RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Glen in Tinsel Kni on Sunday 31 December 06 10:27 GMT (UK)
-
Hi everyone.
Could someone have a look at the following picture please. The query i have is as follows
The sitter was born in 1855, her first marriage in 1885 lasted till 1901 and the lady eventually lived till 1956.
Based on her appearance i would estimate her being about 30 years old or possibly a little older but the picture looks "wrong".
The pose and the lighting seem odd for a picture which should apparently date to the mid/late 1880's or possibly 1890's. The picture also looks too "fresh" and i wonder if it has been restored or possibly faked in some way.
I will try to add the later (1955) photograph in the next post for comparison but would appreciate your thoughts. I do not have access to the originals i'm afraid and they have been sent to me via e-mail from a third party.
Thanks
Glen
-
Just for comparison the later picture of the same subject, this time from 1955 (and aged 100).
Her hands appear the same but are the two photographs separated by around 70 years?
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D a bit obvious I think !! ::) ::) ::)
-
Looks a sthough the face has been cut and pasted from somewhere else!
Sutton Roh
-
smaller pic ON THE WALL is the same ...
wallpaper ?
table ?
-
Another thing that seems slightly out is the proprtion of the head in relation to the body.
I would have expected some sepia tone in a photograph from the 1880's, perhaps someone may put me right there.
Glen
-
It 's not April 1st is it? :D ;)
The Photo you first posted has been
manipulated Glen !
Who sent it to you?
A relative?? ??? ::) :-\
Poll
-
Hi
I agree with Polldoll. The head has been added to the image. It is also slightly too large for the body!
I tried to copy it, in order to enlarge and look for the joins (not an Eric Morcambe joke!), and had difficulty doing so. The format was not the same as I have encountered before and I ended up with a dark red coloured image. I left it there and concluded that the image had been interferred with, and not particularly well
Mudge!
-
Hi Polldoll
I started researching my birth family about a year ago, recently i found a cousin and she discovered our last living aunt in Australia. The son of the aunt sent the pic to my new found cousin and they forwarded the picture to me.
The photograph is supposed to be my great grandmother, her father had a business selling furniture and clothing in Lincoln, the business ran from the late 1860's until around 1930.
Other pictures i have got i have scanned from what are either originals or old reprints in poor condition and have notes/dates scribbled on the back but these two are the first scanned/e-mailed pictures i have had.
I know something isn't right with the picture but hope someone with more knowledge and less excitement about it can pinpoint the telltale signs.
Glen
-
Sorry Glen this is almost definitely a fake :( .....anyone else have a comment to make ?
Poll
-
I had the same problem as Mudge. When I first viewed it on the screen it had a blue haze to it, very weird and then when I tried to download it, it was quite clear black and white. However, my software wouldn't open it at all. It's definitely been tampered with and there is something very wrong with the photo itself, not just the subject matter.
There could be a good reason why the head has been superimposed on the photo, perhaps the original was damaged and this was an attempt at a restore or then again it could be just an elaborate hoax!
Happy New Year All!
Caz
-
cant comment on the internals of photo-shopping, but there are 'background' items in common on the 2 pics - notably the smaller of the 2 wall-hung framed pictures ....
-
Hi Glen :)
This is a strange one indeed...I agree with the others that the first photo is a fake, but I can't quite put my finger on what's been done. Could the son of your aunt send through another pic of the photo, this time the whole thing, and no colour changes or anything, just "as-is"? Might help us to work it out.
It does look as though the head is not proportional to the body and the hands also look quite big. having said that, the face and hands seem to match the later photo of your lady. The setting is exactly the same in both photos, except for the left-hand picture on the wall, the photo/vase on the table, and the chair. That in itself is unusual, because it seems to be the lady's home, and it was not common for photos to be taken in the home in those days (however I have some of my own family from the 1880s taken at their own home, so it was not impossible).
I would be very much surprised if the first photo is original to the 1880s/90s (which would fit with the dress) given the incredible clarity and crispness of contrast etc.
As I said though, if we could see the photo in its entirety, that would really help :)
Prue
P.S. What an amazing lady, to have lived all those years :o
-
" ... and here she is 70 years later. Her room hasn't changed in all that time, the same wallpaper (she just wouldn't let us change it), the same picture on the wall [left picture] (it's a family heirloom, you know). Even the same table - I wonder whatever happened to the set of chairs .... I think Auntie Ethel got them ... "
Speaking as a non-expert, I found the face too "modern" somehow.
Bob
-
Hmm, I think the wallpaper is different, not that it makes one iota of difference LOL
Caz
-
That's what I thought too, Bob, the face just looks too "modern" in the first picture, but I suppose it could have been photoshopped or re-developed or any number of manipulative techniques could have been used.
I have had more of a look at the pictures side by side and I think it's definitely supposed to be the same lady - same table, same (or very similar) pose, same picture on the wall, probably same room (although carpet and I think now the wallpaper are different - trying to work out whether moulding on skirting board is the same, but can't tell)...
I would put the date of the first photo around 1890, judging by the sleeves. Give or take a year or two.
Something is still not quite right :-\ :-\ :-\
Prue
-
Thanks for the comments.
I have had some success with living rellies i have found but a couple of them don't want to know me as i am classed as a blacksheep (illegitimate and placed for adoption still has a stigma amongst the older members of the family).
I tend to let them come back to me as they wish and don't push for information but this particular contribution has come from someone i have yet to contact personally.
The lady in the picture was quite well off and owned several properties which she rented out, when she died most of her wealth went to a small number of rellies and there was apparently some ill feeling amongst the family from those who were left out. My mother did benefit and my siblings were largely ignored from that time onwards.
-
Side by side, in case it helps....
I still think it's the same lady, just can't explain why the first photo looks so strange :)
Prue
-
It's the face . .. there's definitely something about the face - and there's not a mark on the 'old' picture.
Barbara 8)
-
The hands on the first picture look too old for the face ....
-
The dress in the first pic looks more like a costume to me. Just noticed the chairs are different.
The picture on the left definitely looks younger than the one on the right.
-
The early picture looks far too clean for my liking, the lightsource is low and the shadows seem to be either non existant or in the wrong place. It almost looks like she is holding a cardboard cutout in place of her real face, the shadows on the cheeks don't match the light source either.
-
BTW am I the only one where the picture first appeared blue with a small grid right across it? (NO, I haven't been drinking ;) )
-
I think you've cracked it there Bob, it's the hands in relation to the face. And the whole thing reminds me of one of those posed pics you can get in 'sideshow alley' where you can dress up as anything you want.
Barbara
-
I agree with Bob, the clarity of the face in the first pic and that she appears to be wearing make up in a more modern style - also the nose is different. My guess would be that this is an attempt to show, using a current relative, how the old lady would have looked.
Ian
-
I think this photo shows that photo restoration can be a mixed blessing.
Rootschatters have made some fantastic improvements to old photos :)
but it is possible to change something too much. :(
-
Was just thinking the same thing Ian, I bet it she's a Granddaughter. The dress definitely looks like a hired costume.
Caz
-
Did they have fitted carpets in Victorian times?
-
Can somebody zoom in on the hem of the dress (I can't open it). Are those Sequins? If so, when did they first make an appearance (calling Old Rowley)!
Caz
-
I agree...and the position of the head is wrong for the pose...her head should have more of an angle...the dress material looks fresh too!...I think it is a modern take of an old shot!
T.T.
-
Just by contrast, her only daughter (pictured in 1905 aged 18) is shown below
-
Now that face fits the period, the first face doesn't, it looks too modern.
Barbara
-
The photo posted above is the usual quality of picture i have but then again i do get some which are in much worse condition.
Again this is the daughter (seated) with her husband and children, i can date this one to early 1913 but it is pretty poor by any standards.
Scanned by myself with note on the back just saying "Hay family" the youngsest child was one of twins, her brother died aged two months (October 1912) hence the accurate date
-
In the faked picture:
The head is too big for the body.
The clothing is crisp and distinct but the face is blurry.
The top of the head looks a bit square or "cut off" and, as said previously, the angle of the head is not right.
It looks as though someone had the picture of the old lady and decided to do a mock up of her as she might have appeared when young, in a similar pose.
Likely it is the same lady, but a bit of "artwork" has gone on there.
-
I think that both bodies are the same - or very closely related. Look at the shape of the fingers on the left hand, particularly the finger-tips.
That table has also "aged" very well. No chips or gouge marks in 70 years!
Nell
-
Hello Nell, long time no see.
I see what you mean about the table, i did wonder about that myself. Such a shame the picture is so vastly different to the original as it comes at a time when such a lot about this lady has been discovered.
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Much appreciated
Glen
-
How about a closeup of Lily for the picture album? :)
Mudge
-
Simple: Just ask Cazza to peel the face off and we'll see who's underneath ;D
...and I bet she could just about do it, too... ;D ;D ;D
-
Right, had a reply from the person who sent the picture to me. Apparently the only touch up work was scratch removal, no other work was done on the original image.
On the left shoulder/sleeve there looks to be some work but as for the rest it is supposed to be untouched.
Glen
-
Hi Glen,
Hmmm....it just doesn't look right, even knowing there has been a little touch-up work.
It would be really good to get a photo or scan of the print as it is - i.e. true colour, the mount that it's on, all that kind of stuff. That's the only way of finding out really.
If the photo looks like this in reality (i.e. it is "true" black and white, and very crisp) then I can 99.9% definitely say that it's not from the 1880s/90s. There just wasn't the technology available to make prints like that back then.
Prue
-
Hi All
Well I'm back at work today and I can prove that this photo has been edited. I couldn't open it at home, but I have managed to open it at work and the file contains an embbeded ICC profile. Just for the techie minded:
An ICC profile is a file that describes how a particular device reproduces color; that is, it describes the device's color space. ICC profiles can be created for three types of devices: a display device (monitor), an input device (a scanner or digital camera), or an output device (a printer). A profile that accurately characterizes a device gives you the best results in a color-managed wokflow. (Just basically means there is a file contained within the document that tells your printer, scanner or monitor how to display/print the colours.)
You can embed ICC profiles into any of the following RGB, CMYK, or grayscale files saved from Photoshop 6.0 or later: .psd, .eps, .tif, .jpg, .pct, or .pdf. An embedded profile remains with the file, so the device's color space information can then be read by any ICC-aware application.
Having this file embbeded explains why a) when I first saw it on my monitor at home it was blue (obviously my home machine is not calibrated to read ICC files) and b) why when Mudge opened it was a red hue, as I had the same result at work. Obviously both our versions of Photoshop cannot read the embbeded ICC profile correctly.
Plus Prue is absolutely correct, the photo is far too clean. I've attached a photo as to what you would mostly likely expect this photo to look like if it had not been enhanced.
As for the head, I can see no visible signs of joins but that just means whoever did it, feathered the edges perfectly although did not get the proportions correct.
I have shrunk the head somewhat but as you can see, it still does not 'sit' right, possibly due to the absence of any neck.
Also the dress is still suspect, the detailing bothers me as does the loose fit in the waist area.
Caz
-
hi ...Agree with you Caz ...Definitely an imbedded ICC file.There has been a little more done than mere scratch removal methinks !! Can the person who owns it send you a scan of the picture as it is ..with no scratch removal Glen?
an intrigued Polly ;)
-
Hiya Poll
Happy New Year!
Would be interesting to see the untouched version.
Caz
-
Wow Cazza, I don't pretend to understand all of the technical details, but your explanation sounds spot on.
Well done. :)
Barbara 8)
-
Cazza
Thanks for the reply, as a non techie it still makes sense to me.
I had a reply from the person who sent me the photo originally, copied below;
Hi Glen,
As I understand it, the photo has only had ‘scratch’ removal work done on it, and has been scanned in fairly low res. I will try to get a higher res one to you, to do a compare. The only notes I know of are her name. There is a lot that looks genuine about the photo, and it seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to, to edit the photograph.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As photographs of my birth family have been very difficult to find it is a shame that this isn't an original (or lightly restored version).
If Martha is as genuinely pretty as the photograph suggests then the untouched original must be quite a striking picture and it would be a real find if i could locate some of her in 2original" condition.
Thanks again for your time and help
Glen
-
Hi Glen
Happy New Year!
It would be good to see the original, hopefully luck will be on your side and someone will be able to give you a copy.
She certainly was a beautiful woman.
Caz
-
Zooming in a lot I can see old wear signs and cracks so I dont think it is a new photo.
I stand by my original thoughts that the head is all wrong and been expertly cut and pasted from another photo. The size is wrong, the colouring is wrong and the orientation is wrong. The face also seems to be ina different plane to the hand suposedly supporting it
It is an ideal subject for cut and paste as the neck is hidden by the collar.
Can anyone name the plant - it should be an aspidistra, but isn't.
Sutton Rog
-
It's a palm. Maybe a paradise palm, maybe a dwarf coconut palm, but definitely a palm plant. It's fairly Victorian, I think.
I do know that cats love them. I'd say this is a feline-free household ;D
Cheers,
China
-
Sutton
I'm intrigued...why should it be an aspidistra?
Caz
PS Agree with China, palm!
-
The aspidistra (which my dad always called an "aspidaspra" and to this day I have trouble with the word :D) was the epitome of the Victorian parlour houseplant. Also known as a cast-iron plant, it could survive dust, gloom and neglect and was perfect for indoor conditions of the time. George Orwell satirised it as the ubiqiutous choice of middle-class English decorating in his novel Keep the Aspidistra Flying.
Isn't reading RC educational ;D ;D ;D
Cheers,
China
-
Is it possible that this is a photo of the lady in later years, wearing her old posh frock, and with a photograph of her face, in younger years, held up in front of her???
-
I think the picture is pretty much original actually, I have a few of my great grandmother where her head looks too big for her body, but her body was squeezed into a tiny dress, and her neck is missing with the high neck line which doesn't help. Plus when you take it back to sepia it looks more like it should with scratches in the corners
The second picture shows my Annie with a larger than natural looking head.
Sharon
-
Just found this thread ... fascinating ! I agree the young lady's head looks too big, and the angle isnt natural, and I was worried that the table had lasted for 70 years without any visible aging ..
... but what a wonderful old lady; doesn't she look marvelous at 100 years ! Hope I wear as well !
-
For those still puzzling about the plant - you see them these days labelled a variety of things:
Kentia or sentry palm or Howea forseteriana
It originates from Lord Howe Island in Australia and has been a popular indoor plant since Victorian times.
Gracie Fields sang a song about the biggest aspidistra in the world - lyrics available here:
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/michaelanthony.keating/Gracie_Fields/Biggest_Aspidistra/biggest_aspidistra.html
(Sorry - probably just lowered the tone of this fascinating thread :-[ )
Nell
-
No, no ... all information is knowledge, and all knowledge is useful; maybe not today or tomorrow ... but you never can tell ... it may be just the thing someone wanted to know !!
-
Yep definitely a Kentia palm, rivalled the Aspidistra as Most Popular Houseplant of the Nineteenth Century ;)
I like Tricia-2's suggestion:
Is it possible that this is a photo of the lady in later years, wearing her old posh frock, and with a photograph of her face, in younger years, held up in front of her???
It does look as though she's holding up a mask, now that I look closely at her right hand and the face. Could this be the solution to the mystery? Where's Poirot when you need him! ;D
Prue
-
I do hope that this mystery gets solved - I have to say that looking at it last night - well 1.00am in the morning it was a bit scary! I am still uncomfortable with it somehow but for the reasons that everyone has already mentioned,
Why didn't she move the chair instead of sitting in that strained position?
The hands seem older as people say - and it does look as though she is holding a mask- will h ave to look at her right hand again to see if she is holding something.
But there is some sort of a crack/split running down at the top left which makes you think it is an older photo.
Please find out soon.
best wishes to all
heywood
-
Thanks for the information on the plant. Being in Australia, I have a few in the garden! Can't say rootshat isn't educational! ;D ;D ;D
Sharon, I think what makes your photo natural is the glimpse of neck, which is missing from the mystery photo and gives the appearance that the head is just sitting on the shoulders.
Caz
-
I'm glad you all like this little mystery. Not bad for my first thread ;D
Anyway, just as a complete out of the blue idea, i wonder if in the "dark ages" of pre digital days this photograph may have been created in a darkroom? It is possible to create a photograph using parts from different images (though the early photographs would be glass plate and not negatives).
It would be the forerunner to the copy and paste technique mentioned earlier in the thread.
It is also possible to expose different parts of the image for different times (therefore over or underexposing any part(s) of the image and making them appear lighter/darker as required).
Of course only the person who did the original work would know what had been done, and the same applies if it has been manipulated in modern times on a computer.
Glen
-
Just an update about this mystery, the person who supplied the picture can shed no new lihjt on it. The mystery still runs and i doubt i will ever get an answer.
Thanks to all for your replies and help.
Glen
-
The hands look older than the face.
-
has anyone noticed when you enlarge the picture
the table in the first picture
looks as though it has two little faces embedded in it
but when you look at the table in the picture of that beautiful
old lady the table looks different
Elaine
-
Yeah. And I'm wondering why the chains around her neck in the first picture aren't hanging straight down, but are kind of at the same angle as her body is leaning.
Cheers,
China
-
Finally i have an answer to this query.
I eventually located a newspaper article from 1955 (the 100th birthday of the lady in the original photograph).
The original photo is shown alongside the picture from her 100th birthday, the photographer tried to emulate the pose etc and the article states the original picture is dated on the reverse as 1902.
So it would seem the picture is actually not a fake but the image posted has had restoration (scratch removal) but is not a c&p of different images.
-
I agree it does look a bit strange however I recently took an old sepia colored photo to reprint it. I reprinted it in black and white, it came out looking just like this photo. Mine came out much brighter then the original.
She also seems to be leaning forward which could give her head the illusion of looking like it is too big compared to her body.
But I have reprinted old sepia photos in black and white. It can be done.
-
Finally i have an answer to this query.
I eventually located a newspaper article from 1955 (the 100th birthday of the lady in the original photograph).
The original photo is shown alongside the picture from her 100th birthday, the photographer tried to emulate the pose etc and the article states the original picture is dated on the reverse as 1902.
So it would seem the picture is actually not a fake but the image posted has had restoration (scratch removal) but is not a c&p of different images.
Phew!! I'm so glad this has been solved! It's been bugging me for so long...
Well done you for finding the answer! Did you really mean 1955 though ???
Cheers
Prue
-
Yes 1955 is correct.
Martha was born on the 9th of January 1855, the article i found is dated the 10th of January 1955.
The article mentions the picture was taken soon after Martha purchased the house she lived in for the rest of her life, (she bought the house in 1901 with cash her father left in his will).
The original image used in the article was one owned by Martha and the date of 1902 was written on the back.
I have certs, residential directory listings etc which cover the period 1903 to 1956 (when she died) so that all helps to add weight to the location side of things.
It would appear the original photograph was left to her daughter along with other personal possessions etc (i also have the will from 1956) but what happened to it in the years after is unknown.
-
Looks fake to me. First impression: its put together by cut out pieces.
Her hands are very big too. But it looks like the same woman. The fingers on the old picture are stubby at the ends as they are on the newer one.
The angle of the chains around her neck is a good point, but one is hanging the way it should, and the other one could be held in place by the garment or she could be holding it?
The pictures(photos) around her do look the same. The top of her head is odd and looks as if it has been cut out. Her eyebrows are modern-looking on the old picture but she may have had strong eyebrows at that age. Her head and hands do look out of proportion to her body, the neck is wrong but then maybe it's her dess.
I can't put my finger on why it bothers me. The lighting is odd too. There is light shining on her skirt, low down, and the skirt is very clear like a modern picture, but her lap is in shade. I was trying to find clear shadows to pinpoint the light source but I cant see anything definite. Maybe the photograper played around with it.
-
all I will say is.... she looked good for 50 years old then! - still think its a fake :D
Glen do the youthful genes run in the family?
jc
-
Certain lines do look very youthful, particularly in her generation.
The following image shows her brother (born 1858) taken in 1908 (and verified with other images from around the same time),
The lady on the left is his wife and on the right his s-i-l who married in 1910.
-
That boy is 50 years old!!!!???
-
Exactly what I was thinking Ruskie.....I knew there was a reason I didn't try to hazard a guess when people asked for an approximate age.
I would have said he was between 20 and 26 and if his wife is also 45-50ish I want some of her wrinkle cream....lol
dollylee
-
Wanna go halfers on a vat of it, dolly? ;D
Cheers,
China
-
could we both fit in a vat?? ... I was thinking of soaking in it ;D
dollylee
-
My guess would be that all three of them are under 25, maybe even closer to 20.
Picture taken in 1908 looks about right (I just love those outfits!) - some of the experts will probably be able to date those gorgeous hats.
-
Can't date, but here's a quick clean up, what a beautiful picture, you are lucky ;D
Lones
-
Second photo is a genuine photo and I'm sure he is "her" brother but is he the brother of the picture of the old lady? :-\ ........ or is he a son and brother of lady posing in the "fake" photo ;D
Never mind the vat of cream girls - my OH doesn't look like that and he is of a similar age! ;D
Didn't the ladies show the ravages of middle age/menopause in those days?
-
Date of the second pic would be about right (1908) but there is no way that man is 50!!!
I'm with the others, all three in the pic look early-mid 20s.
I also have trouble believing that the mystery photo shows a (almost) 50 year old woman! Granted, she looks a little older than 20-25, but certainly not nearly 50 :o If it's proven to be true, however...can I please buy some of your genes, Glen?! ;D ;)
-
I think you lot can get in line for the purchase of genes ........... are we holding a lottery then??
I'd say they were all in their 20's ... maybe early 30's but that's a stretch!!!
Barbara
-
Can't believe I haven't come across this thread before.......very interesting indeed! and I agree with everything that has already been said from the start.
I use Paint Shop Pro X and when I tried to open the first photo all I got was a black rectangle with a bright green line running down the left hand side ??? Very strange.
-
Just curious. When did ladies start wearing wrist watches?
-
Is it a wristwatch? Thought it looks more like a bracelet with a disk of some sort showing.
-
i thought she was quite smiley for a long session taken photograph, it looks to me as if someone has cut an egg shaped around this ladies face and plonked it on top of the old one, it stands out like like a sore finger to me
::)
-
We had a question about wristwatches some time ago and it was Mudge who discovered they were introduced about 1850 in America, where they were quite the status symbol. So...anytime after that, I suppose, for a wristwatch.
Cheers,
China
-
That's interesting about wristwatches. I did not know they were available, and worn that long ago. Of course in the photo it could be as Aghadgowey suggested, a bracelet with an object 'disc' on the front.
Not applicable in this case of course, but there are places where one can have a picture taken in costume and with a sepia finish it can look quite authentic. I have one of myself in late 19th C. costume. It was taken just for fun of course. :)
-
I don't think it's a watch - it looks more like a lock or a heart.
A thought - are the ladies twins? Identical skirts and blouses. One has her mouth slightly open so difficult to tell but I would suggest that they are not sister and wife, the rivalry would be too intense to wear the same clothes.
Sutton Rog
Sorry misread the thread - if they were wife and sister in law they would be sisters.
-
Have only just seen this thread :o
I'm also pretty sure it's a bracelet ....
-
Hi all
I obviously missed the odd reply here and there, thanks for all the comments and work with the pictures.
Just a bit of an update re the original picture, sadly the person who sent the copy of the picture passed away recently.
Just before he passed away it was mentioned that the picture had been scanned from a photograph, the scan had some scratch removal work and had also been lightened up a little.