COMPLETED, thank you - Please help with photo date

[TeeBee]

Unfortunately I do not know where the original is now but here is a scan of who we believe to be John McConnell but it would help a great deal if someone out there is able to date the image to help us confirm this.  John's dates are 1844 - 1892. 

I have tried (unsuccessfully ) to find the photographer which looks like J Alf Culshaw to me but cannot find him/her listed for 119 High Street West, Sunderland.

As I mentioned before I no longer have the original - just the scan of the front only.  From memory it was on thick embossed card and was a cabinet card size.

Here's hoping you lovely Rootschat people can come up trumps as you seem to do so impressively!

Thank you in advance.

[PrueM]

Hi Tee Bee

I would say this is a reprint/enlargement of something originally taken in the 1870s or thereabouts.  There is a lack of detail and a lot of graininess in the image to suggest this, and the edges have been chopped off (most obvious at the toes!).  The card looks like a late 1890s/1900s design.

Cheers
Prue

[TeeBee]

Thank you Prue, this fits in with our thoughts on it being John McC. 

Tracy

[jim1]

I think a bit earlier at late 1860's.This is pretty much a standard pose for a standing man 1860's.The reason for this is the posing stand that's behind his left leg not seen in the 1870's owing to improvements in lenses.
jim

[TeeBee]

Thank you jim1.

Just to add more info - at some point around this time 1860s- 1878, he was living in Southern Ireland (his first child was born in Ireland 1878 but second born in Sunderland).  Would the same dating for posing stands occur in Eire?

[jim1]

Up to around 1870 lenses were quite primitive & required the sitter to remain absolutely still to avoid blurring.A posing stand ran up behind the sitter & was clamped to the head.One of the obvious signs of blurring was the foreground of the photo which has been removed here in the reprint.
Photographers would have been aware of all the latest equipment & techniques & would want to keep current as photography was becoming very competitive.
This was probably brought over from Ireland & reprinted later in Sunderland.
If you have this can you show the back as that will give us a better idea of when this occurred.
jim

[chinakay]

He doesn't have the original Jim.

A fascinating photo, rather unusual I think.

Actually it's not bad for a reprint, and it's definitely a reprint. But we've seen some awful ones here on the board, because before the invention of the photographic enlarger, the only way to make a reprint without a negative (which would probably still have been in Ireland) was to photograph it. This resulted in an indistinct and fuzzy-looking photo. So the photographer would paint over it in places, in an effort to restore some of the detail lost.

This one has a little enhancement going on at the hairline, but on the whole it's been left alone. Overpainting became really popular in the 1890s and early 1900s.

So my guess is that this is a memorial photo done shortly after John's death in 1892.

Cheers,
China

[jim1]

The earliest on the photographer in Sunderland is mid 1890's before that he was living elsewhere.His daughter was born 1895 in Haslingdon.1901 he's in Sunderland.
jim

[TeeBee]

Thank you all - Prue, Jim & China for your comments  - this is absolutely fascinating and amazing what you have been able to garner from this image. 

I had a sudden flash of inspiration and have just found the original   Unfortunately the back is blank except for an handwritten number in ink in the top left corner (53406).

In terms of measurement it is 6.5 x 4.25inches (167mm x 107mm) and is probably 1mm in thickness.

There is an embossed design on bottom left and right corners.

Cheers

Tracy