Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[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.

[bn2cardz]

Thank your for that message. It pretty much correlated with drcy.

I really was just curious about the semantics in general of where composites fell. It is similar to be people saying "I could care less" instead of "I couldn't care less" either way I know what they mean, but I still wonder why they would think the first would make sense and why they would use the phrase that way. It purely was a conversation about semantics not on the value of the said piece. I just don't want to sound ignorant by calling something a type 1 composite if that wasn't an accurate description.

I really didn't think the defining of the Type would have an effect on the price of the Pirates composite, but I didn't know if calling it a "type 1" was, in fact, accurate. I find it interesting that PSA won't even bother trying to give a title to most composites. So composites really just fall outside the "type" designation and shouldn't be mixed in the same description.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

Thank your for that message. It pretty much correlated with drcy.

I like that.

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I just don't want to sound ignorant by calling something a type 1 composite if that wasn't an accurate description.

I use the word 'original'. It's always worked pretty well, and people can always ask for clarification. Sounds like they would even if you said 'Type x'.

[thecatspajamas]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

I find it interesting that PSA won't even bother trying to give a title to most composites. So composites really just fall outside the "type" designation and shouldn't be mixed in the same description.

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Lance, the problem is that some people have to have a 'Type' designation for the photo or they don't want the photo - PSA authentication is what makes the print 'real' for them. And before anyone busts my balls - I'm not bashing PSA and I'm not saying ALL collectors. Just some. So if PSA won't give an opinion, it makes the photo phony. My Zack Wheat mounted Conlon is a perfect example - PSA can't see the back, so my understanding is that they can't render an opinion....so to potential buyers, it is not 'real'. So declining to offer an opinion is problematic. Not for me (other than if it involves a customer), but for people who need their authentication.

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

I don't think that saying they "won't even bother trying" is accurate at all, nor is saying ALL composites fall outside the system. They analyze whatever photos are sent to them, and where they are able to identify a TYPE, they do. It just happens that with many/most composites it is inappropriate or impossible to say with any certainty, so they rightly decline to just make something up or just guess. Ultimately declining to state an opinion is not equivalent to a lack of effort or concern.

Thanks for clarifying that. I do have an issue with wording my posts correctly when I keep getting interrupted with "work"

I did understand that they do try when they can, but I meant to say "they won't bother forcing a designation when it isn't clear, which would sound like is more often than not."

[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?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by 71buc

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?

Mike,
Based on the discussion in this thread, including Henry's response, I think that the Wilson would not only be considered a Type 1, but 2 Type 1's. As the copy that you own is not a re-photographed image, it is 2 separate photos in one. The Traynor likely started as multiple photos cut and pasted together. it was then re-photographed. As such it would be a type 3.
BTW, thanks for the nice comments on my Van Oeyen Gehrig pick up.
Mark

[71buc]

Obviously I am a bit slow. Thanks for the explanation. You'd think six years of college would indicate an ability to read. I think I'm going pursue a refund for my education.

Mike

[drcy]

The Traynor is Type III, but, as it's vintage with date stamps and vintage paper caption tag, it's a perfectly collectible photo. A part of the value would be based in the clarity/quality of the image. A duplicate negative or other duplication process can produce a rough, grainy image or it can produce a sharp clear image (or somewhere in between). Obviously, the one with sharp clear image will be valued more.

If selling it and you aren't sure what Type it is you can simply describe it as a "Vintage 1923 photo with the vintage tag and 1923 date stamp on back." That description neither states nor implies the Type, but is describing it by its age. You aren't required to give information you don't know. Just as you aren't required to state the photographer's name when you don't know who is the photographer. Though, if you know absolutely nothing about a photo, including whether it was made in 1923 or 2013, eBay would suggest you not sell it.