The Future of Type I Photos

[Bicem]

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

+1. Would add that 'type' is hype. I far prefer a type 3 ["A 2nd generation photograph, developed from a duplicate negative or wire transmission, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken)."] team-issued photo of a significant player from his rookie year than a random type 1 photo from the same year.

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

Agreed. I'd never be able to afford some of my favorite photos if they were type 1s. They may not have the same clarity, but for the right historic photo, less clarity and less cost are fine by me. It is not the prettiest, but for this Vintage 3(b) [RMY parlance] from Conlon's lifetime. I was in!