Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[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:

[drcy]

Just remember that Doctor Who wins many of his battles by asking an evil computer or robot for the the answer to an unanswerable paradox and the computer or robot says "Does Not Compute. Does Not Compute" until it explodes.

[Forever Young]

If one is looking for answers as it relates to the type system and want a straight answer, I would suggest you email Henry Yee directly and bypass on the nonsense. I think he is pretty good at getting back to people eventually.

hyee@mindspring.com.

[Runscott]

Discussion isn't really nonsense.

[Jaybird]

Straight answers also don't answer the real question. So you get an answer as to which Type your item is. So what?

The term "composite photo" is much more descriptive than "Type X". Then let your eyes do the work and stop looking for easy answers.

This thread is a perfect example of why I love composite photos so much. You can't label them easily. Unless you contact Henry

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by 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:

That's got to be one of the best artistic composites I've seen.

Here's another one of my favorites. I'm guessing it was used in one of the guides from the 1930's: