|
Author
|
Topic: NASA photographs: red vs. black numbering
|
dmash4077
Member Posts: 64
From: Prattville Al
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-20-2008 10:49 PM
   
What is the significance of the red or black lettering on NASA photos? |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3189
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 01-21-2008 02:46 AM
In general, the red numbers were used on color prints and the black numbers on monochrome prints. The most important thing to check is the watermark on the back of the photo. "A KODAK PAPER" is the one most people are looking for, with other Kodak two or three line watermarks indicating a later printing date. |
Russ Still
Member Posts: 535
From: Atlanta, GA USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-21-2008 08:30 AM
Regarding the numbers themselves, they are assigned (apparently) using one of a few different cataloging schemes to help identify the year of the photo, and the image itself. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-21-2008 11:57 AM
And blue numbers too, especially in the Mercury and early Gemini years.
|
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1799
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 02-05-2011 01:27 PM
One thing to be aware of on both red and black number photos is that they can easily be copied. A good color copy will have the numbers on them, they key is NASA or Kodak info on back. |
idrvball
Member Posts: 150
From: Burke, VA USA
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 10-17-2011 08:47 AM
It was my understanding that the red numbers and black numbers originated from the Manned Spacecraft Center, and the unnumbered photos originated from Kennedy Space Center. These unnumbered photos also came with the purple NASA press release information on the back. As mentioned, the big thing is that the photos are printed with the back printing, "A KODAK PAPER" because this paper was only manufactured until the early 1970s, it helps to prove the time period that these photos were actually from. There would be no way for an Apollo 11 Aldrin visor photo to be actually a vintage photo if it were printed on paper with the back printing "This paper manufactured by Kodak" because that paper wasn't developed until a couple of years after Apollo 11. So, whether the photo has the red number or not, they are vintage if printed on "A Kodak Paper" One last thing, this paper is color paper, the vintage black and white photos are usually printed on paper that has no back printing at all. There are two ways to determine the the vintage of these. The first is looking for the "Meatball" logo, instead of the "NASA worm" logo, and making sure that there is the back is uncoated with resin. You can check this buy putting a pencil mark and the back of the paper. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3189
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 10-17-2011 10:35 AM
The Kodak watermark can be very faint. It is repeated diagonally across the paper. |
Beau08
Member Posts: 159
From: Peoria, AZ United States
Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 11-28-2012 05:59 PM
Does anyone know the back story on the vintage NASA numbered photos? Were they originally for internal use, or public consumption? There is probably no way to know, but I wonder how many of them were produced? |
mmcmurrey
Member Posts: 184
From: Austin, TX, USA
Registered: Jun 2012
|
posted 11-29-2012 01:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
In general, the red numbers were used on color prints and the black numbers on monochrome prints.
Have you seen "blue stamped" vintage NASA photos? I have a couple from my father's office (PAO) which was part of the NASA library in the 60's.
|
spaced out
Member Posts: 3189
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 11-29-2012 02:22 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Beau08:
Does anyone know the back-story on the vintage NASA numbered photos?
They were press release photos, that is prints distributed to the press for use in newspaper and magazine articles of for still images in tv reports.The most important images were doubtless produced in large quantities but many will have ended up in archives or were thrown away. Only those examples that ended up in private collections will tend to resurface today at auction. |
mach3valkyrie
Member Posts: 735
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 12-11-2012 10:16 AM
I have an Apollo 9 photo of Galveston Bay that has a green ink identification stamp. It's "A" Kodak paper, so it's an original period photo. (It also happens to be crew signed.)Maybe they're like Lion Bros. patches — only made at the time of the mission (and reprinted later on different paper). Just a thought. |
barnstormer
Member Posts: 105
From: South Boston VA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 03-28-2015 11:55 AM
Can someone please explain the various "types" of old space and NASA photos? What is the difference or significance of the ones with red numbers, black numbers, and text on reverse. Some have mimeograph type, violet-color printing on reverse, and some are blank on reverse, but certainly are original contemporary photos (lithos? and that is another clarification, needed?). Editor's note: Threads merged.
|
Liembo
Member Posts: 820
From: Bothell, WA
Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-24-2022 01:07 PM
Is there any explainer on what differentiates a "Type I" from II when describing a vintage NASA print? I see the use of the "Type" nomenclature on auction listings and usually only "Type I" being identified because those are the most valuable, but the existence of a "Type I" implies a Type II and others, but what makes them different? |
MartinAir
Member Posts: 249
From:
Registered: Oct 2020
|
posted 12-24-2022 02:34 PM
Type I have "A Kodak Paper" and Type II have "This Paper Manufactured by Kodak" labels on reverse. Type II was introduced in 1972, Type I was used from 1961 to 1972... |
Liembo
Member Posts: 820
From: Bothell, WA
Registered: Jan 2013
|
posted 12-24-2022 03:19 PM
So it's strictly about the Kodak paper itself? The NASA photos with the purple mimeographed backs are not a different subtype? |
MartinAir
Member Posts: 249
From:
Registered: Oct 2020
|
posted 12-24-2022 07:19 PM
Yes, it's strictly only about the Kodak paper. |
advertisement