Original negatives- underrated? Show yours

[GKreindler]

I have the Lelands catalog for the Harry M. Stevens collection, but I'm pretty sure the negatives offered therein are from Francis Burke, rather than George (though I'll double check today). It's a shame that he was replaced when they found the latter, as his work was absolutely stellar. I really think his work was on par with people like Bain and Conlon, though we'll never know whether it approached the same breadth.

And, I hate to say it, but whomever wins the Conlon negatives, well, I hope they actually do decide to have them rescanned. I know, I know, it's a monumental undertaking and seems pointless. However, I'm absolutely convinced that JR's people really screwed the pooch when they did just that. I'd say a lot of the scans turned out nicely, but there are so many that had piss-poor retouching done to them, and as a result, really detract from the overall image.

One of the harshest victims was Paul Waner:







Yeeeeeaaahhh. I'm sorry, but the original negatives do NOT look like this. Perhaps there are imperfections here and there, but by I can't see why they were altered this drastically in Photoshop. And believe me, there are a LOT more where that came from (though Waner's are probably the worst).

Excuse me while I go have some nightmares.

[Lordstan]

Holy crap. Who the heck did that? Were they blind?
I did notice when looking at the Conlon collection online, I found many were not very clear. Certainly not what I expected.

Originally Posted by GKreindler

I have the Lelands catalog for the Harry M. Stevens collection, but I'm pretty sure the negatives offered therein are from Francis Burke, rather than George (though I'll double check today). It's a shame that he was replaced when they found the latter, as his work was absolutely stellar. I really think his work was on par with people like Bain and Conlon, though we'll never know whether it approached the same breadth.

And, I hate to say it, but whomever wins the Conlon negatives, well, I hope they actually do decide to have them rescanned. I know, I know, it's a monumental undertaking and seems pointless. However, I'm absolutely convinced that JR's people really screwed the pooch when they did just that. I'd say a lot of the scans turned out nicely, but there are so many that had piss-poor retouching done to them, and as a result, really detract from the overall image.

One of the harshest victims was Paul Waner:







Yeeeeeaaahhh. I'm sorry, but the original negatives do NOT look like this. Perhaps there are imperfections here and there, but by I can't see why they were altered this drastically in Photoshop. And believe me, there are a LOT more where that came from (though Waner's are probably the worst).

Excuse me while I go have some nightmares.

[thecatspajamas]

Yikes! Okay, forget what I said, and I'll join you in hoping the Conlons get rescanned!

[GKreindler]

It's pretty ridiculous. The fact that Getty hasn't done anything about it, while typical, is just as sad.

[thecatspajamas]

Yeah, I can imagine they pretty much just index the images with whatever info they have, dump them on a server, and start licensing and selling prints. Minimal effort for maximum catalog depth.

Wonder if Getty's deal for adding the images was with Rogers, or The Sporting News? And how that impacts the licensing deal offered with the collection being auctioned?

[GKreindler]

Well, that's kinda the weird thing. See, legally speaking, I'm not sure that JR ever got the full rights to sell his reproductions. I'm sure everything was worked out with the Sporting News, so with the IP of Charles Conlon's images, he was probably fine. However, he would run into the same issues that I do with selling reproductions: he'd probably have to pay whomever represents some of the estates of those bigger players. CMG is under contract with plenty of them, like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Bob Feller, Christy Mathewson, Burleigh Grimes, Dizzy Dean, Eddie Collins and a bunch more.

Now, I could be completely wrong in this - and if I am, I apologize to whomever would call me out on it - but I don't think JR approached CMG when he had up that Conlon site from which he was selling his prints. Had CMG (or somebody) known about it, his company could have received a nasty cease and desist pretty fast.

Let's also not forget that Roger's archive probably should have been under some sort of licensing contract with MLB because of the teams depicted in those negatives.

And again, I could be wrong on all of this, as I never bought any of those official prints from them, but I don't think arrangements like that were made. Whomever wins, though they could do exactly what Rogers did with trying to cash in on those prints, they're probably still doing so at a big risk. That is, unless there's some language in the contracts that indemnify them from any wrong doing...which could also be the case.

Just some food for thought.

[btcarfagno]

I have three early Babe Ruth glass plate negatives up for auction in the latest Hunt monthly auction. One is Ruth talking to a reporter on the field in uniform just before the first ever game at Yankee Stadium in 1923.

http://huntauctions.com/phone/current.cfm

[/URL]

[/URL]

[/URL]

Tom C