You show me yours ......

[LoneyBones]

Of course, send them to the restore board.
But scan them seperately at the highest resolution you can get.
They're wonderful photos.
Leonie.

[kiwihalfpint]

The title got me going .... butting in here ......Joe you started a wonderful thread .... all the photos are wonderful ....... the clothes, children ..... expressions..... I will be following this thread to watch the next photos appear.  Well done everyone.

KHP

[joboy]

Glad the title of the topic got you going.
Had a good teacher in sales 40 years ago and his favourite sayings educating me were;
1) First get their attention!!
2) An eyeful is better than an earful!!
On with the photos.
Joe

[chinakay]

I'll second that, Joe!

This is my oldest. What gets me about it is that it lay around in a cupboard full of junk for decades, until I finally realised what I had...

Margaret Parry, born 1831 Ffestiniog. Restored.

Cheers,
China

[MarkyP]

I would love to know who was the first person born to have their photo taken? (as opposed to who was the first person who had their photo taken). Have tried to google it, but haven't come up with answer. 

Hi MarkyP,
What's the difference between the two scenarios you mention?  Aren't they both the same thing?
Prue 

MarkyP now offline Prue so I'll take the liberty of replying.  No, I don't think they are the same.
The 1st person to have their photo taken may have been born in say 1800, the 2nd born 1790.  
So the 1st person to be born that had their photo taken was actually the 2nd person to have their photo taken.
Clear as mud, eh

Dave  

Hi Prue, yep Dave has explained it. Basically the first person born who ended up having their photo taken! The only reason it interests me is because of the lady in my photo who was born 1789! I've always found it difficult to explain! 

[deeiluka]

Here's a couple of my old photos from a collection of 86 that all seem to have been taken between the early 1860s and the late 1870s.

These were definitely taken in Adelaide, South Australia,  in 1864 as they are named and dated in old faded handwriting on the back. Even the ages of the children are given. Unfortunately only a few of the photos are so easy to identify.


......dee

[PrueM]

I would love to know who was the first person born to have their photo taken? (as opposed to who was the first person who had their photo taken). Have tried to google it, but haven't come up with answer. 

Hi MarkyP,
What's the difference between the two scenarios you mention?  Aren't they both the same thing?
Prue 

MarkyP now offline Prue so I'll take the liberty of replying.  No, I don't think they are the same.
The 1st person to have their photo taken may have been born in say 1800, the 2nd born 1790.  
So the 1st person to be born that had their photo taken was actually the 2nd person to have their photo taken.
Clear as mud, eh

Dave  

Hi Prue, yep Dave has explained it. Basically the first person born who ended up having their photo taken! The only reason it interests me is because of the lady in my photo who was born 1789! I've always found it difficult to explain! 

Right!  I think I've got it now...

Not sure we'll ever know that, I'm sure loads of photos have been lost over the years...but if you consider Talbot and Daguerre etc. were taking photos from the 1830s on, it's not hard to imagine that someone born in the 1770s could have sat for them 

Daguerre himself was born in 1787, so presumably he was one of the earliest-born people to have his portrait taken (I think there was one taken in 1839...); one of the first portraits taken in America, at least, was by Cornelius and you can read about it here: http://www.amphilsoc.org/library/exhibits/treasures/cornelius.htm

[kiwihalfpint]

First you got me going .... now I have had this niggling all afternoon/evening .... and I don't want to go to my bed with this niggling, so am posting .... and you guys can niggle over the photos.

Two photos of my ggrandmother ..... one is taken a few years later.    Born 1832 died 1919.   No idea of dates as this was given to me either from the original or a copy of the original.    Am wondering if the lace around her neck has anything to do with it.

Cheers
KHP

Number 2 posted below

[kiwihalfpint]

oops .... here is number 2