The Future of Type I Photos

[SAllen2556]

I come from 2 generations of newspaper photographers. Photographers weren’t really supposed to keep their negatives, but I have most of my dad’s and many of my grandfather’s - which include 4 x 5 glass negatives. So there's still a lot of stuff out there in the hands of families that don't really know what to do with it. I know I don't. I have boxes of negatives - even glass 4 x 5 ones, but unfortunately, not much in sports.

I also believe some photographers are hugely underrated and their stuff will increase in value over others. For example, William Kuenzel of the Detroit Free Press was one of the very first newspaper photographers in the country - I think he started in about 1905. His work is incredibly underrated. He only got a single page in Jim Chapman’s awesome book - which really surprised me.

Kuenzel and Ruth
IMG_2385.JPG

A Jordan photo that was just laying around the Free Press darkroom back in the day. Considered scrap.
jordan.jpg

The photogs of the day
36407126252_431cb65faf_c.jpg

[T206Jim]

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

[Exhibitman]

Velox snap of The Beast with the Cubs

[Bicem]

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[jacksons]

Mine as well, and yours is the best-conditioned copy of this I’ve ever seen. Congrats!!

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[Snapolit1]

Originally Posted by jacksons

Mine as well, and yours is the best-conditioned copy of this I’ve ever seen. Congrats!!

Wow. Incredible!

[jacksons]

Great back story if you haven’t read…

https://sabr.org/journal/article/the...-game-in-1910/

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

Incredible

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by Bicem

I know you said type 1 in the subject line of this thread but don't overlook other types as well. An early printed photo just beyond two years of when taken (type 2) or a period photo made from an early generation copy negative that is still very clear (type 3) or a photo with both these qualities (type 4) are very nearly as good as a type 1 in my opinion but at a fraction of the price.

Not all type 2/3/4 photos are created equal, you really have to consider how close to type 1's they are or are not.

Agreed. I'd never be able to afford some of my favorite photos if they were type 1s. They may not have the same clarity, but for the right historic photo, less clarity and less cost are fine by me. It is not the prettiest, but for this Vintage 3(b) [RMY parlance] from Conlon's lifetime. I was in!

[Topnotchsy]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

I am less intrigued by end prices than the market dynamics at work. Supply is the critical and limiting factor as many unique images are off the market for years, if not decades. I agree with Rhys that one of main forthcoming sources of images will be major collectors who at some point decide to liquidate their holdings. The churn factor is strong and even more recognizable than with cards as most prints have easily recognizable traits that make them easy to trace through the AHs.

I also agree that the sports photos market is unlike any other photography market, and much of that is the result of the gravitational pull of the sports card market. That pull is permanent and evident in the premium given to card images. A sign that the sports photo market is maturing will be when the premium for card images is not so pronounced.

Interesting conservation thread. If you are interested in the rise of baseball photography and discussions of many of the issues in this thread you may be interested in my book.

https://chapmandeadballcollection.com/

I've been very interested in the way that other photos have started creeping into sports auctions. Some recent photos of Robert Oppenheimer, WWII photos, the Kennedy's etc. Mostly at RMY, but at other auction houses as well. In the later RMY auction there was a photo of an old synagogue, which drew my attention. I was occupied when the auction ended and couldn't compete more aggressively, but have found this really interesting and wonder whether the growing popularity of sports photos is bringing collectors to other areas of photography.

I know for myself, that I find memorabilia, photos and other similar items far more interesting than almost any cards at this point, and love the fact I can get much rarer items at a cheaper price (fully recognizing that they are distinct markets and that I should not expect these markets to ever 'catch up' to the sports market.)

[pherbener]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

Incredible Jeff!!

[BeanTown]

Awesome All Star photo Jeff, and here’s my All Star photo thanks to your recommendation to buy it years ago which is my favorite.

[Brownie33]

Originally Posted by Bicem

Here's my all-time favorite photo...

I can’t get over how amazing this photo is.

[Bicem]

Thanks all! Definitely my favorite of my collection.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I love the older photo's!

Attachment 620995
Attachment 620996
Attachment 620997

Greg that Harry Niles photo is awesome.

[boneheadandrube]

Thanks Jim, here it is with the T3


Harry Niles Conlon (T3).jpg

[Aquarian Sports Cards]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

Thanks Jim, here it is with the T3


Attachment 621538

Awesome. I especially love how they replaced the derelict building with a grandstand!

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by T206Jim

Thanks Scott, I agree he is underrated, but he did get 3 pages in the book.

Sorry Jim, you're obviously correct!


One aspect of photo collecting I do not understand is how type 1 photos are valued so much more than the original negatives. Shouldn't the 4 x 5 glass negative of the famous Ty Cobb sliding photo, for example, be worth more than a photo made from that negative? The negative is really the holy grail of that particular moment in time. It's the original source of all the other photos. And if you owned the negative, you could make a 16 x 20 or larger photo of it and it would be at least as crystal clear as any type I photo of that moment. So why pay more for the photo over the negative? They're both from whatever date that particular moment occurred.


I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

[GoCubsGo32]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

You are correct & I think most would agree with you. Sadly, they are indeed hard to display, develop and even view on it's own. I have several amazing negatives and I don't know what to do with them.

The same argument to a degree could be made with rare baseball related 35mm color slides from the late 1940's and 1950's.They are in my opinion undervalued...but deals with the same issues those reasons listed above with negatives.

[Exhibitman]

Same with Magic Lantern slides. They positives and are a few inches across, so they are much easier to see than a 35mm but they also have display issues.

I had a big stock of 4 x 5 transparencies (like slides but big) at one point. I think I still have a few left. Another really interesting but hard to display item.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I've heard the argument that you can't frame or display the negative, but why should the paper matter in the value? With the negative, I can produce an original photo as good, or better, than any type I. If you're collecting the image, then the original source of that image should be the most valuable collectible - and that's the negative.

Collectors often ask me what to do with glass plate and other negs they pick up to supplement their vintage photos. I strongly believe the negs are not for display and should remain boxed in a safe place among your collection. Have your negs professional scanned and create archival quality prints that can be presented as you see fit (framed or otherwise), or place them in an album to create a comprehensive portfolio of your images.

[TCMA]

And here's how I store my glass negs. These archival boxes and paper enclosures can be sourced from www.talasonline.com.

[lumberjack]

I don't want to get all weird ass, but you can't recreate a 120 year old photograph. Age gives it a patina and the photo is on paper that doesn't exist today. It would be easier to fake a Dutch Master than fake an a Deadball Conlon.

I have UPI photos printed 40 years after the image was taken that are just...perfect, but they are a different thing altogether.

The market decides the value, something that might be explained to me after I am dead (but I don't think so).
lumberjack

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

I don't want to get all weird ass, but you can't recreate a 120 year old photograph. Age gives it a patina and the photo is on paper that doesn't exist today. It would be easier to fake a Dutch Master than fake an a Deadball Conlon.

I have UPI photos printed 40 years after the image was taken that are just...perfect, but they are a different thing altogether.

I'm thinking more in terms of what to do with glass negs or negative collections as a private collector, especially when no vintage prints of those images are available or known to exist. Absolutely, the patina and "honest wear" of a vintage photograph is all part of the charm... and why the now-common practice of altering these photos can be especially frustrating for a potential buyer and seller.

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by TCMA

I'm thinking more in terms of what to do with glass negs or negative collections as a private collector, especially when no vintage prints of those images are available or known to exist. Absolutely, the patina and "honest wear" of a vintage photograph is all part of the charm... and why the now-common practice of altering these photos can be especially frustrating for a potential buyer and seller.

I agree. I have an old scanner that does 4 x 5 negatives, and the scans are, at times, breathtaking! If you own a 4 x 5 negative from 1910, you can make some pretty amazing photos that could fool a lot of people. I hope people who collect sports photos are aware that photographers went to 35mm in the late 60's right up until the digital photo era. An 8 x 10 baseball photo from 1975 is never going to look as nice as one from the 1930's just because of the size of the negative.

This one is from the 50's and it's just a scan (and a tiny one to fit file size constraints here), but it comes from a 4 x 5 negative. I could have this printed at a professional photo studio and easily "age" it a bit. Show me a photo of Nolan Ryan with the clarity the scan below has.

marlinstuart.jpg

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

I agree. I have an old scanner that does 4 x 5 negatives, and the scans are, at times, breathtaking! If you own a 4 x 5 negative from 1910, you can make some pretty amazing photos...

Agreed. Here are sample prints I created from 4x5 glass negs from the 1930's. Stunning when viewed in person:

Clydell "Slick" Castleman (16x20 photos):


"Jersey Joe" Stripp (20x24 canvas print):

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by TCMA

And here's how I store my glass negs. These archival boxes and paper enclosures can be sourced from www.talasonline.com.

How do you store photos? I have been using the Itoya Art Portfolios, but they slide around a little bit so I would like to find something else.

[lumberjack]

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

[the-illini]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

I read somewhere that Conlon destroyed a lot of negatives to free up some space in his home…

[lumberjack]

Yes, Conlon threw out negatives, but when John Rogers' scam went belly up, the government auctioned off his Conlon negatives, about 5000 in total, and we have no idea who purchased them.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by the-illini

How do you store photos? I have been using the Itoya Art Portfolios, but they slide around a little bit so I would like to find something else.

There really isn't a perfect solution that will satisfy everyone so you really have to play around with several options and see which suits your collection best. For more run of the mill photos I have no issue with storing them in standard albums with plastic pages readily available throughout the hobby or using the Itoya albums as you mentioned.

For any of my more special or valuable photos I keep them housed in mylar sleeves with museum board backings. These are then placed in 3" tall archival quality drop-front boxes that hold (off the top of my head) 30-40 prints. This is an expensive option but makes for a fantastic long-term solution and the photos present beautifully.

The mylar/museum board/drop-front box setup is likely overkill for most hobby-related applications but quality of the materials is second to none. It's how major institutions handle their collections and what you'll see if you visit the National Baseball Hall of Fame for research purposes and ask they pull files for you. In terms of the photos sliding around you'll notice there is a LOT of room inside the sleeve for the photo to "breathe." This is actually by design as you don't want to stuff brittle photos into enclosures that are too tight, and keeping edges of the photos away from corners of any storage solution is preferable.

I get my black drop-front boxes from https://www.universityproducts.com and both the black museum board and mylar from www.talasonline.com.

[TCMA]

BTW, most of the photos above are 5x7 resting on 8x10 museum board. Here's a shot right from the HOF's website showing how they house their examples:

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by lumberjack

Andy,

I'm not knocking negatives, but they don't seem to turn up in auctions. The Chicago History Museum negatives are just the best, for example. Negative collecting seems to be a specialized niche within a "hobby" that is pretty small from which to begin.

What sort of paper do you use to print your negatives. Can you affordably buy museum quality paper. Most of that paper, and I'm not talking about the stuff Conlon used, no longer exists. Is this ink jet stuff or darkroom work?

Jim Rowe was using that junky RC paper when he was selling Brace/Burke images. Of course he wasn't in the business of turning out archival prints, but they were just awful unless all you wanted them for was getting an autograph.

Magic lantern slides, like they would have used in theaters 110 years ago....Could you use some sort of a light box like guys would use to look at 35mm slides?

While we are at it, where are the Conlon and George Burke negatives, the motherloads, lurking today.

lumberjack

Negs certainly do not turn up very often but any time a new archive is released into the wild some inevitably come to market. Back when I was working for Photo File we had over 1k original 5x7 George Burke negs and I know large groups of Burke negs, numbering in the many thousands, have sold through auction houses over the years. At Photo File we used several different professional quality papers but I'd have to talk to guys in charge of the print shop for tech specs. In terms of magic lantern slides, color transparencies, glass and film negs, yes a light table is a must-have. There are actually slim LED light tables now that can had for cheap on Amazon and they do a fantastic job. We used one of those handy tables at Love of the Game to produce images of the 1914 Naps magic lantern slides for our previous auction:

[boneheadandrube]

I use Vario pages for some photo's, they don't make ones large enough for 8x10ish sizes though.


Vario1.jpg

Vario2.jpg

Vario3.jpg

[Swadewade51]

Andrew do you display much of your personal collection or no? What are your feelings on soft sleeves, toploaders, magloaders?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I use Vario pages for some photo's, they don't make ones large enough for 8x10ish sizes though.

Sharp. Are those albums designed for cachets?

[LEHR]

Andrew,

Are your photos mounted in some way? If so, what exactly do you use? If not, what keeps them from sliding around inside the Mylar?

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by Swadewade51

Andrew do you display much of your personal collection or no? What are your feelings on soft sleeves, toploaders, magloaders?

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

In most cases you'll be fine with those options as long as the materials are what we consider "inert." Some helpful basics here:

https://info.gaylord.com/resources/c...-right-plastic

For more significant pieces or collections I prefer solutions that incorporate mylar as it is highly stable and absolutely crystal clear. Some collectors enjoy displaying their collections but my preference is to store everything in a safe place and show particular pieces as needed. If I were to set anything up for display I'd have them matted with acid-free materials behind UV-resistant museum glass. Leave your vintage photos exposed to a light source over the course of several months or years and you're putting them at serious risk of fading and other forms of deterioration.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by LEHR

Andrew,

Are your photos mounted in some way? If so, what exactly do you use? If not, what keeps them from sliding around inside the Mylar?

Paul, they are simply resting on the boards. This storage solution takes into account the fact that the boxes are stored flat and really aren't going to be moved. Happily, even when moved the photos don't tend to shift inside the sleeves. The goal is to ensure each example remains horizontal and surrounded by acid-free materials. Not going to be for everyone but hard to beat for long term preservation.

[Swadewade51]

Originally Posted by TCMA

matted with acid-free materials behind UV-resistant museum glass. Leave your vintage photos exposed to a light source over the course of several months or years and you're putting them at serious risk of fading and other forms of deterioration.

Thanks Andrew! I do have a rotation of photo displays going up but I have a few display pieces matted as you said and a couple in slabs. You'll probably recognize the WaJo.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk

[boneheadandrube]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Sharp. Are those albums designed for cachets?

I think Vario is designed originally for "philately" and associated ephemera? Works well for the typical 5x7ish early photo sizes. A number of page layouts are available.

[TCMA]

Originally Posted by boneheadandrube

I think Vario is designed originally for "philately" and associated ephemera? Works well for the typical 5x7ish early photo sizes. A number of page layouts are available.

Yep, likely for storing #6 size cachets/event covers/first day covers. Used to be waaay more popular of a hobby.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LEHR]

Originally Posted by TCMA

Paul, they are simply resting on the boards. This storage solution takes into account the fact that the boxes are stored flat and really aren't going to be moved. Happily, even when moved the photos don't tend to shift inside the sleeves. The goal is to ensure each example remains horizontal and surrounded by acid-free materials. Not going to be for everyone but hard to beat for long term preservation.

Andrew,
Thanks for the feedback and the links. I have a similar setup, but not as nice looking as yours. My OCD now says it's time to buy new archival storage supplies.

[jacksons]

FWIW, I only display printed copies of my vintage prints, and store the originals similarly to Andrew’s suggested solution. Scan the original and upload a JPG scan to Framebridge or to a local printer for matting/framing.

[Exhibitman]

4 mil mylar pages from BCE Mylar that are three-hole punched and stored in squared polypro notebooks from Unikeep. Static (if that is the right term) pretty much keeps the photos in place in the mylar sleeves. Unfortunately, I see a future with more of these in it:

[lumberjack]

Okay, this is all paper, which in the end has a limited shelf life.

I am keeping my photos in a FireKing safe. However you store your cool stuff, you want to reduce moisture. DryTote is a rechargeable desiccant for storage boxes. It looks like a change purse and can be recharged by placing in a microwave for 3 minutes. Really.

You can also use blackboard chalk. A couple of sticks in an envelope work fine.
This also comes in handy for drawing crime scene outlines or playing hopscotch.

Glass plates....I'm not telling any of the people who have posted anything they don't know, but if you are new to glass plates (say you are buying Brown Bros negatives from Uncle Josh) and you don't have a darkroom, you can scan the negative, clean it up in the process and put the negative on a flash drive.

You guys now know as much as I.

lumberjack