Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[Jaybird]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

It is my understanding that if it comes from the negatives within a two year frame it is type one, so if that was done from multiple original negatives within that time frame it should not matter and still should be type 1. I could be wrong.

They wouldn't have been done from negatives. The original print would have been cut up and placed on a background and then rephotographed. So, it is by nature a photo of multiple prints assembled. I don't know what label you want to put on it given that information.

I don't own this one anymore but you can see the ovals were cut out, put on a background where they did some nice ornamentation and then it was photographed and reproduced. Same thing with the H&S one. Multiple prints (from original negatives) are assembled on the background with that writing in the middle. Then someone even wrote on each player's image a number. Then it was photographed and a new print made from that new composite negative.

The new composite negative that was created is a new entity, so perhaps they are calling the print derived from that composite negative a TYPE 1. But the images used within that negative are now 2nd generation.

[drcy]

double post

[drcy]

Depends on how the composite is made. The images can be made from the original negative, or can be second generation. Also, since there are multiple parts and images, some parts can be first generation and some generation. One individual image can be original, while another is a reprint.

In cases, a composite has the individual images printed one after another on a sheet of photo paper, each from the original single player negative, and meets any definition of original. It's just that the photo was printed in parts, and while one player was being printed, the rest of the photo paper was covered up. One the order of painting a painting, by painting the hand, then the leg, then the head.

In cases, the individual photos are literally pinned or placed on a background and the whole design is photographed. So the whole unique design is first generation original, but the individual photos within in are photos of photos. For example, there was a composite of individual player photos places amongst a physical wreath and handwritten design and text and that was photographed. The resulting composite was simultaneously first generation and second generation-- the photo of the whole design and wreath was original, but it contained already photographed photos within it.

In another case, a 1950 wirephoto may include two really old, rough quality second generation images from the newspaper's dusty archives printed side by side-- clearly different that the above two examples.

As I said, it depends how they are made.

Also realize that many composites are ornate and unique, and the background design and graphics can be original artistically, so the whole piece can be original in artistic sense, while the individual pieces are second generation. It's kind of like cutting up 1990s baseball cards are arranging them into portraits of Derek Jeter. Each piece is old, but the overall artwork is original and new.

A good example is a Horner cabinet of an individual player the above team composite. The cabinet and the postcard are different things. They look nothing like each other, they're different designs. The postcard is a unique design and creation, perhaps never seen before. Do you consider the postcard original or not? It's a matter of opinion and the way you look at it. Someone might even say "Both yes and no."

If you make a composite that has an original photo pasted next to ten year old reprint, is the composite original or reprint? That's a real question you get with many composites. Some may say the question itself is myopic and dubious. Some questions don't have either/or answers.

So composites are complicated and can have conflicting parts. And there can be legitimate differing opinions if the overall piece is 'original' or not.

This is a prime example where the type system doesn't answer all your questions. A composite can both be original and second generation-- have original and second generation parts or be an original design but with individual second generation parts. Something can be original in way of consideration but not another equally valid way. The question of if an piece is original can go beyond what the type system can tell you.

A valuation key with composite photos is the age of the photo. A vintage 1908 composite of the Detroit Tigers with Ty Cobb will be valued due to its age, even if technically the individual images are second generation and some shot in 1901. Is the above postcard, with old individual images in it, rare, valuable and prized by collectors? Yes, very much. It will cost you 10x more than many Type I Babe Ruth photos. If you say the postcard "Isn't type I" and the seller agrees with you, it's still cost you 10X more than that Type I Babe Ruth photo. The postcard's value goes beyond it's "Typeness."

To me, if one person calls that postcard original and another says it isn't (because the individual player images are old), that's fine with me. I don't even necessarily see a conflict in those superficially conflicting answers. As I said, an answer don't always have an either/or answer.

Also, it's essential to realize that humans are not magicians or supercomputers, they can't do 100 things all at once. There is a process and time to make a final artistic project. A Peanuts cartoon strip involved many sketches, a Da Vinci painting was made after sketches and practice paintings and may have taken months. To make a grand, ornate composite photo, such as the wreath composite I described, he had to do it in stages. And you judge the overall originality by the finished artistic process. If you judge the originality an artwork by the process to get there, no Rembrandt or Da Vinci painting is original, because there are pre-sketches and paintings in the same design. Rather, you judge the originality by the finished product.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Jaybird

They wouldn't have been done from negatives. The original print would have been cut up and placed on a background and then rephotographed.

Great point. You can think of it as 'marking up' a Type I photo with pieces of other material. I don't know enough about printing to know if all the marked-up photos were re-photographed before going to press, but I have seen some examples;e.g-you will see some Type I's (see Ben, I now love that term) that have little white arrows glued to them to point out a baseball, etc., but you will also see photographs where such an arrow is part of the print (so not a Type I). Also, you will hear arguments (generally from the seller, or new owner) that these little arrows were placed directly on the negative to produce the print, which would make the print a Type I. I think that's hogwash, but perhaps someone can produce a glass negative with a little white arrow affixed to it.

So perhaps all such artistic creations were treated like these composites and postcards. Here's one of my favorite new pick-ups (actual cut-up print, glued to paper):

[Econteachert205]

It seems to me that drcy is correct, it is possible to do it either way. Whether one or the other method is done most or more often, it would seem that 2nd gen might be easier, though I don't know

[drcy]

If you look at 1800s composite photos, they are about 50/50 made both way. Printing a single print from individual negatives one after the other, or making a physical composite on a board with ornate design then photographing that all at once. All other things equivalent (say both are vintage 1869 composites of the 1869 Reds), each way will be value the same and the technicality of how the composite was made will be just that-- a technicality for photography philosophers to debate on a chat board and most others won't care either way about. In fact, if the 'second generation' way looks far nicer than the first way (It's got a cooler design, etc), it will be worth more. Yes, in that case, the technically second generation photo will be valued more than the first generation-- perhaps far more if the first generation is too basic and ugly.

People who judge photos strictly by their technicalities, type labels and color coded pie chart representations miss the forrest for the trees, think reading the 50 page Cliff Notes is the same as reading the novel, miss the scenic Swiss Alps attractions going by their car window because their nose is stuck in the road map. Photos are also judged and valued for their artistic, aesthetic and display values.

For Scott's interesting mix and match photo, it's a cool vintage photo. Whether it's technically a a "Type I" or not is just that-- a technicality. An interesting topic for chatboard discussion, but will have no effect on its sale price. It's a cool vintage photo and valued on that criterion. Perhaps the only way the photographer could have made that unique and interesting design that one finds so unique and interesting was to rephotograph the cut out photo on the design. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Some might both say it contains a photo of a photo, but is still original because it's vintage and the overall design is unique. Scott, as the owner, might say "Irrelevant to what it technically is, it still costs $70. Call it a Type XXVII photo and the price is still $70. If you want to save money, buy two photos from my eBay store and I'l combine shipping."

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

People who judge photos strictly by their technicalities, type system and pie chart representations miss the forrest for the trees. Photos are also judged and valued for their artistic and aesthetic values.

That is a novel concept - I have been growing to learn that it's primarily about $$$ value. Unlearning me could be slow and painful - please stop.

Also, if you are going to use my name, please capitalize it. Or you could 'capitolize' it, as long as you share.

[bn2cardz]

I agree that the type number shouldn't matter on value or beauty of the piece, my question was purely a question of semantics not on value.

I had picked up a picture of Mel Blanc with Bugs Bunny. This is a composite. It was labeled 1, but a Rhys so I don't question it. I assumed it being a type 1 came from most of the composite being the first time it was photographed with only Mel's face being from an older photo. I just like the image and new the composite itself was original. It wouldn't have mattered to me if it was labeled 1st generation or 2nd generation. I was just curious how most people would label a composite.

[drcy]

When selling a photo, you don't always have to give a "Type" label. Why are you required to say what "type" of photo is that Mel Blanc photo, when different people will have different interpretations? It's a matter of semantics and personal definition and ways of viewing the photo making process and the photo is part sketch design and part photographic image (Can a photo be 50% original? 75% original? Is a composite with half original images and half reprint images a 'Half a Type I?'). And, as you say, what type it is and who's semantics you use has no effect on your liking or valuation of the photo.

It's like with the George Burke photos. If you don't even know when the photo was printed, you literally can't say what type it is. In your eBay sales description, how can you label what type is a George Burke photo when you don't know what type it is? The answer is, you can't. The type system can't be applied and doesn't come into play.

As I said, focusing strictly on the type labels often involves missing the forrest for the trees. If the Mel Blanc was vintage, cool, unique and you loved it, you should have purchased it. And that's exactly what you did. Bravo! Sounds like you made a great purchase. If someone wants that vintage circa 1930s George Burke photo of Dizzy Dean even though he doesn't know what "type" it is and may never know, he should buy it. Is someone out there seriously never going to buy a 1930s George Burke photo because no one can tell what "type" it is?

[thecatspajamas]

The Type system is for classification, not assigning merit or artistic value. Whether a photo is Type 1 or not doesn't make it 2 better than any other photo which happens to be a Type 3. And if you really really like a photo re-shot from an attractive arrangement of die-cut, hand-lettered, artistically-embellished 1st generation photos, I mean really really REALLY like, it still doesn't make it a Type 1. Desirability does not define Type classification, and a Type number is not a comment on a photo's artistic merit.

Put another way, a photo's Type may affect its desirability, but desirability does not affect its Type.

To answer the OP's question, the 1909 Pirates composite is a Type 3. And a very desirable one at that.