Author Topic: Is this photograph "faked" Grandma Palmer  (Read 14581 times)

Offline Glen in Tinsel Kni

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Scottish Borders
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #63 on: Sunday 21 October 07 19:54 BST (UK) »
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.

Offline Irishjust

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 10
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #64 on: Sunday 21 October 07 21:18 BST (UK) »
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.
Barry, Brown, Burns, Davitt, Eagens, Fanning, Gilmartin, Griffin, Kirk, McCaslin, McCausland, Montgomery, O'Donnell, Savage, Smith, Tague

Offline PrueM

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,637
  • Please don't try to PM me :)
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #65 on: Sunday 21 October 07 21:50 BST (UK) »
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

Offline Glen in Tinsel Kni

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Scottish Borders
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #66 on: Sunday 21 October 07 22:04 BST (UK) »
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.


Offline griz

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 576
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #67 on: Monday 22 October 07 00:14 BST (UK) »
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.
Boyle, Co. Leitrim  Boyle, Co. Tyrone, Shaughnessy, Co. Limerick, and  Manchester, UK.  Pope, Cheshire. Chadwick, Speke, Lancs.  Frankish, Hunmanby, Yorks.  Brindley, Audley, Staffs and  Middlesex.

Offline jc26red

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,355
  • Census information Crown Copyright.
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #68 on: Monday 22 October 07 00:19 BST (UK) »
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
Please acknowledge when a restorer works on your photos, it can take hours for them to work their magic

Please scan at 300dpi minimum to help save the restorers eyesight.

Offline Glen in Tinsel Kni

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,463
  • Scottish Borders
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #69 on: Monday 22 October 07 03:32 BST (UK) »
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.

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,276
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #70 on: Monday 22 October 07 04:57 BST (UK) »
That boy is 50 years old!!!!???

Offline dollylee

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 916
    • View Profile
Re: Is this photograph "faked"
« Reply #71 on: Monday 22 October 07 05:02 BST (UK) »
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