Complete - Peter Laing Gordon - Date Estimate Please

[PrueM]

That's lovely, Bruce - how lucky you are 

I guess without undoing the frame we're never going to know what the paint or pastel is covering.  I think we can be confident that it is some kind of photo though.  I'd be surprised if it is a Daguerreotype simply because the surface of those is so delicate that it would be difficult to (a) paint over it without the image disappearing, and (b) see enough of the detail while painting to render it accurately.

[Treetotal]

For me this image fails on so many levels as being an overpainted photo...There are so many irregularities in the proportions of his body...the knee nearest the camera should be bigger and more exaggerated...the ear is too small and set too far back in his head and his upper left side is out of proportion...there doesn't appear to be a light source with corresponding shadows..When I opened it in Elements...the support looks grainy like Ingress paper which is the preferred support of artists for using Oil or Chalk Pastels.
Could this be the answer:

http://inventors.about.com/od/weirdmuseums/ig/Illustrated-History-Photograph/Joseph-Nicephore-Niepce-s-heli.htm

Carol

[PrueM]

Hi Carol

Definitely not a Niepce, but I see where you're coming from re. the texture...I am sure that the shiny/grainy bits we can see in the photo of the picture are where some medium has been added to indicate depth/dimension.  Something like gum arabic or ox gall...a watercolour medium.  I've seen it before on miniature watercolours on paper.

I know some of the proportions of the body and face are wrong but I'm convinced it is an overpainted photo.  I can only guess that in the process of painting in the ground/body colour, some sense of the correct outlines was lost and the painter then did their best to make it up.  It could have been something like the old way of portrait painting, when the master did the face and an assistant (not quite so good!) did the remainder...big guesses here, though!

[Treetotal]

Hi Prue...I can't speak from a photographic point of view but from an artist's point of view...gum arabic added to water colour would serve to thin the paint and the finish here is thick and heavy and quite oily...so I'm not convinced that this is a water colour.
I have had closer look at this.....and there are elements to image that give me reason to believe that it could be an overpainting for reasons that you have already pointed out...the dog toothed check on the trousers would be difficult to replicate in such fine detail...the features are excellent and if this was a piece of my art work I would be very pleased to be able to achieve this level of accuracy...There are also dark areas that have been missed in the colouring process that indicate and underlying image that I had missed on first looking at it....which led me to the possible theory of it being a Niepce...but I bow to your superior knowledge on this.

I guess we will never know for sure but the inconsistencies in this lovely image cast some doubt for me.
But it has certainly captured my imagination

Carol

[gordonbb]

Thanks again.

I will definitely be making an attempt to get this image copied either by flying out to visit my cousins at some point or paying for them to take it in to a conservator to get them to copy it (and check to see if it needs any love).

Finding images from the 1870s - 1880s is exciting enough but finding an image of an ancestor that predates common photography, especially one who is of such personal interest, is WOW.

I had a look at my copy of Naomi Rosenblum's A World History of Photography[/u] and Todd Gustavson's Camera: A History of Photography from Daguerreotype to Digital[/u] last night and in one of them is an exploded view of a Daguerreotype from George Eastman house.  About the only way this could be a Daguerreotype would be if it was painted over top of the glass.

We also have to remember that this was made in Scotland and there were many early adopters of Calotypes also in the area (David Octavius Hill etc).  Although if this is a DO Hill that someone has painted on that would almost be criminal!

[PrueM]

I have seen the overpainted textured thing before and had to restore some of it - it was definitely thick gum arabic over dried watercolour   Whether this one is watercolour I don't know (don't think so, at least not in some parts), but I think it's a similar technique of adding a clear medium over the paint.  It's only really in the bits where more depth is needed (dark folds of the coat etc.).

The checks on the leg could be explained by the colour being a wash over the original photo...

Bruce, if it ever gets taken to a conservator, I'd love you to tell us what they determine it is    We can speculate until the cows come home (and probably will) 

Cheers
Prue