http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/361386061494?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
Is that a photograph produced by the copy negative process that we used prior to the advent of digital photography and scanners?
This seller has an abundance of them.
£53 for a print…always nice to see an image of the reverse side at that price.
Mark
By: Mark12 - 21st September 2015 at 12:21
It seems quite a large number of these “unworn original photographs” from the 1930’s, that are fetching £50-60, are stamped on the rear ‘Ministry of Technology Photographic Division Neg No..’
I was surprised I was unable to get one hit on Google for ‘Ministry of Technology Photographic Division’ aside from eBay listings. 🙂
Mark
By: Mark12 - 19th September 2015 at 22:44
Collectors will pay high prices for 70 year old original Spitfire photos with the appropriate patina, duly stamped on the rear with details of the news agency, Ministry or research establishment source.
I am puzzled why an eBay purchaser with a feed back rating of 3115 would pay £53 for an “unworn original photograph” when the precise same image is available as a high quality 5×7 inch photograph (not inkjet) from the Aviation Photo Company at just £1-30.
Mark
By: Lynx815 - 19th September 2015 at 18:57
I think it’s as simple as an original print that isn’t showing signs of wear.
By: 1batfastard - 19th September 2015 at 17:29
Hi All,
Here’s an Idea why not simply ask the seller if you are an Ebayer ? :confused:
Geoff.
By: Lazy8 - 19th September 2015 at 16:52
Not a term I’m familiar with, despite a lengthy association with various aspects of photography. I’d expect it to mean it’s a fresh print from the original negatives, as you say, but most of what’s on offer looks like Charles Brown’s work – I thought the negatives for those were mostly in the RAF Museum collection.
Sign In
September 19, 2015 at 4:35 pm