Henry Yee Photos and Photos in General - Skeptical

[BBSD]

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

[thekingofclout]

Originally Posted by BBSD

Interesting- have been wondering how you can tell an original negative, any insights much appreciated?

Good question! However, I do not have much expertise in negatives and would not buy one without getting an opinion.

There are a LOT of duplicate negatives out there. Far more than originals. Also, they were not made to deceive but as a newsroom necessity.

A staff photographer would simply take a photo of a photo (usually of a famous image and/or player) and the new negative would be filed away for future use. Of note...many dupe-negs were made 30, 40, 50, or more years ago.

MANY good and well thought out points made here. Thanks.

Jimmy

[Exhibitman]

The only certain way to tell an original negative would be to get it from the photographer or the original owner of the image (we are all the original owners of the snapshots we took, hence their negatives), though I suppose an expert with sufficient skill and knowledge could ascertain whether a negative is original or not. The prints themselves, though, would appear made from the original--that's the whole point of doing it.

The other thing I was thinking of is that with all these dupe negatives out there at about the time the photos were made for news use, how can anyone tell whether the photographs made at the time were from dupe negs or the original neg absent the photographers' own stamping?

[steve B]

Most film has datecodes. So if the dupe negatives were done much later, with new stock it would be possible to fiure out the actual date of the dupe negative.
http://www.film-center.com/dates.html
That's mostly about movie film, but still film usually has codes too.


Much duplication isn't done all that well, and the image loses a bit of focus, and often some contrast as well. There are modern systems that do much better, laser scans and such, but the old ways generated a slightly lossy image even with a good operator. tere's a tiny bit of distortion caused by the film substrate itself. A contact print emulsion to emulsion would be the way to go, but for most places it would be too much work. The smaller the original, the easier it would be to tell. Blowing up from a 35mm negative to an 8x10 negative would take a some skill to have it come out clearly. Doing it from a professionals medium or large format negative would be easier, and if the original was a very large format camera like one that actually took 8x10 negatives it would be hard to tell the dupe since the person working to make the duplicate would be quite skilled.

Steve B

[drc]

Copies of negatives don't have the same image quality as the original. Some copies of negatives are quite rough. So looking at the quality of the image on both the negative and the paper photograph is part of determining if it's an original.

Some old photos have images that are so detailed and crystal clear, they had to have been made from an original negative.

The only problem is a photo can be original yet was shot out of focus or at a great distance. Original sports action shots can be grainy or slightly blurred. If I had a photo that I knew was from the year, but the image was rough so I couldn't say for certain the image was made from the original negative, I'd all it vintage 1933 (for year example) and not say whether or not it was original (fromt he original negative). If you don't know, you don't make it up. And for the collector, the old age itself has value.

The 1913 T200 Fatima team cards, which are photographs, are obviously vintage, but the images appear second generation. So that's an example where a photo image isn't original but the photo is vintage. As they were mass produced, real photo baseball cards are more likely not to have been made from duplicate and copy images.

The negatives themselves can be dated roughly as physical objects. For example a 1910 negative would be glass, and an 1870 negative would be glass with a different thickness and cut. Modern slides, which are also used to make photographic prints, commonly have the date of manufacture printed on them-- so they're easy to date.

One thing to realize is that age itself is part of a photo's value. Say you find an 1860 cabinet card of Abraham Lincoln and someone tells you the image is second generation. As President of the United States they were making lots and various kinds of photos of him, and the images were sometimes copies of other images. You may be bummed the images isn't first generation, but the cabinet card will still have value due to it being from 1860. It's still a Civil War era antique.

[thekingofclout]

A photo off a dupe neg compared to a photo taken off the original negative is often Day & Night.

Take a picture of your dog with a 35mm and develop it. Now take a picture of that picture with the same camera and develop that. Compare the two photos and come to your own conclusion.

Regards, Jimmy

[Ladder7]

Originally Posted by thekingofclout

Take a picture of your dog... *snip* Compare the two photos and come to your own conclusion.

Regards, Jimmy

Hot damn, He's right