A photo of a newspaper article or other primary source is merely documentation of that source. It is not a secondary source, as it offers no interpretation of the primary source. It is merely a means to an ends. If you were to alter the photograph, as in Marcel Duchamp's famous L.H.O.O.Q., then you would have created your own, original work, which would then count as a primary source if someone were to use it as a source.

However, for the purposes of academic publishing (or even dissertation-level original research), you should verify all digital or photographic reproductions either against the original, or that they came from a reputable source (like a professional database of historical newspapers, or from the staff of the archive that holds the material).

To summarize: the newspaper is a "primary source." The photograph you took of the newspaper does not change that, it is merely a research aid. If you are using scans or photographs that someone else took (like those on various historical newspaper databases), you should indicate that you accessed them via that database in your bibliography.

I agree with u/Nicht200Ponys -- a photo of a primary source is a copy of a primary source. For the purposes of a written text that analyzes the content of the source, it makes no difference if you worked only with the original newspaper, with a photocopy of it, a photograph of it, or if you made extensive notes about the original and used that in your analysis. A thornier issue, in my opinion, is how we should think about a photograph of a PHOTOGRAPH. If the photo is a primary source, is a photo taken of a photo merely a copy? In many cases, I can imagine the answer is a simple yes. But it the photo of the photo cuts off part of the image or reframes it, it could change the meaning... There is a famous example in Holocaust history. A secret photograph was taken by Jewish Sonderkommandos during the burning of bodies in Auschwitz Birkenau. When the photo is reproduced and discussed in history texts, it is usually cropped to remove the black around the edges--but the dark portions come from the wall of the building the photographer was standing inside. Seeing this helps to explain the circumstances behind the existence of the photos, clarifying how it was taken. So cropping in reproductions can alter the meaning. Would be interested to hear what experts in visual history think.

I would argue that it is a copy of a primary source. As long as you quote the original article in your paper there shouldn't be a problem. If anyone would read your paper, he or she could read directly in the newspaper if you quoted it right. It gets interesting if the original source somehow would be completly lost and your photo would be the only remain of it. Then the photo would become a secondary source.

The photo would be come a primary source for someone in, lets say a hunderd years, working about historians in the early 21st century. He or she would ask questions like "why did /u/Nattsang take this photo? why no photocopy?" etc.