jonny777 Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 (edited) Some years ago I bought a collection of 35mm slides on Ebay. My problem was (before my purchase) were they copies? I have no idea. They are not simple Kodak/Ilford slides. (Edited later to add that when I plucked up the courage to pull on apart, I found they were Kodak slides sandwiched between 2 very thin glass mounts). Unfortunately a scan of one revealed this - Variantiants of which have appeared in publications and books. I emailed Michael Blakemore at Pendragon, but all he could do was point me to Alan Earnshaw - who has passed away. Can anyone give me a clue? Edited February 17, 2018 by jonny777 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted February 13, 2018 Share Posted February 13, 2018 “Negatives” in 2x2 glass slide mounts? Glass mounted slides (positives) would be better understood, but likely to be copies for showing/projecting (the glass stops the slide from “popping” out of focus due to the heat from the projector lamp). The downside of glass mounts is that they break easily and are prone to cut into the image - so carried a high risk of destruction with original images. Are any of the “many variants” exact replicas and if so, are any credited with the name of photographer? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trog Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Best picture of OB56 I have seen in a long while. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Glass mounts for slides were very popular among the 'older generation' as they prevent damage and dust, and tend not to fall apart from glue failure as card mounts did. However, the down side is that they are thicker and can jam an automatic slide changer, as I once found to my cost during a slide show to the GWS at Bedford. Machine jammed and slide scorched by the heat of the bulb. "Professor" Alan Earnshaw contributed to many magazines and doubtless did loads of slide shows, too. Looking at your scan, I can't tell if it's a copy slide or a slide copied from a book. I suspect the latter because there appears to be some evidence of a dot screen on it. At this distance in time I don't think you need to worry about it. It has clearly passed through other hands in the meantime and if it's a copy (which is easy enough to tell by examining it under a glass) it's unlikely to be suitable for publication. If you did publish it and a copyright holder came forward, an apology and agreement to pay the repro fee is usually sufficient to keep everyone happy. (CJL) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ejstubbs Posted February 14, 2018 Share Posted February 14, 2018 Glass mounts for slides were very popular among the 'older generation' as they prevent damage and dust Though you have to keep the dust out when mounting the slide in the first place, otherwise you can get some fairly amazing colour fringes. That's what happened with my Dad's Kodachrome slides when he tried to re-mount them, anyway. Maybe it was just a Kodachrome thing - it did seem to occupy a fairly unique ecological niche in the photographic world, before digital swept almost all before it. (Although I think I read somewhere recently that someone is trying to bring it back!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagonman Posted February 16, 2018 Share Posted February 16, 2018 Glass mounts for slides were very popular among the 'older generation' as they prevent damage and dust, and tend not to fall apart from glue failure as card mounts did. However, the down side is that they are thicker and can jam an automatic slide changer, as I once found to my cost during a slide show to the GWS at Bedford. Machine jammed and slide scorched by the heat of the bulb. "Professor" Alan Earnshaw contributed to many magazines and doubtless did loads of slide shows, too. Looking at your scan, I can't tell if it's a copy slide or a slide copied from a book. I suspect the latter because there appears to be some evidence of a dot screen on it. At this distance in time I don't think you need to worry about it. It has clearly passed through other hands in the meantime and if it's a copy (which is easy enough to tell by examining it under a glass) it's unlikely to be suitable for publication. If you did publish it and a copyright holder came forward, an apology and agreement to pay the repro fee is usually sufficient to keep everyone happy. (CJL) I can't see the dot screen – all I can see is grain! It does remind me of an occasion when I had to judge a local camera club's slide competition. One of the slides looked a bit too 'perfect' so I opened the plastic mount and found it the non-image areas were clear rather than black: it had been shot on negative stock and reproduced on print film, probably several thousand times. I reckon he'd ripped it off from Woodmansterne or somewhere. Assuming this image is not like that then I'd assume. without actually inspecting it, that it was probably genuine. GePe did some nice thin glass mounts fitted with 'anti-Newton's ring' glass. They never jammed my Carousel. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold TheSignalEngineer Posted February 16, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 16, 2018 Best picture of OB56 I have seen in a long while. Spent a very cold foggy January night next to it c1990 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted February 16, 2018 Author Share Posted February 16, 2018 I can't see the dot screen – all I can see is grain! It does remind me of an occasion when I had to judge a local camera club's slide competition. One of the slides looked a bit too 'perfect' so I opened the plastic mount and found it the non-image areas were clear rather than black: it had been shot on negative stock and reproduced on print film, probably several thousand times. I reckon he'd ripped it off from Woodmansterne or somewhere. Assuming this image is not like that then I'd assume. without actually inspecting it, that it was probably genuine. GePe did some nice thin glass mounts fitted with 'anti-Newton's ring' glass. They never jammed my Carousel. Yes, these are thin Gepe slide mounts, and they appear to have been produced with a lot of care if they are single copies. If they were commercial copies, I would expect to see some form of copyright indication on the mount. Curiosity has got the better of me, and I took apart that particular mount in order to see if the transparency was shiny on both sides (which in my mind is more likely to be a copy if on Kodak film) and it was not. The reverse is most definitely a very "matt" surface especially over the darker parts of the image. However, this has created more questions than it has solved, because some years ago I also purchased someone's collection of postcard sized prints. These came with full details of the image but no clues as to who took them. Lo and behold, one of the prints just happens to be 46207 passing Bushey troughs on 7th May 1960. While it was out of its mount, I scanned my transparency again on slightly different settings and have posted the two images below for comparison. My slide has nothing to the right of what you see here - that is the limit. However the print shows more lineside enthusiasts plus a telegraph pole. There are obviously colour differences, because the first image is just a photo of the print taken with my iPhone, but to me the train looks to be in an identical position in both pictures. How can this have occurred? Could two people standing side by side, have pressed their shutters at the same time? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dibber25 Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 I've known instances where two photographers have done just that and then followed up by both sending their pictures to the same magazine editor. In some instances it was co-incidence involving two strangers. In other cases, two photographers who were friends. I seem to recall that in the 1980s it was not unusual to have submissions of pictures from two such friends. The submissions would be to all intents and purposes identical and distinguished only by the fact that one had a slightly better camera than the other. (CJL) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted February 17, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 17, 2018 IMHO, if two people side by side had taken these shots, the position of the telegraph pole's guy wire in relation to the enthusiast's head on the right would be different. I reckon they're both from the same original. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 And yet, the transparency I have (the lower scan of the two) looks an original to me, on close inspection; but has less right hand side than the print. I suppose it might be possible to have two cameras on tripods, both very close together and both operated by cable release. Press both plungers at the same time? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshall5 Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 IMHO, if two people side by side had taken these shots, the position of the telegraph pole's guy wire in relation to the enthusiast's head on the right would be different. I reckon they're both from the same original. ....and the loco's rods would likely be in different positions. As it is they are in identical positions so I agree, both pics are from the same image. Ray. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonny777 Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 I can't see the rods, so cannot comment on that. Look at the nearest person on the right several times. Is it my eyes, or has he moved his head just a fraction between the top and bottom images? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted February 17, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 17, 2018 Yes, these are thin Gepe slide mounts, and they appear to have been produced with a lot of care if they are single copies. If they were commercial copies, I would expect to see some form of copyright indication on the mount. Curiosity has got the better of me, and I took apart that particular mount in order to see if the transparency was shiny on both sides (which in my mind is more likely to be a copy if on Kodak film) and it was not. The reverse is most definitely a very "matt" surface especially over the darker parts of the image. However, this has created more questions than it has solved, because some years ago I also purchased someone's collection of postcard sized prints. These came with full details of the image but no clues as to who took them. Lo and behold, one of the prints just happens to be 46207 passing Bushey troughs on 7th May 1960. While it was out of its mount, I scanned my transparency again on slightly different settings and have posted the two images below for comparison. My slide has nothing to the right of what you see here - that is the limit. However the print shows more lineside enthusiasts plus a telegraph pole. There are obviously colour differences, because the first image is just a photo of the print taken with my iPhone, but to me the train looks to be in an identical position in both pictures. How can this have occurred? Could two people standing side by side, have pressed their shutters at the same time? s46207 bushey troughs 7:5:60.jpg s46207 bushey 7:5:60.jpg I suspect 2 cameras operated by the same shutter release, with the top one located to the right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EddieB Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 The second (slide) is a slightly cropped copy of the same original as the print. Duplicate transparencies vary in quality, but the best could be nearly as good as the original image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted February 18, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 18, 2018 (edited) The second (slide) is a slightly cropped copy of the same original as the print. Duplicate transparencies vary in quality, but the best could be nearly as good as the original image. Edit to remove comments as the answer is apparent in the next post. Great shot regardless. Edited February 18, 2018 by kevinlms Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Froxfield2012 Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 What looks like the full image is available here: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/RAILWAY-PHOTOGRAPHS-BR-46207-IN-CHARGE-OF-THE-ULSTER-EXPRESS-/252411219697 I hope this link is allowed in the interests of science! It looks more and more likely that there is only one original somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now