Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[Econteachert205]

.............."with Henry's permission in response to my email inquiry, I am copying his response below"............


Hi Dennis:

Thanks you for your past business. To answer your question ...

Classifying composite photos with the “TYPE” system is on a case by case basis. It depends on the photo in question. First off, very few composite photos would be considered a TYPE I by definition (one made from multiple original negatives) as the majority of composite photos are classified as TYPE III (one made from multiple photos). This is because of the nature of how composite photos were usually made.

A composite photo is "usually" made from multiple photos pieced together. In traditional film photography, the term used is "photomontage" the process and the result of making a composite photograph by cutting and joining two or more photographs into an illusion. The resulting composite image is usually pieced together on an editorial board, then photographed with a camera, the negative developed to make a seamless photographic print - the composite photo itself. In other words, it is a photo of "a multiple of photos". When made in this manner, the composite image is a TYPE III (or TYPE IV if the work was done at a later period later than the depicted subjects forming the composite).

For a composite photo to be a true TYPE I, it would have to be one made off multiple "negatives". The negatives themselves would have to be original negatives as well and not dupe/copy negatives. A photo editor (or photo clerk) would have to actually take these negatives, cut out the desired sectionals which are then joined together and developed to form the composite photo. This practice is rare.

From my experience in what I have seen and in working with archivist of major news photo libraries, most TYPE I composites date to the post WWII-era. Very few joined-negative "proofs" of these composites (made of original negatives pasted together) exist from any era. But there are quite a few photo montage proofs (original photos pieced together mounted on an editorial board).

From an authentication perspective, MANY composite photos can NOT be assigned a “TYPE” classification because they are difficult to determine if the said composite photo was made from multiple photos or made from multiple negatives. PSA does not authenticate/classify many composite photos simply because, in many cases, we just can not say - with absolute certainty.

One important thing I would like to point out is value. Most advanced collectors that collect "composites" do NOT concern themselves of a TYPE designation of the piece. The renowned photographer Carl Horner whose composite photos are by definition, TYPE III but collectors of those five-figure pieces do not base their purchase on what TYPE the piece is classified. It would be silly to even used the TYPE system do so (it would be like classifying 19th century composite cabinet cards with the TYPE designation). It is sort of a different genre of collecting.

In my opinion, the value of a "composite photo" is based on two main factors: (1) the photo being a vintage “period” piece and, (2) the artistry and overall composition of the piece. Not so much the TYPE system. There are some absolutely beautiful composite photos that are some of the most desirable and valuable photographic items in our hobby.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards
Henry