A very old photograph

[Kraellin]

i wasnt sure where to post this, but this forum seemed the most appropriate. if not, could a moderator please move it to where it would be.

this is, what i think, a photo of a photo. the original is apparently lost, but someone made a re-photo before the original was destroyed or lost...i think. and that's why i'm posting this. i'd like folks to analyze this also and give me your evaluation of what this might be.

the picture is of my great, great, grandmother, who died circa 1889. that means the picture was taken some time before that, maybe around 1880.

i can tell you a bit about the photo you may not be able to tell from the image. there are no studio markings or writing of any kind on the front or back, except where on the back my mother has penned who this was and a tiny bit of data about her. it is done on a very stiff piece of something resembling compressed cardboard, roughly 1/16th of an inch thick. the back is naturally faded and dirty and there was no frame with the picture.

ok, the other reason i'm posting this is just because i think it's an interesting picture. i've been going through my mother's BOXES of old photos and picking out some gems to retouch. i've run across about a half dozen tintypes so far and have scanned those already and some real great period pieces that i might post later if anyone has an interest. these are delightful. the clothing, cars and so on are really quite a study

Craig

[Kraellin]

well, i solved part of the mystery! i found another old tintype of which this photo is from! someone, at some point, apparently made a photograph of just this woman. in the original tintype there are actually two women. someone either made another of just the one woman or made one of both and cut the one out and pasted it onto a piece of pressed cardboard. fascinating!

i'm going to guess that they were trying to save the tintype, or rather the content of same. the tintype is fairly dark. i've scanned it and am in the process of cleaning up the scan.

does anyone know when tintypes were prevalent? i'd like to try and date this more precisely.

Craig

[CJ Swartz]

There are sites with info about the history of photography, and info about tintypes, cabinet cards, etc. -- we used to have a couple of people here with knowledge about those areas, but I'm not sure that they still visit the site.

Here's a start:

http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/tintype.htm

[Jaime]

Originally Posted by Kraellin

does anyone know when tintypes were prevalent? i'd like to try and date this more precisely.
Craig

Tintypes: introduced in 1856. Peak years: 1860-1863. Waned: 1865-1867. Tintypes marks the end of the cased images. At the beginning of the Civil War started to be placed inside of carte de visite sized sleeves.

[MaryLynn]

Kraelin, my reference books date tintypes from 1856 into the 1930s. The fact that they were less expensive and more durable made them very popular.

We'll have to rely on the dress style to date this photograph. The close fitting bodice and knife pleat bottom of the skirt are good representations of late 1870s to mid 1880s so your estimate of 1880 is pretty good. A scan of the original tintype showing the other person might be helpful in dating.

The dark background of the cabinet card, the cardboard you describe, might also help date the reproduction. I'll have to do a little more study later.

Hope this helps, and good for you in going through those old photographs. Aren't they amazing?

MaryLynn

[Kraellin]

thank you all!

well, i know it's not later than 1889. she died then according to the markings on the back of the copied image. there are no markings whatsoever on the tintype image. it's quite small, about 2 inches by 3 inches or so. the 'paper' is clearly steel and it's a bit bent here and there and quite dark, but the detail is remarkably good in my estimation.

i've converted the original scan that was in .bmp format to .jpg to post here. the compression wasnt too bad so most of the detail is still there.

and yes, i love this stuff. my mother has a ton of this stuff, tintypes, old pressed cardboard types and more. i could spend the rest of my life just working on her stuff. i've also found pictures of some of her old boyfriends and am currently working on a blackmail scheme... much to her dismay... and amusement

also, i dont normally ask this of pictures i post on retouch, but i'd prefer these not be copied or distributed, other than for your own personal practice or posting here.

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Kraellin, what a marvelous image! I downloaded the tintype and did a levels adjustment so I could see the clothing and hairstyle better and think we might push the date back to the mid to late 1870s.

Have you identified the younger woman? This might help in dating as well.

Did you crop the tintype when you scanned it? The first image you posted showed a pleated ruffle on the skirt that is not showing up here. Looks as if there was some high-tech retouching going on when they produced the cabinet card.

Don't worry, your image will go no further than my "things to work on" folder. I enjoy the challenge of dating these old photos and learning more about the people in them.

[Kraellin]

sadly, i have no other information about the picture(s). these were handed down to my mother from my grandmother and my grandmother passed away a number of years ago. my mother knows only what is printed on the backs of the various pictures she obtained. we know the woman sitting was my great-great grandmother and her name, but not who the other woman is.

and i hadnt even noticed the difference in the skirt before. good catch. as far as i know or can tell from the tintype, there is no evidence to support the addition on the skirt. the scan was fine and nothing left out. in fact, i even scanned this one twice. the first time i did a batch scan of several of these and then did this one all by itself at 300 dpi. whoever did the cabinet card (ok, so that's what that's called), must have added that in, or, the tintype was cut off at the bottom at some point. i'll have to look at it again to see if that was what happened. i've already returned it to my mother.

1870's... interesting and thank you if you find out anything more i'd love to hear it.

also, if you'd like to see more of these, i have a whole batch of these which i'm looking at to restore. i've already scanned some and returned them, but i've a whole folder not even scanned yet and my mother has BOXES full of photos of various sorts and ages ranging from the older tintypes to photos hand colorized by the studio where they were taken, to studio shots of a cute distant relative, to a bare-bottomed picture of herself as a baby, to marvelous period stuff like old cars and clothing, to, well, just about anything and everything. quite a treasure trove i could quite literally spend the rest of my life JUST working on all this stuff. so, if there's something of particular interest, such as the period clothing, let me know.

and thank you for respecting my wishes. i've posted what i've posted more or less with my mother's permission, but more like tacit consent and a raised eyebrow

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Of course! The tintype you have was cut off at the bottom from a larger original! The cabinet card was made from the larger original.

Tintypes are actually iron but got the name of tintype because they were cut with tin shears or tinsnips. They came in several sizes, the majority were 6 1/2" by 8 1/2". When cameras with multiple lenses were invented, identical portraits could be produced in one sitting. Source: Uncovering Your Ancestry through Family Photographs by Maureen Taylor.

It sounds as if you indeed have your work cut out for you. At first you will be drawn in by their unique nature but soon you'll be noticing family characteristics. Then you'll get out the magnifying glass to compare noses, eyebrows and earlobes. Or, with image software you may be layering one image on top of another to see if they match.

Btw, don't be afraid to talk to great great grandmother while you're working on her picture. She just might reveal some of her personality!

I will caution you though; if you aren't careful, you could become a genealogist! One little fact about someone makes you want to know more.

Please feel free to private message me if there are images you would rather not post. I have several books that I use for dating photos from 1840s into the 1920s and as I said before, I love the challenge.

[Kraellin]

The tintype you have was cut off at the bottom from a larger original! The cabinet card was made from the larger original.

maybe... i'll try and verify this tomorrow.

well, these are quite small then. i just measured one. it's 2 3/8 x 3 5/8. and most definitely metal, though i dont really know if iron or steel. they are fairly thin, being about the thickness of maybe two business cards put together. i have five of these currently in my possession and on the backs of each there is a black to reddish-black glossy coating, like an emulsion that is hardened and streaked a bit on some. there are no text markings on any of them. no etchings of any kind either. and each one is slightly different in size, though all fairly close in size.

is there any way to tell what the metal type is for sure? shld i scratch the back side as a test maybe? i'm guessing that that coating on the back is perhaps to keep them from rusting...perhaps.

hehe, well, so far great-great grandmum hasnt said much and my dad's the geneaologist, not me. i'm the restorer though, i do admit, there is one of a gentleman that sort of looks like ulysses s. grant that i'm curious about.

ok....d'oh! i still have the one of great-great grandma! it was still in the scanner! lol. and it wasnt cut off at the bottom at all.... the image is so dark that apparently the scanner read it as part of the absorbsion pad! hang on, i'm going to scan it again with a piece of paper around it.....

ok, we'll chalk that one up to getting older

here's the new scan:

boy, now i have to start over on the restoration... lol.

Craig

[Kraellin]

well, i'm just turning out to be more senile than i thought. there is writing on this one. and it would appear that it's my great-great grandfather, a Van Stone. that's the writing along the side. this is the one that i was going to post in the last post but realized i still had the other one in the scanner, so i've now scanned this one and am posting it here.

at a guess, i'd say this was taken probably at nearly the same time and in the same studio as the other one, being that this is most likely the husband of the woman in the other one.

pretty amazing

and btw, thank you for catching that bit about the cut off skirt. you've saved me a lot of re-work

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Glad you found the original tintype of the women. Surprising what we lose in our scanners, isn't it?

Back to my source for this information:

"In 1856, an Ohio chemistry professor named Hamilton Smith patented the process of coating an iron plate with collodion. The iron was coated with a black or brown varnish. The resulting image was a direct positive when viewed on the dark background. These images were known as melainotypes or ferrotypes, because of the iron backing. . . .

"The iron tintypes were more durable and weighed less than daguerreotypes and ambrotypes. Unlike the daguerreotype and the ambrotype, tintypes could be carried in a pocket or sent through the mail without risk. A coating of clear varnish further protected the image area."

No need to scratch the surface; just use a magnet. A magnet will stick to iron.

When you are restoring those images, pay attention to the baseboard of the wall in both pictures. You can see it very well in gggranddad's and only a very little next to gggrandma's skirt. If they look similar, your thought of being the same studio and timeframe are probably correct. Sometimes it is the obscure detail that ties things together.

Did your gggrandparents have a daughter? Could she be the younger woman?
Maybe even a granddaughter if the time is correct. Isn't this fun?

I'll have to prepare a couple of pictures and give you the details of my search to identify the subjects. It was a small detail that solved the mystery.

[MaryLynn]

I was given the cabinet card of the two women with no identifying information. The pink matte of the card was intriguing but other than tentatively dating it around 1870, I got no further.

Two years later a cousin gave me a scan of the man, telling me that her mother had given it to her saying, "This is grandpa." For thirty years cousin thought it was our grandfather George. I had other pictures of Grandpa George that were much better quality so I didn't think too much about it for another year or so.

One night out of a clear blue sky, it dawned on me that "Grandpa's" photo had a pink matte. I dug out both photos and looked at them side by side. The background is the same!

Since I had dated the women as 1870, there was no way the man could be Grandpa George as that is the year he was born. When my aunt identified the man as Grandpa, she meant her grandfather, Solomon, father of Grandpa George.

I've compared the woman standing with pictures known to be my great grandmother thirty years later and definitely see a resemblance. The man then is my great grandfather Solomon and this is the only picture of him that anyone has found so far.

Dating one photo helped date the other photo which in turn helped identify the subjects in the first. See why I love this stuff!

[Kraellin]

ummm, a magnet will stick to both iron and steel. both are ferrous materials. so is there any other way to identify which this might be? your information certainly does point to it being iron and the information you posted about the coating certainly seems to match up with what i've got.

dont know about a daughter. i'll have to ask my folks. my dad's the geneologist in the family, but not sure he's traced this side of the family yet.

and had you not mentioned it, i probably wouldnt have noticed your two photos had the same background. the two pictures are taken at slightly different angles and distances to that background and it would be very easy to miss. good catch

Craig

[MaryLynn]

Regarding iron or steel, would it be possible to cut steel, even that thin, with tin snips? Would steel be as economical to use in this application? Tintypes were popular because they only cost a few pennies each.

I've learned to look for details such as the background or jewelry to link pictures and people. I am amazed by the talents of people on this forum who catch tiny little details for retouching or restoring a photo. As far as that goes, I may see something isn't quite right but don't know what is wrong or how to fix it. I'm still learning!

Btw, gggranddad is quite a handsome fellow!

[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