Become our sponsor and display your banner here
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

When is a photo, not a photo OR what is a genuine photograph?

Article about: Good Evening / Morning Not quite sure where to post this, so if it is in the incorrect section my apologies and don't hesitate to move it. I have done a search of the Forum and have not foun

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote by Spitace41 View Post
    To be honest I think it is totally subjective. It is a bit of a chicken and egg issue really, maybe its just that I don't see the developed product in the same light as photographs developed during the period?
    I know - I've been thinking about this all day and going around in circles. To be honest, it has given me quite the headache.

    Quote by Spitace41 View Post
    Out of interest how have/ will you develop you glass negative? I would certainly like to see the result as my skills could do with some fine tuning.
    Unfortunately I don't profess to be able to do such things. I do however, have a very good friend who happens to be a photography teacher. It will be some time yet - I only bought it this morning and it needs to be shipped from the UK.

    Cheers

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote by Allegra View Post
    A most interesting and salient point AMTG, to which 4thskorpion has already alluded. I had not actually thought about this side of things until you mentioned it.

    Spitace - I am in a similar position as yourself though not nearly as lucky in terms of quantity - I have recently purchased a glass aerial negative of Passchendaele on the 11th Oct 1917.

    And this becomes the point where I get a trifle confused. I would surely consider the negative to be period.

    If this is the case, then why would the developed image not be period? (Or am I being overly simplistic - or simply not understanding?)

    Cheers
    In your scenario the developed image (ie the glass negative) would be period but the non-period reproduction (ie the print) of the period image would not. In this case the historical and commercial value is intrinsic to the image and glass negative not the contemporary reproduction of the image which is just that, a modern reproduction of lesser commercial value. How would a contemporary print of made from the glass negative differ from a digital scan of the glass negative? IMO none, as they are both reproductions but using different mediums.

    Here is a good example of an historically valuable image, a Polish Airforce Albatross from Polish-Bolshevik war, hence its rarity of subject ...but a digital scan from the original period prints. The original (and period) print or negative would be worth a great deal to Polish aviation history collector but the attached scan was a few £'s and included a further 30 + high resolution scans. The scans are just reproductions as would be modern photo-prints from period negatives.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Albatros.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	42.7 KB 
ID:	556440
    I collect, therefore I am.

    Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.

  3. #13

    Default

    4th - I understand what you're saying, but this part: but the reproduction (ie the print) of the period image would not, I'm fairly certain I'm not.

    At this point in time I seem to be confusing myself let alone anyone else.

    Can I think about it for a tad longer and perhaps post a reply a little later?

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote by Allegra View Post
    4th - I understand what you're saying, but this part: but the reproduction (ie the print) of the period image would not, I'm fairly certain I'm not.

    At this point in time I seem to be confusing myself let alone anyone else.

    Can I think about it for a tad longer and perhaps post a reply a little later?
    ...this is what I omitted in typing my reply.... "non-period reproduction (ie the print)"
    I collect, therefore I am.

    Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote by 4thskorpion View Post
    Here is a good example of an historically valuable image, a Polish Airforce Albatross from Polish-Bolshevik war, hence its rarity of subject ...but a digital scan from the original period prints. The original (and period) print or negative would be worth a great deal to Polish aviation history collector but the attached scan was a few £'s and included a further 30 + high resolution scans. The scans are just reproductions as would be modern photo-prints from period negatives.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Albatros.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	42.7 KB 
ID:	556440
    Now that's interesting - my computer seems to be having a bit of a hissy fit. This part of your reply and the image didn't load.

    I absolutely agree with the scans.

    But - and this is the point where I seem to be having the confusion / problem - why would a developed photo from the original negative not be considered to be original?

    Perhaps I am just splitting hairs?

    Cheers

  6. #16
    ?

    Default

    No, you have a point, Allegra. In moderator, Bill T's thread regarding ID'ing fake photographs, he carefully explains this issue. If the roll of film or negatives were never developed until post war, the images are considered original. The paper is not, unless you can find period photo paper. This happens, when someone finds undeveloped film and decides to have it developed and printed to photo paper ,it is still original in my opinion.. Some may disagree. however if someone scans the negative and digitally prints it out and mass produces them...now this is where it is an issue for me.

  7. #17

    Default

    Absolutely agree with the last sentence Dean.

    Having gone through the Link that Ralph provided, it seems I will have to go through it again - I seem to have missed that.

    Perhaps that's where I'm having the issue at this time: the delineation between original and period - though, TBH at the beginning of this thread I thought I had this particular point clear in my own mind.

    Cheers

  8. #18
    ?

    Default

    That's okay, this is how we learn. It's good you ask such questions. Thanks for your interest in this realm of collecting. This is a lesser department of the collecting world. I find pictures some of the most important part of our hobby. Some have claimed WWI camo helmets never existed because he had never seen period images of one in wear! Well, someone put that farce to sleep after they provided a period photo of on in wear.
    To think what some will say if nobody had period holocaust pictures? That's one reason I collect them.

  9. #19

    Default

    A print from an original negative is only a reproduction no matter when it was taken from the negative. IMO the negative is worth more to me as a collector than a photo-print. A period print would be second on my personal value scale with non-period prints and later scans being of far lower purchase price but would still have historical value in the image itself for me to add to my collection.

    If one were selling a print from a previously undeveloped or unprinted original negative as "original", but made ten minutes ago, I would consider it a gross misrepresentation by the seller. This is just my view of course.

    One can also never be sure just how many period prints may have actually been made from any set of negatives. Having been a collector of photos over a long period I have often seen the same copies of photos that have appeared in a number period photo albums.
    I collect, therefore I am.

    Nothing in science can explain how consciousness arose from matter.

  10. #20

    Default

    I agree with you 4th - a developed photo from an original negative can not be considered to be period if it is done 5 years later. I also agree that any scan of a photo should be considered just that - a scan. It could be used for historical purposes, but little else.

    But, where I'm having the problem and perhaps it's just semantics, is: why is not considered to be original?

    The bottom line as far as I can see, is that in a Collector's opinion, a period photo is the key thing, and believe it or not, I accept this.

    I think we may have been talking at cross-purposes for at least some of the time.

    Cheers

    Note: I think I may have tripped myself up in Post #4.....

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Photo sharing time! - Gebirgstruppen photo album

    In German photographs & Postcards
    10-31-2012, 09:16 AM
  2. 10-24-2012, 01:40 PM
  3. 09-11-2012, 11:25 PM
  4. TRANSLATION OF PHOTO - KvK2 AWARD DOC WITH PHOTO & SPANGE

    In Soldbuch, Wehrpaß, Ausweis, etc
    08-27-2012, 01:45 AM
  5. 04-14-2011, 09:55 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •