RAF Photos

Hi ! The photos I have were part of the Roy Humphries collection I was told. I think he supplied photos for the book Men of tha Battle of Britain

welcome to the madhouse (er…forum :D) Fox
plenty of photo affectionados on here
rgds baz

Hi Tim,
Yes I have mailed Anah several times with no answer.
I hope all is well with him, unfortunately I don’t have a contact number.
All the best for 2010.
Gerry

Have you mailed Anah, Gerry?

Hi,
I have been trying to collect pictures for a new edition of Wynns book due out later this year.
It is really difficult to gain access to new pictures – especially at this late stage so I understand your frustrations.
One of the problems I have encountered is that people with images are unwilling to share them. I have been told in the past that previously unseen images are more valuable, therefore they don’t want to share them.
I appreciate that this sounds selfish, and it is not an opinion I subscribe to personally.
I am unaware of the collection you are talking about so can’t help regarding that.
Another problem I have experienced is to provide images for a proposed book only to find reproductions of them for sale on an internet auction site!! Bloody frustrating. I am sure quite a few people on here have experienced that.
(I must add that this person does not use this site.)
If there are any in particular you are after I may be able to assist, though I am still a long way short of pictures of every participant.
All the best
Gerry
p.s. Has anyone heard from Ken Wynn recently. I have been trying to contact him urgently for some weeks now without luck.

Ouch!

I’ve lost his number too.

Hi,
I have been trying to collect pictures for a new edition of Wynns book due out later this year.
It is really difficult to gain access to new pictures – especially at this late stage so I understand your frustrations.
One of the problems I have encountered is that people with images are unwilling to share them. I have been told in the past that previously unseen images are more valuable, therefore they don’t want to share them.
I appreciate that this sounds selfish, and it is not an opinion I subscribe to personally.
I am unaware of the collection you are talking about so can’t help regarding that.
Another problem I have experienced is to provide images for a proposed book only to find reproductions of them for sale on an internet auction site!! Bloody frustrating. I am sure quite a few people on here have experienced that………….

You’ve just managed to fire me up with this one! Bear with me a bit and I will try and explain from first-hand knowledge (not forum-based tosh:diablo:), I come across this problem time and time again with my own collection of RAF & FAA photos & documents. Just one of the many true-life requests.

I was approached by a magazine for copyright permission to reproduce a couple of prints together with accompanying text being displayed in one of my articles on my-malta.com, a web-site well known for its cultural and historic content. The initial request for photos for use on-line and in print for a small membership of a history based organisation!! So naturally as one does – I ran a check on the organisation’s magazine circulation – history based – yes, small – no, worldwide -yes! So the normal going-rate list for ‘Photographic, Document & Text Extract Permission Fees’ were sent and back came the reply; ‘being a small organisation we cannot afford the fees’ – sorry no fee no use!

Yet this goes on continuously, it’s become a very profitable business, one reason for the preponderance of magazines in circulation; especially if you can get the contributions and materials in for free at other peoples expense.

It’s not necessarily more profitable to sell individual prints on the auction sites, but it does allow a greater degree of control as to the circulation of the prints, and does not flood the market-place with magazine-copy images, thereby retaining its original value more, hence that part of your statement relating to the higher value for unseen images!

Unfortunately, there is much ill-informed opinion expressed on the subject, no doubt spawned by some of the cheap refill-ink print-paper- based photos seen on E***. There are some excellent professional quality long-life digital prints sold there as well, but as with everything, there is some absolute rubbish out there. The best way to find out is to ask the seller the grade of paper and type of ink used.

Many do not realize the considerable cost of maintaining an archive – it’s certainly not cheap. We’re not talking here about buying a batch of photo-albums from the likes of QD. we’re talking serious money here for archive quality folders, refills, tabs, top-grade photo and film scanners, top-grade digital photo-printers, heavy-weight photopapers with matched inks (giving a WIR Print Permanence rating in albums greater than 250years). An HP Vivera ink combination at over £200 a set with the Hp Advanced photopaper for the WIRPPR 250 year rating gives a cost of £0.60 per 6″x4″ print for just those two items alone without the overheads and depreciation on the hardware above and software, like Adobe Lightroom & Photoshop. Who pays for the time to catalogue, scan, digital repair and refurb. the film & prints, and documents? That must also be paid for!

Having said all that – you can perhaps wonder why certain people will not share their photographs and yet others will just print them for sale at auction. It all depends on the individuals circumstance and offer made to them!!!

Hello
I collect Raf WW2 and Battle Of Britain photographs. Not necessarily original prints also reprints. I have quite a few and wonedered if anyone here collects these also?
Hello by the way! I’ve been viewing posts for a long time here and thought I may meet likeminded photo collectors. I tend to find quite a few on E Bay but these are mostly reprints.

A warm welcome to you as a fellow photo collector! I just love old b&w photos. My own collection interests have had more recently to be concentrated into a very narrow specialist field. This has its benefits of not only helping to control the amount of general ‘clutter’ being accumulated, but enables me to gain a more specialist knowledge of the subject!

By the way don’t worry too much about the word ‘reprint’, it depends on its context. A so-called ‘reprint’ could be a print from another print or a print from the original negative. I know which one I would prefer, but you would still call them both reprints. Unfortunately ‘reprint’ has got a bad name from the rubbish churned out on unsuitable printers using poor quality inks and paper combinations. In fact many of the so-called ‘original prints’ were in their day ‘reprints’, as it appears to have been quite a common practice, certainly in the RAF & FAA, after seeing their mate’s photos, to ask for some more prints to take back home, as not all were lucky enough to have cameras. I have come across several instances of this happening, one in particular can be seen in a well-known book on the Malta Hurricanes, which shows a nice line-up of hurricanes on the airfield, there are several prints of this particular photo made at the time, but which is the original? Mine says on the back ‘Exactly half an hour after this there were only 2 serviceable’, so you can see why that one would have been popular amongst them at the time!

So back to modern-day digital printing, it is now on a par with traditional darkroom printing, and indeed exceeds it with respect to print permanence when correctly undertaken.

So just ask what the print was from. My own personal preference is to clarify the term ‘reprint’ by stating it is a print from one of the following sources:

non-film print (Original or assumed original print)
reel-film print (Reel film negative)
wallet-film print (Wallet film negative)
plate-print (Glass or large plate film)
document-print (Paper document)

Happy collecting.:)