Identification of Haddenham photo

[Ruskie]

Jim or one of the others will now for sure, but it seems feasible.

[patDEN]

I agree, Ruskie, it certainly could be possible.  If only I could get inside that Malt House and if only the wooden pannelling still existed ... if and more ifs!
Thanks
Pat

[Jayhen6]

Hi Pat

There were numerous "Itinerant photographers" in Victorian and Edwardian England, especially in country areas. Many of the pictures of harvesters, village schoolchildren, and tradespeople preserved in rural museums, or published in collections. They would also set up in seaside towns and go door to door in suburban areas.

John

[patDEN]

Thanks for this information, John.  Now I am definitely leaning towards the photo being taken by an itinerant photographer and a photo being taken indoors rather than outdoors.  While John Ricketts was certainly an agricultural labourer during his younger years, I think this is one of John Ricketts the Maltster.  As you said, he certainly is not in his Sunday best, therefore, he is being depicted as a labourer of the rural Victorian era.

Thanks
Pat

[jim1]

I think we need to separate the "itinerant photographer" from those that travelled within the County photographing local scenery.
In the 1880's/90's photography was becoming very competitive so studios would set up booths in parks, fairs, seafronts or anywhere where large numbers of people gathered.
The media used was old tintype equipment as this was instantaneous as there was no negative to develop.
So the studio could offer a "while-u-wait" service.
Those that travelled taking photos of local beauty spots, churches, landmarks & village scenes did so for commercial purposes & are commonly called stock photos.
Stock photos of people were studio portraits of royalty, national & local dignitaries & sold locally & to other studios.
What we have here falls in between. Definitely taken outdoors & of a chap who would be pretty much unknown to anyone outside his village. The original wasn't a Tintype as they were in reverse & this isn't.
The question really isn't who took it but why.
A possible explanation is that the Maltster commissioned the photographer to take photos of his employees, possibly altogether & also individually (photographers never wanting to miss an opportunity) & that's why this was identified in 1938.
We quite often see employee photos so it was a common practice.
Hope this helps.

[patDEN]

It most certainly does help... many thanks Jim, for your detailed explanation of the difference between the two sorts of photographers at work ...It is especially good to learn that employee photos were a common practice at the time.  I have many examples of family studio photos of the Victorian era which my Ricketts relly brought with him to Australia when he migrated in 1886 but this photo is definitely the "weirdest" one I have ever seen.  I would be very happy coming away from this discussion believing the photo was taken around the 1860's/1870's.
I cannot thank you enough, Jim, your knowledge is very much appreciated.

Regards
Pat