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

[Mac927]

After hours of research and nothing to show for it I figured I would post this item here. With the knowledge of this board I'm hoping to find information regarding this unique photo. What makes it pretty neat is the photo of Plank is used for his W600 Sporting Life Rookie Card. Any help is greatly appreciated!

[Mac927]

Plank Photos side by side

[Bicem]

1902 composite photo by MacIntire Studios of Philadelphia. Individual cabinet photos using the same images are also known (I used to own the Mack and Waddell).

[Hankphenom]

Wow!

[sb1]

Several of the A's W600's cabinet use the images from this composite, all placed within an oval as the Plank.

[BobC]

i don't know. In looking at the two Plank images side by side there appear, to my eyes at least, to be some very subtle differences between the two photos. Is it not possible these images are from two different photos, just taken at the same photo sitting/session?

[Hankphenom]

Look the same to me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Look the same to me.

For example, look at the dip, curl, or whatever you want to call it, just to the right of the part in his hair as you are looking at the photos. Those are clearly not exactly the same. If you look at other aspects of the two photos, for instance the contour/outline of Plank's left cheek, they are again clearly not exactly the same either. Or look at the angles or curves of Plank's shoulders in both photos, again they are not the same. Or look at the eyebrow/shadow over Plank's right eye, the image in one is more rounded, but flatter in the other. And so on.

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by BobC

For example, look at the dip, curl, or whatever you want to call it, just to the right of the part in his hair as you are looking at the photos. Those are clearly not exactly the same. If you look at other aspects of the two photos, for instance the contour/outline of Plank's left cheek, they are again clearly not exactly the same either. Or look at the angles or curves of Plank's shoulders in both photos, again they are not the same. Or look at the eyebrow/shadow over Plank's right eye, the image in one is more rounded, but flatter in the other. And so on.

Maybe, but I still think the greater chance is that they are the same, and the perceived differences are a matter of quality of resolution and also of process. For example, if you look at the right shoulder of the photo on the right carefully, you will see that a marker of some kind was used to augment it. I don't know why they would do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were other examples, perhaps less obvious examples, of where that photo was touched up, and perhaps the photo on the left also.

[Bicem]

They are the same. Keep in mind one is an actual photo and one is a litho rendering of that photo that can contain changes or enhancements.

[Bicem]

These images were also used for the 1906 Lincoln Publishing postcards.

[perezfan]

Agree with Hank and Jeff. Same image, but higher resolution of the photo brings out details not readily visible in the litho.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Bicem

They are the same. Keep in mind one is an actual photo and one is a litho rendering of that photo that can contain changes or enhancements.

Then they actually aren't the same photo, just a photo and a litho based off a photo. That makes more sense.

I fully understand touching up and resolution in creating a litho can cause some differences, but as much as there are between those two side by side images? Why for example would they have made some of the changes to the shape of his hair in some places? The photo on the left has more highlights and details, but why would they then in the photo on the right remove some of the curves/curls in the shape of his hair? Look at the hair in what would be the far upper left-hand side of Plank's head. The photo on the left shows two indentations, bumps, curls, whatever you want to call them, on the outside edge of his hair on the left-hand side of his face/head, while the litho image on the right only shows one. Is that a normal type of difference occurring when a litho is being made from a photo, to show some bumps/curls, but then remove or straighten out others?

[mrreality68]

Very cool piece of history and amazingly in great shape for its age

[Hankphenom]

Originally Posted by BobC

Then they actually aren't the same photo, just a photo and a litho based off a photo. That makes more sense.

I fully understand touching up and resolution in creating a litho can cause some differences, but as much as there are between those two side by side images? Why for example would they have made some of the changes to the shape of his hair in some places? The photo on the left has more highlights and details, but why would they then in the photo on the right remove some of the curves/curls in the shape of his hair? Look at the hair in what would be the far upper left-hand side of Plank's head. The photo on the left shows two indentations, bumps, curls, whatever you want to call them, on the outside edge of his hair on the left-hand side of his face/head, while the litho image on the right only shows one. Is that a normal type of difference occurring when a litho is being made from a photo, to show some bumps/curls, but then remove or straighten out others?

Probably because in the original photo, on the left here, his hair is mussed up noticeably on the left side and whoever was wielding the marker decided to take out the muss.

[Mac927]

Thanks everyone for your help. Has anyone seen this particular composite photo before? I can't find it anywhere. I do agree that these are the original photos of the W600s.

I found the 1902 Horner Large Composite at REA. I also found the Macintire Waddell portrait using the same image that sold at Leland's but that's about it.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Hankphenom

Probably because in the original photo, on the left here, his hair is mussed up noticeably on the left side and whoever was wielding the marker decided to take out the muss.

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

[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.