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

<p>That is about it..<br /> What do we mean when we say "It's an honest to gosh vintage photo you got there."<br /> It can't be just age of the shot. Or Ansel Adams and other works done in the 1920s would also be " vintage." And they are looked at fresh and anew in each generation. <br /> What started this in my head: Someone dropped by and looked at a photo I took of a Navy aircraft I scanned on Kodachrome. Suggested,as a friendly tip, that I might consider converting it to monochrome so it would look more like a " vintage photo" of a "vintage" aircraft. Not a chance..<br /> Nothing earthshaking here, just wondering what this word connotes to you, if anything meaningful. <em>(Not </em>planning to convert my old Kodachrome slides of the day to sepia, not a chance :-).)</p>

<p>When the photo itself is not just of a certain age, but rather <em>refers</em> visually to that age (often in either an iconic or cliché sort of way). Adams photos are made in a certain age but their content doesn't really refer us to their age. Nothing in them necessarily hints at the era in which they were taken (though things about the prints themselves may suggest their age). A vintage photo will point to its era through details and recognizable symbols in the image. They tend to exhibit something universally recognizable as being from their era.</p>

<p>When it helps sales!</p>

I think vintage is a term applied to man-made creations once they have fallen out of vogue. i.e. a vintage photograph is one reminiscent of times past. Basically, old pictures of old stuff. Or new pictures of old stuff, made to look like old pictures. But old pictures of timeless stuff, as you pointed out, are not vintage...they are simply timeless.

<p>I've always been a little annoyed by this word, as it's more widely used. Its original purpose, of course, was related to wine ("vin"). To say that something is "vintage" doesn't really mean anything, since any wine with a date on it is "vintage" ... as in, "2005 looks like a great vintage in Bordeaux." The word "vintage" stands in for the phrase "year in which something was made."<br /><br />How we've gone from that shorthand to the word now meaning "anything apparently from a different period," is a bit baffling to me, actually. People now use the word as a synonym for "antique," "classic," "old," "retro," and other don't-mean-at-all-the-same-things words. Just another case of language always changing (which it does and must), but in this particular case in a way that loses specificity and meaning. In the meantime, the people who use the word correctly still use it, but have to explain themselves to ever more people before actual communication can occur.<br /><br />Is it really harder for someone to say "make it sepia, and that could look like a WWII-era photo" instead of "make it sepia and it would look <em>vintage?</em>" The first example means something specific, and the second is far less useful.</p>

er...maybe Kelly is right. It if makes it sell, make it "vintage!"

<p>Usually after a generation.</p>

<p>When the photo comes from a slightly scratched but perfectly exposed tri-x negative that ran through a worn out well used Leica, <em>duh !</em></p>

<p>Vintage in photography has a very specific meaning. In fact, an image shot today and printed today is a vintage print--It just doesn't mean all that much today. Vintage simply means that it was shot and printed in a time of close proximity. Some feel that these are the closest to what the artist intended when they made the photograph. (Proximity is fairly relative, however, most vintage prints are considered the first ones made from a negative) I think that we will see this with digital as well, as materials will change over time. The thing that I find interesting is that it was rare for editions to be limited until the last decade or so, so there may only be "vintage" prints of much of what hits the market in the future.</p>

<p>In my own case, I have images that I made and printed in the early '80's, those prints would be considered vintage prints and to some, it might make a difference. A good example is Ansel Adams' shot Half Dome. The "vintage" 8x10 print has a much greater value than does one of those made in the 70's, even though most of us would find the latter prints much more beautiful.</p>

<p>If I'm talking about <strong>my own</strong> negatives or prints, they are "vintage" <strong>for me</strong> if they are more than about 20-25 years old, and I still have the original. The most vintage I have is from the late 1960's. For me, any photograph I made in the 1960's, 70's and even 80's is starting to represent a fairly distant past, and the photos are a link to that past. I'm not a commercial photographer, just an amateur, and so the most that I do is to display them somewhere on the web. When I do this and I refer to it as vintage, they are a scan of the original negative or print, not copies or reprints of any kind.</p>

<p>If I was a wealthy collector on the other hand, anything bought as vintage would have to be fairly old, but it would depend on the connection the photograph has with when it was made and my interest in the era or the subject. It's a fluid thing, and I can't think of any way to actually set a minimum age limit.</p>

<p>Something made to look vintage, digitally, is obviously not really vintage. Nothing digital will ever be vintage in that sense, because it's all just imitation photography from the start. It may be a very good imitation, maybe even smoother and sharper than the real thing if you pay enough for the DSLR, but it's still just imitation, like something you buy in the last-minute gift section of the drugstore that is antique-looking.</p>

<p> <strong>John A -</strong>"Vintage in photography has a very specific meaning."</p>

<p> "Vintage <strong>print</strong>" has, as you typed, a very specific meaning, but that is not what Gerry asked.</p>

<p> He asked when a photo becomes 'vintage', which, to me, is a different question.</p>

<p><strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>I guess if it is sepia it automatically wears the vintage mantle. If one should add deckle edges in Photo shop there we go, instant vintage. If it has a yellowish coloration or some artifact of color layer deterioration we won't call it faded, just call it vintage. Then, may I even suggest, content to the time and era is clearly involved as Fred reminds me and I agree.<br /> So, If the bathing suit is one piece and the hair is poofed up and sprayed, Jackie Kennedy, style it must be "vintage." As opposed to ersatz vintage or satirical vintage...<br>

Now of course goes without saying, I like to think everything thatI shoot is clearly what they call certain popular movies. Namely <em>"Instant classic."</em> ( Which is about as much of an oxymoron as saying we are going to be in a <em>"fun run.</em>"<br /> Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate them. When we get into lighting,Kelly, of course it become a sales gimmick too. As in "what dish reflector will give me a George Hurell vintage portrait "look?" So then, vintage is good, Vintage is IN. Or just can be GOOD and IN depending on provenance?</p>

<p>Luis G, I think if there is a certain definition of what a photograph must be to be vintage, that tells you when it becomes vintage. As I said, if I shoot a negative today and print it today, that print is considered vintage--so that is when it becomes Vintage.</p>

<p>If the question is when does it matter if a print is vintage, that certainly is a different question, but I answered when it became vintage.</p>

I'm working on a project now that will use a sprinkling of vintage photos I've collected from the Library of Congress. I always look for "No known restrictions on publication" on the description pages. One photo I intend to publish is marked "Copyright 1919," but later on with the no restrictions clause, "no renewal found in Copyright Office." I would call that a vintage photo. By the way, you can download them in very high resolution TIFF files for reproduction.

<p>Will has it right. They'll be vintage photos, but not vintage prints.</p>

<p>I am not interested in the descriptive nomenclature of prints at this time. I recognize in my haste that the photo art world uses that as a tangible reference point of course. To me I have leaped so far over the idea of prints as something to last..I am looking now at one that was a 20X24 wall adornment custom lab sprayed and all C print and it is ready to be junked from ambient light in the room and some little sun spill deterioration... Even my smaller Cibachrome custom print has lost its sparkle over twenty five years. The one I posted in my Navy Duty folder, to get down to cases, is a shot of a Navy R 5D 4 engine transport on the tarmac.<br>

Personally, I don't know about you all, I really savor the wonder of looking at military aircraft from WW II and Korea captured on Kodachrome, dye layer something or other the process diapositive exact name escapes me. Old movies in three strip Technicolor look not old but fresher than the latest diluted color in some movies, like "Saving Private Ryan." I just found a book of WW II stuff shot by servicemen on Kodachrome. Author says that emulsion was mainly for amateurs and not widely available. Claims journalists had no time to fuss with the turnaround of the process. So we got mostly a war shot in black and white. So his theory goes. He did a five year survey to round up boxes here and there from private sources and published his book in 1995, Fascinating to see how great, how gorgeous even our parents and our cities and drive ins and shops looked then. In vintage Kodachrome yet.<br>

And of course you must have located the old glass plate materials on "Shorpy." If not google that one up. gs</p>

<p>I like Matt L's posting. I got some great vintage 2010 photographs earlier this month. My vintage 2008 photographs have a tart, fruity appearance with a pleasing oak barrel aroma. </p>

<p>Anything older than me is vintage...</p>

<p>40 years + ?</p>

<p>When is a photo a "vintage" photo? When it's made out of grapes, I suppose. ;-)</p>

<p> To my grandkids, I am nothing less than pure vintage. I remind them though that I am fully "digitally restored." "(wink, wink) All I need now is an iPAD to be cooler than cool...</p>

<p>A print is "vintage," when it was "printed within a very few years of the date when the negative was made." This is what "vintage" means as applied to photographic prints. If however the term is being used loosely to mean to mean "old" or "old-looking," then I suppose we'd better ask the person using the term</p>

<p>When I bought a pair of Jeans the manufacturer label said "vintage washed" so I assume that it's only vintage if you wash it in an old washing machine.</p>

<p>My washing machine is from 1976 so I guess it is vintage.</p>

<p>Kelly good to know someone with vintage washing machine, we can use it to wash our prints to make them vintage ;-)</p>