Are Composite photos by nature type 3 or 4?

[Lordstan]

Originally Posted by 71buc

This a very informative thread. When I first started collecting photos the first composite photo I picked up was this 1931 opening day photo of Hack Wilson. It is made of two photos pasted together. The background image has editorial inks on the infield and shading around the cut out Wilson image. As can be seen on the reverse Wilson’s cap and the end of his bats were clipped off at some point in time.

Shortly after picking the Wilson photo up I obtained the 1923 Pie Traynor. Based on the Wilson photo I assumed that the Traynor would also be comprised of multiple images pasted together it was not. The Wilson image has the newspaper clipping attached to the reverse. Does this mean that it is a montage photo proof, or were such images occasionally not re-photographed to make a Type III image for publication like the Traynor photo?

Mike,
Based on the discussion in this thread, including Henry's response, I think that the Wilson would not only be considered a Type 1, but 2 Type 1's. As the copy that you own is not a re-photographed image, it is 2 separate photos in one. The Traynor likely started as multiple photos cut and pasted together. it was then re-photographed. As such it would be a type 3.
BTW, thanks for the nice comments on my Van Oeyen Gehrig pick up.
Mark

[71buc]

Obviously I am a bit slow. Thanks for the explanation. You'd think six years of college would indicate an ability to read. I think I'm going pursue a refund for my education.

Mike

[drcy]

The Traynor is Type III, but, as it's vintage with date stamps and vintage paper caption tag, it's a perfectly collectible photo. A part of the value would be based in the clarity/quality of the image. A duplicate negative or other duplication process can produce a rough, grainy image or it can produce a sharp clear image (or somewhere in between). Obviously, the one with sharp clear image will be valued more.

If selling it and you aren't sure what Type it is you can simply describe it as a "Vintage 1923 photo with the vintage tag and 1923 date stamp on back." That description neither states nor implies the Type, but is describing it by its age. You aren't required to give information you don't know. Just as you aren't required to state the photographer's name when you don't know who is the photographer. Though, if you know absolutely nothing about a photo, including whether it was made in 1923 or 2013, eBay would suggest you not sell it.

[prewarsports]

Henry's response is very informative and well written. With regard to the photo posted earlier of Bugs Bunny (that was bought from me) I will clarify one quick thing only because my name was brought up and where I differ a bit from the type system. I believe that a photographers intent should be factored into the image. I believe (and most photographers that I have spoken to agree with me) that if I take a photo of several Ansel Adams images and make a composite photo of them it should be treated differently than if Ansel Adams himself did it. In the former, it is not my work but in the latter, Adams used his own images to create a unique work of art. To each his own and I have no problem with the way PSA does it AT ALL, its just a personal preference I have with regard to gray area between classifying "Unique piece of work" and "Photo of a Photo".

I just wanted to clarify since one of my images was posted. It was not misidentified, that was created intentionally as a unique work of art to promote a Bugs Bunny film in the 1950's. It would absolutely get a "Type 3" from PSA, its just not how I view it... and its totally cool either way, just a personal preference.

Back to the discussion which is great!

Rhys

[perezfan]

Frankly, I could care less about this whole thing.

Meaning this is an interesting thread... and I do appreciate the insight.

[drcy]

"If you understand the movie completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."-- 2001: A Space Odyssey screenwriter, Arthur C. Clarke

[Runscott]

...that was the weirdest dup post ever - not even sure how I did it.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by drcy

"If you understand the movie completely, we failed. We wanted to raise far more questions than we answered."-- 2001: A Space Odyssey screenwriter, Arthur C. Clarke

The questions it raises for me EVERY time I see it, are: 1) why did I stay awake for over 1/2 the movie? 2) why did I fall asleep with less than than 1/2 of the movie to go? 3) Why do I always go in thinking "this is the time i'll understand it" 4) Why did I stop and get Chinese take-out to eat on the way to the movie, and miss the best scene?