Photo in Book Question

How were photos such as this printed in old books? This specific book was printed in 1899. The photo is on slightly different paper than the text and has a blank back.

The reason I ask is because I have a collection of old books and also resell some that don’t fit into my collection. Some books have no resale value, would be overlooked on any shelf - yet have amazing photos and illustrations (such as this) that would be valued by many if removed from the book. How would it be described (such as lithograph etc).

Thank you!

 

There are several procedures to print photo's in books in the second half of the 19th century.

- Collotype
- Photolithography
- Rotogravure

I do not know enough of this matter to recognize your example.

 

Thank you!

 

You will most likely need to look at the image using some degree of magnification to identify the type of print. The Graphics Atlas provides a guide to identifying various print processes -

http://www.graphicsatlas.org/identification/

You will want to look at the Photomechanical processes.

Photos (plates) in books were/are often printed on different types of paper than the text for the best quality image.

 

I was just thinking of Graphics Atlas, @2manybooks -- Used to use it fairly regularly for old photographs.

 

As above.

Debora

 

The only time we feel justified in "breaking" a book is if the binding is beyond repair. Even then, the images would have to be pretty unique to excuse such mistreatment.

 

I haven’t don’t it yet, but was thinking about it. All the photos/pictures that are in small frames and have a text description at the bottom that you see at antique stores are usually removed from books.

If the book doesn’t fit into a collection, and honestly will never be bought by anyone, I don’t see the big problem - i see the it as the photos are at least preserving some history that would be otherwise lost in a book the no one will look at.

for instance an old life magazine usually sells for $5. But if you remove the ads and sell them separately you can make over $100 from one magazine - and people are appreciating the history they bought

 

So, you appoint yourself as the arbiter of what everyone else in the world might want? That seems a little short sighted (and selfish).

In this particular instance, what is the book?

 

The Booker T. Washington photo is a half-tone plate, printed by the relief process from a photomechanically-produced zinc (probably) plate, to be technical. The glossy paper takes the fine detail better than the rougher text paper. Not a very exciting or exotic printmaking method, but cheap & simple.

But as for destroying a sound book you find uninteresting, we, the bibliophilic community, would prefer you didn't. It's akin to tomb-robbers saying, 'well, I can sell these pretty pots, so I'm going to dig through and chuck all these worthless bones & bits of cloth - who'd want those?' or someone melting down incomplete or damaged gold jewelry 'because plain gold is easier to sell'. You lose vast quantities of irreplaceable history.

Life magazine was produced in the millions per issue. They are COMMON, so of little value. This will, of course, change, as more of them are destroyed by profiteers. Most books, maybe, were produced in the thousands. Though demand may now be low, we don't always know what collectors of the future will value, but it sure won't be vandalized books or contextless pictures.

 

A quote from Blades' "Enemies of Books", 1888, pp. 119-120:

"The following is copied from a trade catalogue, dated April, 1880, and affords a fair idea of the extent to which these heartless destroyers will go: "MISSAL ILLUMINATIONS. FIFTY DIFFERENT CAPITAL LETTERS on VELLUM; all in rich Cold and Colours. Many 3 inches square: the floral decorations are of great beauty, ranging from the XIIth to XVth century. Mounted on stout card-board. IN NICE PRESERVATION, £6 6s.
These beautiful letters have been cut from precious MSS., and as specimens of early art are extremely valuable, many of them being worth 15s. each.'' "

And the possible value of those manuscripts, uncut, today?

 

At one time Roy Vickers would only sell his art calendars to dealers who would promise not to cut them up and frame the photo's separately !