I prefer the front of photos to be clean such that the print more accurately represents the original negative taken by the photographer. Extensive editorial masking simply alters the end product of what the photographer was attempting to accomplish in the first place. Henry and many other collectors that I've talked with share exactly the same view.
Nonetheless, there are probably just as many collectors on the other side of the coin that welcome all editorial markings as evidence of publication, etc. In most cases this will not effect the price, although with identical high profile photos, the one that has less or little of the editorial work usually sells for more. This is also one of the major reasons that John Roger's Archives clean the fronts of virtually all their photos.
For me , the ideal photo (aside from content, clarity, etc.) is one with a clean front and a back loaded with as much info as possible - date, photographer, news agency stamps, etc.
I don't know if it would even be possible to follow the exact history of editorial alterations, trimming, etc for many photos but I can understand why some would like to know. For me, I simply want to be certain of the Type classification and original date and source of the photo. All other aspects of its history are secondary in my opinion.
Craig
|