Brooklyn CDV

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by benjulmag

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

If it was not intentional, then we're left with it being some sort of test piece [edited to add: or a photo of a photo]. Perhaps someone at the studio was practicing his vignette skills and this print was the result. Still playing around, he glued it to an existing mount. He was, of course, surprised that his measurements were incorrect when he cut the photo, so he gave up and didn't create any more. Googling 'Williamson Brooklyn cdv', I have been unable to find any examples where the image does not fit the mount, which goes along with the possibility that it was a test piece.

Since 'vignettes' were a Williamson specialty, it should not be too difficult to find an example somewhere...

...Hey, I found one! You can see how Williamson 'faded out' the photograph at the top, being careful to preserve the integrity (and definition) of the little girl's image:



Here's another (the Williamson markings are only on the reverse) Interestingly, despite all the 'white space' in the image, Williamson still created an albumen that fit the mount. This cdv was created by taking a photograph of a drawing. Certainly, with the Brooklyn Atlantics cdv, Williamson's studio could have taken a photograph of a photograph, which would account for loss of definition.

[smokelessjoe]

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by smokelessjoe

I wouldn't say that Williamson was well known for his Frame/crop work in regards to his CDVs.... Some are pretty sloppy.

Actually, those look pretty good, and he uses the entire available mount on both. That one on the left is a great example of his vignettes, and a very clear image.

[smokelessjoe]

Scott,

We will disagree I guess... Actually not of high quality - certainly not his best. Trimmed & mounted fairly hastily / crooked and overlapping... and a clear image compared to what? I would have to have another of the same to say whether its clear or not? (this in context of comparing two CDVs in question)

[Runscott]

never mind....waste of time

[drc]

Visa vie my earlier post, I thought it would be interesting to post three 1860s period Abe Lincoln albumen photos. These were made for sale and are by prominent studios.

#1) Mathew Brady cabinet with sharp and clear image (though with some aging/foxing)





#2) Oversized albumen with second generation/worn image and some artistic manipulation. By Henry F. Warren, well known to baseball photo collectors Of historical footnote, this is the last image of Lincoln.






#3) And an albumen CDV that reproduces artwork, probably an engraving. It's actually a photograph of the art.

[oldjudge]

Troy--any word on the guarantee?

[drc]

I haven't followed the details of this thread or looked closely at the images, but having handled countless 'mass produced' 1860s CDVs of famous people and situations I can say that the image quality can legitimately vary in quality and clarity between CDVs of the same subject. These were often produced as commercial items, not original works of art, and the image quality can vary for a variety of reasons, including aging and time changes to the negative or print, who made them, perhaps the some were made form a copy images, etc. It's possible to find one lighter and/or clearer than another and they were made in the same year. Perhaps they weren't made in the same way or by the same printer (helping to explain the difference), but they can be from the same time period.

With civil war era photo of US generals, presidents and other famous people, some of the images are clearly first generation (images are as sharp and detailed as a modern photo) while others are copy images, copy negatives and even reproductions of engravings and paintings. The latter don't qualify as 'Type I' but do date to Civil War.