New collector of 1920s Movie Photos - some info please?

[Noodleloaf]

I am new to vintage photographs, but am starting my collection and was hoping for some pointers.

I already picked up a whole binder of photographs and am in the process of identifying the actors, dates, etc. It is tough work, but great forums like this are a help.

My question is: Is there a source (or can you offer some tips) that tells a new collector how to tell original studio photos from restrikes or reproductions? For example, in my binder I have some pictures that have the embossed photographer mark, some that appear to be hand-colored, some that just have the movie code in the corner like T.B. 195 for a Thief of Bagdad (is there a name for this?), some with no movie mark or photographer, some heavy card, some glossy, etc.

How can I tell if they are reprints from the 1970s or are original from the 20s? Can you share your experience with these? Is there a good book I can reference?

Thanks so much in advance - I look forward to learning more!

[missdupont]

Thanks for joining us, and good luck with identifications! You might want to check out books on the history of photography, to learn about the history of paper and the look of photographic images. Just spending a lot of time looking at original photos, handling, and studying them is the best way to spot what is an original strike and what is a copy print. Unfortunately, there is no precise or consistent way to do this, because there are many ways that photos were printed. Original photos sometimes are totally blank; others have stamps or imprints; some have codes, which can be numbers or letters, some actually have titles printed on them. Original captions can be taped on the back, typed on the back, or even handwritten. Some originals have a great tonal range of black and white, some are toned, some are tinted, and some are sepia. There are prints from the teens that can still be as pristine as the day they were printed, while others are turning and the silver is becoming oxidized. Paper is a good way to differentiate between periods. Earlier base has paper that is thicker, firmer, matte, sometimes a little yellow, sometimes it's linen, rice paper, more artistic papers. later papers are resin coated, shiny, with almost a little plastic feel. Earlier images should be sharper since they were made from larger negatives. Most of the later prints are made from copy negatives. Early prints can be as small as 4x5s, or even a little smaller than 8x10, to large 11x14s, while a lot of the newer work is almost exclusively 8x10 or larger. Hope that helps.

[silentfilm]

Here's another old Nitrateville thread with some information on identifying silent film stills.

[mndean]

Thanks for joining us, and good luck with identifications! You might want to check out books on the history of photography, to learn about the history of paper and the look of photographic images. Just spending a lot of time looking at original photos, handling, and studying them is the best way to spot what is an original strike and what is a copy print. Unfortunately, there is no precise or consistent way to do this, because there are many ways that photos were printed. Original photos sometimes are totally blank; others have stamps or imprints; some have codes, which can be numbers or letters, some actually have titles printed on them. Original captions can be taped on the back, typed on the back, or even handwritten. Some originals have a great tonal range of black and white, some are toned, some are tinted, and some are sepia. There are prints from the teens that can still be as pristine as the day they were printed, while others are turning and the silver is becoming oxidized. Paper is a good way to differentiate between periods. Earlier base has paper that is thicker, firmer, matte, sometimes a little yellow, sometimes it's linen, rice paper, more artistic papers. later papers are resin coated, shiny, with almost a little plastic feel. Earlier images should be sharper since they were made from larger negatives. Most of the later prints are made from copy negatives. Early prints can be as small as 4x5s, or even a little smaller than 8x10, to large 11x14s, while a lot of the newer work is almost exclusively 8x10 or larger. Hope that helps.

What are the best books to find on the subject of studio portraits and stills? Also, where does one find a key to still codes for the various studios?

[LouieD]

although it doesn't have all of the codes this is a good place to start:

http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/N ... Stills.asp" target="_blank

[mndean]

although it doesn't have all of the codes this is a good place to start:

http://www.learnaboutmovieposters.com/N ... Stills.asp" target="_blank" target="_blank

Thanks, a reference guide like that is just what I'm looking for.

[missdupont]

There are several books about still photography and photographers, such as PAPER DREAMS, HOLLYWOOD LEGENDS: CLASSIC PORTRAITS, books by and about Kobal, Roman Freulich, Bert Longworth, James Abbe, Madison Lacy, Bruno of Hollywood, George Hurrell. Hopefully next year David Shields' book on early theatrical and still photography will be published. He has a great theatrical site that gives biographical information on photographers, but his hollywood stills site is down right now. There are archive books which also give good information about early photographic papers, processes, etc.

[missdupont]

That book is a good place to start, but an archive would probably have more codes for the early, early silent companies, small independents, foreign companies, etc.

[missdupont]

There's also a beautiful coffee table book for the photographers Strauss-Peyton, who were located in the Mid-West, but took portraits when film/theatrical people passed through. A couple of misidentifications in it, but a gorgeous book.

[missdupont]

Kobal's "The Art of the Classic Still Photographers" and "Masters of Starlight" have bios and photos of many of the great stills men.

[Nancy Lorraine]

Hollywood Movie Stills by Joel W. Finler is the best book I've read that covers the various types of publicity stills (scene stills, portraits, behind-the-scenes, poster art, trick shots, etc.) produced by the studios - all the routine stills photography rather than just the glamour portraits and portrait photographers that have already been very well documented.

http://www.amazon.com/Hollywood-Movie-S ... 035&sr=8-3

The above link is for the last edition, apparently out of print, but Amazon also has a new edition listed for pre-order, due out in June.

Nancy

[cawkercitykid]

"Ruth Harriet Louise and Hollywood Glamour Photography" by Robert Dance and Bruce Robertson is another good book to take a look at. R. H. Louise's career at MGM lasted between 1925-1930 and the book does have a limited catalog of the film codes for the major MGM films from 1924 through 1930.