Conlon Type 2

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Lance, I was kind of alluding to the fact that it doesn't matter - the print has to be described accurately, and you can't tell enough just from a type number and a front image.

You should read Rogers' description of how his prints are created - it's interesting. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only forum member who has every purchased any of them as I've asked for reviews from others and haven't gotten any.

Scott, sorry, I probably should have deleted the quote of your post once my mind started wandering. I started off just responding to your question, then realized it was rhetorical, backed up, and wandered down a side-trail without covering up all my tracks. I really need to get more sleep...

So to answer one of my questions, I've been told that while John Rogers' Conlon prints would technically be Type II's, PSA does not authenticate any modern prints produced by individuals from vintage negatives, so it's a moot point as far as ever seeing anything like that in a PSA slab. One reason being that it discourages the flood of wacko homemade pieces and souvenir glossies that they already get a lot of (and turn down).

In light of that, I suppose the question of classification of prints produced from digital scans of original negatives is pretty much academic. My contention would still be that the process of scanning the negative into an intermediate digital format that is then used to produce a laser print (literally using a combination of lasers to expose photographic paper, which is what I think David was alluding to) is very close to the wire photo process so that prints produced that way would be Type III (if from a modern shot taken within 2 years of the scanning/print production) or Type IV (if from a vintage negative).

I would also agree that a printed photo (lots of tiny dots) and a true photographic print (exposed photo paper) are two different animals, regardless of the originating source of the image.

Now, to stir the pot a little more, where do you think a photo originally shot with a digital camera and then laser-printed onto true photo paper would fall? Still a moot point as far as PSA authenticating them (not sure why anyone would want that for a modern digital shot anyway), but fun to discuss. I think. If not, I'll shut up now and keep my rambling thoughts to myself

(Joey, sorry too for further hi-jacking your thread.)

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

Now, to stir the pot a little more, where do you think a photo originally shot with a digital camera and then laser-printed onto true photo paper would fall? Still a moot point as far as PSA authenticating them (not sure why anyone would want that for a modern digital shot anyway), but fun to discuss. I think. If not, I'll shut up now and keep my rambling thoughts to myself

(Joey, sorry too for further hi-jacking your thread.)

Ask Henry.

[drcy]

A digital photo can be original, type one (depending on the condition on which it was shot of course), but is a digital photograph not a real photograph. I volunteer in a art gallery, and many artist make digital photos these days with no film in involved.

I was at a reception looking at a French artist's photos on large sheets of aluminum and said to her "Are these digital or real photogaphs?"
She said "Digital is a real photograph."
I said "No it isn't.'

Other than that, we had a pleasant conversation. Hers were digital.

And, yes, she was cute and spoke with a French accent.

Also, original isn't ordinarily used in vacuum. In normal language attached to something else "original photo" "original digital print" "original T206." It's usually in context to the words it it precedes. Original in the absolute sense is a philosophical topic. You can say original has somewhat different meanings in different context. The images on the 1933 Goudeys are reproductions of photographs, most will say its fair to call one "an original 1933 Goudey Babe Ruth." Maybe original isn't the perfect term ('Oxford dictionary definition b'), but it's used within the context of cards and communicating to other collectors. And I'm sure most collectors are aware that the images on 'original' 1952 and 53 Topps are reproductions of paintings.

Also, something to think about, an original straight from the camera digital image posted online is an original image viewed by many on their computers.

But, yes, I think digital photographs can be type 1s.

[drcy]

For the record, 'weak and ineffectual' was just a line from Seinfeld.