When do you think a photo becomes a "vintage photo?"

<p>Vintage is largely in the eye of the beholder, coupled with a couple of parameters: getting on, and memorable, not to mention: tugs at your heart strings. Here's one of my vintage, circa maybe 1978:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1508193">http://www.photo.net/photo/1508193</a></p>

<p><em>Vintage</em>, when applied to the work of a still living photographer, is not normally a term of praise.</p>

<p>If it's "more than 25 years old" like automobiles, we've got a lot of vintage photographers here on P.net.</p>

<p>I believe the word can also be used to define a body of work which best represents a persons style, usually along a specific time within their development of their art or craft. Johnny Cash during his Sun Records years. Vintage Johnny. </p>

<p>I think it's important to clarify the distinction between "vintage" and "classic". As I see it, a vintage photograph is one that is so old and antiquated that it no longer provokes an emotional response beyond a kind of condescending amusement. It is a harmless curiosity from a bygone age. Vintage pornography is pornography that is no longer sexy; a vintage car is a car that men no longer lust after; vintage comedy is comedy that is no longer funny. Vintage anything has had the life drained out of it.</p>

<p>If something is "classic",on the other hand, it may or may not be very old, but it still provokes an emotional response. It is awe-inspiring or happy or sad or sexy or otherwise impressive.</p>

<p>Charlie Chaplin is "vintage", the Marx Brothers are "classic". An old Model T Ford is "vintage", a Rolls Royce Silver Ghost is "classic". All those Victorian photographs of awkward-looking dumpy naked overweight women posing like greek statues are "vintage", the portrature of Julia Margaret Cameron is "classic". The Ramones are "classic", Sham 69 are "vintage". You know what I'm getting it.</p>