Your expert opinions please - What is it?

[geniecolgan]

Hi,

It walks like a photo, it talks like a photo but is it a photo and if so, how was it done?

I'm posting this picture that was emailed to me by my cousin Beverley and we would very much like your opinions. The copy sent to me was only 180 bpi and quite large so I've resized it to fit RootChat restraints. Hope I've done it right 

Here's are the known facts:-

Dear genie,
As we discussed, I am sending you all the information I have on the attached photograph/drawing.  I received it in the mid-1960's from my husband's father, John McCullum Colgan. He referred to her as a McCullum. It has been in my possession for about 45 years.
As it happens, my great grandmother is a McCollum - probably just an interesting coincidence, but also the reason for our conversations.

It is on cardstock, and measures 16 x 20 inches.  The face is 6 3/4 inches.  It appears to be a photograph that has been heavily retouched by heavy pencil/charcoal.  It does erase ( I erased a tiny section of the edge of the dress). It doesn't appear very smeared, however, after all this time. There is some flaking (which may be the emulsion deteriorating - if it is a photograph).
So is it a drawing or a photograph - when is the earliest such a piece(If a photo) could have been done?
Kitty McCollum - the most likely person it could be - was born in 1814 in Billy, Tonduff, Ireland.
If this lady was 35 at the time of the image - that would be about 1849-1850.
I would be very interested in opinions by the Rootchats experts - and will try to answer any questions that I can.  Unfortunately, there are no labels, writing, etc. on the piece.

Thanking you all in advance,
Bev

My thoughts are, a photo of a portrait that has been retouched. What do you think?

genie

[Gadget]

Hi Genie

I think it's a photo that's been heavily drawn/painted on. but I'd like to be able to see it in more detail.

I did a restore of something like this about 6-7 years ago and it was roughly the same size and on the same stock.  I had to scan it in 4/5 pieces.

Can you send it to my e-mail address, please

Gadget

[geniecolgan]

I'll send you what I got from Bev 

[Gadget]

The reason that Ithink that it's a heavily over drawn photo is that no one could draw  the quality of shading like this. You can see the drawn lines around the nose etc. but underneath is perfect shading.


Gadget

[geniecolgan]

I know, curious, isn't it.

I didn't think photography was that good in those days.

[Gadget]

If it is who you think it is, it's not likely to be her - I reckon 1850s from the style of hair/clothes but take a look at this from the one you sent.

I 'm in two minds 


I'll have to have a very detailed look.


Gadget

Added - could it be a reprint from an earlier image?

[Pels.]

If she was 35 in the image, she was beautiful Genie .. just look at that bone structure.

Pels.

[Gadget]

Here's a bit more from the large image - now this looks like a drawing/underpainting (wash) but that shading is so good.

[geniecolgan]

Of course she lovely Pels, she's mine   

You should see her 3x granddaughter, has the same mouth and regular features.

Gadget, what techniques were available in the 1850?
I'm wondering if someone in Ireland sent the son in USA a picture of his mum and he had it enhanced in the say 1880's