Question for Type 1 experts

[SAllen2556]

Originally Posted by Michael B

There is no gotcha here from my perspective. It could not be original or 'type I' under any conditions. There is a signature in the image therefore it could not fit the standards. Unless, of course, Babe Ruth's signature was floating in the air in front of him while the photo was taken.

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.

[drcy]

Digital photos can be original, though they are not 'real photo' in the technical sense that they are not made the traditional 'photochemicals & sunlight' way.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by SAllen2556

Type I - A 1st generation photograph, developed from the original negative, during the period (within approximately two years of when the picture was taken).

I don't understand why a photo can't be a type I just because it has a signature. Photo is taken and developed in 1934. Photo is then brought to Babe Ruth the very next day while the Yankees are still in town, and he signs it - which is in fact what happened. The actual, original photo I owned with the original signature was all from 1934.

I was going on the assumption that the signature was part of the photo not on the photo. Of course, an original photo with a signature on it would be an original photo.