Memory Lane Auction pick-ups

[Lordstan]

It's a type 3 because it's a composite.
Type 3s are defined as not printed from the original negative, but printed within the same approximate 2yr window as a type 1.
Composites have multiple separate photos shot together to create a new negative which is used to print from.
IMHO, this is a weakness in the type system. To me, each of these are an original creation by either the photographer or editor to be used at that time. I think these should be considered type 1s.

BTW... Great pick-up Ben!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[BigJJ]

Mark, Agreed

Type 3 designation for composite photos is not the best designation - as it implies that there are two levels better, when in fact, this is not the case.

Composite photos such as this are the top form of the piece.

In the art world, these would be considered the original work of the artist (which is defined as work done by the artist and/or at the artist's direction by others). Type 3 composite photos are similar to Type 1 photos in that they are both the original work of the photographer/artist.

I might call the them "Type 1 - Composite"
as they need to be differentiated from regular Type I, but not be defined as less than a Type 1.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

Mark, Agreed

Type 3 designation for composite photos is not the best designation - as it implies that there are two levels better, when in fact, this is not the case.

Composite photos such as this are the top form of the piece.

In the art world, these would be considered the original work of the artist (which is defined as work done by the artist and/or at the artist's direction by others). Type 3 composite photos are similar to Type 1 photos in that they are both the original work of the photographer/artist.

I might call the them "Type 1 - Composite"
as they need to be differentiated from regular Type I, but not be defined as less than a Type 1.

So you don't like it because of the number it is given?? LOL cOME ON JJ..
Original artworks? Ok fine.. I will agree with that....but not the same in quality. Again, the type system defines what it is. It is up to the buyer to decide the value themselves. I think changing it like you say would add a lot more confusion. All one has to do is read the definitions and think a bit. This should not be worth more than an ORIGINAL TYPE 1 of just Ruth IMO. IT IS a lesser form of photo. HOWEVER, I DO APPRECIATE THE PROCESS AND THAT IT WAS CREATED IN 1915(THUS I BOUGHT IT) . I would not have paid type 1 money for it though(like the one in heritage that went for 10k).

BIGJJ AND MARK... I like the way you both thin, love your passion and love talking photos with you(you know that). I just do not agree with these two "faults" you see in the TYPE SYSTEM.
Now stay away from photos I want to buy

[BigJJ]

Just trying to give your piece a big bump up Ben

I agree B, and would much rather have a Type 1 than a Type 3 Composite, no matter the classification of the composite. and I would think that if the Type 3 that are composites were reclassified to "Type 1 - Composite", that this would still be regarded as a less desirable category than Type 1, as it arguably should be due to clarity.

[BigJJ]

The key is to corner the Type 3 that are composites market - and then lobby for reclassification.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

The key is to corner the Type 3 that are composites market - and then lobby for reclassification.

HAHA LOVE IT

[BigJJ]

In all seriousness though, I do think original composites, created by the photographer and/or at his direction, should have their own category, even if it is "Type 3 - Composite". To me, they are superior to regular Type 3.

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by BigJJ

In all seriousness though, I do think original composites, created by the photographer and/or at his direction, should have their own category, even if it is "Type 3 - Composite". To me, they are superior to regular Type 3.

Well.. that's fine. There certainly is a difference. It is not that big of a deal to me as I can desipher I guess and feel it is easy to do so. One is a composite and one is a product of a wire machine(both products of process' diffferent than off the original neg). If you know this, you can assign your own value. No big deal.
I think is fine the way it is as a whole. I do see your point though.

Originally Posted by Runscott

Ben, fabulous pic - the fact that it is second-generation is a 'who cares?' thing.

Amazing

Thanks Scott!

[Runscott]

Ben, fabulous pic - the fact that it is second-generation is a 'who cares?' thing.

Amazing

[Forever Young]

Originally Posted by Lordstan

IMHO, this is a weakness in the type system. To me, each of these are an original creation by either the photographer or editor to be used at that time. I think these should be considered type 1s.

BTW... Great pick-up Ben!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

Thanks Mark!

I don't see how this is a weakness of the Type system AT ALL though.
It is not a type 3 just because it is a composite. It is a type 3 because each photo within the composite were made from dupe negatives to put it all together(thus, not as clear as a type 1). If ANYTHING it is a STRENGTH of the TYPE SYSTEM. I WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE A TYPE 1 OF THE RUTH SHOT THAN THIS. THUS, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM TO SEPARATE THE TWO.
However, just because it is a type 3 doesn't make it bad. The type system is just defining what it is. I don't see how this is a weakness in any way shape or form. It is why the system is necessary.
Again, the TYPE system if anything is more specific than any other classification IMO.