On the Identification of Colour Photographic Processes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review:
On the identification of colour photographic processes
by:
Ambra Cattaneo, et al.

The paper proposes a way of identifying "old" photographic prints from the physical ( and visual ) properties. For this, an extensive list of characteristica of the different photo types is given.
Overall the paper is good, but to this reviewer, there are some short comings that should be corrected before publication.

Photographic paper exists in many variations, with many product names. It would be useful to have a better listing of example-photos for the different processes. For example, Polaroid Roll Type 48 is explicitely mentioned, but what about Type 47 ? The table should have ( at least as footnote ) an extended list saying things like "Polaroid Type 48 etc".
Also, "European format" is not helpful, since major manufacturers were selling their products across geographic boundaries. Saying "photographic paper as in Ilford xx, Agfa yy, Kodak zz" would be a help. Of course, these lists can never be complete, but the present form is too terse. Additionally, knowing where the paper was used does not seem to give any indication of the process used, other than potential through probabilistic data ( that is not mentioned or given in the manuscript ).

Digital Photo Prints:
In the listing the D2T2 process is surpeisingly absent. Dye-diffusion Thermal-transfer was available in the time frame of some of the prints and positives generated with that process might be the first examples of art-photography where post-processing was applied to the subject matter.

Investigation Protocol:
The current paper list the different processes and their characteristica, but it does not give the promised protocol. Here, one would expect a "flow chart" especially valuable to "institutions with limited resources".
It is not clear if rthe next request goes beyond the boundaries of the Journal, but it would seem that ( at least on the referenced WEBSite ) a flowchart should be implemented. This can be simple drop-downs that reduce the possible prints to a small number for in-depth verification, or in the form of a downloadable simple program.  

In summary:
The paper should be accepted after consideration of the above points by the Authors. Most points can simply be answered. The "implemented" flowchart is more difficult, but the Authors should seriously consider it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper deals with interesting topic of determining process of photograph making. The authors propose an procedure which will give more information about the photograph (observing degradation) compared to the other protocols. In the same time, it would be beneficial (which could be provided by literature as mentioned below) to give some better insight on the other protocols. 

Although the paper is well structured and easy to follow, I have some remarks:

- p4, l171 - please add source of the mentioned literature
- p4, l182 - please specify a bit more about the polyester sheet (thickness, surface finish) as it can influence someone's observation
- p6, l221 - as it is stated that angle of the light source must be at 45 degrees - provide the source which determines this angle
- for the Table 2 - 9 - please provide source of the mentioned data or please specify in first paragraph on p5
- p7 - Table 6 data is same as Table 4, please change

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents a way to identify color photographic processes using simple criteria and very affordable tools.

Regarding the organization and clarity of the scientific content, I don’t have much to say: the paper is well written, the outline is clear and the figures and table as well. There is one mistake in the last table (13): the process is not as stated a « dye coupler print » but an « internal dye diffusion transfer print » (Polaroid).

However, my main issue is with the novelty of this paper: the authors cite the « graphic atlas » by the IPI, which is a huge reference for the identification of photographic processes based on visual examination. The authors say that compared to this website, their paper has one new criterion for the identification of color prints: the decay and damage features. But unfortunately, the « graphic atlas » provides a lot of information and visual criteria related to the degradation of each photographic processes, as well as simple visual observation, under low and medium magnification, and with different light orientations.

Nothing very different or new here, and I really don’t see the point of creating a whole new website where another one is already a reference in the field.

For this major reason, I reject the publication of the paper, even though the work is consistent and clear.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for their reply and the changes they made on the paper.

I still think that there is no point of creating a whole new database and that the efforts must be joint to improve the current one, for example by wrinting to IPI for suggestions.

I decided to finally accept the paper to give the authors and their website a chance.