[drcy]

I don't like editorial ink marks (crop marks etc) in the images. I like the image area to be clean. Marks and notes on the white border areas are fine. But that's just my taste, and I know some like editorial marking. To me it's all about the appearance of the image and overall photo, which is judged photo by photo. In once case, editorial marks on the image may be distracting and ugly to me, while in another case it may be minor and not bother me.

As has already been said, notes, marks, crop lines, stamps and tags on the back of a news photo are good. You identify and date photos in part by that info. Charles Conlon's handwritten notes and stamp on back will add to the value of the photo, and, of course, help you identify it as an original Conlon photo. But I like the front images to be clean. Again, that's my personal taste. If a collector finds crop marks and other editorial marks in the image interesting and feels they adds to the photo as a historical artifact that is fine. I'm just saying what I like, not what others should like or not like. As is said, art is in the eye of the beholder.