Question for Type 1 experts

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by mr2686

Every once in awhile I pick up a movie still from Pride of the Yankees. I've noticed over time that some will show a copyright date of 1942 and some will show 1949. I know the movie was released in 42, so that's cool, and I also know it was re-release in 49, so I assume the 49 copyright would be considered a type 2. With that said, I just recently came across a few that had 1943 copyrights on them. Now, I know the movie was probably still playing in theaters (I think) and I know for sure that it was up for several academy awards in March of 43 (maybe they printed up more for the awards push?), so would those 43 copyright photos still be considered Type 1's? I believe they would, but wanted to ask the experts just in case.

If off original negative rather than a dupe negative in 1943, yes.. type 1.

[SAllen2556]

I'm curious what the experts think about this one. Original? Type I, Type II ?

babe ruth-1200.jpg

[perezfan]

Can you post an image of the reverse?

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by perezfan

Can you post an image of the reverse?

The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.

[drcy]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.

Digital scans of old photos can be very clear, so your point is well taken. The clarity of the image is only part-- but is part-- of determining if a photo is original.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

The reverse would indicate the photo was printed in the 90's. You got me.

A polaroid copy camera was used to make a 4 x 5 negative of the original photo with the autograph. The image I posted is a first generation photo from that negative. So it went from a 1934 original 7 x 9 photo to a 4 x 5 negative back to a photo.

My dad ran the advertising photo department at a newspaper. He was able to make 4 x 5 negatives from some rare photos we had. The negatives created high quality second generation photos. Just another reason why you can't always rely on just a scan to determine the age of a photo.

There is no gotcha here from my perspective. It could not be original or 'type I' under any conditions. There is a signature in the image therefore it could not fit the standards. Unless, of course, Babe Ruth's signature was floating in the air in front of him while the photo was taken.

[prewarsports]

facsimile signatures could be placed over a negative when a photo was developed making it a Type 1 photo with a facsimile signature. This was more common when acetate negatives took over and there are many team issued where this technology was used.

There is a debate in photography as to whether a digital photograph can ever be a "Type 1". On the one hand, it is as clear as anything done back in the day but on the other hand there is a deconstruction of the photograph done by the computer or camera and then a reconstruction of the image when it is printed (similar to a wire photo from years past but obviously much better quality). There will never be definitive answer but the debate is fun.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Michael B

There is no gotcha here from my perspective. It could not be original or 'type I' under any conditions. There is a signature in the image therefore it could not fit the standards. Unless, of course, Babe Ruth's signature was floating in the air in front of him while the photo was taken.

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.

[drcy]

Digital photos can be original, though they are not 'real photo' in the technical sense that they are not made the traditional 'photochemicals & sunlight' way.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.

I was going on the assumption that the signature was part of the photo not on the photo. Of course, an original photo with a signature on it would be an original photo.