Large size prints Original?

[Johnny R]

How often do people encounter large prints (circa 10 x 10 inches) as original period photos? Did units sell these to soldiers? I encountered an album that has prints of photos that show scatching to the negative but appear to have been in the album for a long time along with pictures that look like the normal typical snapshot pronts etc. Sort of worried about the size, the largest I have seen in private albums are usually a bit larger than postcards.

Thanks,

[R MICHAEL]

Well I have larger sized unit photos in a few of my albums. Could you post some of them so we could judge from that.

Mike

How often do people encounter large prints (circa 10 x 10 inches) as original period photos? Did units sell these to soldiers? I encountered an album that has prints of photos that show scatching to the negative but appear to have been in the album for a long time along with pictures that look like the normal typical snapshot pronts etc. Sort of worried about the size, the largest I have seen in private albums are usually a bit larger than postcards.

Thanks,

[Torpedomaat]

Don't tell me you are talking about these...

[Torpedomaat]

Is there a stamp of the distributor or photo studio on the back side of the print?
Though I did not check the reverse of photo paper before selling the album to you, I do not have any suspicion that these prints are modern copy.

[Akira Takiguchi]

Mr. Hodgson, I will buy the album from you if you are not 100% satisfied because I was too late when I saw Haruki's ad!

[Johnny R]

Larger prints

I am not saying they are not real I am just questioning how often the size is encountered. I do not believe they are modern but as you know, many photos like this were exchanged etc. after to War and enlarged. The large prints show there was substantial damage to the negatives, you can see this even in the above images. Look at the bottom right of the lowest photo and also the right side of the railcar in the photo above. The photos were glued to the pages in addition to being corner mounted. There is no way to safely look on the backs.

Is there a problem with asking questions on the forum? I thought that was the one of the stated purposes of the WA?

[Akira Takiguchi]

Absolutely no problem about asking questions. Actually there are many fakes out there, so you cannot be careful enough, too.

These PK prints can be a first generation print from but also a first generation print from second generation (duplicate) of the original negatives. It could be first generation print from first generation repronegatives (negatives made from prints)... And not always easy to tell. You should look for the quality especially on larger prints.

[Strider]

The dust marks on the prints (the white spots) and even scratches are not a good judge of the age of the negatives being printed.

Negatives pick-up dust immediately they are processed. Also the negative holder in the photographic enlarger will usually hold the negative between two panes of glass to keep the negative flat. Any dust on those panes of glass create white patches on the enlarged photograph.

Dust marks are more an indication of a sloppy technician rather than old negatives.

[Torpedomaat]

White line, chip or spot in the photo images not necessarily mean damage to negative.
And the number of scratches or damages of negative is not necessarily related to printed age.
I think that you can never be too sure.

[Torpedomaat]

I have overlooked a Strider's post...