Unusual photo from AMOLAD

[Steve Crook]

Have a look at this strange image


Patrick Boner in Ireland found this odd photo that is based on one of the standard 10x8 studio stills for A Matter of Life and Death but is only about 7" x 4.5" (the photo that Patrick took of it is larger than the real thing which he kindly sent to me) and has some information on the front. Not on the lower border like American stills do

But that label isn't stuck onto the front of the photo, it's part of the photo so it was printed with that on the negative.

That's not something that I've ever seen before. Has anyone else seen anything like it?

It explicitly mentions that it's a British film, thus suggesting that this photo wasn't made for a British audience. It calls it "A Matter of Life and Death", not "Stairway to Heaven", so it's not American. The label is in English so presumably for a country where English is the main language (that cuts it down a bit). Is that a date in the upper right of the label? If so, "24.1.47" must be 24 January 1947 which also excludes any other countries that use the American date format of month-day-year (there aren't 24 months in a year).

So where might it be from? Does anyone have any suggestions?

Steve

[Arfur Teacake]

Why couldnt it have been from the Irish Republic?

The photo may have been duplicated on a rostrum with caption?

[Freddy]

Looking at the photo itself in the right hand corner is what appears to be 103 (1p)-6.
I assume that is then the original photo reference.

The idea of photographing the caption onto the photo is wonderfully efficient, this suggests these photos were going to multiple sources and saves the time of typing and attaching captions to each photograph.

Could DAEPS stand for *** Photographic Stock/Society. A film still resource and the caption info and reference info are theirs.

Paul

[Nick Dando]

The D could be for Denham.

Nick

[Steve Crook]

Looking at the photo itself in the right hand corner is what appears to be 103 (1p)-6.
I assume that is then the original photo reference.

Yes, all British studio stills from that era have a reference number in a lower corner. Usually the lower right but if that would be hard to read there then they can be in the lower left.

They appear to be hand painted onto the negative before printing because some of them have ragged edges or a bit of a shake to them.

They are one of the indications I mention in the article on Collecting Studio Stills. They are sometimes slightly out of focus which indicates a reprint, or they are sometimes too close to the edge or even cropped which indicates that the photo was printed at the wrong size and cropped, another indication of a reproduction.

Steve

[Steve Crook]

Why couldnt it have been from the Irish Republic?

The photo may have been duplicated on a rostrum with caption?

Indeed it may have been, and it could be from the Republic, although Patrick bought it in England.

But has anyone ever seen anything like it before? I never have and I've been searching for and collecting studio stills for many years.

Steve

[Freddy]

Came across this

Powell and Pressburger

which has the photo without the caption, I notice with some other photos on the site there is similar numbering bottom right. Thinking about the language your photo could have come from anywhere as they would have had to use the label as a translation aid.


Have you seen this ,

http://www.articlesandtexticles.co.u...-alfred-junge/

Paul

[Steve Crook]

Came across this

Powell and Pressburger

which has the photo without the caption, I notice with some other photos on the site there is similar numbering bottom right.

Yes, I've got that one and lots of others from AMOLAD and other Archers films. That article about Collecting Studio Stills I referred to a few posts back has a list of the code format used on all of the Archers films that I have stills for

Thinking about the language your photo could have come from anywhere as they would have had to use the label as a translation aid.

Why do you think that? It wasn't the snipe/label that was originally on that photo.

The "snipe" is the term used for the small piece of paper that is found stuck onto the back of some studio stills. They are more commonly found on British studio stills. Even if the snipe itself isn't still there you can sometimes see the marks on the back from where it was glued on.

American stills from this period have a wider border with the title and some other information printed in the lower border. Compare that to a British still which has a very thin border

The snipe usually contains the title of the film, the name of the director(s) and the studio and the actors that appear in that photo. It's just a small piece of paper with 3 or 4 lines typed onto it.

They have proved very useful helping to identify people who weren't in the cast list.

That's why this one is so unusual, apart from the size of the photo, that snipe isn't an original snipe from a British still, they don't have those codes and the date either side of the text. The text fills the full width of the snipe. Also that this one has the snipe on the front, not on the back and it's a part of the photo, not just stuck on.

Have you seen this ,

http://www.articlesandtexticles.co.u...-alfred-junge/

Paul

No, I hadn't. Thanks for that

Steve

[Freddy]

Thanks for the snipe info.

My thoughts were that

A company, academic inst. or such like wanted x number of the same stills from the film.

The photographic company which did this;

Got the still and info from the studio and also added their own reference details and their initials (DAEPS).

Typed the information onto paper

attached it onto the front of the image as shown on your photo.

Took a photo of that and used the negative to develop and print multiple copies of a smaller size.

The advantage of this would be nothing would get separated and there would be no need for a typist typing many copies and attaching to photo. (although carbon paper could be used for a certain amount).
Could you imagine the work going into making say 50 copies, the above is far better as prints would have to be developed anyway.

They could have been sent anywhere and then if need be translated on arrival.




Paul