Brooklyn CDV

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

If the reissue was made from the original negative, why would the resolution be poorer?

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Corey- I'm assuming if the same negative keeps getting used, the photograph will lose some clarity. That may not be correct, that is my assumption.

We've noted that the photo resolution on the Cincinnati Peck and Snyders with a red mount are not as strong as those on the black mounts, and have surmised that the red mounts were a later issue. I'm using the same principle with the Atlantics CdV.

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

Since there are many many more Red Stockings CdVs/trade cards that have survived, we can surmise they were printed in much greater quantity, thus likely causing degradation to the negative. Given the extraordinary rarity of the 1865 Atlantics CdV image, likely much less were printed leading to the question whether the quantity printed was enough to cause discernable degradation to the negative.

David (Cycleback) could answer this question - I have sent him a link to this thread.

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Regardless of technical issue with re-using negatives, I believe the image degradation on this photo was done intentionally (real or not real).

Why would the studio want to intentionally degrade the quality of the image?