Wire Photo Question

[varsitycollectibles]

Sorry if this is not the right section for this thread.

I am interested in picking up some wire photos of players that I collect. I've never purchased one before and I am curious if any members have some tips or things to consider before buying.

Thanks in advance.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by varsitycollectibles

Sorry if this is not the right section for this thread.

I am interested in picking up some wire photos of players that I collect. I've never purchased one before and I am curious if any members have some tips or things to consider before buying.

Thanks in advance.

There are several books out there. I would suggest you purchase "A Portrait of Baseball Photography". This will help a lot. Fake stamps and incorrect authenticaion is really a problem right now. Like anything else in this hobby, the best defense is knowing what you are buying. Educate yourself and ask knowledgeable collectors if you are unsure about a particular item. I have seen flat out fake stamped photos(forgeries) that were enclosed in overly large blue slabs sell for 3k on ebay and in fact worth about $100 at best.

"I am interested in picking up some wire photos of players that I collect."

Does this mean you want just photos that are produced from a wire machine? I am guessing not. Learn the photo process, terminology and what makes a photo a wire vs an original off the negative(shortly after photo was taken vs. 20 years later) vs off a dupe neg ect. The differences as far as monetary value can be staggering so it is very important you learn the differences.

If you have any questions, feel free to pm me. I would be happy to help.

[varsitycollectibles]

Originally Posted by Forever Young

There are several books out there. I would suggest you purchase "A Portrait of Baseball Photography". This will help a lot. Fake stamps and incorrect authenticaion is really a problem right now. Like anything else in this hobby, the best defense is knowing what you are buying. Educate yourself and ask knowledgeable collectors if you are unsure about a particular item. I have seen flat out fake stamped photos(forgeries) that were enclosed in overly large blue slabs sell for 3k on ebay and in fact worth about $100 at best.

"I am interested in picking up some wire photos of players that I collect."

Does this mean you want just photos that are produced from a wire machine? I am guessing not. Learn the photo process, terminology and what makes a photo a wire vs an original off the negative(shortly after photo was taken vs. 20 years later) vs off a dupe neg ect. The differences as far as monetary value can be staggering so it is very important you learn the differences.

If you have any questions, feel free to pm me. I would be happy to help.

Thanks for the response! I mainly collect HOFers from the 50s and 60s and the thought came to me to try and pair a vintage photo with players that I have autographed baseballs of, thinking that would be cooler than the standard 8x10.

The ones that have caught my eye have been tied to specific games and have AP stamps.

Here is an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bob-Gibson-p...item3376cfabaf

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by varsitycollectibles

Thanks for the response! I mainly collect HOFers from the 50s and 60s and the thought came to me to try and pair a vintage photo with players that I have autographed baseballs of, thinking that would be cooler than the standard 8x10.

The ones that have caught my eye have been tied to specific games and have AP stamps.

Here is an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Bob-Gibson-p...item3376cfabaf

Very cool. Yep, this would be a wire photo or a type 3. If this is what catches your eye, you can usually buy these at very reasonable prices. Because they are not off the original negative, clarity will be compromised a bit. This one looks really nice for your application though. Good luck!

[drc]

If you're just looking for something for your autographs, the simplest tip is to get something with an official stamp/name on it-- like AP, UPI, ACME or International News. Then you know it's an official news photo. Most news photos have the maker's name on it somewhere. Beyond that, you can decide if it's a nice looking image.

You can probably get good deals on originals of many 1950s-60s players.

[repsher]

I collect original photos of hall of famers, they are different than "wire" photos like the one you listed. If you want an original photo of Bob Gibson I would go with something like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/CT-PHOTO-asp...item51a1aac3a1

It is original and would be classified as Type 1. It also is more than likely a one of a kind photo since it was taken by a staff photographer. I actually would probably purchase the photo myself but I already have quite a few Bob Gibson originals.
The same seller does have quite a few "wire" photos of Gibson for $10. If that is still what you are looking for.

The best place to learn about photos is a forum like this and books on the subject. I've made mistakes purchasing in the past but you'll learn from them.

[thecatspajamas]

There are a couple of short "informational" films that were produced in the 1930's-40's that do a better job of explaining (and more importantly for me, showing) the actual wire photo process. The original "Type 1" news photo is the one you see them attaching to the apparatus on the sending end. The "Type 3" wire photo is what is produced on the receiving end and typically exhibits some slight loss of clarity (though I have seen some very nice ones that you would never have known just from looking at the image) and have the caption embedded in the front image of the photo.

Spot News (1937)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetlcmqZFyA

Good Neighbors (1944)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0aXF0JQWEo

[Forever Young]

Great visual reference! Outstanding add... thanks for sharing Lance.

Originally Posted by thecatspajamas

There are a couple of short "informational" films that were produced in the 1930's-40's that do a better job of explaining (and more importantly for me, showing) the actual wire photo process. The original "Type 1" news photo is the one you see them attaching to the apparatus on the sending end. The "Type 3" wire photo is what is produced on the receiving end and typically exhibits some slight loss of clarity (though I have seen some very nice ones that you would never have known just from looking at the image) and have the caption embedded in the front image of the photo.

Spot News (1937)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LetlcmqZFyA

Good Neighbors (1944)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0aXF0JQWEo

[varsitycollectibles]

Great responses guys. I'm going to dig a little deeper before I decide if I will go with wire photos or originals.

Repsher: Thanks for the link. Bob Gibson is my main PC focus and I would love to see what you have.

I don't know about you fellas, but on a lazy Saturday with not much to do I tend to spend money. So I decided to pick up my first photo. I got it from the seller Repsher mentioned. It's a Chicago Tribune archive photo of Bob Gibson from Game 1 of the 1967 World Series.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/280970494623...84.m1423.l2649

[thecatspajamas]

Ben, glad to be able to add something helpful. I must admit that the actual "wire photo" process was a mystery to me for a long time until I ran across a reference to one of those films. When I saw them, it was like the proverbial lightbulb turning on for me. It's really pretty amazing technology for the time when you think about it!

My favorite quote: "...and here is the finished picture, just 8 minutes by wire..."

Can you imagine how long it would have taken to transmit all of the photos used in just a single edition of a newspaper? Let alone the cumulative time to transmit all of the wire photos in any given paper's archives?

[mybestbretts]

You have received some great advise. I might just add that whether it
is a type 1 or 3 it may be the only one, or at least very limited, of that
particular photo. I generally like to look for a photo that catches my eye
or is for instance, the world series, playoffs, etc. Might just be one of the
player horsing around. For the most part though, I try to buy the original photo. One thing I have noticed that relatives or people have bought negitaves of old pictures and are selling them on ebay. They might be nice but totally worthless.

[71buc]

Has anyone attempted to remove editorial marks from photos? I don't mind them when they don't effect the central image. However, I have passed on a number of otherwise beautiful photos. If you have removed them how sucessfull have you been, did you damage the photo, and what process did you utilize?

[mybestbretts]

Hi Mike:

I haven't tried it but have heard that they (I believe) just wipe off.

[mybestbretts]

I look forward to the responses to this

[drc]

I handled a massive news photo collection for an auction house. While the editorial markings never bothered me, there were a lot here that would be nice to remove (if I was the photo owner, not auctioneer).

[thecatspajamas]

It depends on which type of editorial "markings" you are talking about. There are the black or red grease pencil-type markings that can be wiped off with a soft cloth (or so I'm told, never tried it myself).

Then you have the "cover up" markings that are basically like paint on the surface of the photo, usually white, gray or black. I haven't heard a reliable method of getting that off without damaging the emulsion surface of the photograph itself.

If there is a way to remove that paint without damaging the photo, I'd be glad to hear it, because as others have said, I've passed on a few photos that would otherwise be nice shots because of such editorial cover-ups. Maybe there needs to be a photograph conservation / repair thread that covers these topics (as well as how to remove that doggone black scrapbook paper that is often firmly affixed to photos).

[repsher]

Originally Posted by 71buc

Has anyone attempted to remove editorial marks from photos? I don't mind them when they don't effect the central image. However, I have passed on a number of otherwise beautiful photos. If you have removed them how sucessfull have you been, did you damage the photo, and what process did you utilize?

Mike, I've used PEC-12 emulsion cleaner to remove editorial markings with great sucess. I use small cotton wipes and also wear cotton gloves while doing the work.
I've only had it not work once, where there was an "X" over the face and it would not remove. I've never damaged a photo.

Links to what I've used :

http://www.adorama.com/CHPEC12.html

http://www.adorama.com/AM61002.html

http://www.amazon.com/PEC-PAD-Lint-F.../dp/B0001M6K24

[71buc]

Thanks for the great information I will give it a try.

Originally Posted by repsher

Mike, I've used PEC-12 emulsion cleaner to remove editorial markings with great sucess. I use small cotton wipes and also wear cotton gloves while doing the work.
I've only had it not work once, where there was an "X" over the face and it would not remove. I've never damaged a photo.

Links to what I've used :

http://www.adorama.com/CHPEC12.html

http://www.adorama.com/AM61002.html

http://www.amazon.com/PEC-PAD-Lint-F.../dp/B0001M6K24

[thecatspajamas]

Ryan, just to be sure I'm clear, have you used this to remove the paint-type editorial applications, or only the grease pencil/marker type markings? I read through a number of the reviews of the product (also available on Amazon), and most seemed to be glowing so I'll probably pick some up to try. I'm just wondering what types of removals you have had luck with.

[repsher]

Yes, It's more work and you have to have patience with it but it does come off. I spray it directly onto the photo and if it's paint I work on a small spot before moving on.

[thecatspajamas]

Good to know. I'll definitely pick up a bottle of it and give it a shot. Thanks for the info!

[71buc]

I spoke with a local photographer who has spent many hours in the dark room prior to the digital age. He stated he is unaware of any reliable safe product to remove editorial markings withot damaging the emulsion on photo paper. There are products that are made to clean negatives and slides however he said those are solvents and will damage photo paper. He recommended using a photo archivist but related that unless the image is extremely valuable such services are cost prohibitive. I showed him this picture of Chief Bender I purchased for $32.99. He indicated that the paints on the photo were likely water soluble and could be removed with warm distilled water and a Q-tip. He said that any excess water should be dabbed away quickly to prevent absorption.

I took a leap of faith and gave it a shot. The editorial paint melted into the water and transferred to the Q-tip which I moved in a circular pattern. The water left on the photo clouded pretty quickly. To prevent absorption I removed it by gently dabbing it with a non-abrasive pad of tissue. After all of the editorial marks were removed I used a blow dryer to dry the photo. It curled slightly after drying. I placed it in a book and stacked weights (40 lbs) on top of it. The following day I removed the photo and it had returned to the previous shape. Obviously this method is very similar to card soaking. I don’t know if this process will result in long term damage to the photo that will be revealed over time. Nonetheless, at least for the moment, I am pleased with the results. I seldom buy photos with such markings but it seems that they can be purchased cheaper than unmarked examples. Based on the results of this process I will likely be more willing to buy them.

[Runscott]

Mike, I am tremendously impressed!

I'm thinking it would be safer to just send photos to YOU for the work!