Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[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]

<< 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. >>

I agree with that. In cases the type system doesn't apply, or the photo doesn't fit (at least neatly) into the type system, or the type, while technically accurate, doesn't tell the whole story. In some cases a photo can straddle types or fit into multiple types (see composites). In cases you have to go beyond the type labels to explain what the photo really is. Sometimes the description of a novel photo's identity and nature can't fit on a physical label because it's 800 words long.

Question: "Is your composite photo for sale Type I or is it Type II?"
Answer: "The answer to what it is is more complicated that your question suggests. Let me explain how the different parts of the photo were made ..."

[Econteachert205]

.............."with Henry's permission in response to my email inquiry, I am copying his response below"............


Hi Dennis:

Thanks you for your past business. To answer your question ...

Classifying composite photos with the “TYPE” system is on a case by case basis. It depends on the photo in question. First off, very few composite photos would be considered a TYPE I by definition (one made from multiple original negatives) as the majority of composite photos are classified as TYPE III (one made from multiple photos). This is because of the nature of how composite photos were usually made.

A composite photo is "usually" made from multiple photos pieced together. In traditional film photography, the term used is "photomontage" the process and the result of making a composite photograph by cutting and joining two or more photographs into an illusion. The resulting composite image is usually pieced together on an editorial board, then photographed with a camera, the negative developed to make a seamless photographic print - the composite photo itself. In other words, it is a photo of "a multiple of photos". When made in this manner, the composite image is a TYPE III (or TYPE IV if the work was done at a later period later than the depicted subjects forming the composite).

For a composite photo to be a true TYPE I, it would have to be one made off multiple "negatives". The negatives themselves would have to be original negatives as well and not dupe/copy negatives. A photo editor (or photo clerk) would have to actually take these negatives, cut out the desired sectionals which are then joined together and developed to form the composite photo. This practice is rare.

From my experience in what I have seen and in working with archivist of major news photo libraries, most TYPE I composites date to the post WWII-era. Very few joined-negative "proofs" of these composites (made of original negatives pasted together) exist from any era. But there are quite a few photo montage proofs (original photos pieced together mounted on an editorial board).

From an authentication perspective, MANY composite photos can NOT be assigned a “TYPE” classification because they are difficult to determine if the said composite photo was made from multiple photos or made from multiple negatives. PSA does not authenticate/classify many composite photos simply because, in many cases, we just can not say - with absolute certainty.

One important thing I would like to point out is value. Most advanced collectors that collect "composites" do NOT concern themselves of a TYPE designation of the piece. The renowned photographer Carl Horner whose composite photos are by definition, TYPE III but collectors of those five-figure pieces do not base their purchase on what TYPE the piece is classified. It would be silly to even used the TYPE system do so (it would be like classifying 19th century composite cabinet cards with the TYPE designation). It is sort of a different genre of collecting.

In my opinion, the value of a "composite photo" is based on two main factors: (1) the photo being a vintage “period” piece and, (2) the artistry and overall composition of the piece. Not so much the TYPE system. There are some absolutely beautiful composite photos that are some of the most desirable and valuable photographic items in our hobby.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards
Henry

[Runscott]

Well done, Henry!

This was a great discussion - explored the topic pretty well despite all the vintage photo politics. People outside of the hobby must think this is ludicrous.

[71buc]

Originally Posted by Econteachert205

.............."with Henry's permission in response to my email inquiry, I am copying his response below"............

For a composite photo to be a true TYPE I, it would have to be one made off multiple "negatives". The negatives themselves would have to be original negatives as well and not dupe/copy negatives. A photo editor (or photo clerk) would have to actually take these negatives, cut out the desired sectionals which are then joined together and developed to form the composite photo. This practice is rare.

From my experience in what I have seen and in working with archivist of major news photo libraries, most TYPE I composites date to the post WWII-era. Very few joined-negative "proofs" of these composites (made of original negatives pasted together) exist from any era. But there are quite a few photo montage proofs (original photos pieced together mounted on an editorial board).

This a very informative thread. When I first started collecting photos the first composite photo I picked up was this 1931 opening day photo of Hack Wilson. It is made of two photos pasted together. The background image has editorial inks on the infield and shading around the cut out Wilson image. As can be seen on the reverse Wilson’s cap and the end of his bats were clipped off at some point in time.

Shortly after picking the Wilson photo up I obtained the 1923 Pie Traynor. Based on the Wilson photo I assumed that the Traynor would also be comprised of multiple images pasted together it was not. The Wilson image has the newspaper clipping attached to the reverse. Does this mean that it is a montage photo proof, or were such images occasionally not re-photographed to make a Type III image for publication like the Traynor photo?

[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."