MicroscopiaHi,
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!!!
MicroscopiaHello
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.:)
MicroscopiaWhat sort of dimensions are we looking at here? That will at least give me a clue – I’ll thumb through some of my rigging manuals to see if there’s a likely match on anything. Although it looks and sounds as if it may be too modern for my information (early 1930’s). Light alloys were used in those early days, such as duralumin, but although permitted subject to onerous restrictions, they didn’t like the use of welded structures on RAF aircraft/rigging in this country. The problems in those early days were corrosion and the difficulty in testing the welded joint for burning and full welding etc……. Not to say that the item wasn’t used on other items associated with the aircraft. Cannot yet comment on anything more recent than the date above!
Microscopia…………………………Can anyone work out what the blokes are doing behind Ron (in his shirt, tie and peaked cap) in the photo with the windmill?
Possibly trying to erect an aerial on the end of the branch? which is pushed into the ground. Poor resolution on the attachment photo, so cannot quite make out the sleeve badge seen there – is it a sparks badge? Also take a look at the box down by their feet, again poor resolution, but can I make out a headset/microphone with cables and controls? Is that a trailer mounted petrol generator on the right?
Just a wild guess of course!:)
MicroscopiaQuite right we must not violate their Human rights must we, lets give them a 300K House and enought money to live on while they slag off our culture, and tell our troops they are murderers what the hell has happened to this Country?
My dear old father, and I suspect most other war vets., would turn in their graves if they knew what this country had degenerated into. A country with no industry, no culture, a dumping ground for the rest of the world, lead by a spineless government that’s more intent on looking after non-patriots and their own pockets!:mad:
MicroscopiaNot really………………….. but there’s enough hard data and missing data in this thread to draw a conclusion in these examples.
……………………..Regards,
JDK. I think that is what Mondariz is alluding to; the fact that it is personal judgement as to the conclusion drawn, whether or not the item is fake, given the information and data available to the individual at the time. If no decision can be made as to the item’s authenticity, then theoretically the item would not be purchased and hence worthless. The fraudsters’ trade however relies on punters’ gullibility, and a hastily made decision to purchase; not experts with in-depth knowledge (although it occasionally works with them also). The average punter would perhaps be unaware of any data or even discussion relating to the item’s authenticity, for them, no conclusion to be drawn – in this case a happy punter and an even happier fraudster!
Regards
MicroscopiaYou can have them any colour so long as they’re a shade of grey!:D
Seriously though you may be able to gauge something from these RAF tent shots, taken late 30’s early 40’s.
MicroscopiaNow i am confused the tents in the picture look a white ish and its certainly not desert, perhaps both coulours were in use.:confused:
I think you are correct in saying both colours were used. You can see the two different coloured ridge tents side by side in the last photo. The bell tents in photos 2-5 were shot at RAF Aldergrove 1937-1938, and Photo 1 believed to be 604(F) Sqdn. Hendon late 1939 early 1940.
MicroscopiaI’m a bit confused here. Are we talking about mobile generators, general purpose trailers, trolleys or hand-carts?
Here’s my 1937 contribution, complete with reclining erk!
MicroscopiaThink I will go for a slightly off white colour then at least it will reflect some of the summer sun.
My memory goes back some, but not quite as far as the early 40’s, but I can remember tents being made of Egyptian cotton, which would give it that off- white, light-beige, calico type of colour. I used to buy the same material to cover the old canvas canoes and then use coloured aircraft dope to waterproof it.
Similar construction here:
http://www.tentsmiths.com/egyptian-cotton-tents.html
MicroscopiaForgot to mention number on tail boom is XJ430
MicroscopiaThe edition I have: Owen Thetford, Aircraft of the Royal Air Force, 1958. He quotes XJ430 as being with 22 Squadron. the ASR unit. Air Ministry Photo, but no location. It looks as if that photo may have been the same time, or about the same time, as yours. Where did yours come from?
Laurence
Thanks for your help. These are a few from one of my late father’s reel of 35mm photos. There are about 25 shots on this reel taken from a sailing boat. I may be incorrect in assuming they were taken down on the Solent. He was an expert swimmer and I remember him once saying that it was a strange feeling being dumped overboard at sea, waiting to be rescued by the helicopter! Appears to be a rescue demonstration for ATC cadets, some of whom are visible in the other shots.
regards
MicroscopiaThanks all – much appreciated!
I would opt for HAR2, as I suggested. I just checked in Thetford’s AC of the RAF, where there is a photo of HAR2 XJ430 with an apparently white underside to the, presumably, yellow colour overall elsewhere.
Laurence
Laurence – I’m not familiar with Thetford’s book, does it give any dates, locations, sqdns etc.?
Regards
Sign In
