Photo opportunities in legendary and in general

[billyb]

Scott A.

Nice Ruth photo, glad to see you are still keeping an eye on this web site. I may have to start researching the families of photographers, you have some great examples.

Bill Boyd

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by billyb

Scott A.

Nice Ruth photo, glad to see you are still keeping an eye on this web site. I may have to start researching the families of photographers, you have some great examples.

Bill Boyd

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

Crappy wire photo:

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

Crappy wire photo:

Let me guess...you Are sitting on negatives? so...do you value an original conlon Ruth,for example, the same as a photo copy and think there are stacks of them available? Or are you speaking of 70s and 80s?

How many Mantle topps rookies, Ruth Goudeys, and Wagner t206 were printed? Howmany of them survived? And what are the current prices of those?? Time is not forgiving... We will leave it at that.

[bobfreedman]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Both my father and grandfather were newspaper photographers. They both had darkrooms in their houses and so, as kids and grandkids, our childhoods were documented photographically as if we were royalty!

I would offer one bit of advice to anyone buying "rare" photos: Every photographer wants his photo to be plastered across the universe. Never, ever assume you are buying the only copy of a photo. If there's one for sale, there are probably at least dozens more out there. With wire photos, probably way more than that since they were distributed to every newspaper across the country who subscribed to that wire service: ap, ups, etc. And anyone who worked at a newspaper had easy access to those photos.

I've been in the darkroom at the Detroit Free Press and News back in the 70's and 80's and I know from experience, those photographers experimented with cropping and different exposures and always made multiple copies of photos. Once the negative was produced, if the photo was a keeper, they made lots and lots of copies and regularly smuggled them out to give away.

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

I have no idea where you are getting your information because you cannot be more further from the truth. Ask anyone that has gone through these archives and ask them how many Conlons, Bains, or, Thompsons they have found? They search through a million photos to find ten decent photos. Take a look in eBay and see what photos are up there. See what was in Legendary last night? It was about 1000 wire photos and about 10 famous photographer photos.

I have no clue where you are getting your information from besides your Dad which is only one data point. Try doing some research next time.

[thecatspajamas]

Anybody here divert your attention from Legendary last night long enough to pick up this lot from Hunt? If so and you would be willing to part with the Altrock shots (top left, and second from top in right column) let me know.

http://www.huntauctions.com/phone/im...9&lot_num=1116

[Runscott]

Haha Lance - I had my eye on several Hunt lots, then forgot about them last night while following Legendary. It happens every time.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Haha Lance - I had my eye on several Hunt lots, then forgot about them last night while following Legendary. It happens every time.

It sucks.. I miss out on so many lots as I cannot deal with teh website navigation nor the lack of good descriptions, picture and back scans of photos.
I don't even look at the auction anymore.. EVER. It is a shame. I wonder if anyone else has got to this point too.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

It sucks.. I miss out on so many lots as I cannot deal with teh website navigation nor the lack of good descriptions, picture and back scans of photos.
I don't even look at the auction anymore.. EVER. It is a shame. I wonder if anyone else has got to this point too.

I have never bid with Hunt, because it is hard to navigate. I try looking through, but then never go back. They really should change to the standard Simple Auctions software (I have no vested interest, I just like that it has become the standard).

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

You just talked about all the variations of prints that the photographers created from THEIR negative - isn't that the real art? Collectors value the work that the photographer-artist put into creating the actual prints, near the actual time they were printed. True - the negative is unique, but you can't display a negative as a piece of art, and if the photographer has been dead for 100 years, he can no longer create a piece of art from the negative. And you certainly can't - as nice a job as John Rogers has done with the Conlon original negatives, they don't come close to the original prints that Conlon produced with vintage techniques, vintage tools and equipment and his own artistic genius.

Still, negatives are doing pretty well these days.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

And wire photos were considered junk and regularly scrapped as such. I'm blown away by the interest and prices being paid for them. To me they're no more valuable than a photo copy.

Now the guy with the original negative....that's the guy with the gold! But the hobby hasn't quite come to that conclusion yet. Photos are still fetching more than negatives it seems. I really think that will change as time goes on. There's only one original negative.

I don't think you will ever see a market for negatives that will challenge the market for photos, because negatives do not satisfy either of the potential customer bases as well as vintage photos do.

I used to do Hollywood memorabilia sales retail at shows and wholesale to the tourist places in Hollywood, including lots of photos, so I have a business background in a very similar product. I had an extensive inventory of original press photos and also a lot of negatives, slides and transparencies. The old photos always were the big sellers. As the vintage inventory sold off, I decided to make new prints from the reproducible media. Guess what? No collectors wanted the modern prints, even if they were the same images. I could sell a yellowed, crazed, back-stamped, even warped, vintage still all day long for good money but that the same image reproduced from an original neg onto first rate modern paper was nearly worthless.

Then I thought about it. The market is either the retail end user--the collector--or a wholesale vendor--the dealer. An old negative ain't pretty to look at. With little or no aesthetic value for display purposes on a wall or in an album, negs have low retail appeal. Most collectors would rather have a vintage photo that they can look at or hang on the wall, so they pay for wall-ready examples of vintage images of their heroes. They pay even more when the markings and wear on the image peg it to a specific time and place. At the wholesale level, negatives are tools valued strictly on what can be done with them, i.e., make prints. Unfortunately, what sells for next to nothing are modern prints. If all you can do with an old negative is create low value modern prints, then the old negatives don't have much value to wholesale buyers either.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Exhibitman

An old negative ain't pretty to look at. With little or no aesthetic value for display purposes on a wall or in an album, negs have low retail appeal.

That's the way I always felt also, but then I bought a group of five large-format glass negatives, and they are actually pretty cool to look at, but I think it's just because they are old, solid items and it's nice to imagine the photographer pulling them out of his camera, creating prints, etc. At some point I will have prints made from them and find some way to display the entire mess. Still, as you say - the aesthetics just don't add up for negatives, especially film.

[Exhibitman]

I have a couple of magic lantern glass slides, so I understand what you mean, but they aren't anywhere as convenient to enjoy as a postcard.