This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site, while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
Cookie settings
tirar el negativo
con abolición S2

Glossary entry

Spanish term or phrase:

copia de época

English translation:

vintage print

Added to glossary by Paula Sepúlveda (X)
Oct 2, 2015 16:55
8 yrs ago
Spanish term

copia de época

Spanish to English Art/Literary Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts) printing
I have come across the term "vintage print", but am not sure whether this term applies to what I think is referring to prints made during the period when the photographer took/developed his photographs. The text is still the one about the Spanish photographer from the 1920s. Thanks!
Here is the excerpt: Cuando no existían copias de época ni de autor, se han realizado copias actuales, positivando el negativo íntegro, salvo que existiera alguna publicación en la que se hubiese reproducido la imagen.
Proposed translations (English)
4 +2 vintage print
4 +3 contemporary copy (pl. copies)
3 +1 period copies

Discussion

Paula Sepúlveda (X) (asker) Oct 3, 2015:
Exhibition Exactly, it is a text about how the exhibition of the photographer's work was prepared (a "metodología expositiva"). Perhaps I should have mentioned this earlier.
Charles Davis Oct 3, 2015:
@Robin I don't read it like that. I don't think it's clear that the author is describing making new images from the photographer's negatives, except in cases where no original print or reproduction was available. That's what the text we have says.

I understood this to refer to an exhibition ("A la hora de presentar las fotografías hemos procurado seguir las pautas por las que él se guió en sus exposiciones"). For exhibitions, vintage prints are always preferred if they exist, and they used them where they could. If not, they used later author prints ("lifetime" prints), or failing that, reproductions, and, as a last resort, where no original print was available, they made new modern prints from the negatives.

I didn't understand this to be referring to producing a book; the text we have, with the reference to presenting the photos with white passe-partout, suggests an exhibition to me. But even if it is about producing a book, the terms we're concerned with mean the same.

For reproduction in a book, a vintage or at least early print will be the best source, better than the original negative, because a positive print shows how the photographer intended the image to look.
Jennifer Levey Oct 3, 2015:
Contemporary reproductions It is clear, even from the limited context we have, that the ST author is describing the making of new images from the photographer’s negatives, not from prints. The ‘copias de época’ were used, when available, to help decide how the negatives should be processed for inclusion in the new work, to reflect the photographer’s intentions. One of the many variables is cropping, and if no ‘copias de época’ exist, then the ST says they reproduced (and 'inverted', in Pshop terms) the entire negative (= no cropping).

Although high-quality ‘original’ prints (‘impresiones’, not ‘copias’) made by the photographer himself as close as possible to the time of shooting the scene would be the best examples for this task, any ‘reproduction’ known/believed to represent the photographer’s intentions as to how the prints should be made from the negative would contribute to this research. That would include, for example, reproductions (‘copias’) appearing in an exhibition catalogue, in a photography ‘year-book’ of the kind much in vogue in the early 20th C, books and other media where the photographs may have been used as illustrations, etc.
Charles Davis Oct 2, 2015:
@Robin No, no, of course not. I'm not proposing it as a translation of "copia de época" (which I am now quite sure should be "vintage print"). I'm suggesting it might be used for "copia de autor", now that we know the latter does not refer to a print made at the time the photo was taken, as I first assumed. If you want me to acknowledge my errors, I willingly acknowledge that one.

I've addressed the question of how to translate "copia de autor" as well because ideally we want to help darwinista establish an appropriate set of terms for all these things.

Now that we have fuller context, it seems clear that they are saying their first choice is "copias de época", failing which they will use "copias de autor", and if they can't get them either they'll use modern prints.

In English, the most valued and valuable prints are vintage prints. Less valuable are lifetime prints, and less valuable still are modern prints. I think the correspondence is satisfactory.
Jennifer Levey Oct 2, 2015:
@Charles The 2nd webref in your latest discussion post makes it clear that a 'lifetime print' can be made (at least) as many as 30 years after the photographer clicked the shutter. There's no way that can be considered equivalent to Asker's ST: ""copia de época.
Charles Davis Oct 2, 2015:
realizadas por él posteriormente This changes things, but it confirms my feeling that "vintage print" is the way to go for "copia de época". As I've said, I thought that by "copia de autor" they meant a vintage print made by the author. This is apparently not so; they simply meant a print made by the author at any time. "Author's print" could cover that, I think, though a term to consider would be "lifetime print":

"Prints of Junior Interstate Ballroom Dance Champions, Yonkers, N. Y., signed by Arbus are rare. In addition to the present print, only one other lifetime print signed by the photographer is believed to have been offered at auction, a print sold in these rooms in October 1990."
http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2014/175-mast...

This is from an article on forgery of original photographs, and distinguishes "vintage" from "lifetime":

"He and Hochberg obtained independent confirmation that the Strands were indeed authentic lifetime prints; they dated from roughly 1960, even though the Rosenblums had claimed that two of these, too, were vintage prints from the 1930s."
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2003/06/too-much...
Paula Sepúlveda (X) (asker) Oct 2, 2015:
more context Because this question is linked to the previous one for "tirar el negativo" I'll provide the excerpt of the text here for reference because the terms appear again (and I hope it helps):
A la hora de presentar las fotografías hemos procurado seguir las pautas por las que él se guió en sus exposiciones: fotografías enmarcadas con paspartú blanco, y, como criterio fundamental, hemos priorizado la selección de copias de época (realizadas por él mismo en el momento de tirar el negativo) y, cuando estas no existían, de copias de autor (realizadas por él posteriormente)
Charles Davis Oct 2, 2015:
@Robin I do not for a moment recognise that the webref I quoted derails my thesis. I emphatically reject that suggestion, for the simple reason that the statement in question, about vintage prints having to be signed by the author, is untrue.

I think I have clarified the difference. I don't know how I can make it any clearer. A "copia de época" is one that may or may not have been made by the author personally. A "copia de autor" is one that was made by the author personally. Both were produced at the time the photograph was taken, or within a short time (a year or so).

You say that "the ST refers to prints made contemporaneously with the exposure of the negative" (copias de época), and that "that's different to a print that was actually made by the author" (copias de autor). Exactly; that's what I'm saying.

We are talking about photographic prints made directly in the laboratory from the original negative at or very near the time the photograph was taken, by the author or in accordance with the author's wishes. Reproductions in a contemporary exhibition catalogue, even if supervised by the author, would of course be not be "copias de época", nor would they be vintage prints.
Jennifer Levey Oct 2, 2015:
@Charles Thank you for recognising the fact that the webref you quoted de-rails your thesis. The fact remains, however, that you have not clarified the difference, made in the ST, between 'copias de época' and '(copias de) autor'.

The whole problem here, of course, derives from that in the days of 'real' photography, no two prints from any given negative were ever forensically identical - even successive prints from the same negative made at 2-minute intervals by the (wo)man who earlier that day stood behind the camera and squeezed the bulb (pneumatic, not flash...).

The ST refers to prints made contemporaneously with the exposure of the negative, which are assumed to reflect the pictorial intentions of the author (photographer) as regards framing of the print, exposure, vignetting, special effects (achieved in thjose days by manual gestures under the enlarger, rather that by today's Ph***hop. Those copies may, for example, have appeared in contemporary exhibition catalogues. That's different to a print that was (or is assumed to have been) actually made by the author. It's an important distinction that's lost in 'vintage' - especially when the ST makes that very distinction.
Charles Davis Oct 2, 2015:
@ Robin First, I explained the distinction between "copia de época" and "copia de autor"; it must turn on whether the print was made by the author personally or by another hand. But there is no doubt at all that a "copia de época" is by definition made at the time when the photograph was taken, or very soon afterwards. A print made in 1930, say, of a photograph taken in 1920 is not a copia de época, nor is it a vintage print.

Second, you say that the quotation "Such a print shall bear the author’s signature and be dated by the author himself", from my penultimate ref., is sufficient to de-rail my entire thesis. This is building a lot on one anomalous reference, which I now wish I hadn't quoted. It is not true that a vintage print has to be signed by the author, though it's more valuable if it is. Here, for example, is the definition from the Photographers' Gallery's Guide to Collecting:

"VINTAGE PRINT
A print made at the same time that the negative was made. In practice, this usually means within one or two years of the negative date. For example, a photograph taken in 1951 and printed in 1952 would be considered a vintage print"
http://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/guide-to-collecting

Proposed translations

+2
2 hrs
Selected

vintage print

These are terms of art (in both senses), and we can't translate them by general linguistic common sense or by choosing terms we think sound good. We must firstly establish exactly what the Spanish terms actually mean and secondly find what the equivalent technical terms are in English.

The first point is that "copia" is print, not copy, in English. That is absolutely clear, and a cursory search of photographic sources will confirm it.

"Contemporary", for example, is always taken to mean "present-day", although in principle it ought to be able to mean "contemporaneous with the taking of the photograph". A contemporary print is a modern print.

"For the past decade Cardozo Fine Art has also been very involved in the creation of contemporary original photographs by Edward S. Curtis."
http://www.edwardcurtis.com/about-us/
By this they mean prints made now, with modern technology.

Well, the Spanish terms. A copia de autor is a copy made by the author's (that is, the photographer's) own hand. A copia de época is a copy made at the time the photograph was taken (not some time afterwards) but not necessarily by the photographer him/herself:

"copia vintage o copia de autor:
la copia hecha por el autor (laboratorio hecho con sus manos) o la copia de época (hecha en el mismo momento de la toma, no después)"
https://artecontemporaneo.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/fotoau...

Here's a selection of prints from a Henri Cartier-Bresson exhibition. The captions are clearly from the original gallery show. Note that some say "copia de época" and some give the date. So a copia de época is not just an early print; it's a print from when the photo was taken:
http://www.metalocus.es/content/en/blog/henri-cartier-bresso...

An early print from the lifetime of the photographer but a few years after the photo was taken is a lifetime print. That's another story.

Now, in English the standard term is "vintage print", and it can apply to both:

"Vintage Prints
You’ll notice that the majority of the photographs that we have on display as part of our Luigi Ghirri curation are vintage prints. What this means is that they were printed by the artist or under the artist’s close supervision shortly after he exposed and developed the negative that the print was made from. The photography critic A.D. Coleman adds that a print is only vintage if it is made using “materials and procedures acceptable to the photographer who made the negative [and that] it is only one of several significant kinds of print which may be produced from that negative.” So not only does a print have to be made by the artist or under the artist’s supervision, but it has to be made to his/her liking, using the chemicals and materials that he or she approves of."
http://www.artuner.com/insight/vintage-prints-versus-modern-...

Actually some definitions apply "vintage print" to later prints:

"Vintage Print
This definition is used with respect to an old (at least twenty years old, although this is not a severe criterion) photograph, denoting the so-called “picture from the epoch”, i.e. the author’s print from an original negative created in the period close to the date when the picture was taken. Such a print shall bear the author’s signature and be dated by the author himself. "
http://en.6x7art.com/Glossary/Vintage-print

But I think it's clear that "vintage print" is the right term for "copia de época".

What about "copia de autor"? Well, the distinction they seem to be making is between a print made by the author's own hand and a original print not necessarily made by the author himself. I think you should use "author's print" for this. Actually the term used by the Eastman collection and others is "printed by the author".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 hrs (2015-10-02 19:39:38 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

And by the way, on Robin's point that vintage wouldn't be suitable for the 1990s, this shows how common sense can let you down with technical terms. "Vintage" doesn't mean "old" in this context. See here:

"Gottfried Helnwein, Keith Richards, Vintage Print, Berlin, 1990
Vintage gelatin silver print on baryta paper
Berlin, 1990 "
http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/isa-auc...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 7 hrs (2015-10-03 00:06:22 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

A few more references, from generally reliable sources:

"Más de un centenar de fotografías vintage (copia de época) originales en gelatina de plata, procedentes de los fondos de la que sin duda es la principal colección particular de obras del autor, resumen ampliamente cincuenta años de inspiración y trabajo"
http://comunidad-escolar.pntic.mec.es/845/cultura1.htm

"Copia de época (Vintage print)
Este término se refiere a la copia fotográfica positivada por el autor o bajo su supervisión alrededor de la fecha en la cual se realizó el negativo."
http://www.tendenciasdelarte.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/...

"Recorrido
Más de un centenar de fotografías vintage (copia de época) originales realizadas desde 1928 a 1975 muestran como Evans captó en imágenes concisas, contundentes y sobrias todas las caras de una sociedad capitalista que se presentaba al mundo como brillante ejemplo de desarrollo."
http://www.revistadearte.com/2009/01/13/retrospectiva-del-fo...

The following shows that a photograph can be both "de época" and "de autor", at least as the terms are used here:

"Se trata de una fotografía de 24 x 30 centímetros, copia de época y de autor, de uno de los más importantes fotógrafos de la historia; José Ortiz-Echagüe."

And it is fair to add that in some places "copia de época" is used in a slightly broader chronological sense to mean an "early print". However, the predominant use corresponds to "vintage" and I think that's the case in your text.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day4 hrs (2015-10-03 21:08:40 GMT) Post-grading
--------------------------------------------------

Yes, I think your original idea was right.

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
T. S. Eliot
Peer comment(s):
agree Lisa Jane : Well researched!
48 mins
Thanks very much, Lisa :)
neutral Jennifer Levey : "Such a print shall bear the author’s signature and be dated by the author himself.", from your penultimate ref., is sufficient to de-rail your entire thesis. ST says "(ni) copias de época ni de autor", implying that those are *distinct concepts*.
1 hr
This requires a longer answer than will fit here. Please see the discussion box in a few minutes.
agree neilmac
12 hrs
Thanks, Neil. Here's another fine mess I've got myself into :)
Something went wrong...
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer. Comment: "Thank you. Always such documented and reasoned explanations. So I was actually on the right track."
+3
7 mins

contemporary copy (pl. copies)

Contemporary.
Noun
1. a person or thing living or existing at the same time as another.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 8 mins (2015-10-02 17:03:31 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

NB: Although I think vintage prints could also work (When there were no vintage prints or original copies by the author...)
Note from asker:
Thank you. I'm going for vintage prints, and I see you agree it fits in the context.
Peer comment(s):
agree Phoenix III
34 mins
agree Jennifer Levey : 'contemporary' is the better generic term. 'vintage' might work for Asker's 1920 context, but wouldn't (yet) be appropriate if, for example, if it refered to the 1990s.
58 mins
agree patinba
1 hr
Something went wrong...
+1
50 mins

period copies

or reprints maybe?

The link might be helpful for your translation in general as it explains vintage methods of copying
Note from asker:
Thanks. This looks like a good option too, but 'vintage' I think is the most suitable.
Peer comment(s):
agree neilmac : This works for me ;)
49 mins
Thanks Neil ;)
Something went wrong...
Close search
Term search
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search