Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[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?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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 that the photo is part sketch design and part photographic image (Can a photo be 50% original? 75% original?). 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. If you want that vintage circa 1930s George Burke photo of Dizzy Dean buy it, even though you don't know what "type" it is and may never know. Is someone out there seriously never going to buy a circa 1930s George Burke photo because no one can tell what "type" it is?

I told you to stop making sense. Next you will tell us that if we don't like the backstamps we still should consider turning the photo over and looking at the image.

And again you use 'forrest'

[drcy]

"What type of photo is that Yankees team composite on your wall?"
"Depends of what time of day you ask."
"No, seriously. Is it original or second generation?"
"Yes, definitely."
"You aren't giving me straight answers."
"My answers are straight. It's your questions that are crooked."

[Exhibitman]

This 'Type' stuff is a PSA construct and should not really be used unless it is in reference to PSA product. Situations like the ones in this thread show the futility of that construct, frankly. I mean, look at this 1927 composite photo from Dempsey-Tunney II: how would PSA classify it? Plainly a photo of other photos but so what?



As for art made of photos and other media, the ones shown so far are great. I have always loved this piece I picked up several years ago of the [then] two tallest heavyweight champs, Jess Willard and Primo Carnera:

[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.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 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.

Correct. I thought that I already established that. The question I thought was are "all" this or that. I think I am missing pieces .. I am on my phone. My 1915 photo is def type. .

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Correct. I thought that I already established that. The question I thought was are "all" this or that. I think I am missing pieces .. I am on my phone. My 1915 photo is def type. .

Ben, I wasn't trying to steal your thunder if I restated your position, and wasn't aiming my comments at anyone in particular. Just reading and "swyping" on my phone as well, and not about to try and quote or go back over with a fine-toothed comb (that last post took me about 20 minutes to hammer out). I'm really just a little surprised by all the sentiments that the Type system is so open-ended/subject to personal interpretation, and that every photo must be able to have a Type assigned to it. A response of "a Type classification simply isn't possible and/or appropriate for that piece" should always be an acceptable response. It doesn't make what you have any more or less desirable than it would be without the Type classification, and in those cases, you simply have to use a few more words to describe what it is.

[Econteachert205]

Mr Yee just responded to me. what a total gentlemen. I am awaiting his response as to whether I can post the entirety of his response, it was very informative.

[drcy]

Okay then. If a composite photo has an equal number of type I images of individual players and an equal number type III images of players in it, it it a Type I photo or a Type III photo? Or is it neither? Or both? Or both and neither simultaneously? Or is it half and half? Or is the very question of 'which one or the other is it?' fruitless and silly, because it doesn't have to be 'wholly one of the other'?

There is no one correct answer to the above photo. Someone could just as easily and logically name it a Type I as they could a Type III. They'd both be equality right and equally wrong. And one could reasonably say "It's sort of both and neither or an average of the two at the same time. Because part of it is Type I, which means that part is not type III, and part of it's Type III (which means that part of isn't Type I). As you can see it's not entirely one or the other."

The very asking of "What type of photo is it, Type I or Type III" implies that it has to be one or the other. The question itself is bad and shallow.

PERSON A: "Is a ball hollow or is it rubber?"
PERSON B: "Why does it have to be one or the other? Why can't it be both simultaneously? Or why can't it be part hollow and part rubber simultaneously? Or why can't it be neither, such as with a solid plastic ball?"
PERSON A: "That's nonsense. A ball can only be rubber or hollow."
PERSON B: "Why can't the ball be made out of solid metal? Why can't a ball the made out of solid leather? What about a ball of yarn? Why can't a solid ball be made one third out of plastic, one third out of leather and one third out of metal?"
PERSON A: "Now, you're really talking nonsense."

In many cases, the very notion that something has to only one thing or the other is nonsensical and shows a lack of intellect. Yes, that a ball has to be EITHER rubber OR hollow is nonsensical. I used it as an obviously silly and nonsensical example. But it is also nonsensical that the above photo that has to be EITHER Type I or Type III. In parts it's like Type I and in parts its like Type III. It's silly that it has to be labelled as wholly one or the other.

As my dad would often say to me when I asked him 'Is it A or B?' questions, "That's not an either/or question." Meaning A and B weren't mutually exclusive. The answer could be both and the answer could be neither.

My dad wouldn't give you an answer unless you phrased the question logically. He'd often say "That's a non-question."

[drcy]

And here you go, folks. I just asked dear old dad about a theoretical photo that was half (left side) original and half (right side) reprint. I used the specific example of it being a 1940 photo of Joe Dimaggio, with the left half showing him in 1940 and the right half showing him back when he was a kid. I asked him "It the whole photo an original or it is a reprint?" His answer was "Well, it's not really either."