posted 10-17-2019 11:29 AM               

Almost always they claim theirs is a "1st gen master" or "1st gen master positive/negative."

However, most of the times no evidence is provided for this claim. And even when their item is obviously low-resolution multi-generation copy that has had all sorts of edits and changes, they dare claim its a direct copy from the flown film.

This is annoying me.

How could they prove it, then? Well, any large collection would have come cut or uncut inside a canister such as this one, which in this case has a label stating "2nd Gen B&W Pos." I have also seen this with reels of 35mm film, 70mm film, or reels with large format film.

This example, which appears to be a large format photo of a NASA print, is rather clearly NOT a 1st generation master.

posted 10-17-2019 05:22 PM               

If it comes directly from the person who was working at the JSC film lab during the Apollo program, such as the 70mm positives offered in the American Space Museum's last auction, I go with the word of the consignor as he had first hand knowledge of the film's history and claimed they where made directly from the flown film, i.e.: 1st generation.

Without a first hand account I am not sure how you can tell a 1st generation from 2nd, 3rd or even some of the modern reproductions now offered on eBay.

Then you have people who identify photos by generation and again how would you know?