A photo mystery

[Jantz]

Originally Posted by Dewey

The ebay photo and slug are stamped 1939. Your photo is stamped 1955 and the attached article reads like a historical retrospective. I'd guess yours is later based on those two things, but I don't really know. An expert will chime in I'm sure.

Brett

I understand what you are saying, but what about the additional lower portion of my photo and not the Ebay photo. Lombardi's mask is not pictured in the Ebay photo. Basically my photo is a fuller photo while the other is a cropped version, although the right sides of each photo are different as well. Like I said in my initial post, its a mystery to me.

After further review, even both back captions differ. Just noticed this. One mentions Bill Werber, while the other states that Bucky Walters is on the left.

Jantz

[SAllen2556]

I'm no expert but let me take a stab at it. Your photo looks a lot sharper than the ebay one. I wonder if yours was reprinted by the actual newspaper that owned the negative. That would explain the different cropping. Newspapers often went back in their archives to reuse photos for retrospective stories like the one on the back of your photo, and they would have had their original negatives. I know the Detroit News even had a library in the building that housed their stuff. And even though it's an AP photo, I think AP would often get their photos from local newspapers. So I don't think it's technically a Type I, but I like yours better.

[drcy]

One says wirephoto, which isn't type I.

Though, for future reference, originals of the same shot can be sized and cropped differently. Printing from the original negative, the photographer or developer can make different size photos and crop the images in different ways.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by drcy

One says wirephoto, which isn't type I.

Though, for future reference, originals of the same shot can be sized and cropped differently. Printing from the original negative, the photographer or developer can make different size photos and crop the images in different ways.

Exactly. The cropping has nothing to do with it being more or less original than another ; particularly in this case.



Also, clarity was mentioned here.

A). The op's example was scanned and the other is a picture taken from a camera , at an angle , not even flat.

B) there can be differences in clarity between 2 originals off the original negative anyway.

[Jantz]

Thanks for the replies and sharing your knowledge & experience. I appreciate it.

Jantz

[Leon]

Originally Posted by Jantz

Thanks for the replies and sharing your knowledge & experience. I appreciate it.

Jantz

+1...great information, thanks for helping!!

[thecatspajamas]

A little late to the party, but here's my take:

The OP's photo is dated 1955, and as others have stated, appears to have been issued in conjunction with a retrospective of the original event. The date stamping and notation of "wirephoto" on the paper caption are consistent with the photo having been sent "over the wire," with the OP's print being what came out on the other end of the wire. This would make it a Type IV photo: a duplicate photo printed more than 2 years after the image was shot. If the OP's photo is examined closely under magnification, the striations or "lines" that form the image should be able to be discerned. For more info on wirephotos, there is a ca. 1937 film on the wirephoto process here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetlcmqZFyA

The photo on eBay has a dated paper caption and back stamping consistent with what the Associated Press used circa 1939. It would be considered a Type I photo, produced from the original negative within a short period after the image was shot.

Since both photos were issued by the Associated Press, and the cropping varies on each, it would seem reasonable that the AP held the original negative. They cropped/enlarged a portion of the image for the original photo on eBay which was sent to subscribers through the mail or by courier. About 16 years later, they pulled the negative out of the files, produced another print from it (utilizing more of the available image area to do so), and sent that image out "over the wire" to their subscribers to use with the retrospective story. The editor at the receiving end then added crop marks to the OP's photo to indicate what portion of the image he wanted to run with the story for that particular publication.