Henry Yee Photos and Photos in General - Skeptical

mr2686 · #1 08-17-2010, 02:20 PM

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

HRBAKER · #2 08-17-2010, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr2686

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

So owuld you pay more for the negative or are truly verifiable Type 1 photo of the same?

D. Bergin · #3 08-17-2010, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr2686

Here's the catch-22...the original negatives or glass plates should have more value than the type1 photos because they truly are 1 of 1, but as soon as you print a photo from them the photo is a type2 and not worth much.

The problem with negatives to collectors are that they have no displayability (is that even a word LOL!!).

Being scarcer doesn't always equate to having more value.

I love negatives BTW. Don't always know what to do with them, but I do think they are neat as hell. Especially if you can pull a really nice image from them.

mcgwirecom · #4 08-17-2010, 03:47 PM

On a way more modern note, there are several people selling slides on Ebay. Most are all current or modern players. I obviously collect McGwire stuff so I bought about a dozen slides. The neat thing about these is that you own the rights to it. I can print out pictures from the slides if i wanted. I don't think that is legal with a photo. But if you bought the negative, well I think you then own the rights to the image. Anyone know for sure???

mr2686 · #5 08-17-2010, 04:02 PM

Not unless you have it in writing that you are also buying the rights to the photo/negative/slide etc. From what I can tell it depends on if it's a freelance photographer, one that works for a publications, etc. Depending on the situation, the copyright extends to the "artist" or publication for his lifetime plus 50, 75 or 100 years (depending on the situation and who you ask...and in the case of a publication, from the pulication date).

Hankphenom · #6 08-17-2010, 05:11 PM

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

HRBAKER · #7 08-17-2010, 05:17 PM

Hank,
Thanks for the perspective.
Jeff

thekingofclout · #8 08-17-2010, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

As dealer (small-time, compared to Henry and others) in old photos the past ten years, here's the math I've done in my head to try and figure out the answer to this question. There were between one and several hundred copies of a given photo printed at the time (type 1), depending on whether it was made for a specific publication for exclusive use or sent to multiple publications belonging to a syndicate for whom the photographer did work. In the case of syndicated photos, editors had to decide whether to keep the photo as a file copy, or throw it away after its original ephemeral use. In the case of a great photographers taking a classic shot of a renowned subject, one can assume the instance of keeping a file copy was higher than for an obscure player in an ordinary shot from a meaningless game. But then even the classic photos would have been subject to the ravages of time, including purging files for lack of storage space, or disposal upon the demise of the publication. So that leaves the remaining file copies in newspaper and magazine archives that have survived the years. How many of those archives are there? We'll find out in the next few years as they are sold off one after another for cash in the probably futile attempt of print publications to stay alive. We've seen several archives come to market recently, and I'm sure there will be at least several more. So what's the bottom line on all this? I'm guessing that there are no more than a handful of original Type 1 copies in existence of all but a few images, and that many really are one or two or three of a kind. I've seen a lot of photos over the years, either in person or in auction catalogs, and I don't remember a lot of redundancies. The only ones that come to mind are Brooklyn and Yankee team pictures from the 50s, and it's understandable that those would have been saved by most photo editors. Having said all this, it occurs to me that John Rogers would probably be the best person in the world to answer the question. John?
Hank Thomas

Well put Hank.

Exhibitman · #9 08-17-2010, 08:08 PM

One of the issues I have with the classification of photographs is that they were often made from "negatives" that were not necessarily originals and that existed in multiples. When we used to get a roll of film developed and get prints, we were given original negatives and they were run through the machinery to produce the prints. However, in commercial contexts, as I understand things, that would not happen because it tended to degrade the (valuable) original negative through handling. Instead, to make contact prints (photographs) the actual film itself, the original negative, was used to generate (via a process that I can't fully explain) contact negatives in the size of the intended prints. These contact negatives were often distributed to customers and others who would need to have prints made. I used to deal in Academy Awards materials and I often came across contact negatives in 8 x 10 format that could be used to make "original" photographic prints of classic Oscars moments. They were not the original photographers' negatives but were contact negatives and prints generated from them would be "original" prints but not by the original photographer. Hence the value of stamps, signatures, cartouches, etc. Now, obviously, the paper used to make the prints and the processes used could date some of them to an era after the photo was taken but to the extent that there is old paper stock available (and there is), and someone capable of handling the old processes (and there are some artists who prefer the old forms of photographic printmaking) one could counterfeit original prints from a contact negative.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Let's see your Henry Yee winnings...	thekingofclout	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	18	08-20-2010 09:35 PM
Boxing - Vintage Photos ending Tonight May 9th on Ebay JOE LOUIS, HENRY ARMSTRONG +	D. Bergin	Boxing / Wrestling Cards & Memorabilia Forum	1	05-09-2010 10:05 AM
Boxing - Vintage Photos 1930s Ends Tonight May 9th Ebay JOE LOUIS, HENRY ARMSTRONG+	D. Bergin	Ebay, Auction and other Venues Announcement- B/S/T	1	05-09-2010 10:00 AM
Henry Armstrong Newspaper photos ?	Archive	Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used	2	06-21-2008 03:06 PM
The Henry Yee Effect	Archive	Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions	3	09-28-2004 11:20 AM