|
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Conlon Type 2
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
Aren't all of the photos John Rogers creates from Conlon negatives and sells, technically 'Type II'?
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If they come from the original negative then I would think so. Just read a quick bio on rogers.Never heard of him until now
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I don't know what process John Rogers' guys use (never looked into it), so none of these wandering thoughts are intended to reflect on him. I guess it would depend on his method of print production as to what Type those modern prints are considered.
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions Web Store with better selection and discounts Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Have any of you ever seen this photo before?
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
I have, Joey, though I never knew it was a Conlon! It's actually the subject of a painting I'm doing for a video in the coming months.
For the record, the image was taken on April 22, 1920, his first game with the Yankees during the regular season. Apparently he strained his side and leg during batting practice. He insisted on starting, but only lasted an inning. I'm not sure exactly when he came back, but from the newspaper reports, it seemed like it would only be a few days. Regardless, great pick-up! Graig
__________________
Check out my baseball artwork: www.graigkreindler.com www.twitter.com/graigkreindler www.facebook.com/graigkreindler Last edited by GKreindler; 11-13-2013 at 02:12 PM. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
I would think if the photo was reproduced digitally from the original negative via a high-res scan it would technically be a type 4 because there is a conversion step between the negative and the photo on the paper no matter how high the quality is.
__________________
Be sure to check out my site www.RMYAuctions.com |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You should read Rogers' description of how his prints are created - it's interesting. As far as I'm aware, I'm the only forum member who has every purchased any of them as I've asked for reviews from others and haven't gotten any.
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
#9
|
||||
|
||||
I think of a scanned of original negatives scanned and made into digital prints as as originals, but it's a digital photograph not a real photo. Different things, at least in my book. Like an original photograph versus an original lithograph. Duly note I'm not talking about an originals printed at the time by the photographer, and not talking about photos scanned 50 years later by third parties. I'm not suggesting the Rogers digital photos are originals.
You have to take into consideration that in making art there is a process and steps. Rembrandt made sketches and practice paintings before he made the final painting, yet the final painting is called the original. The sketches were part of the process making the paining. And in digital photography and negatives to digital prints there is also a process. Last edited by drcy; 11-13-2013 at 06:30 PM. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
But based on the type system it wouldnt be a type 1 because the photo paper would be different and the new scanned copy isnt vintage to the period it was taken
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
So to answer one of my questions, I've been told that while John Rogers' Conlon prints would technically be Type II's, PSA does not authenticate any modern prints produced by individuals from vintage negatives, so it's a moot point as far as ever seeing anything like that in a PSA slab. One reason being that it discourages the flood of wacko homemade pieces and souvenir glossies that they already get a lot of (and turn down). In light of that, I suppose the question of classification of prints produced from digital scans of original negatives is pretty much academic. My contention would still be that the process of scanning the negative into an intermediate digital format that is then used to produce a laser print (literally using a combination of lasers to expose photographic paper, which is what I think David was alluding to) is very close to the wire photo process so that prints produced that way would be Type III (if from a modern shot taken within 2 years of the scanning/print production) or Type IV (if from a vintage negative). I would also agree that a printed photo (lots of tiny dots) and a true photographic print (exposed photo paper) are two different animals, regardless of the originating source of the image. Now, to stir the pot a little more, where do you think a photo originally shot with a digital camera and then laser-printed onto true photo paper would fall? Still a moot point as far as PSA authenticating them (not sure why anyone would want that for a modern digital shot anyway), but fun to discuss. I think. If not, I'll shut up now and keep my rambling thoughts to myself (Joey, sorry too for further hi-jacking your thread.)
__________________
Ebay Store and Weekly Auctions Web Store with better selection and discounts Polite corrections for unidentified and misidentified photos appreciated. Rude corrections also appreciated, but less so. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
__________________
$co++ Forre$+ |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Are these Conlon photos? | repsher | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 44 | 11-24-2017 02:40 PM |
Chief Wilson 1914-1916 Charles Conlon Type 1 Photo w/Notations REDUCED | btcarfagno | Baseball Memorabilia B/S/T | 1 | 10-03-2013 10:02 PM |
The Charles Conlon Collection | Leon | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 46 | 01-23-2012 11:11 AM |
Charles Conlon... | GKreindler | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 2 | 09-16-2011 08:34 AM |
Is there a Conlon Collection catalog? | JasonL | Net54baseball Sports (Primarily) Vintage Memorabilia Forum incl. Game Used | 4 | 07-17-2009 09:50 AM |