I also collect TYPE 2-3-4 Photos. Here are some examples...

[prewarsports]

Mike it is a COMPLETELY dumb rule, but composites and sequentials can't be type 1 because they are always photos of photos and by construction they are not from "the original negative" but photos of already developed photos. This is the main reason why the type classification is a nice attempt but falls short of the mark. All people really care about is if the photo is original "vintage" or not. This would make all Old Judge Baseball Cards and most 19th century team photos not type 1's either.

It is a slippery slope though because say I have a type 1 photo of Elvis and then someone takes a photo of that photo, that makes it a type 4. BUT, if someone takes a picture of me holding the photo it becomes a type 1 photo of me holding what would otherwise be a type 4 right? So if you have a 1915 picture of Babe Ruth and then a 1918 photo of Babe Ruth holding the 1915 picture it would HAVE TO be a Type 1 and a Type 4 in the same photo!

Or maybe it could be a type 1.4, OH CRAP, PSA has to bring in the decimals for photos now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[D. Bergin]

Hmm! What about "Magic Eye" photos?

Now I realize many sequential photos are basically images of photos pasted on a pinboard.

But aren't many sequential photos essentially contact sheet prints from the same roll of film? Direct from the negative, direct from the original contact sheet off the negative, what should it really matter? Especially in the case of news/press photos.

The two essential questions should be. Does it originate to the time the original image was taken? and; Is it a wire/sound/radio photo transmission? (Itself, not such a bad thing, as long as it originates from the right time period).

[mr2686]

Well...I never thought about making a "mock-up" of the sequential photos and then taking a picture...I can see how that would not be an original. However, as stated, you can make a contact print possibly, or, there are many ways to block off portions of the paper to expose different photos and then develop the print. I'd say if the rule is a hard and fast one, then it's just wrong. If it's a guide line unless you can prove otherwise, then ok.

[drc]

Sequential and composite photos can be original, as they can be printed from the original negatives.

[prewarsports]

But in composites you take photos, print them from the negative, then lay them out and take another photo and then print that one out. Photos of Photos right? By "rule" that makes them type 4 I believe. How can a composite not be photo of a photo unless it is the photographers original proof?

[drc]

With composite (multi image) photos you can make them either way. Lay down four single photos and take a photo of that, or develop the four images directly from the original negatives.