PSA photo authentication - a suggestion

[drcy]

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by drcy

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is commonly said, art is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree 100%. To my mind, editorial markings are alterations to a photograph, and I have no qualms with undoing an alteration that someone else (besides the photographer) made if doing so enhances the aesthetics of the piece for me. If I want to see how the editor wanted the photo to look in print, I'll hunt down the printed version of the photo. Otherwise, things like crop marks and faces X'd out on the front of a photo feel like they're putting blinders on me and not letting me see the whole scene.

I also peel price stickers off of the bottom of things I buy at the store, and remove labels from my electronics touting what operating system they use or that they are "Energy Star" compliant, so admittedly, there may be a bit of OCD there...

And I don't remove the crop marks from EVERY photo I handle either, so I may be guilty of some partial hypocrisy as well. There's just some that I don't care to look at the image either way, and don't feel like spending the time to clean it up

[Runscott]

Here's a fun one (the back is basically clean and white). I had to look several times to figure it out:

[drcy]

I've never even attempted to remove marks from the front of a news photo, because a) When I owned them (I don't have any anymore) I didn't even know it could be done and b) I'm not a handy person and would fear I'd ruin the photo.

Though the general rule for all areas of memorabilia and art, restoration is okay if you disclose it at sale. In California, you are legally required to disclose any and all restoration or alteration to an artwork you're selling. Duly note the California law isn't a felony or anything. You wouldn't go to jail if you didn't realize the $1,000 painting you sold had been revarnished ten years before you bought it. It's just that non-desclosure is considered deceptive and would be considered legal reason for the buyer to return it for refund within a reasonable period of time. I think the law says the return period is one year. If the deception was intentional and significantly effected the sale price, you could possibly get an additional fine, something akin to a parking ticket. Now, on the other hand, if you sold $20 million of artwork and lied about every piece you sold, then you could get in big trouble.

If you want to avoid the above return rules and issues, simply mention that ink or whatever was removed from a photo in your sales or auction description. I don't know that the disclosure will even lower the sales price. If anything, it could raise it because the bidders see that you're an honest seller and they're willing to bid more with sellers they trust. The California law doesn't say there's anything wrong, bad or illegal with alteration or restoration, just that it has to be disclosed at sale.

And, as was the point of Scott's original post in this lengthy thread, what he thought was removal of ink to the photo was apparently not disclosed at auction. He didn't say whether he thought ink removal was good or bad, he just observed that, if there was ink removal on the photo, it wasn't mentioned.

[Runscott]

I didn't know crop marks could be removed, until a forum member told me about it. Now I find that some of the white or grey marks can be removed, some can't. Same for thin black ink lines that you would think could not be removed. The few times I tried it, results were mixed, so in general I don't attempt it, but I've seen beautiful photos where the entire 'painted out' gray background had been wiped off.

I think the original example I posted had thin black lines that could not be removed completely.

[Frozen in Time]

One thing I have noticed over the years is that the overall condition and degree of editorial escapades appearing on a photo sometimes depends importantly on the original source of the photo.

For example, over the past 30 years or so, I have found with my major focus (which, as most of you know, is Mantle) that when I have bought collections from individual sports writers, photographers and players more often then not the condition of the photos (as well as the lack of editorial work on the front) and various types of stamping on the back is far better than those obtained from the archives of newspapers, news agencies, publishing houses, magazines, etc. This makes sense, as many of these individual photos from the collections of sports writers, players and to some extent photographers were not used in publication, at least not as frequently as those in the news/publishing archives. Thus , less handling, wear and tear and editorial incursions.

This was one reason why early in the game, I did a lot of research locating such sources - and many were remarkably productive.

Craig

[prewarsports]

There is a pretty direct correlation between the popularity of the subject and condition of press photos in general. In the NEA archive I was able to dig through, there were thousands of high grade images from pre 1930 but they are almost always guys that the paper might have received in the mail as part of a group of images and then never used the photo. The big names got used for stories and then reused over and over again being taken in and out of folders for 100 years. The Grover Lowdermilks of the World just sat there like the unpopular toys from "Toy Story" all alone and remained in amazing condition.

Some archives are just beat to hell and it has to do more with storage than anything. If the paper used open folders than they are almost always in bad shape, but if they used self enclosing envelopes for their subjects than aside from some corner bumping (sliding the photos in and out) they can still be found in immaculate condition!