The Future of Type I Photos

[SAllen2556]

I come from 2 generations of newspaper photographers. Photographers weren’t really supposed to keep their negatives, but I have most of my dad’s and many of my grandfather’s - which include 4 x 5 glass negatives. So there's still a lot of stuff out there in the hands of families that don't really know what to do with it. I know I don't. I have boxes of negatives - even glass 4 x 5 ones, but unfortunately, not much in sports.

I also believe some photographers are hugely underrated and their stuff will increase in value over others. For example, William Kuenzel of the Detroit Free Press was one of the very first newspaper photographers in the country - I think he started in about 1905. His work is incredibly underrated. He only got a single page in Jim Chapman’s awesome book - which really surprised me.

Kuenzel and Ruth
IMG_2385.JPG

A Jordan photo that was just laying around the Free Press darkroom back in the day. Considered scrap.
jordan.jpg

The photogs of the day
36407126252_431cb65faf_c.jpg

[T206Jim]

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

Sorry Jim, you're obviously correct!


One aspect of photo collecting I do not understand is how type 1 photos are valued so much more than the original negatives. Shouldn't the 4 x 5 glass negative of the famous Ty Cobb sliding photo, for example, be worth more than a photo made from that negative? The negative is really the holy grail of that particular moment in time. It's the original source of all the other photos. And if you owned the negative, you could make a 16 x 20 or larger photo of it and it would be at least as crystal clear as any type I photo of that moment. So why pay more for the photo over the negative? They're both from whatever date that particular moment occurred.


I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

You are correct & I think most would agree with you. Sadly, they are indeed hard to display, develop and even view on it's own. I have several amazing negatives and I don't know what to do with them.

The same argument to a degree could be made with rare baseball related 35mm color slides from the late 1940's and 1950's.They are in my opinion undervalued...but deals with the same issues those reasons listed above with negatives.

[Exhibitman]

Same with Magic Lantern slides. They positives and are a few inches across, so they are much easier to see than a 35mm but they also have display issues.

I had a big stock of 4 x 5 transparencies (like slides but big) at one point. I think I still have a few left. Another really interesting but hard to display item.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

Collectors often ask me what to do with glass plate and other negs they pick up to supplement their vintage photos. I strongly believe the negs are not for display and should remain boxed in a safe place among your collection. Have your negs professional scanned and create archival quality prints that can be presented as you see fit (framed or otherwise), or place them in an album to create a comprehensive portfolio of your images.

[TCMA]

And here's how I store my glass negs. These archival boxes and paper enclosures can be sourced from www.talasonline.com.

[lumberjack]

I don't want to get all weird ass, but you can't recreate a 120 year old photograph. Age gives it a patina and the photo is on paper that doesn't exist today. It would be easier to fake a Dutch Master than fake an a Deadball Conlon.

I have UPI photos printed 40 years after the image was taken that are just...perfect, but they are a different thing altogether.

The market decides the value, something that might be explained to me after I am dead (but I don't think so).
lumberjack

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

I don't want to get all weird ass, but you can't recreate a 120 year old photograph. Age gives it a patina and the photo is on paper that doesn't exist today. It would be easier to fake a Dutch Master than fake an a Deadball Conlon.

I have UPI photos printed 40 years after the image was taken that are just...perfect, but they are a different thing altogether.

I'm thinking more in terms of what to do with glass negs or negative collections as a private collector, especially when no vintage prints of those images are available or known to exist. Absolutely, the patina and "honest wear" of a vintage photograph is all part of the charm... and why the now-common practice of altering these photos can be especially frustrating for a potential buyer and seller.

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by TCMA

And here's how I store my glass negs. These archival boxes and paper enclosures can be sourced from www.talasonline.com.

How do you store photos? I have been using the Itoya Art Portfolios, but they slide around a little bit so I would like to find something else.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by the-illini

How do you store photos? I have been using the Itoya Art Portfolios, but they slide around a little bit so I would like to find something else.

There really isn't a perfect solution that will satisfy everyone so you really have to play around with several options and see which suits your collection best. For more run of the mill photos I have no issue with storing them in standard albums with plastic pages readily available throughout the hobby or using the Itoya albums as you mentioned.

For any of my more special or valuable photos I keep them housed in mylar sleeves with museum board backings. These are then placed in 3" tall archival quality drop-front boxes that hold (off the top of my head) 30-40 prints. This is an expensive option but makes for a fantastic long-term solution and the photos present beautifully.

The mylar/museum board/drop-front box setup is likely overkill for most hobby-related applications but quality of the materials is second to none. It's how major institutions handle their collections and what you'll see if you visit the National Baseball Hall of Fame for research purposes and ask they pull files for you. In terms of the photos sliding around you'll notice there is a LOT of room inside the sleeve for the photo to "breathe." This is actually by design as you don't want to stuff brittle photos into enclosures that are too tight, and keeping edges of the photos away from corners of any storage solution is preferable.

I get my black drop-front boxes from https://www.universityproducts.com and both the black museum board and mylar from www.talasonline.com.