Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[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.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Discussion isn't really nonsense.

+1

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

+1

Oh it certainly is with some people.

[Econteachert205]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

Oh it certainly is with some people.

Perhaps...

[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

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by 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

WOW... that's some deep s*it....

Who can't?? They people who have posted on here?? Can't or won't? The question was asked about what type it would be. If that person is interested, they can contact Henry is all I am saying. Ther eis not a blanket type as there are numerous ways a composite can be made.
I am gla dyou love composite photos.. collect what you love for sure.

[Econteachert205]

Well I just emailed Henry so we'll see if he responds.

[Runscott]

...

I love lamp

[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: