Author Topic: Martha Carr - Leeds - can anyone date the photo & individuals thanks (Read 1512 times)

Wiggy · « **Reply #9 on:** Monday 22 May 17 22:23 BST (UK) »

Quote

I can tell you that Martha was born in 1886 and died in 1949. If that helps any on the dating.

It makes Jim's dating about spot on I'd say!

pineapple88 · « **Reply #10 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 00:15 BST (UK) »

Wiggy · « **Reply #11 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 00:22 BST (UK) »

I don't mean to be picky, but it is still very low resolution, so pixilating badly- totally understandable as you don't have the original photo.

(Trying to see number but still can't - I had enlarged it like this myself, but . . . . . . $:-\$ )

Minimal tidy up - You didn't ask for it, but hope you don't mind. She looks a nice friendly type doesn't she . . . was she?

Wiggy

pineapple88 · « **Reply #12 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 00:26 BST (UK) »

Hi Wiggy that would be great if somebody could, be good to try and get some details out of it. I do have a photo of the full picture seems to be taken from an album which I will attach on to here in case that helps.

I am wondering if it is worth me printing off and then rescanning at a really high reso and then attaching on here. $:-\$ ?

Thanks Wiggy.

pineapple88 · « **Reply #13 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 00:33 BST (UK) »

So am just attempting to add in the original photo I got with the edging. Thanks everyone.

Rosinish · « **Reply #14 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 03:11 BST (UK) »

Don't laugh

I think what looks like a number could actually be a word?

If it's a number it isn't straight.

I would say the last loopy bit looks like a 'y' i.e a word going round in a curve?

Possibly 'olly'?

Annie

Wiggy · « **Reply #15 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 07:15 BST (UK) »

Hi Pineapple - if you are scanning from a photo you received on the internet, I don't think you can make the resolution higher . . . I could be wrong, but I don't think so. It is still showing resolution of 72 on my computer.

Never mind - Next time ask the sender to scan at higher res.

Here it is lightened to over exposure to see if you can find anything. I can't, and not only that but what I thought might have been numbers now only looks like marks on the brickwork. . . . . or just possibly 149.

pineapple88 · « **Reply #16 on:** Tuesday 23 May 17 10:50 BST (UK) »

Hi all thanks so much for this and the great tidy up Wiggy. Yes I know what you mean about the scanning in. I think people just take a photo and then ping it across. I need to invent an app that takes photos like a 600dpi scan everytime lol.

Interesting note about the fact it might be a word too. I might try and see if I can them to scan it at higher resolution and resend it.

Wiggy - thank you re comments on Martha m- yes she has the sweetest face doesn't she and she was so pretty too when she was younger - I believe she was such a lovely person too. Thanks all so much.

RootsChat.Com