the type system
The current system for grading the legitimacy of photographs gives us a framework. However....
UPI images were made from the original negatives, but since they were printed decades after the fact, they have very little monetary value among collectors. This is kind of nuts as the UPI prints done into the 1960s on fiber based paper are really excellent images. Later, because time and money became an issue, the prints were done on RC (resin based) paper. Photos on RC paper look as though they are printed on plastic. I didn't invent this opinion; archival prints aren't done on RC paper.
UPI wasn't alone, everybody did it. Jim Rowe would print 8x10s on RC paper, but since his photos were used for autographs or by collectors who didn't want to throw around a lot of money, it was never about aesthetics.
It's possible to buy Bain photos that are 100 years old that were printed from another photograph. Often they are very obvious. They don't always look so hot, either, but as they go back to Teddy Roosevelt's time, does that in itself make them more valuable than a fiber based image of Babe Ruth printed in 1958?
Brown Brothers did the same thing back in the day.
There are hundreds of type I NEA photos out there, especially spring training shots c. 1919, that are completely out of focus.
Quality wise, wire service images, which go back to the 1930s, are much worse than photos printed on RC paper. In photo auctions they go for very little money. I can't imagine buying a wire service image regardless of the subject matter simply because they look so bad. If you want to fill in gaps in a collection (Len Koenecke climbing into the airplane, for example), a wire photo is a great place to start, but they aren't much to look at.
Then again, "I really like this photo," should probably be the bottom line.
I'm fighting way above my weight class, somebody step in, please.
lumberjack
|