Collecting Contemporary Photography: A Different Era Requires a Different Skill Set
What makes a contemporary photograph authentic, and how can collectors distinguish an original analog print from one produced through digital technology?
In our first educational blog entry, First Gen Photos explores the unique challenges of collecting photographs from the mid-1970s through 2006, an era that witnessed one of photography’s greatest technological transformations. From dating images and identifying photographic paper to recognizing evidence of digital intervention, we explain why authenticating contemporary photographs requires a specialized approach.
Whether you’re a seasoned collector or just getting started, this article offers valuable insights to help you make more informed collecting decisions.
Close up of Sleeve: Caption "The Adidas Log dates this to 2001 the Only Year this brand was used during Brady's career
Image of paper reverse with Caption "Printed on Kodak PROFESSIONAL paper used through 2000 proper for image
Vintage and Contemporary Photography Require Different Skill Sets
Traditional vintage photograph authentication can involve an extraordinary range of specialized knowledge. Paper age and composition, news-service and wire-service printing processes, stamps and editorial markings, historical darkroom practices, print generation and other characteristics can all play an important role. Those disciplines require skill sets that First Gen Photos does not claim to possess.
Our focus is different. We concentrate on contemporary photographs, where many of the questions facing collectors have changed. Rather than attempting to become experts in every photographic process extending back more than a century, we have developed our examination approach around characteristics particularly relevant to photographs produced during the final decades of the traditional film era and the transition into digital photography.
Dating the Image Comes First
One of the most important questions when examining a contemporary photograph is deceptively simple: When was the photograph taken? Sometimes the answer is obvious. Often it isn't.
The image itself can contain an extraordinary amount of chronological information. Uniform designs and team logos change. Anniversary and commemorative patches may appear for a single season. Shoes and equipment evolve. Stadium signage changes. Sponsors come and go. Hairstyles, clothing and stage designs can provide clues. Other athletes, musicians, celebrities or public figures appearing in the photograph can sometimes narrow the window even further.
A photograph attributed to a particular game, concert or event should therefore be examined not simply for who appears in it, but for everything else the image reveals. In many cases, the photograph itself becomes a historical timeline.
Dating the Photographic Paper
The second major component is understanding the physical paper on which the photograph was produced.
Certain photographic papers contain repeatable manufacturer backprints, watermarks and other reverse markings that changed over time. When those markings have been documented and can be associated with particular production periods, they can provide extremely useful chronological evidence. Two particularly important examples for collectors of 1990s photography are certain Fujicolor papers and Kodak PROFESSIONAL papers.
Understanding when particular backprint configurations were manufactured can help establish whether the physical photographic material is consistent with the period in which a photograph is represented as having been produced. However, the date of the paper is evidence; it is not necessarily the date of the print. Unused photographic paper could remain viable after manufacture, particularly when properly stored, and professional photographers and laboratories did not discard usable inventory simply because a manufacturer introduced a newer paper or changed a backprint. Paper dating therefore needs to be considered as one component of the overall examination rather than an absolute answer by itself.
A 30-Year-Old Photograph Does Not Have to Look 30 Years Old
One of the most important misconceptions we encounter with contemporary photographs involves the assumption that an older photograph should look old. We generally do not attempt to determine the age of a contemporary photograph simply by how “old” the paper looks.
A properly processed chromogenic photograph that has been carefully stored, protected from sunlight and excessive artificial light, and kept away from damaging heat and humidity can remain remarkably fresh decades later. White borders can remain white, colors can remain vibrant, blacks can remain deep and the surface can remain remarkably clean.
Consequently, a photograph produced in the 1980s or 1990s does not necessarily need yellowing, fading, toning or other obvious signs of age to be authentic. Condition and age are not the same thing, an important distinction for collectors accustomed to evaluating much older photographic materials where physical aging may play a more prominent role.
Digital Photography Changed the Equation
Beginning in the mid-to-late 1990s, the growing use of digital technology introduced an entirely new challenge. The question was no longer simply whether the photographic paper was appropriate for the period. It increasingly became how the image appearing on that paper was created.
A traditional chromogenic photographic paper could potentially carry an image originating through different production workflows. As digital capture, scanning and digitally controlled photographic printing developed, identifying the paper alone became insufficient. Contemporary photograph examination therefore requires a working understanding of characteristics that can sometimes reveal digital intervention.
Under magnification, digital intervention may produce detectable characteristics such as raster or grid patterns, regular geometric repetition, pixel-like structures, aliasing, stair-stepping, sharpening artifacts or digitally altered edges. Equally important is knowing what not to interpret as digital evidence. The simple presence of microscopic dots, dye-cloud structure, grain-like texture or other small image elements does not by itself establish digital production. The concern is generally the appearance of organized, repeatable or geometrically structured characteristics consistent with digital image formation or processing. This distinction becomes increasingly important as we move through the late 1990s and into the 2000s.
Analog Paper, Digital Paper—and the Difficult Area Between Them
Collectors should also understand that photographic paper itself evolved during this transition. Some papers and backprints are strongly associated with traditional analog-era photographic production. Other products were specifically identified for digital imaging applications. But the transition was not always that simple.
By the 2000s, papers such as certain Fuji Crystal Archive products could be encountered within workflows that make the backprint alone insufficient to determine how the image was produced. A Crystal Archive backprint—such as versions carrying “CRYSTAL ARCHIVE PAPER” on a single line—may help establish the photographic material and its general period, but it does not necessarily answer whether the image arrived on that paper through an optical or digitally mediated workflow.
For photographs produced on these transitional materials, examination of the image itself becomes especially important. Paper identification and microscopic image examination therefore work together rather than competing with one another.
Why First Gen Photos Uses 2006 as a General Boundary
First Gen Photos generally limits its authentication work to photographs associated with 2006 or earlier. This is a deliberate boundary.
As digital capture, digital image processing and digitally controlled photographic printing continued to improve, the ability to distinguish a properly executed digital photographic workflow from a traditional analog workflow became increasingly difficult. In our opinion, by approximately 2006 the technology had advanced sufficiently that a well-executed digital photographic print could make reliable differentiation extraordinarily difficult through the examination methods we employ.
Rather than claim certainty where the technology may no longer reasonably allow it, we prefer to establish a boundary for the work we undertake. We would rather decline to authenticate a photograph than make a determination beyond the reasonable limits of our methodology.
Understanding the Contemporary Photograph as a Whole
No single characteristic should determine the answer. A contemporary photograph should instead be approached as a collection of evidence.
Does the subject matter correspond to the claimed date? Do uniforms, patches, shoes, equipment, signage and surrounding individuals support that conclusion? Is the photographic paper and its backprint consistent with the proposed production period? Is the condition reasonable given what we know about the durability of properly stored contemporary photographic materials? Does magnified examination reveal natural photographic structure, or are there organized characteristics suggesting digital intervention?
Each question contributes another piece of evidence. The objective is not to force one characteristic to prove the photograph's entire history, but to determine whether the available characteristics work together to tell a coherent story.
Education Is Part of Authentication
At First Gen Photos, we view education as an important part of contemporary photograph authentication. Collectors should understand not only what they are buying, but why particular characteristics matter and the limitations of what those characteristics can establish.
In future articles, we intend to explore individual subjects in greater detail, including photographic paper and backprint dating, Kodak PROFESSIONAL paper, Fujicolor and Fuji Crystal Archive papers, the longevity of contemporary chromogenic photographs, dating photographs through visual clues, and recognizing potential evidence of digital intervention under magnification.
We also welcome comments, questions and suggestions from collectors. If there are subjects, papers, printing processes or authentication questions important to your collecting interests, we would like to hear about them. Those questions can help guide the topics we address in future articles.
Contemporary photographs occupy a fascinating position in collecting history. They document many of the defining athletes, musicians, entertainers and cultural moments of the modern era while simultaneously spanning one of photography's greatest technological transformations. Understanding these photographs therefore requires understanding that transition.
As authenticators of contemporary photographs, First Gen Photos believes one of our responsibilities is to help educate the collecting public about the product they are buying.
Comments