Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

They wouldn't have been done from negatives. The original print would have been cut up and placed on a background and then rephotographed.

Great point. You can think of it as 'marking up' a Type I photo with pieces of other material. I don't know enough about printing to know if all the marked-up photos were re-photographed before going to press, but I have seen some examples;e.g-you will see some Type I's (see Ben, I now love that term) that have little white arrows glued to them to point out a baseball, etc., but you will also see photographs where such an arrow is part of the print (so not a Type I). Also, you will hear arguments (generally from the seller, or new owner) that these little arrows were placed directly on the negative to produce the print, which would make the print a Type I. I think that's hogwash, but perhaps someone can produce a glass negative with a little white arrow affixed to it.

So perhaps all such artistic creations were treated like these composites and postcards. Here's one of my favorite new pick-ups (actual cut-up print, glued to paper):