We are an eBay affiliate and may be compensated for clicks on links that result in purchases.

HELP! Need to date a photo

I won an auction, paid and received my item today. Now here is my issue, the photo is on Fujicolor Professional Paper "If Copyright Applies Permission to Reproduce Required"

I read somewhere that this paper was introduced in 1991, and renamed in 1998 to Crystal Archive...blah blah.

The signer of the photo passed in 1991

and the photo has what I seem to think is a print number that I am far more familiar with in labs using a computer to print....image below.

I can't find a single photo in my collection printed in 1990 or 1991 that has this recognizable printed numbering on the back.

Does anyone have more info on the paper when it was first used and or when these printed numbers started appearing on the backs of photos?

I certainly hope that this type of info can help others to identify what should and what should not be. I am actually kind of shocked that I couldn't locate any info at all online covering this topic.

No piece of this puzzle is too small....if you have anything to say or if you have an item that you know existed before a particular date with this paper stock or numbering....I'd love to see it added here.

Thanks,

Pete

Tags: Fuji, Kodak, photos, printing

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike T on April 4, 2016 at 7:38pm

Zoom in on the stamp and you'll see all the tiny dots that make up the lettering, it was printed using a dot matrix printer which have been around since the late 60's, early 70s. It certainly could have been done in the 90s, unfortunately the codes are entirely ambiguous and up to the lab printing the photo. They can stand for any number of things like ink type, color, corrections, etc. There is no good way I know of to date photos that way short of researching the date range that Fuji actually called their photo paper by that name.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on April 4, 2016 at 11:42pm

The dot matrix design (of the printed line on the back of the photo) is the same you might find on prints picked up from a lab today.

The title of the film being a part of that line seems very much like a digital print, possibly from a computer image or computer disc which seems highly unlikely for a print from 1990 or 1991.

I was hoping someone might recall when they started seeing this "dot matrix" line on the reverse of their printed photos.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on April 5, 2016 at 7:09am

I agree its suspicious. My guess would be the dot matrix codes became popular with the rise of photo labs in drug stores and elsewhere. They were used internally to identify aspects of the printing.

Obviously 1991 was pre-web, so is it safe to assume the photo would have to be printed from a negative? Can you confirm the image is a production still that would have a negative and not a random screenshot of a blu ray? Lol.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on April 5, 2016 at 11:33am

The "Predator" line in the backprint was not "Predator.jpeg" so that left a little bit of hope, and the Paper used "If Copyright Applies Permission to Reproduce Required" seemed almost like it was made for a studio in LA or NY where the first of these printers were used.

So many questions.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike T on April 5, 2016 at 11:42am

Because of the copyright line, it is likely an original print, which means it had to come from a negative. It's not a copy of an already printed photo. That means it had to come directly from the production. I think most of the clues stack against it being 25+ years old.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 5, 2016 at 11:11am

In my opinion, this is entirely consistent with the codes on the back of prints ordered through online services like Shutterfly, etc. "Predator" was probably the image file name.

In other words, I'd be shocked if that photo dated back to 1991 or earlier.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 5, 2016 at 11:21am

According to this web site, this style of Fuji logo was introduced in 1992.

http://famouslogos.net/fuji-logo/

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on April 5, 2016 at 11:30am

I saw that too, the 1985 version was so close that I gave it the benefit of the doubt...

between the comment about the paper introduction in 1991, which I can't seem to verify, and the logo from 1985 or 1992, it doesn't seem impossible, that's why the backprinting was a clincher..... or so I had hoped.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve Zarelli on April 5, 2016 at 11:38am

One other point to consider. Prior to 1992, Fuji Film was two words with no space between them in the logo. In the 1992 iteration, the space was removed to make one word, FujiFilm.

I think it is likely a safe bet, the same treatment was applied to the product name, FujiColor. Prior to 1992, it was probably Fuji Color (two words with space).

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Pete Bendu on April 5, 2016 at 2:31pm

Thank you Mike and Steve, as you both know, I appreciate your opinions, and I have to agree that the evidence stacked up against this being legit is getting taller and taller.

Just to follow up with the latest bits..... backprinting has been available at professional photo labs since well before 1991. As Mike mentioned labs even back then would use this inhouse "the codes are entirely ambiguous and up to the lab printing the photo. They can stand for any number of things like ink type, color, corrections, etc." It would also be used for bigger clients who wanted info or copyrights included.

While that backprinting bit was extremely helpful, it was also mentioned that Kodak had the monster share of photo paper in the market at the time, Fuji was out there but the percentages were not great.

This places the item in a "can't be 100% debunked" category, but at the same time the number of coincidences that would have had to happen to make it probable.... seems like a long shot.

The production company or actor would have supplied the negative to the lab, which would have to have been one of the first labs to switch to Fuji paper, and it would also have been one of the pro labs that used backprinting to order. They would have had to deliver the completed order within the first months of 1991, and it would have been signed in that same time frame as the actor passed away in April of 1991.