daguerreotype repair

[T Paul]

I was thinking about my mother the other day. She has a very old photo of a distant relative, and I remember a bit back that she accidentally damaged it. I think it is a daguerreotype, but I am not sure. My mother decided the picture was a bit dull and wanted to spruce it up so she started to wipe the glass not realizing that was where the actually photo was and unfortunately destroyed part of it. She was absolutely sick with herself when she did it. Now that I am a member of this forum I thought perhaps I might be able to repair it for her. I don’t have the picture now. I will have to get it from her, but I was wondering has anyone done any scans of such a photo? What would be the best way to get a working copy in order to repair it?

[Ed_L]

If the photo is in fact, a Daugerrotype, it is *EXTREMELY* fragile. Daugerrotypes should not be taken out of their frame, and the entire thing should also be sealed. If it is a Daugerrotype, you should only be able to see the image as a positive at a certain angle of viewing. If the angle is changed, it will appear as a negative, or not at all. I think this is the easiest way to identify a Daugerrotype. If I'm wrong on any of this, I *will* be corrected. Do not let *anything* touch the surface of the photo, even lightly. When you make a positive identification, I'm sure somebody here will be able to help. I'm going from memory, so it's possible that I could be wrong on some of it, but I think it's pretty accurate.

Ed

[DJ Dubovsky]

Ed,

Since you seem knowlegeable on the subject, what is the difference between the daugerrotype and the tintype? Just curious.
DJ

[T Paul]

DJ I have been researching the web and this is what I found....

DAGUERREOTYPE
The daguerreotype is a direct-positive process, creating a highly detailed image on a sheet of copper plated with a thin coat of silver without the use of a negative. The process required great care. The silver-plated copper plate had first to be cleaned and polished until the surface looked like a mirror. Next, the plate was sensitized in a closed box over iodine until it took on a yellow-rose appearance. The plate, held in a lightproof holder, was then transferred to the camera. After exposure to light, the plate was developed over hot mercury until an image appeared. To fix the image, the plate was immersed in a solution of sodium thiosulfate or salt and then toned with gold chloride.
Exposure times for the earliest daguerreotypes ranged from three to fifteen minutes, making the process nearly impractical for portraiture. Modifications to the sensitization process coupled with the improvement of photographic lenses soon reduced the exposure time to less than a minute.

TINTYPES
A tintype (ferrotype) is made by coating a wet, light sensitive emulsion on a japanned metal plate in the darkroom. The plate is then inserted into a light tight plate holder and then the plate holder is inserted into the prearranged camera. The dark slide is removed and the exposure is made. The dark slide is replaced and the holder is then removed from the camera and taken back into the darkroom and in the dark, while the plate is still wet, it is developed in an iron developer, fixed and washed with water and placed to air dry. After drying, the plate placed under a brass mat with a clear glass cover. The whole package is then wrapped with a brass preserver and placed in a case or frame. The tintype process was introduced in 1852 and was still popular in the earlier part of the 1900's.

[T Paul]

Ed,

After researching the web I am pretty sure that the photo was a daugerrotype, and she did take it out of the frame...that's how the damage got done. She is a big history buff and is completely embarrassed by her mistake...that's why I was hoping I could repair it. Although if I remember right, I think she wiped off half of the face. I am going to see if I can get it this weekend.

[DJ Dubovsky]

Wow you sure did your homework didn't you? Thanks for the information. I never really knew what the difference was but it sure was facinating. Makes me wonder how they ever even came up with the idea. Although the processes are vastly different I'm not sure if I would still recognize the difference if I saw them side by side.

I feel for your Mom. I bet that was a real devastating experience for her. It would be nice if you could fix the damage but if most of the face is gone, I don't see how. That doesn't really leave much to clone or copy from. You definately have your work cut out for you. Good luck with it and if you do it, don't forget to let us know how it turned out.

DJ

[T Paul]

Well I am hoping that I will have half a face to work with.


Daguerreotypes Examples

Tintypes Examples

Of course it's not the same as seeing them in person.

Here is one that has a halloween theme.

Even scary themes could be a little funny. Tintypists and their subjects could soften the edge of just about any topic.

Ghost

[Ed_L]

Debbie,

Everything I am saying is from recollection. I haven't read anything on the subject for several years, but I'm pretty sure I'm right about this:
It is not an uncommon mistake to think a Daugerrotype is a tintype or vice versa. Many are of the same size, and might appear in the same type of frame and/or case. If you had one of each in your hands, the one in your right hand would be the tintype (kidding). Scratch that last sentence! If you had one of each in your hands, you could turn one any way you wanted, and you would still see the same image, much as you would see the same thing when viewing a regular photo. This is the tintype, and it might be found unprotected, and without a frame, in a box along with other items at a flea market or antique dealer. The Daugerrotype will appear differently when viewed at different angles. It might appear as a positive, but when you change the viewing angle, it will look like a negative, or you might see nothing at all because of the mirror like finish. You would have no problem whatsoever in identifying them if you had both to look at. And if you remember the viewing angle problem, you will have no problem identifying them even if you have one by itself. The tintype is pretty rugged, and you will find many tintypes that have damage to the metal itself, but the image might be very good still. The tintype is also not nearly as susceptible to deterioration from airborne contaminants. Daugerrotypes should be sealed into the frame to keep air out. I *think* the tintype was the first really affordable photo for the general public, and many thousands (probably millions) were made as a very to mildly popular technique from about 1850 (can't remember for sure, but very popular) until the 1920's or so (mildly popular). Tintypes usually have little dollar value, where the Daugerrotype has a much higher dollar value, as well as more of a historic value due to the much lesser number of them left. A large number of Daugerrotypes were destroyed because people took them out of their frames for cleaning. This is not a mistake made only recently. I believe the first Daugerrotypes required such a long exposure time that there were no images of people because of movement of the body. They were (I think) all with a subject matter of buildings or other non-aminate things. When the process became faster, photographs of people became popular. One last note: I would not take a Daugerrotype out of it's frame for scanning. The image is *VERY* fragile, and could easily be lost. Don't blame me for the long post -- you asked for it!

Ed

[Ed_L]

Hi T,

Read my previous post to Debbie. If your photo is a Daugerrotype, you will probably have a hard time scanning it because of the glass. Do not remove it from the glass to scan. This could result in losing what you have left. You might try raising one side of the frame a little (prop something under it), and try to scan it. If repeated attempts fail, I think the only good solution would be to copy it with a digital camera or traditional camera. Best of luck with it, and let us know how you made out.

Ed

[T Paul]

Thanks for the great info Ed. I'll let you know how it goes once I see if it's even repairable. If so, I will try your scan method as well as a taking a digital copy of it. Hopefully between the two methods I will have something workable. I really hope that enough is left that I can repair it as it would make my mother feel so much better. I believe it's the other photograph of theat relative at that age too, so I can't steal from another source. Any tips for resealing it since she opened it to clean it?

You are correct that the first Daguerrotypes required a long exposure time about fifteen mins so not many portraits then as that was a long time to sit still. Later they did speed up the exposure process making photographs of people more popular.

Price was also a factor. Daguerrotypes cost about $5.00 (more than a weeks pay for most people then), whereas, tintypes sold for a penny or less, making photography universally available. The cost of an image at the time the process became obsolete was about 25 cents.

Another interesting tidbit is that the tintype actually does not contain any tin, but is made of thin black iron. It is sometimes confused with ambrotypes and daguerreotypes, but is easily distinguishable from them by the fact that a tintype attracts a small magnet.


-Ahh the wonders of web research. This is quite an interesting topic. I am learning so much.



-T

[DJ Dubovsky]

First off thank you Ed and T for the information. It was very fastinating and quite a history lesson.

I also learned about ambrotypes from those webpages you sent me to and that was a new one on me. Never heard of them before. I'm also glad you guys discussed the delicate aspect of the daugerrotype since I might end up with a customer wanting one repaired and that would save me from doing something disasterous.

I've got to admit, I have learned so much on this site. Not just about retouching either.

DJ

[Ed_L]

T,

If you should take copy shots with a comera, that too could be difficult with a Daugerrotype. You might have to make the camera slightly off axis to the Daugerrotype. Try different things until you get results. You should be able to fix any distortion problem in Photoshop (I think).

Ed

[DJ Dubovsky]

Makes me tremble at the thought of anyone bringing me a daugerrotype to retore.
DJ

[T Paul]

DJ,

Hmmm, you are in FL....I am in GA. Perhaps I should be your first customer knocking on your door with a daguerreotype to retore. *grins*

-T

[DJ Dubovsky]

Time to pack up and move.
DJ

[Ed_L]

Someone asked the other day about what type of tape you should use on a Daugerrotype, but I'm not sure who it was. It slipped my mind (not unusual) and today I thought about it. I didn't have the answer off the top of my head, so today I dug out a book "Conservation of Photographs" from my library (a small bookcase). Recommended materials to be used with a Daugerrotype include a 100% rag board that is sulfur-free with a neutral pH, high quality archival paper, inert polyvinyl acetate adhesive (the tape?), and properly cleaned glass. This came from the book which was copyrighted in 1985 by Kodak. I would recommend the book to anyone who will be dealing with historical photographs. It does not deal with digital in any way, but it does offer suggestions about restoration methods in general. Hope this helps someone.

Ed

[T Paul]

Well I have the daguerreotype. Unfortunately the section that was destroyed was the entire face. I am going to check with relatives to see if they have a photo of the person at about the same time frame and see if I can work from there. In the mean time I will play with scanning the daguerreotype as well as taking digital photos of it to see which gets the most workable result.

-T

[thomasgeorge]

This may not be possible, but have you considered having a photo taken of the damaged photo( I cant spell daguerreotype) using infrared film under appropriate lighting conditions? Sometimes this will bring out details which appear gone forever. You could then scan the print or negative and using a scan of the original perhaps rebuild it. Tom

[Ed_L]

Good thinking Tom. BTW, I can't spell it either.

Ed

[T Paul]

Tom,

Interesting approach having a photo taken of the damaged photo using infrared film...I will have to look into that. Although I fear that there is really nothing there...visible or not.

-T

[T Paul]

Attached is the scanned daguerreotype (scanned with a 24 bit scanner). As you can see I need to get a another picture of her so I can repair the face. The rest is in reasonable shape and should not be that difficult to repair.

-T

[Ed_L]

That's a crying shame! It looks on my monitor like there is just nothing at all left on a large part of her face. If you can't get another picture of her, it might be worth a shot to try Tom's suggestion, even if it is a very long shot. You've got nothing to lose except a piece of film and a little time. If you try it, let us know if you get anything out of it.

Ed

[T Paul]

Will do. I am hoping (desperately hoping) that another relative will have a good photo to work from.

-T

[DJ Dubovsky]

Wow, sounds like forensic science here. It's probably the same things they do to solve some crime scenes. I never would have thought of that. Do you have to remove the picture from it's frame to do that do you think?

T- Let us know how it goes. I am dieing to hear how this turns out for you. You may be able to lead us in a situation we may one day come accross ourselves. It would be nice to know if we could work through this one.
DJ

[thomasgeorge]

T. Paul, Frequently either UV light( try short and long wave variety) and/or infrared will reveal lots of interesting things which will be otherwise missed. There are other techniques for bringing out "hidden" images etc., but they vary from mildly to highly destructive and so, obviously should be avoided. Basically any non invasive technique might be worth a try. Also polarizing filters might possibly be used to some advantage. Good luck and keep us informed. Thanks, Tom

[Ed_L]

T Paul,

I was just looking through some old posts, and I came across this one. Were you able to do anything at all with restoring the daguerreotype? Hey! I finally learned how to spel it!

Ed

[T Paul]

Ed,

The short version is no I haven’t.

The long version is that I had planned a trip to New York in Sept to visit with some family members and had hope to see if any of them had a picture of her at roughly the same time period and angle so that I could use it. If you remember from earlier posts, the original photograph had the face rubbed off accidentally. Well, with the horrible tragedy on the 11 of Sept my plans were canceled. I do hope to visit that way in the summer, so perhaps then I will have something to work with. It would mean so much to my mother if I could restore the photo.

-T

[Ed_L]

That would be great. Good luck with it, and keep us informed if you do any good. Also don't forget Tom's suggestion. You *could* be pleasantly surprised.

Ed

[Jim Conway]

Originally posted by Ed_L
T Paul,

I was just looking through some old posts, and I came across this one. Were you able to do anything at all with restoring the daguerreotype? Hey! I finally learned how to spel it!

Ed

As I'm new here - and still exploring the site - I've just checked this one myself. Interesting photo but I couldn't get a positive identification from the very dark scan and was wondering if it was really a Dag - (easy spelling method used by collectors and allowed by Daguerreian Society Members ) Is there a chance that it is an Ambrotype? ...and if so, it may be salvable.
(If it's a Dag it is on a polished metal plate not on glass.)

And an added note - for anyone interested in the "original" photos you might like to visit the Daguerrian Society website. Membership dues are reasonable and you'll find that the annual alone is worth far more than the membership price.

http://www.daguerre.org/opendag.html

Jim Conway
Timemark Photo Conservators

[Sally]

When using a camera to copy a Daguerreotype it is necessary to “hide” the camera by placing a piece of black card over it with a hole cut for the lens. NEVER TAKE A DAGUERREOTYPE OUT OF THE FRAME.

Ambrotypes have only had a small mention in this thread. When framed they look similar to daguerreotypes and tintypes. I have only had one daguerreotype in my hands but it was quite mirror like in comparison to the others. The tintype, when scratched, is black or rusty (I don’t scratch them!!!!) the ambrotype is a glass negative very under exposed. You need to look at them on the appropriate angle. They can be printed like any other negative. Often they can be restored just by placing a new black card behind them.

All these photos are exposed in the camera, not a print made in the darkroom. Because of that they are all back to front. That means the men have their buttons on the wrong side.

Sally