On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 00:30:45 -0700, retrowavelength
<retrowavelength@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I suppose it makes as much sense as the ones with different
> >IDs for what look like the SAME set.
>
>I thought that in most of those cases the different ID may have been to
>divide pics from a single shoot into picture packs that were sold
>separately (like the 12-pack novelty sets) but I'm not as sure now.
>Another interpretation could be the different IDs were due to more than
>one photographer at the shoot. Or the ownership of the negatives passed
>from one publisher to another and the IDs were changed to suit the new
>owner's catalog method (sometimes it's obvious the numbers were tampered
>with).
>
>Someone once said that those guys back then would be SO amazed that
>60-70 years later grownups were spending time trying to make sense of
>the little numbers they scribbled on the negatives.
Wasn't that Miss Didi? Probably right.
Obsessed? Me? <twitch>
RR <twitch>
|
|
')){kind=link}