The Future of Type I Photos

[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.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by TCMA

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.

I agree. I have an old scanner that does 4 x 5 negatives, and the scans are, at times, breathtaking! If you own a 4 x 5 negative from 1910, you can make some pretty amazing photos that could fool a lot of people. I hope people who collect sports photos are aware that photographers went to 35mm in the late 60's right up until the digital photo era. An 8 x 10 baseball photo from 1975 is never going to look as nice as one from the 1930's just because of the size of the negative.

This one is from the 50's and it's just a scan (and a tiny one to fit file size constraints here), but it comes from a 4 x 5 negative. I could have this printed at a professional photo studio and easily "age" it a bit. Show me a photo of Nolan Ryan with the clarity the scan below has.

marlinstuart.jpg

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I agree. I have an old scanner that does 4 x 5 negatives, and the scans are, at times, breathtaking! If you own a 4 x 5 negative from 1910, you can make some pretty amazing photos...

Agreed. Here are sample prints I created from 4x5 glass negs from the 1930's. Stunning when viewed in person:

Clydell "Slick" Castleman (16x20 photos):


"Jersey Joe" Stripp (20x24 canvas print):

[lumberjack]

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

I read somewhere that Conlon destroyed a lot of negatives to free up some space in his home…

[lumberjack]

Yes, Conlon threw out negatives, but when John Rogers' scam went belly up, the government auctioned off his Conlon negatives, about 5000 in total, and we have no idea who purchased them.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

Negs certainly do not turn up very often but any time a new archive is released into the wild some inevitably come to market. Back when I was working for Photo File we had over 1k original 5x7 George Burke negs and I know large groups of Burke negs, numbering in the many thousands, have sold through auction houses over the years. At Photo File we used several different professional quality papers but I'd have to talk to guys in charge of the print shop for tech specs. In terms of magic lantern slides, color transparencies, glass and film negs, yes a light table is a must-have. There are actually slim LED light tables now that can had for cheap on Amazon and they do a fantastic job. We used one of those handy tables at Love of the Game to produce images of the 1914 Naps magic lantern slides for our previous auction:

[boneheadandrube]

I use Vario pages for some photo's, they don't make ones large enough for 8x10ish sizes though.


Vario1.jpg

Vario2.jpg

Vario3.jpg