RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: RobynD on Sunday 20 November 11 03:06 GMT (UK)
-
Two very old - 1842 - photos of my g.g.granparents found in very bad condition. Is it at all possible for some genius to improve them ?
RobynD
-
Hi Robyn :)
These are not photos from 1842 - they are more likely from the 1860s.
We can tell this from the fact that they are prints on paper (not introduced until 1859), and from what the lady is wearing (I'd judge it as early 1860s dress, but others are more expert at dating clothing than I am).
How sure are you of the identification? Do you have the actual prints, or just electronic copies?
Cheers
Prue
-
I found the actual prints in a box of documents in a deceased aunt's "stuff" wrapped in brown paper. On the reverse side they are marked with the name of the person - i.e. Robert James Read and the other Ann Dickson, and their marriage on 10 July1842 at St. Mary's, Newington, Surrey. Marriage date is correct with first child born July 1843. They were supposed to be in their early 20s then, but look very much older.
Photos have obviously been neglected and kept possibly in a damp place for many, many years - hence not only the lack of quality of photography back then, but the fading.
Just hope someone can improve them a bit.
Interesting though that you think the clothing 1860s - perhaps they were taken on another occasion, and they actually were older. Look forward to hearing other opinions too.
They were factory workers in London, so can't imagine they'd have had their photos taken very often.
RobynD
-
Factory workers wouldn't have been able to afford a photograph in 1842 - the only type available was the dageurreotype, which was very expensive. It got much cheaper to have your photo taken once prints on paper were introduced in the 1860s - you could get up to a dozen for sixpence from the cheaper photographers.
-
That's a most interesting history of photography - thanks.
I checked my records and on his marriage in 1842, Robert James Read is listed as a milkman. in the 1851 census - labourer; in 1861 - carman; In the 1871 - "coal retailer" - so all unskilled manual work.
Both marked their marriage certificate with an "x", so presumably couldn't read or write.
As you say, photos must have been taken in the 1860s or later, and my late aunt who wrote on the reverse side of the photos that they were their wedding portraits must have been relying on old family "stories".
RobynD
Lismore
P.s. Still hope someone can improve them a bit
-
I'm sure some of the restorers will have a go for you and you will get nice results :) Just have to wait for them to come online...they're all over the world :D
Robert looks much older than the 20 or so he was when he married - I'd put him in his 50s. Ann looks a bit younger, say 40-ish. So I think the ages in these photos fit with the dates of the people you think they are - it's just the date of the photos that was a bit off ;)
Cheers
Prue
-
These are some interesting photographs…
Firstly, Prue is right in saying that these actual physical prints do not date from the 1840s. It was not until about the 1860s that portraits were taken on paper and even then it was not until about the late 1890s to early 1900s that paper prints were not pasted and mounted onto some sort of card stock backing. Your photographs appear to be copies made in the latter part of the 19th century of older photographs. Back then, when you wanted to make a copy of a photograph and didn’t own the negatives, you had to take it to a photographer who would literally take a photograph of your original photograph and develop a new one. This often lead to a loss of detail and clarity but was the best that could be done at the time.
I do not believe these are both wedding portraits because if it were a wedding portrait, the couple would have most likely been photographed together (not only was that customary, but it would have been cheaper than buying two portraits). Also, these portraits don’t appear to have been taken at the same time (I’ll explain below) nor during the right timeframe.
The Woman:
I’m not an expert on women’s fashion during the 1840s, but after a bit of research and comparing photographs and painted portraits from the 1840s, it appears that the neckline of women’s dresses during this time frame were a bit more revealing than dresses in the latter half of the century. Most often in young women, the clavicle was exposed and oftentimes some of the shoulders as well. I personally cannot say that the dress from your photograph is not from the 1840s, but I can say that I have seen many, many nearly identical dresses from portraits taken in the 1860s. Also, your woman’s hairstyle is one common to the 1850s and 1860s. There was something similar towards the end of the 1840s, but hairstyles during that decade often incorporates long curls at the front or back of the head. Towards the 1850s and 1860s, it was parted and tucked away neatly to the back of the head into a bun of sorts.
I can safely say that neither this dress nor this hairstyle would have been fashionable in the 1870s. I will be interested in hearing what some of the other more experienced daters on here will say about the clothing.
Also, I would be interested in hearing the exact birth date for this woman. There is no exact science to guessing age in a photograph, particularly one where some of the features are obscured, but I would guess that this woman is closer to thirty than twenty looking at her jaw line, but that’s just a guess. There’s no positive way to tell.
The Man:
Unlike the woman, I can firmly say this gentleman is not in his twenties. Even though it’s impossible to see if there are any wrinkles or stray gray hairs, it is clear that he has jowls, that his cheeks have hollowed out, that his eyes have drooped and that his hairline has receded – all things that come with age – though he doesn’t appear to have gone very gray yet. Again, there’s no exact science to a subject’s age in photography as every person’s face is different and every person ages differently (some better than others) but I would say that this man around 50, give or take a few years.
I also know a bit more about men’s clothing during the 1840s and I don’t believe that this man’s clothes are from that time. The man’s collar is obscured by his beard, but the man’s vest, hat and the cut of his coat (particularly the lapels) suggest to me something from around the late 1860s at the earliest. The cut seems wrong for the 1850s and during the earlier 1860s, fashionable lapels were very small, generally ending around the middle of the chest when buttoned up.
Furthermore, it is important to notice that if the man’s vest were to be unbuttoned, that the buttons would still be on the left side of the photograph, meaning that the image has not been reversed. This rules out the original image being a dageurrotype as the process to make them reversed that the final product was a mirrored image of the original subject. Generally speaking, most ambrotypes (popular from about 1855-1865) and tintypes (popular from about 1860 all the way to 1945) were also reversed because the photo was projected directly onto the final product (as opposed to being first made into a glass or film negative and then developed). There were ambrotype and tintype cameras with a special lens built into the camera itself to reverse images before they were projected onto the final product, but as I understand it, these were rare. Regardless of this fact, however, if the original image were a tintype or ambrotype, it would have been framed in a protective case that would have shown up in the copy. It might just be me, but I do not see a clear sign that the original image was in a case.
That means this print most likely a copy of a Carte de Visite (patented in 1854, but did not popular until 1860) or a Cabinet Card (portraits of people were introduced in 1866, but surprisingly cabinet cards before 1873 are fairly uncommon).
I know you weren’t looking for a date, can I ask a few more questions: What are the respective birth years for these folks? When did they die? What are the measurements of these photos? Do they feel just like a paper photograph or are they on a heavy card stock/cardboard backing?
-
Hi Robin.......I don't know about the genius bit but I have had a try anyway.
Carolyn :)
revised for improvement.
-
a try from me
Irene
-
Her picture taken 1850's & possibly into the early 1860's.It's possible this was originally an ambrotype & this is a paper copy taken from it later.I think I can detect a wedding ring on her right hand which would be correct for an ambrotype as they were printed on glass & came out in reverse.If this was an 1860's print I would expect to see a full length image.
His picture 1860's-70's,this was pretty much standard wear for this period.
jim
-
Thank you all so much for your most interesting and informative responses. I had no idea so much could be determined about people and their ages and clothes from photos. Thank you also for the improvement to the photo of Ann.
However, I think I am going to add some confusion with some BMD info..
Robert has several birthdates (or mistranscriptions). FreeBMD has his death in December 1869, aged 53 - therefore born abt. 1816 and age 26 on marriage; in 1871 census he gives his age as 40 - therefore born abt 1831 - obviously incorrect as he and Ann were married in June 1842, both "öf full age" on the copy of the marriage certificate which I have.
Ann's death on FreeBMD is recorded in June 1858, following the birth of her 7th child. Birth is 1822 - so 20 at marriage.
In her photo she is holding a flower posy - so is this perhaps her wedding photo ?
So, were the photos taken at different times? Ann's obviously before 1858, even though her clothes suggest otherwise and is the photo is a copy of am ambrotype??
Robert's photo could be any time - he certainly looks older than the 26 he would have been on his marriage, so sometime in the 1860s before his death in 1869??
I have copies of letters written by their daughter Charlotte (my g.grandmother) to her then fiance who had immigrated to New Zealand where she joined him in 1876. They later came to Sydney where they and their children all settled.
In her letters she tells him she will join him as "she is all alone with only her brothers and sisters", thus confirming the deaths of her parents.
I should have provided this BMD information in my earliest post, but I had no idea the photos would produce such interesting and informative replies.
Any further comments would be very much appreciated. Your information is extremely interesting .
Could someone have a go at "restoring" Robert please ? The ones of Ann are great
With many thanks
RobynD
-
Jim
I forgot to add to my email of a few minutes ago, that the photos are on cardboard backing with photos themselves on shiny surface and are 6 x 4, with rounded corners - much like a modern print, so presumably a photo of the very old photo ?
Your analysis seems pretty much on the mark as to years photos taken.
Thank you and all the others who replied again for your interest and interesting replies. This is fun and I'm learning so much about photography and the interpretation of old photos.
RobynD
Lismore, NSW
-
Based on what you've said would confirm her picture is a copy of an ambrotype.
I don't believe the posy has any particular significance except to show her wedding ring which was pretty much the norm for Victorian women.This is how she would have looked at the sitting which makes more sense.
jim
-
Thanks Jim for your reply and reasoning about her posy and the era of the times and types of photography.
It's obvious from all your comments and reasons that the photos were certainly later than 1842 - for Ann late 1850s: and for Robert - 1860 plus.?
Thank you also again to Niksmum, Saddles, PrueM for your interests and insights and restoration of Ann's photo. All much appreciated.
Is there anyone out there prepared to have a go at improving Robert? He certainly needs it!
RobynD
-
Just found this thread and it seems it's pretty much all been said already :)
So all I have to add is that the print's rounded corners, which didn't appear until the mid 1870s to make it easier to slide the photo in and out of slots on album pages, would be very much at odds with the style of the lady's clothing. And a lady would never be photographed in anything but the latest fashion. So it's definitely a copy of an earlier photo. As Jim mentioned, a photo from the 1860s would be full length. This has been cropped as well as copied.
Just one further thought, that commercially viable photography wasn't even invented until 1839....if this were actually a photo from 1842 it should be in a museum :)
This may be a birthday or anniversary photo.
Very nice restores.
Cheers,
China
-
Chinakay
Many thanks for your response and analysis too. It's great that several people have taken the time to look at my photos and reply with most interesting information about photography and dates, etc.
Yes, the photos must have been taken for special occasions, as Robert and Ann would not have had the means for expensive studio portraits unless it was a very special event such as sending it to their relatives who had come to Australia, perhaps?
At least I now know the photos were much later than the 1842 date written on the back of the photos by a now deceased relative. It's amazing the photos have survived at all; must have been passed downseveral generations.
Thanks again for your response.
RobynD
-
a bit of help
sylvia
more help needed
-
Syvia
Thanks for your attempt at improving Robert and Ann. Robert especially needs a lot of help; afraid his photo has badly deteriorated.
RobynD
-
Hi Robyn.....As requested a restore of Roberts photo.
Carolyn :)
-
However, I think I am going to add some confusion with some BMD info..
Robert has several birthdates (or mistranscriptions). FreeBMD has his death in December 1869, aged 53 - therefore born abt. 1816 and age 26 on marriage; in 1871 census he gives his age as 40 - therefore born abt 1831 - obviously incorrect as he and Ann were married in June 1842, both "öf full age" on the copy of the marriage certificate which I have.
Ann's death on FreeBMD is recorded in June 1858, following the birth of her 7th child. Birth is 1822 - so 20 at marriage.
Any further comments would be very much appreciated. Your information is extremely interesting .
With many thanks
RobynD
Robyn ??? ??? ??? if he died in 1869 he couldn't be in the 1871 census ??? ??? ???
Dawn M
-
Carolyn
Amazing restore of Robert's photo!!
Dawn M
-
Good catch, Dawn :P ;D
-
Is there anyone out there prepared to have a go at improving Robert? He certainly needs it!
RobynD
One from me
Irene
-
A very big thank you to all who have "restored" Robert and Ann, plus a big thank you to all who have provided interesting and knowledgeable information on photographic techniques and equipment and clothing of the period - obvously now not 1842, but late 1850s-early 1860s.
I am very, very appreciative of your time and efforts and amazing restorations.
With many thanks
RobynD