pixiamom
|
posted on January 14, 2008 04:40:04 AM
How can I tell if an autograph on a photo is original and not part of the printing process? I have scanned it as high as 1200 dpi and see no dots but the real photo doesn't show any dots either. It certainly looks like the ink is on top of the photo. Is there any test for this? TIA.
|
photosensitive
|
posted on January 14, 2008 04:54:40 AM
Is it a real photographic print or card? If so there would be no dots even if it was printed with the photograph. Is it a different or the same color as the photograph. Even if they are both black and white you might see a slight difference in color between the photographic black and the ink.
Also is this a mass produced photograph for a popular person?
-----o----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
“The illiterate of the future will be the person ignorant of the use of the camera as well as of the pen.”
Maholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion, 1947
|
pixiamom
|
posted on January 14, 2008 04:57:35 AM
It is of a polar explorer and Nobel Peace prize recipient Fridtjof Nansen.
[ edited by pixiamom on Jan 14, 2008 05:08 AM ]
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on January 14, 2008 05:24:15 AM
pixia,
It's hard to tell for sure from just the scans... but my off-hand guess is that it's part of the postcard... not an actual autograph. Take a close look at the signature. You can see some grayish residue (especially apparent on the swoop of the first "F". My guess is that is silver residue from the photographic printing process. (if you can angle it and the residue gleams in the light... it's even more of a sign that it could be silver residue) Obviously, if it was a true ink autograph... it would just be solid ink, with no residue. Also, the edges look too crisp... I would expect an autograph to have some bleeding around the edges. I'm not an autograph expert... but those are just some of my observations!
******************************
Vintage Paper Ads
http://www.vintagepaperads.com
[ edited by eauctionmgnt on Jan 14, 2008 05:26 AM ]
|
neglus
|
posted on January 14, 2008 05:58:20 AM
It certainly looks like the autograph is a different color than any other color in the photograph. It does look like there is some bleeding around the edges too. Have you seen any other postcards or autographed photos of the subject listed anywhere?
-------------------------------------
http://stores.ebay.com/Moody-Mommys-Marvelous-Postcards?refid=store
|
pixiamom
|
posted on January 14, 2008 06:05:06 AM
The autograph looks the same as ones on signed letters. Early pictures of him were quite popular on cigarette cards. I've searched and searched but can't find a similar autographed card, which makes me think they were not mass produced.
|
photosensitive
|
posted on January 14, 2008 02:29:13 PM
I lean toward a printed signature. There is quite a bit of free silver in the photograph, the shiny areas in the blacks. It seems to me that I see the free silver in the signature as well.
-----o----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
“The illiterate of the future will be the person ignorant of the use of the camera as well as of the pen.”
Maholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion, 1947
|
ST0NEC0LD613
|
posted on January 15, 2008 08:40:57 PM
Not to rain on the parade here, but is it that person's signature? It just seems way too neat to be an actual signature, although it does appear to be written as opposed to printed.
|
pixiamom
|
posted on January 15, 2008 09:07:44 PM
Thanks all. Yes, the signature appears to be silvered. Since silvering occurs as a silver film occurring as a reaction to the paper, is it possible that ink applied prior to silvering would be affected as well? Stone, I have checked other signatures by him and it is right on.
|
eauctionmgnt
|
posted on January 16, 2008 12:24:17 PM
Pixiamom,
I really wouldn't expect the silvering to appear on top of actual ink... which is why I think the signature is probably part of the photographic process, and not an actual autograph.... especially since silvering only occurs over dark areas of the photograph... and the only dark areas where the signature is... is the signature itself... so the silvering must be coming from the signature... making it almost certain that the signature is part of the photograph, and not actual ink.
******************************
Vintage Paper Ads
http://www.vintagepaperads.com
|
photosensitive
|
posted on January 16, 2008 02:22:48 PM
The silver sheen comes from the silver in the dark areas of the photographic emulsion that separate and come to the surface. This would not happen in ink. It appears to me that a print was made, signed in ink by the subject then re-photographed and printed on photographic paper.
-----o----o----o----o----o----o----o----o
“The illiterate of the future will be the person ignorant of the use of the camera as well as of the pen.”
Maholy-Nagy, Vision in Motion, 1947
[ edited by photosensitive on Jan 16, 2008 02:49 PM ]
|
