A very old photograph

[Kraellin]

yes, you can cut thin steel with tinsnips, but you're probably right about the cost and availability. steel was relatively new back then. it's just a curiosity. someone, somewhere, at some time relatively recently, had mentioned something about steel tintypes, and i had just assumed it was steel until you had said otherwise. but, either way, it's a fascinating piece of history and technology.

well, you certainly caught my detail slip, so, good on ya!

i've started the restoring on the two ladies. i was also over at the folk's place today and asked my mother about a daughter of gggrandmom. all she had to say on it was that maybe and if so, then the daughter would have been my grandmother's mother, helen. and that's about all she came up with. dad, on the other hand, uses that geneology program on his computer and has a bunch of stuff on there going back to the 1200's, but i think that's mostly only tracing his side of the family currently. so, i'll have to check that when i can also.

one thing i've tried to see on the two tintypes is the background like you suggested. so far, it's difficult to tell. on the women one, there is something painted into the backdrop on the right of the picture, a dark column or tree-like image. i can find nothing similar on the male one. but, we both know that angles and lighting and backdrops changed, so that doesnt really tell me anything yet.

i was also talking to one of my brothers today and discussing this. i mentioned that i thought they might have been husband and wife, but why wouldnt they have taken one together? i mentioned the 'daughter' being in the one and we somewhat concluded that, in those times, daughters simply didnt do anything without an escort, usually a parent, ergo mother being with her in the one shot, and that dad was relagated to having his own done as the picture might have gotten too crowded for detail with the technology available back then. it's all supposition, of course, but did sort of make some sense. however, that doesnt stand up very well in light of the fact that i've got another tintype with four gentlemen in it.... so, back to the drawing board

at any rate, it's a pleasant little mystery and yes, all us males are good looking. thanks gggrandad

Craig

[Kraellin]

alright, thought i'd whet your whistle a bit more here. i dont know who this one is. again, no markings that i can find and my mother doesnt know either. not sure if this was taken at the same place by the same person or not. the backdrop is much clearer in this one. i hope that comes through in this lower resolution. the compression was fairly severe in going to .jpg to post here. had to set it to about 20 to get it within 100k.

the tintype is slightly larger on this one, but not by much. it's not bent as badly as some of the others either. the laquer or varnish on the back is nearly black on this one, with no streaking whatsoever and the only mars to that are a tiny bit of 'bubbling' here and there.

the thing i was looking for here was the backdrop like you suggested. since this one is quite clear and gggrandmum's was so deteriorated, i was hoping that i could use this new one to reconstruct the other. but, i cant say for sure if it's the same backdrop or not. hardly seems so, but maybe.

and the other reason for posting this one is the period clothing. my word, such dark clothing and nary an ankle to show off and since you've taken a bit of interest in these, i thought you might enjoy it

also, i did one pass of 'sharpen more' to compensate for the .jpg loss here.

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Wow, she has several classic details that point to the period of 1878-1882. The curly fringed bangs were in vogue about this time and even though the shawl covers the back of her head, her hair is probably in a large braid or bun high on the back of her head.

The bodice of her dress ends just below the waist which is another indicator of the period along with the skirt that falls straight over the hips. Skirts before and after this period had draped overskirts, almost like an apron. (Look again at the skirt on the younger woman in your first tintype.)

Without restoration it is difficult to tell about jewelry and the size of the buttons on the bodice but the parasol was an important fashion accessory during this time period.

She is probably middle aged and married or widowed. The dark clothes may have been mourning clothes or she may have been traveling and wearing garments that would not look rumpled or dirty.

I love the background and the twig chair. Have fun with this one.

Yes, as the song goes, "In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking,. . ." It left everything to the imagination!

And beer is for wetting whistles!

[Kraellin]

And beer is for wetting whistles!

hehe, well, i owe you one then. thank you

you're really quite into this, arent you. i'll have to remember that as i go along through the rest of these. i can post more of these if you like. i hate to wear out my welcome, though. so entirely up to you. it takes little to scan these and prep them for here, so it's not a problem for me.

ah well, back to the salt mines.

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Yes, I enjoy looking at those old pictures and finding the details. I have several good source books that are fun to look at just by themselves. I must remember that my sources are mainly American so there could be an element of ethnic or cultural difference when I look at pictures from other countries.

Thank you for the opportunity to play with your picture and please keep posting pictures if you like. It's a good learning experience for me. I'll probably never be able to restore a picture as well as others can but I can still enjoy seeing the personality emerge as I investigate the clothing and hairstyles, trying to imagine what the person's life was like the day they posed for the photographer. Will people be as fascinated to look at our pictures 125 years from now?

Women's clothing is a little easier for me at this point because the change in fashion was so obvious from year to year. Changes in men's clothing were not so obvious and it was not unusual for some men to only own one suit for most of their lives. Children's clothing is interesting, too.

Well, bedtime and back to the dogs and cats tomorrow.

[Kraellin]

ok, thanks marylynn.

now, here's another question you made me think of from your last post. we have a pretty good idea of date, but can you tell the where at all? were these taken in the u.s. or somewhere else, and if you can tell the general geographic area, how close might it be to narrow that area down?

i've scanned in the last 3 tintypes and done just some basic lightening and sharpening. i'm trying to determine if they were all done by the same photographer and maybe get some help from one to retouch another. so far, i think i've found two, and maybe a third that would seem to indicate they all came from the same place. just as a guess, i'm saying that they were all done by the same studio or photographer, but there's little actual evidence to base that on conclusively. any light you can shed on that would be appreciated.

so, here's the last 3.

Craig

[MaryLynn]

You're welcome, Craig.

No, I'm afraid it is next to impossible to place these photos geographically. Studios used painted backdrops and exotic props to enhance the photos. Several of my family cabinet cards, taken in a studio in Wisconsin, have a backdrop reminiscent of a balcony on an Italian palace. With the availability of mail order catalogues and skilled dressmakers, ladies could keep up with the latest fashions, even if it meant adding a new collar to an older dress.

These last three tintypes are a little later in time. The lady in the middle is wearing a classic example of the "leg of mutton" sleeve that was popular in the 1890s. Each year the upper part of the sleeve got fuller. I have a couple of photos of that jacket that are positively dated 1896. Her hat with the plume on top is also typical.

The lady on the left, possibly the same woman five or six years older, is wearing the white shirtwaist, dark skirt that was popular the end of the nineteenth century. From 1900 until 1903 the sleeve was full all the way to cuff, getting fuller each year. Her hair is also typical for the period.

The picture of the men is also 1890s when the shorter hair, parted near the center of the head, and well groomed mustaches were common. Sorry I can't get more specific than that.

Now, we've dated the tintypes but the cabinet cards were also popular during the same time period. You may have cabinet cards of some of these same people and there might be photographers and their studio locations on them. Photographer information on tintypes was probably on the paper frames they came in. The rough edges of the backdrops on these tintypes would have been hidden in an oval or oblong frame.

I hope I've helped a little with this information. I've enjoyed the challenge and would love to see how they look restored. I haven't done anything on your images except run a level adjustment layer so I could see details for dating. I wouldn't even attempt to go beyond that when you and others are so much more adept at it.

If you make any more wonderful discoveries, let me know!

[Kraellin]

well, thank you very much. that's quite informative. too bad about the geographical. ah well

and yes, you're getting ahead of me; i do have some cabinet cards and yes, some do have studio marks on them. i havent compared the cabinets with the tintypes yet, but there may be one gentleman that's the same.

but, being that a new contest has opened up on retouch, my time for restoring will be cut down a bit, so there wont be a lot of new i'll be posting here for a while. i do have one that has interested me, though, but it's not a cabinet card. it's a regular photo of a later vintage. she's a relative on my mother's side and was quite a looker in her day and i have one studio shot of her. i might post that one and ask you to date it, if you would.

i also have some proofs that are a bit odd. they are almost red. the size is roughly 6 x 8 inches. they were obviously black and whites and taken roughly 82 years ago. the paper is thin and has some writing on the back about this photo turning black if exposed to strong light. it also tells the studio, 'Northland Studios' in detroit, michigan, on 802 woodward bldg. they are pictures of my grandmother and mother, which is why i know the age. not sure i'm going to try to restore these though. the red is really quite dominant and there are a lot of smudge marks, fingerprints throughout. any idea about the process used to make these?

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Glad to have been able to help.

Take your time getting to these photos; they'll wait. Regarding the proofs, I have no knowledge at all about the process used. Some of the professional photographers on the forum might be able to help with that.

And good luck on the July contest.

MaryLynn

[Kraellin]

thanks, MaryLynn

Craig

[Jaime]

Craig,

I think you may be interested in this document (PDF format):

Photography as a tool in genealogy by Ron and Maureen Willis.

[Kraellin]

jaime,

thank you! most informative. that shld also help determine the age of the cabinet cards.

Craig

[Kraellin]

well, i've been working on and off on these for a while now and got one of the tintypes i posted earlier in decent shape. thought i'd post it to show anyone interested how this has gone.

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Nice work, Craig.

I've been thinking about you!. Today I received 40 images of my ancestors dating from the 1850s onward. Two young men are in their Civil War uniforms. Now I have the task of dating, identifying and restoring. they've been well preserved so I don't have any cracks or tears to contend with, just aging and image production. These were not scanned but shot with a digital camera.

As I get them sorted out and dated, I'll post a few of them for others to enjoy.

MaryLynn

[Kraellin]

hi marylynn

and thank you

oh, what a treasure! 40 and two in civil war uniforms! that shld keep you busy for a while post one or two of the unretouched! i'd love to see the civil war ones. what type are they, tintypes?

i'm a bit curious, why shot with a digital instead of a scanner?

Craig