Photos Question - Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, etc.

[jjbond]

New to exploring the world of photographs. Anyone want to help me distinguish between the different categories? (Type 1, Type 2, Type 3, etc.)

From my understanding, you can tell them apart by looking at:
- Picture quality / texture
- Notations on the back
- Paper quality/thickness

And from what I can tell:
Type 1 and 2 are printed from the original negative that the photographer took, with Type 2 being a printing done years later. Type 3 & 4 deal with duplicate negatives and often wire transmissions.

If the above summary is correct, and suggestions on which category the photo below falls into? The original negative would have been shot 12/27/13, and the printed newspaper use would have been the first week of 1/14. From my understanding, this is before the use of wire transmissions.

[Lucas00]

This is absolutely a type 1.

Wire photos
Are very easy to identify as they usually always have an article on the front describing the photo. They weren't really implemented until the mid 30s by the associated press for sporting use. They also are significantly lesser quality than a news/press photo. If this was a wirephoto I would expect it to be about half the quality of yours.

Good article.
https://www.sportscollectorsdaily.co...de-wirephotos/

You have a "News" or "Press" photo. With an original period news clipping and original pencil dating. Which are almost always sure fire signs of a type 1. These are second only to original photographer shots in terms of desirability.

Type 2s are pretty easy to identify as well. They will generally be very high quality with a single stamp or two or maybe a newspaper clipping that is out of the range for a type 1 date to make sense, (say a babe Ruth photo in uniform used for a 1950s article).
But they can be tricky. And sometimes it's frankly impossible to tell them apart from a type 1. Maybe George Brace waited 3 years after taking a photo to get it developed. Would anybody know the difference? No.

Once you go beyond type 2 it gets more and more obvious. Cream white borders. Bright white backs. Image quality that is severely lacking. No stamps at all. I would 99% of the time stay away from these.

[jjbond]

Oh thanks. I was fairly sure, but also read that sometimes you have to see it in person (feel the paper weight, etc.) to be sure. (and I was unsure of those white markings near the edges - again, I'm a novice to photography)

So there's Type 1, but two sub-types of Type 1? How does one distinguish a "Press Photo" from an "original photographer shot" (is it just that the first is staged?)

The photos I'm looking at are from 1913-1915, so I guess that makes it easier for me? And I assume it's better to have the original news clipping *attached* to the back of the photo, as opposed to tracking its use down in archives?
Thanks again!

[jjbond]

And doing a deep-dive on the internet, I found another version in a Leland's auction, listed as a wire photo. Would this be a "Type 3" of this photo, based upon the description and the lower quality of the image? I don't see a image of the back, but it has a caption on that side.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Oh thanks. I was fairly sure, but also read that sometimes you have to see it in person (feel the paper weight, etc.) to be sure. (and I was unsure of those white markings near the edges - again, I'm a novice to photography)

This particular photo is a contact print. The glass plate negative was put directly onto the photographic paper, it was exposed and then printed. Those white marks are the clips used to hold the negative tight against the paper. that helps improve the sharpness of the print.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Michael B

This particular photo is a contact print. The glass plate negative was put directly onto the photographic paper, it was exposed and then printed. Those white marks are the clips used to hold the negative tight against the paper. that helps improve the sharpness of the print.

Ok great! And still a Type 1? It's just how the Type 1 photo was developed back in 1913?

I never expected I'd be learning the ins-and-outs of how photos are made. Fun stuff!

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

And doing a deep-dive on the internet, would this be a "Type 3" of this photo, based upon the lower quality of the image?

I can't tell, the scan could be bad. And there's no picture of the back.

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Ok great! And still a Type 1? It's just how the Type 1 photo was developed back in 1913?

I never expected I'd be learning the ins-and-outs of how photos are made. Fun stuff!

They had enlargers that could hold the glass plates to make larger prints. It was not as practical if they were doing it for a newspaper. They did not need large images. The glass plate negatives were usually 4x5 or 5x7. Contact prints were the quickest and most efficient way to print. You did not need to move the bellows of the enlarger up and down or focus the lens. If the negative had good emulsion and was sharp it was fairly easy to get contact prints that were properly exposed. I have done it with some in my archives. I will try to dig them out over the weekend. I actually enjoy working in a darkroom though I do not get the chance that often. It is fun to see the image appear before your eyes as you are swishing the developer back and forth over the paper.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I can't tell, the scan could be bad. And there's no picture of the back.

I updated my post - this rougher image came from Lelands Auction , so I assume the scan is accurate/fine, and they described it as a "wire photograph". (though not sure if that's a generic term, or if it is actually a Type 4, since it sounds like wire photos wouldn't exist until many years afterwards??)

Has someone posted the same image being used over the years as Types 1-4? Would be curious to see the comparisons....

[TCMA]

At some point “wire photo” became a catch-all term for news service photos. Many old auction listings might read “wire photo” when the photos are what we would classify as Type 1 or 2 today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

This is absolutely a type 1.

And after all that, the seller told me it's a T3, because it was made off a duplicate negative.

I now have no clue as to how to identify, let alone buy these items.
Sigh.

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by jjbond

And after all that, the seller told me it's a T3, because it was made off a duplicate negative.

I now have no clue as to how to identify, let alone buy these items.
Sigh.

Tell-tale signs that yours is a type 3 are: editing notation and marks in the back. Part of the actual newspaper clipping is glued to the photo. International News Services is handwritten. Though not an original photo, it has value because it is contemporary to the time when the photo was taken.

Type 1 photos usually have : 1) a stamp of name of the Photographer/ News Agency in the back, 2) the date when the photo was received. This is usually, but not always, stamped, 3)A stamp of the name of Newspaper/ Library that owned the photo, 4) if from a newspaper, there may be a “slug” which was caption used under the photo by the paper.

[Lucas00]

This is not a type 3 🤦.

How in any world would the seller know it was made from a duplicate negative unless he faked every marking and has a period newspaper clipping. And pulled out his typewriter to mark the corner.

The international news service didn't even exist past 1958. When it merged with a rival.

So automatically the seller has no idea if this was made off of a duplicate negative.

There is a clear indication this is an international news service photo. A service that began in 1909. With a period news clipping that talks in present tone of the signing.

Oh and also there is no such thing as a "Duplicate Negative" the only way to "duplicate" a negative is to take a very high quality photo of the original negative.

And that one is way too nice to be a type 3 from a duplicate negative such as a wire photo.

Maybe you could make a case for this being a type 2. But even then I don't think it is.


Maybe Ben Weingarten or David Cycleback can chime in with more details.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

Maybe you could make a case for this being a type 2. But even then I don't think it is.

Well, the original photograph was taken on 12/27/1913. And while I haven't found the exact newspaper article that is glued on the back (especially where it says it says "This photograph, the first to be published in the East"), I did find an Indiana newspaper from 1/2/1914. So I'm fairly confident this photo was made and used within weeks (days?) of the actual event. So not a T2, right? (unless "East" means further east than America. Is that what "International News Service" dealt with?...but regardless, it'd be within a month I'd imagine, and in some English-speaking area)

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Well, the original photograph was taken on 12/27/1913. And while I haven't found the exact newspaper article that is glued on the back (especially where it says it says "This photograph, the first to be published in the East"), I did find an Indiana newspaper from 1/2/1914. So I'm fairly confident this photo was made and used within weeks (days?) of the actual event. So not a T2, right? (unless "East" means further east than America. Is that what "International News Service" dealt with?...but regardless, it'd be within a month I'd imagine, and in some English-speaking area)

Yes the time frames are likely similar to that.

The news service was U.S based.

Also notice how the original photo denotes the removal of the man on the left? And as you can see he was indeed removed for the final publications to the public. I really like that detail.

[jjbond]

Ah yes, US-based. I over thought that, and found similar newspapers carrying basically the same text description, and even attributing it to the International News Service.


And yeah, I like how they followed through with the cropping (it was not a very well-framed shot to begin with - the guys look very un-photogenic). But I have also seen the full version published that month.

[Lucas00]

Originally Posted by jjbond

Ah yes, US-based. I over thought that, and found similar newspapers carrying basically the same text description, and even attributing it to the International News Service.


And yeah, I like how they followed through with the cropping (it was not a very well-framed shot to begin with - the guys look very un-photogenic). But I have also seen the full version published that month.

That third guy is Charles Weeghman, owner of the Chicago Whales.

He also built Wrigley Field and owned the Cubs.

[jjbond]

Ok, after *another* deep dive on the internet, I found another version of this picture. It has greater clarity, the pencil notation of the date, and a few other details that seem to indicate that this *new* one is the original T1. Please see the comparison - the new find is on top. The one I purchased is below.

[jjbond]

Again, without having the two to compare to each other, I have difficulty in identifying if a single photo *should* be clearer or not. But it does appear that both generations of photos were printed just days apart from each other, and both date back to Dec 1913/Jan 1914. And clearly my physical copy was used in at least some of the newspaper accounts.

I wish I understood the process more of how the original photo/negative gets from the photographer's camera to the newspaper, but I feel that perhaps this process is more nuanced than just flatly declaring it a Type 1 vs. Type 3.

Perhaps more important to call it a *1913* T1 vs. a *1913* T3?

[Lucas00]

I still think it's a type 1.

If a local news service requested this photo why would the international news service not use the original negative? You can make an enlargement in no time.

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by Lucas00

I still think it's a type 1.

If a local news service requested this photo why would the international news service not use the original negative? You can make an enlargement in no time.

....but the new image (top) *is* clearer and sharper (and slightly more picture around the edges). I sort of feel the top one is the one owned by the International News Service (w/ the rubber stamp), and the bottom one was duplicated and labeled in pencil as to who had the copyright?

And then if this is the criteria - fully sharp/clear, then a lot of photos I'm looking at on ebay (even labeled T1), seem to be another generation of quality removed.

In this era (mid 1910s), did you have an original negative, which you then duplicated (losing some quality) and mailed off to various newspapers around the country? (which would explain why it took a few days from the event to when the pictures hit the paper). So the difference in T1/T3 would be the photographer's original that he took with his camera vs. the newspaper's original that was used in the paper?

[Lucas00]

I personally don't know how images were duplicated that long ago (in terms of type 3 images) Enlargement and contact are the only ways I know of that existed to make duplicates and I believe both needed a negative.

I know to actually get the photos into the papers/publications you had to turn the image into a halftone.

I'm not familiar with the process of creating a copy from a duplicate negative. And I can't find how it was done.

[steve B]

Making a copy negative is pretty simple, although there are a few ways to do it.

Film whether it was glass plate or film, came in both negative and positive versions. Think slide film, which is positive film developed and used directly in slides.
That could be bought not only in camera film sizes, but in sheets. The same for negative film.
(Or for some films, it's the same emulsion but developed differently.)

With an original negative in an enlarger, just expose it onto the right film, develop properly and there's your copy negative. (Can also be done as a contact print.)

If you're making hundreds of prints, it's good practice to generate a copy negative to do production with so the original doesn't get damaged.

If the person doing the copying is really good, it can be hard to tell, especially if the original and the copy are both film. Even moreso if they get sneaky and do a film to film contact print with the emulsion sides together.

Lots of ways to play around with stuff in a professional darkroom.


Halftones are done by photographing an original through a screen.

[jjbond]

I’m tempted to send it in to PSA to see what they think of it (this had been my plan if I was convinced it was a Type 1), but considering I now think I overpaid for this, spending another $80 on it doesn’t make sense (especially as PSA’s opinion is also questionable…)

[prewarsports]

If $299 for a period 1913 photograph of a major Hall of Famer from an important event in baseball history (regardless of potential PSA evaluation) is "overpaying" than please show me where other items like this can be purchased in bulk.

Full disclosure, I was the seller

[EddieP]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

If $299 for a period 1913 photograph of a major Hall of Famer from an important event in baseball history (regardless of potential PSA evaluation) is "overpaying" than please show me where other items like this can be purchased in bulk.

Full disclosure, I was the seller

+1

[jjbond]

Originally Posted by prewarsports

Full disclosure, I was the seller

Thank you for chiming in here. Hopefully my comments did not offend, and I certainly appreciated your openness about the photo.

I'm just trying to get a footing/understanding about this new interest/hobby, and clearly I am not the only one who finds the subject matter difficult.