Babe Ruth photo. The postcard's value goes beyond it's "Typeness."

To me, if one person calls that postcard original and another says it isn't (because the individual player images are old), that's fine with me. I don't even necessarily see a conflict in those superficially conflicting answers. As I said, an answer don't always have an either/or answer.

Also, it's essential to realize that humans are not magicians or supercomputers, they can't do 100 things all at once. There is a process and time to make a final artistic project. A Peanuts cartoon strip involved many sketches, a Da Vinci painting was made after sketches and practice paintings and may have taken months. To make a grand, ornate composite photo, such as the wreath composite I described, he had to do it in stages. And you judge the overall originality by the finished artistic process. If you judge the originality an artwork by the process to get there, no Rembrandt or Da Vinci painting is original, because there are pre-sketches and paintings in the same design. Rather, you judge the originality by the finished product.