Are Type I Photos The Only Safe Bet In This Hobby?

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by SetBuilder

If that's the case, then a large percentage of Old Judges are fake, because most have degraded and blurry images with poor registration.

I've seen a few glass negatives at auctions and most have some wear and tear from being handled constantly -- fingerprints, dirt, scratches, stains, etc.

Plus, the negatives were exposed out in the sun, with the constant flow of harsh UV rays. Over time the negatives probably got lighter and the image therefore got darker and blurrier.

I remember reading a story that Mathew Brady's glass plate war negatives were liquidated and purchased at an auction. The man who bought them used them to line the roof/ceiling of his greenhouse. Imagine that. After a few years the glass plates were practically transparent due to the UV exposure.

Resolution is different than contrast. I agree that photos can become washed out in time. I heard that same story about the Brady glass negatives. As I recall the two Atlantics CdVs had comparable contrast. Yet the one at the Library of Congress shows noticeably better detail. Assuming the photos were printed at the same time from the same negative, are you saying that phenomena can be explained solely by how they were stored over the years? I say that as a question, not a statement, which is why I made the post in the first place.

[oldjudge]

BTW, all N172s are photographs of photographs. That is why N173s, which are first generation photographs, are oftentimes sharper than N172s.

[drcy]

Very few baseball cards are original in the photograph, sketch or painting sense. The graphics are usually reproductions of original art. After all, you can buy the original art for many cards-- 1953 Topps paintings, Exhibit photos, etc.

[itslarry]

Side question: can anyone please recommend a 'light read about the history/anecdotes involved in historic photography (whatever the correct term is). Nothing too serious or advanced, but for a relaxing evening of reading as the snow comes. I've found this thread pretty interesting and figure learning a little will def. Help my appreciation of it.

[sphere and ash]

Originally Posted by itslarry

Side question: can anyone please recommend a 'light read about the history/anecdotes involved in historic photography (whatever the correct term is). Nothing too serious or advanced, but for a relaxing evening of reading as the snow comes. I've found this thread pretty interesting and figure learning a little will def. Help my appreciation of it.

Looking at Photographs: 100 Pictures from the Collection of the Museum of Modern Art, by John Szarkowski, who built the photography department there. One hundred images with one page on each.

https://www.amazon.com/Looking-Photo.../dp/0821226231

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by drcy

Resolution is very relevant to identifying an original versus reproduction. However, some processes, including albumen, can fade with age. The other problem with more modern photos is that they can be slightly blurry due to the photographer not having it in focus.

Modern photos, as you well know, are 35mm. Newspaper photographers went to 35mm, I believe in the late 60's, while photos from Babe Ruth's days were all 4 x 5 - which made for much better resolution. I have many baseball photos from the 70's and they all, to me, look like crap even though they're all original.

It's all about the paper it seems to me. The photo itself can easily be faked.

Scan of original 1970's photo from 35mm negative
mark fidrych.jpg

4 x 5 negative scanned
marlin stuart1.jpg