RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Mhillbilly on Saturday 24 August 19 09:11 BST (UK)
-
the photo is of my great grandfather Rowland B White with a group of men, he is holding the sign, and to my mind appears to be a junior member of the gathering, particularly the front row. The sign is not visible on the original and my attempts to enhance have improved the photo but not the sign. I have other photos of my great granddad and this compares with his appearance circa 1909. So could be plus or minus a few years. By 1919 he definitely looks older. The picture maybe SW London Clapham or Earsfield if prior to 1905 and or North Finchley if after 1905. He was a butcher by trade during this time.
Any assistance appreciated.
I have posted an enhanced a copy of the photo taken of the original which is held by my aunt and was inherited from her father the son of the Rowland B White but nothing is visible of the sign
-
Hello Mhillbilly,
There was no image attached to your posting, if you reply you can try again :)
Regards
Sarah
-
photo attached
-
Still no photo.
It needs to under 500Kb. & give it a unique name.
-
definitely under 500k but it keeps saying the file exists, so renamed and
-
Three of the men have badges on their jackets. Wonder if that is a clue to what the group are involved in??
-
Three of the men have badges on their jackets. Wonder if that is a clue to what the group are involved in??
If the photo is after 1914 the three might possibly be wearing the "silver war badge".
The shape of the placard is odd - it wouldn't be suitable for long words or sentences.
My feeling is it could depict either a trade organisation or a church group.
(despite the resemblance of the man seated second from left, it is NOT a photo of Vladimir Putin and KGB comrades ;D ;D ;D)
-
AGM of the moustache society.
-
AGM of the moustache society.
The clean shaven chap at the back must be a deserter.
OK datewise 1908-12ish.
There were lots of clubs & societies in existence at the time.
It may be occupation related or recreational.
-
I could be wrong with this (I'm better at places and buildings than people), but I think there may be a family resemblance between the three seated in the middle. The 3rd (and possibly 5th?) from the left in the back row look fairly similar too. Some of the others look as though they might be related as well, but to each other rather than necessarily the three in the front row. This makes me wonder if it could be people working in a family firm.
Besides that, I have a couple of thoughts about your great grandfather (the one with the sign). First, he's wearing a medal, though I can't make out what it is. Second, he appears to be raised up - do you know if he had any war wounds? What I'm wondering is if he might be in, if not on, some kind of wheelchair, and the 'sign' might be a board hiding evidence of amputation or other injury.
-
I would assume your Grandfather is in a "privileged" position in that photo. i.e. as anew club member etc.
On closer inspection, is that something displayed on his lapel (the right hand one as you look at the photo)?
-
As ArthurK said, it's a medal.
-
As he was a butcher, I think it's most likely to be some kind of club/association rather than work related.
-
thanks for all the thoughts so some more information may help
my great grandfather was never in the the military and date wise this is definitely from about 1900 to 1913. In 1909 he was 30.
Born in Manchester but moved to SW London when mother remarried, he was only (surviving?) child as father died between 1884 and when mother re married in 1891. He was between 5 and 10.
Family moved to SW London between 1891 and 1899. He married in 1899 to a Elizabeth Boots from Fulham. He was a butcher all his working life. Elizabeth died in 1913 and there were 7 surviving children all under 12. Definitely nothing to do with WW1 and great grandfather was not disabled in anyway.
I have cropped from the original without my photoshop (as raw as I have) just my great grandfather and there does appear to be a medal.
-
more information
in 1901 census my great grandad was living in Clapham and was listed as a butcher at the meat market, not sure if that means Smithfield or was there one closer to Clapham?
he married into the Boots family who lived on Fulham Broadway known as Walham Green in that period. At that time at Vanston Place just off Fulham Broadway marked on my 1892-1914 map is a Butchers Charitable Institution 'facility' looks like Alms Houses, my original thought was it could have been something to do with that but researching from the southern hemisphere I did not find anything.
-
The medal appears to be star-shaped if that helps at all.
-
Is it my imagination, or does he appear to have a strap over his left shoulder?
I know there is a dark line showing the edge of the body of the jacket on both sides, but it seems to me that the strap is making the shoulder of the jacket 'puff up' around it on one side?
Though even if anyone agrees with me, I don't know what that would signify - a camera strap over his shoulder (were they that small then?), binoculars?
-
Could the board be a 'thermometer-style' fund raising board and that the photo is celebrating reaching the total?
Michael.
-
If your great grandfather (and/or the sign) was the focus of the photo, it seems a bit odd that he isn't seated in the middle - though you could also argue that by the rule of thirds, his position in the asymmetrical grouping is just as much the focus of the picture.
Interesting about the Butchers Charitable Institution. Was he son of Roland and Theresa, in 1881 census at RG11/3925 fo66 p34? If so, then his father was a butcher's assistant, so once orphaned, he might have been eligible for assistance there.
Can anyone narrow down the date based on what the guys are all wearing? I'm currently wondering if the picture might be of people from the institution, to mark his leaving or coming top in a exam etc. If he had been there, I suspect he would have left before getting married (in 1899).
I see the institution's records are at London Metropolitan Archives (ref. CLC/117):
https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mwimain.dll/144/LMA_OPAC/web_detail/REFD+CLC~2F117?SESSIONSEARCH
Click the Level Down button at the bottom to see all the individual items in the collection.
-
datewise 1908-12ish.
-
I have been squinting at the "sign"
When I tilt my laptop screen back a bit the image appears darker and I think I can see a full length image of a lady in a long dress with her hands clasped in front of her, it is more noticeable on the larger scan than the cropped one. I have tried to fiddle about with the image in IrfanView to make it clearer but I'm not very good at it.
Can anyone else see this or is it just my eyes ::)
-
datewise 1908-12ish.
Sorry - missed that. But Mhillbilly does say
...date wise this is definitely from about 1900 to 1913. In 1909 he was 30.
One of the books I consulted suggests moustaches may have been more common in the 1890s than the 1900s - and to my mind he looks closer in age to 20 than 30.
Jool - after playing with the levels a bit I can see what you mean, though I couldn't get anything more than a rough outline. I think some others are better at this than us.
-
Jool - after playing with the levels a bit I can see what you mean, though I couldn't get anything more than a rough outline. I think some others are better at this than us.
Arthur, I'm glad you can see it too, hopefully someone may be able to tweak it a bit.
-
Could it be some kind of marble ?
Maybe a butcher's slab??
-
Is it my imagination, or does he appear to have a strap over his left shoulder?
I know there is a dark line showing the edge of the body of the jacket on both sides, but it seems to me that the strap is making the shoulder of the jacket 'puff up' around it on one side?
Though even if anyone agrees with me, I don't know what that would signify - a camera strap over his shoulder (were they that small then?), binoculars?
I agree he does have something hanging from a strap on his shoulder. If he is standing, he is remarkably short but in fact, I think he is sitting on a tall stool or chair - an umpire's chair or perhaps a taller chair to get a better view of a race - pigeons? horses? dogs? The background seems rather odd with the lean-tos as well.
-
The man behind and to the left (as we look at it) of Rowland also has a strap over his left shoulder, but as Igor Strav has already said, I'm not sure what this would signify :-\
-
The background seems rather odd with the lean-tos as well.
I don't know that the background is so unusual - I've seen wedding photos with the group all dressed up to the nines (insofar as their income affords) evidently in the back garden with the shed and fence at the rear - and sometimes not even any flowers or grass to lighten the effect ;) ::)
-
wow thank you all for your thoughts and apologies for not being careful with my words
I should not have used definitely in my date statement, what I was trying to convey was that it was earlier rather than later. I think compared to other pictures of him that I have that are easier to date that the picture is no later than 1909 ish. as Rowland does appear younger looking.
Fact - he was orphaned after 1881, (census ref quoted is correct) he arrived in London after 1891 with his mother who had remarried. In the 1891 census he is listed under his mothers married name still in Lancashire. By 1901 census he is married and his mother is in SW London with her new husband. My assumption is they moved south sometime after 1891 and before 1899 when he married.
His mothers new husband was of the gentleman/merchant/professional class and evidence to suggest a reasonable relationship is that Rowland is listed under the new surname of Oliphant in the 1891 census and his first born child is given his step fathers name as a second name.
Fact he married in 1899 in St George Hanover Sq to Boots family that later moved to Fulham.
Fact in 1901 census he is down as butcher at meat market, is that Smithfield?
Now we move on to assumptions
The Butchers Charitable Institute was one of my assumptions, the coincidence of location, thanks for the link but I cannot seem to find a record only catalogue entries. Can anyone help?
The suggestion about the back yard location and straps on shoulders reminded me that my grandfather Roland Jnr was into pigeon racing so an assumption could be that is what the gathering is about.
Probably enough for now and thanks again for all the thoughts.
-
Late,I know,but it looks to me that the "sign" is a printing error.The shadow on the jacket appears to be continuous across the boundary.In the opening post does it not say "....it does not appear in the original...."?
Roger
-
Late,I know,but it looks to me that the "sign" is a printing error.The shadow on the jacket appears to be continuous across the boundary.In the opening post does it not say "....it does not appear in the original...."?
That's an interesting observation. I'd taken the phrase "....it does not appear in the original...." to mean it was equally illegible there, so maybe Mhillbilly can clarify that.
Meanwhile, you've inspired me to investigate further....
The image in my browser window (shrink to fit, and excluding the white margins) is about 227mm x 157mm. This is almost exactly the same proportion as a roll film negative image of 3.25" x 2.25" (approx 1.44:1); according to Wikipedia, this format was introduced in 1897. Other negative and plate sizes have different proportions - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format#Still_photography_film_formats
So, if the white 'sign' was not just a printing error, but an unexposed part of the paper caused by a piece of paper stuck on the negative, I calculate that the paper would have been about 0.84" x 0.27". And the two darker spots on the right of it - could they be holes made by a staple, or stitching? They seem to be about 0.31" apart.
Could this mean anything, or is it a bit fanciful? And why might it have happened? Was it a label that had been stuck on to identify the roll of film, but they had to use that image because it was the only one? Did the chap have his flies undone? Had a pigeon pooped on him?
As so often, more questions than answers...
-
Not sure about your piece of paper theory, Arthur. If you look closely there looks as if there's a shadow to the lower right of the column. It looks as if the sun was quite high in the sky. Also, the paper would look more obviously stuck on if it was a printing mistake.
I used to do such collages when I studied photography in the olden days ;D
Gadget
-
The chap on the back row 3rd from right looks to be holding something small in his hands and the chap on the front row far right looks to have something on his lap with maybe a fanned tail towards the right.
I think the board/sign is real as it's resting on the flagstone and there's a small dark shadow where it doesn't quite meet the uneven flag.
Perhaps Mhillbilly could post the original unenhanced photo in case anyone can spot anything on that?
Edited to put in bit I missed out!
-
The chap on the back row 3rd from right looks to be holding something small in his hands and the chap on the front row looks to have something on his lap with maybe a fanned tail towards the right.
I think the board/sign is real as it's resting on the flagstone and there's a small dark shadow where it doesn't quite meet the uneven flag.
Perhaps Mhillbilly could post the original unenhanced photo in case anyone can spot anything on that?
I thought the man in the back row has his left hand resting on the back of the chair in front of him.
Not sure which man in the front row is holding anything, which one are you looking at Alpinecottage?
Added: do you mean the man on the front right of the front row, whose right hand appears to have been unenhanced wrongly - too many fingers! Can't see that he's holding something.
-
Added: do you mean the man on the front right of the front row, whose right hand appears to have been unenhanced wrongly - too many fingers! Can't see that he's holding something.
Yes - our edits keep crossing each other! Are there feathers fanned out across his left leg?
On second thoughts, perhaps it's just the creases on his trouser leg up to the seam. Still think a look at the original pic would be useful!
-
The "white"area simply doesn't look "natural" to me,the edges are too sharp,the shape too uniform,as if it has been cut.
Roger
-
Is it a sign with no writing, a piece of paper stuck to the negative, a cover for his wooden leg, or is it that essential part of pigeon racing, the landing board from the loft which the bird recognises as his or her loft.
If and when the bird returns you grab it off the board and rush off to the timekeeper.
Mike
-
The "white"area simply doesn't look "natural" to me,the edges are too sharp,the shape too uniform,as if it has been cut.
Roger
Maybe they cut out the shadow as well, Roger.
It could be a plinth waiting to receive a trophy
-
The original of this photo is in the the UK whereas I am in NZ. My Aunt, Rowland's granddaughter inherited it from her father and he got it from Rowland (so it must have been important to him) as other pictures include family. I was able to take a photo on my mobile, that image I enhanced and posted with my initial post. The unenhanced photo is 1Mb and I cannot post.
I cropped out just Rowland for my second photo post.
The attached is the photo cropped to no white border and no backing board and sized to under 500k to be able to post.
Any advice on a better way to present the photo (more helpful to your collective efforts) would be welcome.
-
I have been squinting at the "sign"
When I tilt my laptop screen back a bit the image appears darker and I think I can see a full length image of a lady in a long dress with her hands clasped in front of her, it is more noticeable on the larger scan than the cropped one. I have tried to fiddle about with the image in IrfanView to make it clearer but I'm not very good at it.
Can anyone else see this or is it just my eyes ::)
Tipping a laptop back reveals the image of the man sitting with his legs together. This image is seen through a paper label/tape stuck on the photo. The next button down on his jacket can been seen through the paper label.
Tipping a laptop back also reveals that the paper label/tape is not part of the original image of the photo, but has been stuck on over the top and is a separate item.
So agree with Dispair.
Tony
-
I put this through PS to bring out any texture/shadow
Note the shadow to the right of the object.
-
I'm not convinced that is a shadow of the "object".What position do you believe the sun is in?
Roger
-
From the other shadows, it looks nearly overhead - say 11am or 2pm - ish.
We really need to see the original and, preferably, the neg/plate.
-
I've just noticed a darker mark on the jacket that is a continuation of the mark on the object. It could be a smudge on the photo when it was scanned or ......... ???
-
The sun would have to be behind/left to produce a shadow in that general area,and then,surely,it would start from the left hand bottom edge of the "object".
Roger
-
As I said in a previous post, we will really never know unless we see the original photograph or the negative/plate, and this is unlikely.
I've pushed this as far as I think it can go with texture and clarity, without too much sharpening.
-
It's the Finchley Shroud!
Roger
-
Looks like a marble slab to me.
-
Looks like a marble slab to me.
Could it be some kind of marble ?
Maybe a butcher's slab??
;D
-
We have one of those old biscuit box stands with a marble slab on the top.Grocers shops used to have them. Apparently they're going for mega bucks now but it cost £5 from an auction in Richmond, Yorks in about 1970. It's used as a bookcase now.
The marble top looks like the earlier snip that I did, but narrower.
-
Note the shadow to the right of the object.
The prominent dark stripe coming forward diagonally in front of the next man can't be a shadow, since a shadow coming forward would connect with the object at both of its bottom corners. To me, this almost looks like a scrap of carpet or matting. Or something attached to the object, perhaps?
However, I do agree that there could be a thin shadow along the object's bottom edge. This is because the line isn't of uniform thickness and has a darker spot towards the right, which could be due to the unevenness of the stone it's standing on.
The top of the object looks to me to have very little depth, so another thought is that it's some kind of lightweight metal plate. (Would that fit with mazi's suggestion of a pigeons' landing board?) But why it would be thought important enough to (presumably) be removed from the loft and included in a photo is beyond me.
-
Note the shadow to the right of the object.
The prominent dark stripe coming forward diagonally in front of the next man can't be a shadow, since a shadow coming forward would connect with the object at both of its bottom corners. To me, this almost looks like a scrap of carpet or matting. Or something attached to the object, perhaps
The top of the object looks to me to have very little depth, so another thought is that it's some kind of lightweight metal plate. (Would that fit with mazi's suggestion of a pigeons' landing board?) But why it would be thought important enough to (presumably) be removed from the loft and included in a photo is beyond me.
As I understand it the landing board is put in place only when birds are out of the loft, either racing or on their regular exercise flights, otherwise other birds would perch on it and harass the caged ones.
Pidgeons will sometimes circle the loft for a few minutes before landing. To get them to land, so you grab them and rush off to the timekeeper is vital, as a minute can easily decide a race, so the landing board is symbolic, really, it is the winning post.
I do wonder if it is a society meeting of some sort, and the men with badges hold some position within the society. I’ve got one, it says “judge” on it, I wear it at society meetings so I can be harassed by those that did not win :)
If it is a society meeting at that time it is not an elitist society.
Mike
-
It's the inaugural meeting of the UK Men’s Sheds Association movement, with their first donation, a Bay Window side shutter door.
Malky
-
.....and the celebrity performing the opening ceremony,back row,fourth from right is the actor Brian Murphy(George Roper)!
Roger
-
I've been looking at that building back left. Mazi could be right with the landing board. The building looks like some of the old pigeon lofts.
-
"The building looks like some of the old pigeon lofts," or the old salmon fishing station at Newburgh/Port Errol, Aberdeenshire.
Malky
-
We have missed a vital bit.
Welcome to rootschat mhillbilly. You must be wondering if you made the right decision :D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mike
-
"The building looks like some of the old pigeon lofts," or the old salmon fishing station at Newburgh/Port Errol, Aberdeenshire.
Malky
.. and the medals/badges are for those who had won ;D
Didn't have salmon fishing stations in Finchley back then ;D
-
......so it's a gathering celebrating the loft board guano deposit of the year?
(I feel it's entirely credible that it is a pigeon fancier/racer association,but somehow,that just doesn't look like a real board).
Roger
-
Rotate the picture to have the "holes" on the board at the top. Play with the contrast and see which letters are visible.
Malky
-
Admittedly, I haven’t read every post in the seven pages of this thread but I do think that people are missing a trick with respect to the white “board”. I think that it could simply be a “spoiler”.
A photographer turns up and takes a photo of some sort of gathering hoping to sell umpteen copies to the participants. Every potential purchaser needs to see the photo but the photographer doesn’t want to loose a sale so marks the “sample” photo by placing a piece of tape or card on the negative or simply over part of the image on his enlarging easel to make the image unacceptable for display but not obscuring any important detail so everyone can see themselves.
The result - a large white obtrusive mark on the print!
-
The OP says that it's in the original print. If so, it must have been stuck on the neg (what size was the neg/plate) or is a genuine object or the original wasn't the original.
-
The OP says that it's in the original print. If so, it must have been stuck on the neg (what size was the neg/plate) or is a genuine object or the original wasn't the original.
Anything more or less opaque coming between the printers illumination source and the paper they were printing on would produce this result in exactly the same way as muck on your negative will end up as white spots on your print.
-
The OP says that it's in the original print. If so, it must have been stuck on the neg (what size was the neg/plate) or is a genuine object or the original wasn't the original.
Anything more or less opaque coming between the printers illumination source and the paper they were printing on would produce this result in exactly the same way as muck on your negative will end up as white spots on your print.
Ray
Please read what I said. Stuck on = place on by whatever means.(add - on neg or printing paper)
I know about printing techniques. I studied photography to postgrad level and taught 'creative photograhy ' on degree courses.
Add - if it wasn't close to or on the neg, the edges would not be so distinct. Also, it could be that that area was masked from the developer solution while processing.
-
The OP says that it's in the original print. If so, it must have been stuck on the neg (what size was the neg/plate) or is a genuine object or the original wasn't the original.
See my post from a few days ago:
The image in my browser window (shrink to fit, and excluding the white margins) is about 227mm x 157mm. This is almost exactly the same proportion as a roll film negative image of 3.25" x 2.25" (approx 1.44:1); according to Wikipedia, this format was introduced in 1897. Other negative and plate sizes have different proportions - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format#Still_photography_film_formats
So, if the white 'sign' was not just a printing error, but an unexposed part of the paper caused by a piece of paper stuck on the negative, I calculate that the paper would have been about 0.84" x 0.27". And the two darker spots on the right of it - could they be holes made by a staple, or stitching? They seem to be about 0.31" apart.
If I'm right about the original being on roll film rather than more expensive glass plate, then it occurs to me that Ray might be partially correct:
A photographer turns up and takes a photo of some sort of gathering hoping to sell umpteen copies to the participants. Every potential purchaser needs to see the photo but the photographer doesn’t want to loose a sale so marks the “sample” photo by placing a piece of tape or card on the negative or simply over part of the image on his enlarging easel to make the image unacceptable for display but not obscuring any important detail so everyone can see themselves.
The result - a large white obtrusive mark on the print!
With roll film it would be a fairly simple matter to take more than one shot, so could the photographer have taken two or more, planning to use the best one for copies to sell? One of the less good ones could be passed around to solicit orders, and if it had a label on it there would be much less chance of someone taking it as a good one without paying.
-
The OP says that it's in the original print. If so, it must have been stuck on the neg (what size was the neg/plate) or is a genuine object or the original wasn't the original.
Anything more or less opaque coming between the printers illumination source and the paper they were printing on would produce this result in exactly the same way as muck on your negative will end up as white spots on your print.
Ray
Please read what I said. Stuck on = place on by whatever means.(add - on neg or printing paper)
I know about printing techniques. I studied photography to postgrad level and taught 'creative photograhy ' on degree courses.
Add - if it wasn't close to or on the neg, the edges would not be so distinct. Also, it could be that that area was masked from the developer solution while processing.
I’ve no idea what I’ve said that’s wrong. Perhaps I should read “Man and Superman”?
-
thanks for all the help
lesson learnt that access to the original photo will maximise chance to get a result
learnt that others looking always gives a different perspective
learnt that speculation helps but can also send you down blind alleys
what I can say
probably a club or society gathering, highly likely in London
roughly circa 1900-1909, although likely in the earlier part of that range