1902 Philadelphia Athletics Champions Baseball Team Photo/Composite w Plank Mack Wadd

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by BobC

You guys are probably right. It's obviously the same pose/sitting, but I can't help noticing all those subtle differences. Please forgive my bit of OCD. LOL

No problem at all, Bob, it's what a forum is all about, throwing in our two cents worth to try to try to add to hobby knowledge. You made me look more closely at them, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed the markings.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

No problem at all, Bob, it's what a forum is all about, throwing in our two cents worth to try to try to add to hobby knowledge. You made me look more closely at them, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed the markings.

Never really gotten into the early photography/lithography differences, techniques, and so on. Honestly didn't immediately realize about the 2nd Plank image being a lithograph and not an actual photo. I saw the subtle differences and heard the OP mentioning photos, and I'm thinking both images are photos. Duh!

Of course, when prominent/celebrity people like Plank would go to a photographer to have their picture taken to be added onto team composites or otherwise included in/with other projects, wouldn't it make a lot of sense for the photographer to actually take a few photos of the subject, in case something goes wrong with the initial picture/negative or during the developing process? That way, if some accident happened, they wouldn't have to contact the subject and wait for them to come back in and re-shoot their picture to finish the team composite, or whatever. And if so, is it not also possible since there may have been multiple pictures/negatives available from the same session, the original photographer may have sent or forwarded copies/negatives of the additional photos to others for inclusion in other projects (such as creating a lithograph), and not necessarily sent/provided the exact same photo they had already used in something else, like that team composite? In such a case, the photos/images would be virtually identical because they were all taken at the same photo session, but there could still be some subtle differences since they wouldn't actually be the same exact same photos after all. Just thinking out loud.

[RUKen]

Originally Posted by BobC

Of course, when prominent/celebrity people like Plank would go to a photographer to have their picture taken to be added onto team composites or otherwise included in/with other projects, wouldn't it make a lot of sense for the photographer to actually take a few photos of the subject, in case something goes wrong with the initial picture/negative or during the developing process? That way, if some accident happened, they wouldn't have to contact the subject and wait for them to come back in and re-shoot their picture to finish the team composite, or whatever. And if so, is it not also possible since there may have been multiple pictures/negatives available from the same session, the original photographer may have sent or forwarded copies/negatives of the additional photos to others for inclusion in other projects (such as creating a lithograph), and not necessarily sent/provided the exact same photo they had already used in something else, like that team composite? In such a case, the photos/images would be virtually identical because they were all taken at the same photo session, but there could still be some subtle differences since they wouldn't actually be the same exact same photos after all. Just thinking out loud.

I think that the negatives were glass plates, which were a lot bulkier than film, so the photographers were not inclined to take multiple exposures of the same subject.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by RUKen

I think that the negatives were glass plates, which were a lot bulkier than film, so the photographers were not inclined to take multiple exposures of the same subject.

Don't disagree at all, but just wondering why photographers may not at least have taken a second photo to be safe. Again, not super into and especially knowledgeable about early photography, but the mention of glass negatives has me immediately thinking, fragile and easily breakable. Thus, maybe an even greater reason/need to be sure to have a backup or extra photo or negative.

Have never actually handled an early glass photo negative. How fragile, and susceptible to damage and breaking, are they? If they can fairly easily be damaged and broken, one would think that photographers would somewhat routinely take extra photos in instances where a person's, such as Plank's, image was going to be used for multiple projects, no?

I do have a small collection of baseball related magic lantern slides. Are those in any way comparable to the type of glass used as photo negatives then? Sorry if boring others by asking, just find it interesting, and always good to learn/discover new things, right?

[steve B]

Glass plate negatives are fragile, especially larger ones.
In the camera, They were usually in a carrier that both protected them and prevented extra exposure.
So like load carrier, remove "cover"
Take photo
Replace cover
Remove carrier.

Just like modern photographers, they would take multiple portraits. Maybe two, maybe more. Because you don't get to see which ones the subject may have blinked or something until the film is developed.
Those would all get numbered and filed.

And one would be picked as the one to use. From a big negative, they might make a lot of secondary negatives to sell to other places if the client didn't say they were exclusive.
The original would have been handled very carefully, the copies perhaps not as carefully.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Glass plate negatives are fragile, especially larger ones.
In the camera, They were usually in a carrier that both protected them and prevented extra exposure.
So like load carrier, remove "cover"
Take photo
Replace cover
Remove carrier.

Just like modern photographers, they would take multiple portraits. Maybe two, maybe more. Because you don't get to see which ones the subject may have blinked or something until the film is developed.
Those would all get numbered and filed.

And one would be picked as the one to use. From a big negative, they might make a lot of secondary negatives to sell to other places if the client didn't say they were exclusive.
The original would have been handled very carefully, the copies perhaps not as carefully.

Thanks Steve, good to learn.

[bjerome]

I find that kind of ironic that damaged negatives or perhaps damaged glass photo proofs is brought up on this subject, especially when it pertains to Eddie Plank as it is widely believed his 1909 T-206 is so valuable because of a broken printing plate.