Early Photographers List

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron 

I am finishing up the Early Baseball Photos book, hoping to finish it by Sunday so I can be free to watch the Super Bowl. I hear Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake are scheduled to be headlining the halftime show ...

Anyway, for the book I am finishing a short list of famous early baseball photographers. This is so the reader, especially beginners, can identify who are the most famous, the nature and history of their photos and how to identify the originals.

So far I've got Joseph Hall, BJ Falk (did the Newsboys Cabinets), J Wood (Old Judges, various team CDVs), Charles Conlon, Oyen, Burke, Baine, Mathew Brady, will likely think of some others. Obviously, this list is short and if anyone thinks there are other names or studios I should add, speak now or forever hold your peace.

I wish to add that the new editon of the book will have a variety of new information, including how to i.d. and date glass negatives, about silent movie and other glass slides, baseball orotones (glass photos made with genuine gold), and tintypes on leather and cloth. Also, that essay I did on authenticating albumen photos (as relates to proof) will be put into the book. And all the info on the photographers will be new as well.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

the one dated 1915 that has Cobb, Matty, Johnson, Speaker, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Can we order the book now?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

There are no pre-orders, but, for a small charge, I will delay shipment.

The book is not being offered for sale now.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

(I'm excercising my new vocabulary!)

[Archive]

Posted By: Joe_G.

How about the Tomlinson Studio (236 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI)? While primarily, perhaps exclusively, Detroit material, I've been collecting information on various pieces including a couple team compositions and individual player photos. I know of seven different Detroit player cabinets at this time from four different collections.

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

Warren Studios? Chickering?

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Thanks to all for the suggestions, and I have expanded the list ... Scott, you are welcome to foreward a scan of the slide if you wish.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

The below photograph (real photo), originally shot in 1964 for Vogue by the recently deceased photographer Helmut Newton, is an authorized reprint made a few decades after 1964. The question is not only how, but why, can you tell that it's a later generation photograph?

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I add that there are no underhanded tricks and you have to have a copy of the 1964 magazine. The reason you can tell it's later generation is in the image I posted.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

I mean you DON'T have to have a copy of the magazine.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

even if it's wrong. It has something to do with the chamge in and distribution of color.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I thought you might want to use it. If you decide you want to, just let me know and I'll send it.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

Scott: Let's SEE!

[Archive]

Posted By: ramram

and say it's the pinkish and purplish tones in the photo.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

The actual slide is MUCH clearer than the scan (I know everyone says that). I have found it impossible to scan thick slides like this and get an accurate image. Any help out there?

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

[Archive]

Posted By: julie

i'm eating a nectarine with my other hand...

multitasking.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

With the Newton photograph, the magenta (pinkish/purplish) tone indicates that it is later generation .... Many color fashion photos were made from color transparencies. Transparencies are just like negatives except the image is positive. When you hold a thin plastic transparency up to the light, the image looks normal. With age, many transparencies take on a distinct and often heavy magenta tone (A vaction slide is a transparecy held in a cardboard frame). So, the magenta tone in the above image strongly suggests that the photograph was made from an old transparency (one that had turned magenta with age)-- thus it was made years after the original shot.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Below are two many decades old original transparencies (thin plastic sheets used to make paper photographs)of Robert Mitchum. Due to a combination of luck and good storage, the first has retained its original and beatiful colors. The second, while still with a nice and collectable image (with 'love' and 'hate' tattooed to his hands), has acquired a magenta tone with age. The magenta tone can even be heavier ... This also shows why quality old photographic transparencies are highly collectable.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

golden threads among the gold.

You know, in two pages time,these images will be gone--noithing but little xs in rectangles...

[Archive]

Posted By: jw

I couldn't agree more about the little xs. Very annoying to have missed something you've just spent fifteen minutes looking for.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

If it's something you think should hang around, create a "realm" and save it there - the image will stay around until you delete it from your realm.

If it doesn't need to hang around, create it as "temporary".

"Temporary" is very important - if everyone posted as many images as Julie does, and they were all permanent, it would create needless additional costs for Net 54. But if Julie decides to post an image that might have some benefit to researches in the future, she can make it permanent.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

After all, I've got mine in an album (authorless as it is!)

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

"documents" file on my own software. It has no effect whatsoever on Network54. For instance: I still have the entire "Picture sharing thread!" intact, whereas the one in the back pages of the Forum has been denuded of almost all of its images.

I wouldn't presume to save my or anyone else's pictures at the expense of someone else!

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

??? (doesn't look much like him, except fore the cleft and the hands.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

very very slowly. You completely DID NOT understand it. Not that I care, but this really gets tiresome.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

You mean two weeks ago when you really insulted me and I called you on it, and you bitched about it, calling yourself "cruel Scott", and making fun of my saying "****ing" about 55 times for DAYS? YES, that was very tiresome!

In THIS case, however, I DID misread your POST (Not your thread. Even to you a thread can't belong!). So you're thanking God that my numerous posts aren't permanent. I'm so happy for you Scott that you don't have to look at them forever.
While I am at it, where do you get off repeatedly attacking Joe P, every time he posted? He finally decided to quit!

Yes, some things are REALLY Tiresome, with a capital T!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

Ramble on.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie Vognar

Please...

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

I'm just sick of you twisting every single post by ANYONE, even the ones that aren't even directed to you, into some sort of personal attack against you. It's not all about YOU. Everyone likes you, we're just damned tired of having to parse every sentence we write in advance for fear of getting a virtual keyboard tongue-lashing.

[Archive]

Posted By: Julie

In the plast, others have, but not intellgent guys like you.

[Archive]

Posted By: runscott

...

[Archive]

Posted By: seefer

Paul Thompson has to be included in an early baseball photo book.

[Archive]

Posted By: Hankron

Paul Thompson is included.