RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: WHS1899 on Monday 14 May 07 11:24 BST (UK)
-
My mother-In-Law recently saved a whole bag of old family photos from being thrown away, when her Aunt moved into a nursing home. Most are the old type on thick card, but one very old one is on metal. Has anyone else come across this, and how do I get a copy of it done? Would it mess up my scanner if I tried?
Beverley
-
Try scanning, I have scanned my Dad's medals, they came out very well. The platen on your scanner should be glass, so treat it with care, the thin metal should not scratch it but take care anyway.
Can you adjust the scan after it has been taken, e.g. contrast, brightness etc. It might be an idea to post the scan under picture restoration and see what the clever folk on there can do for you. I bet they would like the challenge.
I await yu results with interest.
Mike
-
Thanks Mike, I'll give it a whirl later. Silly question, how do I post a picture on Rootschat?
Beverley
-
hi bev
at the bottom of the box you type in ie reply
it says in blue
attach a photo or image(and other options)
click on this
then 2 boxs come up at the bottom that says attach
and a button browse click this
this will bring a box up either my documents or desktop
scroll down to were your photo is saved
click on it that should place your photo in the attach box
then press post
hope this helps
gigg
-
but one very old one is on metal. Has anyone else come across this, and how do I get a copy of it done? Would it mess up my scanner if I tried?
Beverley
It will be a Daguerreotype, 1839 to aprox 1870. See http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/daguerro.htm
Stan
-
It could be a daguerreotype (1840ish to 1850s), but unless it's still in its case/glass-fronted package, it would be so scratched you wouldn't be able to see much. Having said that, if it is a daguerreotype, it's certainly possible to scan it, but be aware that ANYTHING touching its surface is going to leave a mark. I have scanned a very scratched daguerreotype just recently and posted it below.
Is your picture really reflective, or more dull with a black back to it? If the latter, it is actually a tintype - 1853-1930s. There is some info about scanning tintypes here: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,179610.0.html
They are less delicate than the daguerreotype in terms of surface fragility, but you still have to be careful of them. Don't put any weight on either photo when you are scanning.
HTH
Prue
-
Gigg,
Thanks for that. I'll give it a go later...fingers crossed, I'm usually rubbish at attachments.... ::)
Stan,
Thank you too for the info..really interesting. The photo I have is of two ladies, and the clothes look really old. It will be interesting to see if we can get a rough date for them.
Beverley
Moderator Comment: tips and hints here:
Topic: Adding images to Posting & Profiles
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,130922.0.html
-
PrueM,
I have it here,two inches wide by about 4 inches long. It has no glass cover, but I remember the great aunts talked of a photo "on glass". I wonder if this is what they meant? The metal is really thin, and has a black back to it. The photo is quite reflective.
Beverley
-
I have a picture that is apparently a tintype
It is in excellent condition, though The whites are more grey than white.
However Photoshp Elements brought it up well. The small card frame I excluded from the treatment.
You can see the result on my homepage
http://fp.cotswan.plus.com
I don't really know who the people are, one looks familiar from another photo, and I believe I was told years ago, that the baby was my grandfather, but I have no way of knowing
Bob
-
THat did come up very nicely stonechat :o :D That's the trouble with tintypes - they weren't particularly good at rendering detail in the highlights and were always a bit 'flat'. But they were cheap!
Barbara, you either have a tintype (on iron) or an ambrotype (on glass). A simple test: get a fridge magnet, and try to get it to stick to the back of your photo. If it sticks, it's a tintype!
Prue
-
Prue that's really interesting and good to know for the future 8)
T.T.
-
No worries TT ;D
-
Hopefully my photo should now be attached. As you can see I have scanned it but it is very hard to make out. A fridge magnet does stick to it so it is a tin type.
Can the photo be made any clearer?
Beverley
-
Hah!
I've just seen my photo posted, and it's much clearer on screen! The scanned copy I have is really dark. HELP!
Beverley
-
It's a wonderful photo.
I think photographs are one of our greatest treasures.
-
Oh, what a lovely photo Beverley :D It's beautiful - look at their little rosy cheeks, they've been hand-tinted.
Prue
-
Just wish I knew who they were. I think I know which part of the family they're from...the only one's who had any photo's done, (they were descendants of Huguenots) but WHO is the question. I guess if the clothes could be dated I might be able to pinpoint them.
Beverley
-
This is Mary Ann Roberts 1847-1928. She had two sisters, 3 years younger and 9 years younger than her. I wonder if Mary Ann is the older girl in my photo on tin? What does anybody think?
Beverley
Image Resized
-
Oh God it's huge! How do I make it smaller for you????
Beverley
-
Just a quick adjustment
-
Hi
I have a very similar photo which fortunately was dated - 1861. There is another small thread on this subject but I can't find it. Prue actually placed the request with a lovely photo attached.
Cheers
Cando
-
Hi Cando,
try tin-type in 'Search RootsChat', that will bring up several topics.
cheers, :)
Bob
-
Hi Beverley
I've had a bit of a play with this magnificent photo. :o :o :o You are sooooooooo lucky to have it (the pic I mean, not my restore ::) ::) ;D )!!!
Caz
-
Hi Caz,
That is Fantastic, thank you so much for doing it. Yes we are lucky to have it, and to think great aunt Olive was going to throw it out! I have a huge pile to work on, luckily most have names on the back. (great aunt Vi's doing!)The tin one is the only one we aren't sure who the people are.
Beverley
-
Hi Beverly
Here's the other one "despotted".
Caz
PS Anyone wanting to use it to colour, please feel free.
-
Hi Beverley,
Here are a couple of versions from me. Once the levels were adjusted a bit, it was obvious that as well as their cheeks, the curtain and the tablecloth had both been coloured as well, so I decided to reproduce the colours in the cleaned-up piccies. I put one in a frame from around the same time period (1850s-60s). It actually holds an ambrotype in real life, but I cut that out (in photoshop, not in real life!) and put your photo behind it instead :) Tintypes, Ambrotypes and Daguerreotypes all fall into the category of "cased image photographs", so your picture might have once had a frame similar to this. Hope you like it.
I'm going to have a bit more of a look at the clothes and try to get a date for you. At a glance I'd say early 1860s but I'm not sure yet.
Prue
-
OK, I think the photo is from the very late 1850s-very early 1860s. Possibly around 1859-1861, maybe a little earlier (but not much). I'm not sure how old the girls are in the photo, but my guess is about 14 and about 18...just going by the style of clothes on the younger girl, it looks as if she has not yet reached the age (whatever that was - I have a feeling it's around 16) when she would wear a collar and engageants (false sleeves).
That would rule out your Mary Ann Roberts, but there is a definite family resemblance. Anyone born around 1840-1845 in the same family?
Prue
-
Caz,
Thanks for de-spotting the photo of Mary ann Roberts for me. It's come up really nicely. :)
Prue,
You've done wonders! :) :) Thank you. It's lovely to see it in a frame too....My mother-in-law will be really interested to see the photos.The 1860's would tie in with the older girl possibly being Mary Ann Roberts (See the other photo of the older lady). Mary Ann b 1847, so would have been a teenager in the 1860's. Hmmmm not sure they had teenagers in those days if you know what I mean!! ;D
Beverley
-
The only other girls in the same family were Elizabeth 1850 and Alice 1856.
Beverley
-
I think it's more likely that the younger girl is Mary Ann (if indeed either of them are! ::) ), so if we say she was born in 1847, and this photo might be 1861 or so...we could just make it fit! I thought the younger girl and your photo of Mary Ann looked more similar than the older girl, anyway.
-
...although, looking again ;D the shape of the older girl's face is more like Mary Ann...
-
I think there was another sister Margaret who may have been b around 1847, but I haven't really proved it yet.
I attach another photo of Mary Ann and brother Edward Roberts. I think I shall have to be content with saying Mary Ann Roberts COULD be one of the girls in the photo.
Thanks for all your help in this...I really appreciate it.
Beverley
-
Beverly,
Here is a cleaned up version for you.
I tried to stick to the original "colour" as possible. Just lightened it up using screen layers and then taking some of the damage out. The rest is "as was".
Harry
-
Harry,
Thank you very much, the photo looks fantastic. Thank you for taking the time and trouble. How lucky am I that so many people have helped on this?
Beverley
-
Hi Beverley
I've looked at the photos for a long time. They are wonderful! I think that the elder girl is the most like your Mary Ann Roberts. Have a look at the eyes - especially the marked deep setness of the outer curve of her left eye (rt as we look) and the proportions and mouth on this scaled version that I've compiled.
Gadget
(lots of Mary and Ann Roberts among my ancestors :D )
-
Here's two belated versions of the first image
Mudge
-
Here's a sharpen and cleanup of a wonderful image
I have tried to keep it as near to the original as possible, as it would be difficult to better it
Mudge
-
And here's a B/W version
Mudge
-
Gadget,
I had thought the elder girl might be Mary Ann as her face shape/nose was similar, but having seen the two photo's side by side I see what you mean about the eyes. Thanks for your help. The eye shape has drifted down the generations as my husbands are the same shape! Mind you it's fizzled out with our girls...perhaps it will pop up again in future generations!
Mudge,
Many thanks for the images...wow the one of Mary Ann and brother Edward came up well! It's one of my favourite photo's from the collection. Thanks for all the time and effort.
Beverley
-
Here's another clean up Beverley...what a lovely photo 8)...I have reduced the size as it was too big to post here...but it's available should you want it ;)
T.T.
-
Beverley,
I would think that going by the size of the ears, it is not the younger child.Her ears appear to reach a higher point(relative to eyebrows) than do those of the Elder child and later Pictures. Her nose seems to be slightly flatter .
But wouldn't be able to be definate about the other Child.
Spring
-
Hi Beverley
I've now 'morphed' the two images that I posted earlier. The elder sister is superimposed on the older Mary Ann with about 33% opacity -practically a perfect fit!
Gadget
-
Beverleyagain,
Before Gadgets morphed picture I had noticed that the elder child has got a slight cast in one eye, and it is apparent in the Older lady.And his does confirm that.
My Grandfather had a very slight misalignment and it is very attractive
Spring
-
Agree with Gadget and springbok...older lady is Mary Ann! So the photo is a little later than I thought...the clothes may not be the latest styles, which could explain why it looks a little earlier. (that's my excuse anyway!)
Prue
-
T.T,
Thanks for the photo. It's brilliant.
Spring,
Thanks for your help, I hadn't noticed the eye.
Gadget,
Fantastic work! ;D Great picture too. At last |I can say for sure it's Mary ann, which makes the other child likely to be one of her younger sisters.
Prue,
Thanks for all your help on this too.
Beverley :) :)
-
hi - think i may be a little late in replying but for what its worth, i agree that the older lady is mary ann - due to the ey and brow shape , the distinctive cupids bow on her lip and the distance between her chin and bottom lip. It's definatly not the younger girl - look at the ears - as people always say on here 'the ears never lie' - the general pinned backness and lobes of the young girls ears do not match with the older mary ann....
gadget - maybe you could help me solve a few of my 'are these 2 people the same perso' mysteries with your morphing technique!
Alison
-
ali607,
Thank you for replying, and for your observations. It's always nice to get extra confirmation, so thank you for taking the trouble :)
Beverley