The Image or The Photo

[Karl B]

I have asked this question before but it did not get a lot of traction. I have noticed a few threads here lately with the originality of a photo or photos being questioned, nobody experience etc is being questioned here.

These threads and others have raised some interesting internal arguments for me. Just what is an original photo? There is the obvious answer, that being a photo that was developed before or just after the wars end. As well as the obvious fake, a photo that has been produced from a scan and made to look old etc.

The grey area for me are the images/photos developed later or even a few years a go from original negatives. They are not on period paper but surely the image is the same as it would have been if it were war developed. Are these not original in the sense that they were taken by an individual during the conflict?

My question is what do you collect the image or the photo?

Cheers

Karl

[R MICHAEL]

Good question Karl. As you know I collect, like you, negatives so I have tussled with this question a bit.
I have found that when I have printed a photo from a period negative it doe not have the resonance like a period printed print from the same negative.

The prints I have had made from my negatives aren't special, at least to me, as the original. It reminds me of looking at a photo in a book, it is a great image but nothing "unique".

So I would have to say 65% photo 35% image.

Mike

[Von Hoth]

to me it's all about "how am I going to spend what little money I have".


I choose to collect items that will go up in value. This helps justify the action of collecting since I have limited funds. So that means only original items. A potential collector is born every minute, yet there are only so many original WWII items to collect. What's better, to spend 5.00 dollars for a reprint, or 15.00 dollars for an original? In 25 years, you can bet that the 15.00 dollar item went up while the reprint is worth exactly the same.

[TerryG]

I collect portrait photos and I really want to make sure that they are orginal photos from the period. One of the attactions for me is that the photos belonged to relatives of the soldiers in question maybe. They are period pieces and as such they tell a story in their own right. However just like collecting badges and medals.... you could own a number of these which were produced shortly after the war ended, but then I do not consider them as "original".
I assume that it can be interesting for some collectors to buy non-original photos if their only interest is in the subject itself (like shots of camo gear, or tanks etc..). These will enable the collectors to continue their research into a particular field and so, when the photo was actually printed becomes irrelevant. I am certainly prepared to pay a higher price for a "period piece".

[Simon O.]

For me it's image, no question, I measure a photo's value in historical terms not monetary.

Then there's the uniqueness of the photo, ie. is it a PK shot, has it been seen before in publications or in other albums?

That's why i get so angry at the destruction of photo albums, together it has far more history to tell than an individual shot.


Here's a question, for those that want pre-May 1945 prints only. What do you think of negatives?

[Von Hoth]

yes but who can afford photo albums now?

they want 1,000 dollars for more for them.

[Simon O.]

yes but who can afford photo albums now?

they want 1,000 dollars for more for them.

Rubbish, it's completely dependent upon content and number of photos.