Is this a Glass Negative Please!

[IgorStrav]

The photographer has certainly moved by the rh photo, as not only has the shed door angle changed, but you can see the old gate (or whatever it is) in the rh picture and it's only on the edge of the lh one.

I like Paula's grandma hypothesis, though.    it doesn't necessarily rule that one out.

[PaulaToo]

They have certainly left a space for her, Igor.

[Rabbit B]

Hi Folks,

My other half thinks that this is and old paper negative which goes in a big camera which winds it on.

That paper in the camera is impregnated with a light sensitive surface.  The picture is taken like a cine film where it is rolled along inside the camera.

This explains why the face in the window has dissapeared and the men on the right have moved slightly from the picture on the left. note the very slight difference in the face angles.

This is he thinks a carbon print.  Light sensitive paper was an early invention with bichromate [which preceded bromide and dry plates, used instead of silver,] it was developed with a weak solution of ammonia and water.  Thus the picture was produced!

I know nothing about these things!  But 'he is the expert'  he did this sort of thing as an apprentice!

Rabbit B

[PrueM]

It's definitely on glass, though, Rabbit...not a carbon print 

My guess is that, as Tony suggested, it's a glass negative that was exposed one half at a time (which would have been possible with a dry plate - so after 1880-ish) and was intended to be used as a negative in order to print up a stereo positive on paper...someone decided they'd try to make it look like an Ambrotype and painted it black on the back, but the effect is not quite right, because Ambrotypes were under-exposed negatives using collodion emulsion, and this is a fully-exposed negative using a gelatin emulsion.  So it looks a bit dull and not very contrasty.

[PaulaToo]

What ever it is, it's a smashing picture.

[Rabbit B]

Looking over this one again...see the distance between the arms of the two men...it's different in each photo. Also the distance between the woman's head and the arm of the man closest to her...it's different. Definitely 2 different photos, and I think too much of a diff just to account for it being a stereo photo...just my opinion...

Cheers,
China

Hi China,

OH agrees with you entirely about the two pictures, sometimes they were joined together so that one could be 'touched up' [printing term] with the original in sight.  OH has done it so often you see.

He is adamant that that is is a paper neg, because that also accounts for it being dark like that!

Sorry Prue, I am just doing the writing! he is sticking to  his guns on this one.  Please don't shoot the scribe!  I know nooooothing!

Me, I agree with PaulaToo, it is a nice picture!

Rabbit B 

[Treetotal]

Hi Guys...Sorry I haven't responded sooner but I havehad Family staying over for the week-end.
Wow what interesting points of view and how knowledgeable you all are on photographic techniques.

Prue...Thanks for the tweaked version..it's so much easier to see...it is on glass measuring six and a half by four and a quarter inches and the back is  painted black!...The damaged areas is where the paint has worn away.

Paula...thanks too for your lovely restore...I'ts much appreciated

Emjaybee....If you enjoy what you do and people appreciate your efforts...that's all that matters....you can only get better ....Your work can always get better....the person who made that remark...will always be rude

Thank you all for your time, your imput and your interest

Carol

[lookingforold]

I think that the person in the window is someone inside, NOT a reflection. The head is the same size as those in the pictures. If it were a reflection of the photographer, as the image has to travel twice the distance, being a picture of a relection, it would be a lot smaller. That's my thoughts anyway. I think it was a 'onlooker' and moved away after they thought the picture had been finished after the first shot, or had looked out as the second shot was taken.

[abergynolwyn]

Having looked carefully at the copies of the picture one can say:
a) the picture is on glass
b) it is stereoscopic but the one glass plate shows two images taken a short while apart in time because of slight movements in the foreground figures and the disappearance of the face at the window
c) the glass has black paint at the back
d) the figures are dressed in clothes that date the image possibly to the middle to late 1850s and certainly not much later than 1860.

The picture is therefore almost certainly an ambrotype, and an unusual one, since although ambrotypes are very common stereoscopic ambrotypes are quite rare.  But quite how this particular image was produced is a little puzzle since the two differing images, presumably negatives if this is indeed a true ambrotype, are on the same glass plate.  This suggests that after exposing half the plate a single lens was slid across the front of the camera for the second exposure of the other half of the plate.  I do not know. 

Abergynolwyn