Green Photograph?

[toby_ax]

In that era it was a fashion for a little girl to be given a bracelet, often at Christening or Baptism.

I didn't realise that was an older thing, my sister also had one.

What does the back look like and is there a border?

Unfortunately I am unable to post a photo of the back due to some personal writings.

There is no border, the paper is in-between paper and 'photography paper?' (The material of photographs I usually handle?)

There is no stamp on the back of the studio this was taken or printed in. It is just plain white that has aged.

I suspect this was taken in Shipley, West Yorkshire, which at the time its heart was nearing destruction which may explain lack of studio name? I am unsure.

Shipley was the hub of the area they lived. And I do assume this was taken in a studio setting.

This family was not well-off and I am unsure on the cost of 'touch-ups' per se - if even possible.

[Rena]

In the mid 1950s I bought a new model camera made by Kodak and my cousin had one manufactured by Ilford (films)

His photos all had greenish tints and mine had red tints.

[Gadget]

It's definitely  a studio portrait, Toby.  Given what you say about the thickness of the paper, it might well be a sample/proof print and might not have been processed/washed as thoroughly as a final print. This might explain the colour cast.

I used to get my students to create all sorts of strange effects with the chemicals 

Gadget

[jmagarac]

I also wondered gloves when Gadget mentioned it.
And then saw the other hand and saw fingernails and thought maybe not gloves, and then wondered if she just had it on one hand oddly, but there are details on her fingers that make me think otherwise.

I'm not sure that's caused by her sleeve, the arm completely fades into the background.
My mum has confirmed that this is the original photograph.

Wow. This has turned into quite the discussion. Some very good points raised.

[Isabel H]

My OH, a keen photographer with years of experience judging camera club photo competitions, and a sharp eye for trickery, thinks that the left hand looks like a much older person's hand, with slightly swollen knuckles. There's definitely something odd about both forearms and hands. The hands don't look as if they belong to the same person. To me the right hand looks swollen, and is that a faint ring on the middle finger?  The area above the left hand is blurred, and there is what might be a candle almost obscured at the right edge of the photo.  Could this be an early cut and paste job, with "better" hands and arms, not necessarily from the same person, cut out of other photos and literally pasted on before being re-photographed, with a bit of deliberate blurring at the processing stage, to hide the joins?

[ptdrifter]

Just my two twopenn'orth but having worked in editing school photos for a number of years it looks like motion blur caused by a slight hand movement coupled with a slowish shutter speed. I agree that it's a child's "ID" type bracelet which were popular for many years.

[Gadget]

I agree with your observation, Isabel - the left hand looks like that of an older person. Maybe her mother was supporting her but the right hand was too obvious so a different hand/lower arm was superimposed.

Add - a snip of her left hand.

[PatBot]

Coloured and sharpened... I think it is an identity bracelet

[jmagarac]

Beautiful little girl... no matter what color the print is.