RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Shamrockgirl on Saturday 14 December 19 08:07 GMT (UK)
-
Hi I am blessed to have this photo of my great great grandmother Maryanne O'Loughlin nee Dunne 1822 - 1894 and my great grandfather Michael O'Loughlin 1856 - 1940. I would love to see it in colour if at all possible please.
Rosenallis Laois Ireland
-
What an interesting photo! you are lucky to have it. 8)
I am wondering if you have the right people - this looks like late 1850s early 1860s to me and the man and woman don't look to be a generation apart. :-\ :-\ Also the man/boy would be much younger according to your dates.
I could be wrong - if you go back to your first post and incorporate 'Dating' in your thread title, it will bring in those who know better than I.
Wiggy
-
Before I read your comment Wiggy, I had misread the opening post and thought they were supposed to be husband and wife and thought “no way” he is much younger than her.
So I think they ARE a generation apart.
Michael has a scruffy beard, and born 1856, so would have to be at least 1870, more likely closer to 1875.
Added....on closer inspection, it’s not pathetic facial hair, but fuzziness in the image.
I’ve just been looking through my family photographs of the time. And agree late 1860s
-
I do think they are a generation apart.
She is possibly 40/45 ish, and he may be a teenager.
So given she was born 1822, that could make the photograph about 1867, and if he was born 1856 that would make him 11. He's possibly a couple of years older than that, but it could possibly fit.
Do things change a lot between 'early 1860s' and late 1860s Wiggy?
Was the photograph taken in Ireland Shamrockgirl?
Just thinking fashions may not have changed quite so quickly there as in, say, London.
-
Bit of colour - John.
-
Fabulous photo.
Something that strikes me is that the placement of the male seems odd. It might just be my imagination and due to his position behind the woman, but he seems really small and “far away”, as though his photo was superimposed behind her.
Looking at his small size I would proportionally expect him to have been standing further behind her rather than directly behind her chair. I know he is young, therefore smaller, but for him to be standing close to her his legs would have to be really long to touch the floor. He may be standing on something?
-
I thought he was sitting on a chair which is perhaps then on a platform behind her :-\
-
See what you mean about possibly sitting on a chair - specially the way his hand is positioned.
OK he could be her son, but he has quite a lot of facial hair hasn't he. :) :-\
Do things change a lot between 'early 1860s' and late 1860s Wiggy?
I don't know - which is why I suggested the OP put dating into the original title of the thread! ;) As much as anything, it is the way the male's neck cloth/tie is done which makes me think earlier. Also the shawl and head-dress the woman is wearing - but I am no expert! :)
-
I thought the “boy” was standing because of the way his hand is by his side. He may be holding a hat. I think he is on some kind of raised platform though.
Mckha suggested shadow rather than beard. Although he is wearing nice clothes he does come across as being a bit scruffy - maybe it is his face which seems a bit ruffian like. ;)
I can’t determine his age but keep looking at his hair line wondering if it is receding, though it is probably the way his hair is combed that gives me that impression. :-\
-
I think he is quite young, and yes, sitting on a bench/platform etc, as per his hand resting on his knee... Also I think I can see flesh under his chin and above the collar of his shirt, and that causes me to wonder if that is only a shadow on his jaw rather than a beard ... so I am suggesting there's no real significant growth of a full face beard and that seems to be a clean upper lip too... and he does not have his other hand displayed touching the lady. I have several photos from late 1860s where the husband is seated and the wife standing resting her hand on his shoulder or arm etc...
JM
-
I don't think he has a beard or moustache - just alot of hair down the side of his face.
-
I think it's just damage/shadow that makes him look hairy. I also think his head looks smaller than the lady's.
Just a B&W cleanup from me.
Peter
-
I don't think he has a beard or moustache - just alot of hair down the side of his face.
Ohhhhh .... I thought that was the shadow of his head on the canvas behind him.... :D
JM
-
Hi all, interesting observation, they are definitely mother and son, their dates are exact I have seen their grave .. one of her son's was a parish priest. The cleaned up black and white photo shows his hair more accurately there is quite a bit of shadow on mine, he didn't have long hair or facial hair as he was only 10 or 11 in the picture. He still had a full head of hair on his death bed so he wasn't recceding either lol. He is sitting down in the picture. It was taken circa 1870. It was taken in Ireland too, so yes the fashion / style may have been slower to catch up.
I love to look at this picture so to see it in colour is a great. Thank you so much to everyone so far x
-
I wondered why he was posed on a platform rather than sitting or standing behind his mother.
Thinking further about it, if he had been standing beside his mother he may have been the same height as her, so the composition would not have looked right. He would have looked odd standing in front of her or sitting beside her, so raising him makes sense. ;)
-
Interesting photo. I agree I think this is a young boy stood on a step behind his mother, but there does seem to be a shoe peeping out from her skirt on the right hand side as you look at the photo.
Pat
-
My version
-
One more for the pile
-
My guess would be mid-late 60s and I think the lad is holding a hat.
Carol
-
My guess would be mid-late 60s and I think the lad is holding a hat.
Carol
I agree he's holding something, Carol, and by the position of his hand, possibly a cap? Would that be more appropriate for his young age?
-
I think it is some kind of hat with a badge on - something akin to a naval hat. Maybe he as a cadet of some kind :-\
I've been looking at this photo on and off since it went up. To me, it is as mid to late 1860s, as Carol says, but the lady's face looks younger than mid-late 40s, which she would be. However, her hands do look older.
Gadget
-
I think it is some kind of hat with a badge on - something akin to a naval hat. Maybe he as a cadet of some kind :-\
I've been looking at this photo on and off since it went up. To me, it is as mid to late 1860s, as Carol says, but the lady's face looks younger than mid-late 40s, which she would be. However, her hands do look older.
Gadget
I think it's a very broad-brimmed hat, hanging downwards next to his legs. I wondered if it was a midshipman's hat too.
-
This is where I see the hat.
-
Mid 19th century midshipman's hat.
-
Peter thank you i love it.
-
Mike wow i didn't see the hat. Impressed
-
My guess would be mid-late 60s and I think the lad is holding a hat.
Carol
Hi it was nearer 1870 my great grandfather pictured was born in 1856. His mother pictured was born in 1922 so she would have been about 48.
-
Stunning versions in colour. You are all so talented thank you x ;D ;D
-
My guess would be mid-late 60s and I think the lad is holding a hat.
Carol
Hi it was nearer 1870 my great grandfather pictured was born in 1856. His mother pictured was born in 1922 so she would have been about 48.
Oh okay...Well you should know that dating is not an exact science.
Carol
-
I'd been wondering whether a date in the 1860s might be a little too early. The lad looks to me possibly around 14-15, which would push it into the early 1870s. But there might be other things that would help with the dating.
Shamrockgirl - is there anything else you can tell us about the photo itself, or if possible show us in a scan? eg: size, mount, anything printed on the back, anything indicating the photographic process used? These things can help enormously with dating, but please don't damage it if this kind of thing isn't immediately obvious.
The other thing is that the image you posted looked to be in greyscale, and the deep contrast meant that there's little or no detail to be seen in the darker areas. Would it be possible for you to scan it again with less contrast? Full colour mode might also help to bring out extra details.
Someone mentioned what looks like a foot sticking out from the lady's dress, and I'm wondering if that might be clearer with another scan. In the early days of photography exposures were very long, and it was common to use various stands, supports etc to help people keep still, so could this be part of one of those?
-
It looks to be an ambrotype which would be glass and the back would be painted black and there would be no information on the back, or it could be a tintype which can be identified by placing a magnet on the back, neither of these photographic processes identify the photographer. It does look as though some attempt at restoration could have been carried out previously as there is some blurring of the image. If it is an 1870s image it would be more likely to be a Carte de Visite. Just my take on it. Lovely image in great condition for it's age.
Carol
-
Arthurk, looking at an enlargement of the photo again. I realise now that it is a darker fold of her dress.
Pat
-
Arthurk, looking at an enlargement of the photo again. I realise now that it is a darker fold of her dress.
Pat
Yes I think so Pat...the angle is wrong for it to be a foot.
Carol
-
Interesting thread! Arthurk beat me to it on the type of photo :)
Shamrockgirl, do you have the original? Is it glass, or is it printed on cardboard? We would really like to see a scan of the original if possible, scanned in colour for better shading and detail.
If it's a printed photo it's likely a copy, but we'd like to see a scan of the entire thing if possible, including the outer corners of the mount.
First impression is late 1850s-early 60s as well. But there's a lot riding on the type of photo :)
Cheers,
China
-
Shamrockgirl~
Did Maryanne O'Loughlin have any sons who were older than Michael?
Gadget
-
Shamrockgirl~
Did Maryanne O'Loughlin have any sons who were older than Michael?
Gadget
[/quoste]
Hi yes two
-
Wow I'm blown away you guys know your stuff. I know the date of the picture 1870 but I don't have the original. I just took a photo with my phone from my family history book.
-
Shamrockgirl~
Did Maryanne O'Loughlin have any sons who were older than Michael?
Gadget
I was also wondering if the sitters may have been misidentified.
Shamrockgirl, would you be able to contact the owner of the photo and ask them to take a scan for you?
-
Not sure if this is any help but I think this is a photo of Michael as an older man
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=782800.msg6373853#msg6373853
-
A couple of snips for comparison
-
Not sure if this is any help but I think this is a photo of Michael as an older man
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=782800.msg6373853#msg6373853
His distinctive brow line didn't change much.
-
A couple of snips for comparison
That's a good call Gadget 8)
Carol
-
The deep set eyes and lie of the mouth are very similar.
I misspelled Shamrock :-[
-
Good one Gadget :) The shape of the nose and nostrils look spot on too.
-
Good one Gadget :) The shape of the nose and nostrils look spot on too.
I would agree with that too Jools, even the hairline is the same.
Carol
-
Good one Gadget :) The shape of the nose and nostrils look spot on too.
I would agree with that too Jools, even the hairline is the same.
Carol
Yes you're right Carol, the hairline is a match too. I'm sure they are both Michael.
It's quite a sad photo of Michael in later life, he doesn't look well does he, bless him.
-
Just found his death cert. He died of myocarditis :'(
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1940/04720/4261488.pdf
-
Most excellent work gadget ! Well spotted.
-
Not sure if this is any help but I think this is a photo of Michael as an older man
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=782800.msg6373853#msg6373853
Wow yes it is . I have photos of his brothers at the same time. It's definately him
-
Just found his death cert. He died of myocarditis :'(
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1940/04720/4261488.pdf
Wow. He was in bed for a long time
-
A couple of snips for comparison
Lol I said earlier when he was on his death bed he had a lot of hair. I have a few photos inbetween x
-
Good finds Gadget - looks like a match to me. :)
-
His death entry and a few others on the page seem to have been entered much later. I'm not sure why.
He died on 23 June 1940 but the death wasn't registered until 13th of September of that year (corrected from 30th)
Gadget
-
Good catch, Gadget! I’d say it’s him too.
But the first photo is not 1870s, the lady’s fashion is way out of date for the 70s. A photographic portrait was very much an occasion and any lady would be sure to be dressed as up-to-date as possible. The lady’s dress is late 1850s-early 1860s. Photo styles were changing rapidly around this time too, especially from glass to printed on paper, so that’s why we want to see the original if possible.
Cheers,
China
-
I think we said mid-late 1860s, China. He was born 1856. I'd say he looks 10-12. maybe.
It was rural Eire Co Laois/Queens
Gadget
-
Wow I'm blown away you guys know your stuff. I know the date of the picture 1870 but I don't have the original. I just took a photo with my phone from my family history book.
Could you elaborate on how you know the date of the photo please, is there information with the photo and can you tell us when his Brothers were born?
Carol
-
I've been looking through the Irish records (Queens Co in those days), Carol, but it's too early for Civil reg and nothing in RC records, although the family were RC (from 1911 census).
-
Lol I said earlier when he was on his death bed he had a lot of hair. I have a few photos inbetween x
Could you scan and put them up, please. Also, maybe, any pics of his brothers.
-
It looks like the photo might be a copy:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=442823.msg3064887#msg3064887
Carol
-
It looks like the photo might be a copy:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=442823.msg3064887#msg3064887
Carol
Good grief - I thought I'd seen her before :o
Added - it looks as if the ears might be showing under her bonnet.
-
Me too...the more I looked at it, it seemed familiar. That's what made me look.
Nice Job :)
Carol
-
I've enlarged and sharpened the restore that I did 9 years ago to show the head more clearly. I think the hair does look as if it might be behind her ears.
Gadget
(Note -this is one of my restores so would prefer it not to be used for restoration/colouring purposes, Thanks. The original, unrestored version is still on the board )
-
The lady’s dress is late 1850s-early 1860s. Photo styles were changing rapidly around this time too, especially from glass to printed on paper, so that’s why we want to see the original if possible.
Good to see others - including Gadget, Carol and Chinakay think this is a much earlier photo than 1870. That was my impression too (see first reply on this thread.) Very interesting. I think she looks younger than 40s too.
-
I don't think we did, Wiggy.
China said it was 1860s in the early thread (see Carol's link) and, given her hair looks as if it was behind her ears, it's most likely mid-late 1860s as Carol and I said.
Gadget
-
Sorry - I misunderstood - I was particularly looking at China's reply at #53. :)
-
It was this one
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=442823.msg3059129#msg3059129
Reply #4
The photo on that thread is much better
add- I'm going through the Irish records to see if I can find any further evidence. Also, I think this is another photo of Michael
(https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=442827.0;attach=173166;image)
-
Another picture of him
-
And another
-
Hi all regarding dating the picture the dress may seem older but we are talking the middle of Ireland and a farming family so although they had money they weren't in London or New York however I'm certainly no expert but that is definitely my great grandfather.
-
One of the brothers
-
Where I got the picture. I don't know who has the original
-
Sorry I see he was born in 1857
-
Patrick, brother of Michael died, aged 62 in 1920, so born circa 1858
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1921/05103/4402159.pdf
Do you know when the other brother, Thomas, was born?
Gadget
-
Patrick, brother of Michael died, aged 62 in 1920, so born circa 1858
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/deaths_returns/deaths_1921/05103/4402159.pdf
Do you know when the other brother, Thomas, was born?
Gadget
[/quote 1864 I think he died in America
-
Sorry - I've just read the text and see that Thomas was born 1854.
Thomas 1854
Michael 1857
Patrick 1858.
The text also refers to the photo as Mary Anne with the middle son. Thus, it seems that the photo can't be much earlier that 1866-8.
Gadget
-
That sums it up nicely Gadget, having all the facts makes a big difference to the outcome but to be fair, Shamrockgirl never asked for a date ;)
Carol
-
No but it was brought up early on and the discussion turned to dating. As Wiggy says, she mentioned it in her first reply. I came in yesterday, originally about the hat and, by then, the the dating seemed to have been the primary topic.
Gadget
-
Thank you all for your time and experience I have learnt so much.