Category talk:Fotocollectie Afdrukken ANEFO Rousel
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Authorship[edit]
Is there any authorship information for these? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Authorship is diverse. The Rousel collection is a collection that holds many doubles within the "regular" ANEFO collection. See this example:
-
(ANEFO) Duindigt 1957: "Photographer: Wim van Rossem" -
(Rousel) Crop of same photo: "Afdruk zonder naam fotograaf" ("Print without the name of the photographer")
If somebody would be interested, he or she could check the doubles and add names of photographers. I did so once for photographs that were used on Wikipedia. .Vysotsky (talk) 08:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- The problem I have is that many of them (I have a list of >120) are like this, e.g. File:Collectie Fotocollectiie Afdrukken ANEFO Rousel, fotonummer 157-0473, Bestanddeelnr 157-0473.jpg, File:Collectie Fotocollectiie Afdrukken ANEFO Rousel, fotonummer 157-0474, Bestanddeelnr 157-0474.jpg Their archive source is unavailable, they're labelled here as both unknown author (some specifically as "Afdruk zonder naam fotograaf"), and as a known Anefo photographer (also Wim van Rossem). Is this an inconsistency in their metadata, or a gross error of misattribution?
- Is it possible to process these further (without the archive to check). Should they be categorised as if they're that photographer's work? Re-labelled as "Unknown Anefo" ? Deleted under PRP ? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you check within the >120 doubles if most ANEFO originals are in one way or another "damaged" (stains, scraps, overexposure etc.)? (I compared a dozen or so, and most originals were damaged.) It might be that Rousel photoshop in The Hague was asked by Anefo to clean up these approx. 1400 photographs and returned them to Anefo without the original metadata (as most photos also missed descriptions). I think there is no problem re copyright, as copyright of the complete Anefo collection was handed over to the Dutch National Archives. There is a problem with the names of the photographers, but we can safely assume that the original Anefo photos contain the correct information (and that name can be copied to the Rousel version, with a link to the other photograph). I will check with the Nationaal Archief. That leaves the non-doubles without name of the photographer. Vysotsky (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the Trianus statue image for starters, we have two copies here but they're not identical. The Rousel one looks like it's reprinted from the neg, cropped down and bordered, but it also has what looks like a paper catalogue number sticker on the face. So that's an old rework, probably 1950s, not recent digital. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looks like all refurbishing by Rousel was done in the 1950s (1956 or 1957, most likely). About the number sticker: I will ask the question about the sticker together with the other questions to Nationaal Archief. Vysotsky (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- As you probably know, thousands of "normal" Anefo photos also contain number stickers, see this example. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at the Trianus statue image for starters, we have two copies here but they're not identical. The Rousel one looks like it's reprinted from the neg, cropped down and bordered, but it also has what looks like a paper catalogue number sticker on the face. So that's an old rework, probably 1950s, not recent digital. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Could you check within the >120 doubles if most ANEFO originals are in one way or another "damaged" (stains, scraps, overexposure etc.)? (I compared a dozen or so, and most originals were damaged.) It might be that Rousel photoshop in The Hague was asked by Anefo to clean up these approx. 1400 photographs and returned them to Anefo without the original metadata (as most photos also missed descriptions). I think there is no problem re copyright, as copyright of the complete Anefo collection was handed over to the Dutch National Archives. There is a problem with the names of the photographers, but we can safely assume that the original Anefo photos contain the correct information (and that name can be copied to the Rousel version, with a link to the other photograph). I will check with the Nationaal Archief. That leaves the non-doubles without name of the photographer. Vysotsky (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
