Why there is a pencil outline on Ruth?-1932 photo

[Yi]

There is a pencil outline on Ruth. Was this photo used for the baseball card? Hope someone knows.

[Jaybird]

You'll see this on photos that were printed in newspapers for areas with little contrast like the white pants and white background. Also sometimes they will highlight facial features to make them stand out better.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

You'll see this on photos that were printed in newspapers for areas with little contrast like the white pants and white background. Also sometimes they will highlight facial features to make them stand out better.

+1

Some papers had even more, shall we say prolific, "artists" on staff who would cover up logos, re-color uniforms, and even completely paint over and re-create faces. Whatever it took to make an image useful for printing, whether it meant improving contrast, blanking out backgrounds, highlighting details or completely changing elements so that the image fit the story they were running. Since the image quality of photos printed in the newspaper was HORRIBLE compared to even the worst originals, even the most cartoonish of cover-ups could be considered "printable" as long as it had that all-important contrast.

Edited to add: None of that is meant to be a criticism of this photo, but rather to say that the touch-up to it is minor compared to many that I have seen.

[Yi]

Is this good to the value of the photo or bad?

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Yi

Is this good to the value of the photo or bad?

In most cases it does not add value, but if tastefully done (as in this case), is not a big detractor. Generally speaking, most "edits" done to photos like this were done in water-soluble inks and paints or wax pencil and can be removed if desired by the collector. That said though, in a case like this, I would let the end collector make the choice whether to have the enhancement removed as it does not detract from the image. If it were something like wax pencil crop marks around Ruth's head only, my opinion might be different. I try to take these things on a case-by-case basis.

[ethicsprof]

You've had helpful answers, already.
I would just add that I have a number of photos from 1905-1911,particularly,
that exhibit just what you are wondering about. Some such as Josh Clarke,
Walter Clarkson, Ben Demott, Burchell are markedly marked, if you will.
I actually appreciate seeing this on the photos as it helps elucidate the process
of photo editing by the presses,etc.
all the best,
barry

[keating3620]

I thought airbrushing started with Playboy in the '70s. I was way off.....

[Runscott]

Edited - never mind, it's not the same photo , but it does illustrate how often photographers could catch a player in almost the same exact pose, at completely different times (he's even wearing pinstripes here):

[Gary Dunaier]

Originally Posted by Yi

Is this good to the value of the photo or bad?

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

In most cases it does not add value, but if tastefully done (as in this case), is not a big detractor.

Originally Posted by ethicsprof

I actually appreciate seeing this on the photos as it helps elucidate the process of photo editing by the presses,etc.

I agree with both of these comments. But for me, if I was in the market for a certain photograph, I would not want any editing marks on it. I'd be buying it for the image, and in that context the marks, no matter how tastefully done, would be a deal-breaker.

Again, that's just me. Take it with however many grains of salt as you wish.

[drcy]

I agree with all three statements (including Gary's). I prefer no markings, but an unobtrusive or minor marking is okay and shows the photo was used for publication-- which many think is neat. It all depends on how the aesthetics, which of course is a matter of personal taste.