Featured Antique photographic Method Question

It looks like the photo of Old Bets might have been the original picture meant for this oval frame. Does the oval image area fit nicely in the frame? (The photos of the man and woman seem to be off center - placed low in the framed area.)

For the old man and woman, I have seen 1860's ambrotypes that use a similar layered effect. The photographic image is a negative on glass, and a backing layer of dark cloth or paper was used to make the image visible. Sometimes the backing layer was hand tinted/colored. But I have not seen it done with paper. I cannot tell how the paper may have been treated to make it transparent.

The costumes of the old man and woman look consistent with an 1860s date, but there is the possibility that they are later printings from a glass negative. It would be helpful to know more about the papers used. Up until the early 1860s there were salted paper negatives and prints, but those do not have the clarity of these images. The only other photographic paper available in the 1860s was albumen coated papers (used in conjunction with glass negatives). Albumen papers are very thin, and usually supported on another heavier stock. (The Old Bets photo looks like it might be albumen.) Do the other prints look like the paper of Old Bets?

Collodion and gelatin coated papers, which are heavier, do not appear until the mid 1880s.

The colors look more like hand tinting, rather than being produced by an actual photographic process. The earliest color carbon printing process (1870s) was created by using separation negatives printed on a single sheet of paper - not layers of paper.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140720233757/http://image.eastmanhouse.org/files/GEH_1954_03_05.pdf

 

Photography is amazing!

 

I have no useful information to add, but I do have to comment on that white lady's expression. She looks like she's going to get up out of that frame and whack you with a ruler. She could easily become a classic meme for "grumpy"!

 

Upon further investigation the Old Bets is a cut out of extremely thin paper affixed to a cardboard backing. It is well glued (?) with all portions smoothly adhering to the cardboard evenly with no bumps or creases in the paper. Also there is no evidence of spillage or squeezed out glue on the cardboard backing.

 

That sounds like it could be an albumen print. Albumen paper was produced from 1850-1920 (a long run). The light sensitive chemicals were suspended in a solution of beaten egg whites, and the paper was floated on the surface to coat it. (This is why the paper had to be very thin.) Earlier papers often have a crackled appearance on the surface. After about 1870 they were often burnished to produce a smoother, glossier surface. Colors range from faded yellows to warm reddish-brown to purple-brown.

 

When I purchased the two photos I was mainly interested in the frames but also noted the clarity of the pics. The old nails holding the pictures were mainly missing so it was fairly easy to take off the backs. When I took off the back of the mans picture I did see the warning but ignored it since my main interest was in the frames. Then I remove the cardboard backing and laid it aside without bothering to turn it over. The binding paper tape, which had held the two sheets together was dried out and falling apart and the two photographic sheets sort of fell apart. Then, I realized that perhaps I had something a bit unusual. It was only later that I turned the backing over and discovered Old Bets.

 

#4 & #5: Pic in the frame (left) you are seeing the back of the sheet that is next to the glass. Pic that is loose we are seeing the front of the backup sheet.
#6: The tape was/is a narrow paper tape yellowed, dried out and brittle. It can be seen at the edges of the Old Bets picture.
#7: Now that I realize that I may have something of interest here I have no intention of opening the second photo until I know what I have exactly.

 

I'll need to withdraw my offer to ask experts on Facebook. Because of schedule and various other issues, I won't be going there very often for the next several days.

I think @2manybooks has some very good observations!

 

I think photos like Old Bets were affixed soaking wet with a thin coat of something like postage stamp glue, so very smooth and pretty impossible to reposition.

 

FASCINATING STUFF!!!!!! Gus, I hope you'll follow up with us and let us know, once you actually know what you have after examination by some photographic experts/conservators!!!!!!!! AND I hope, for you, you've found a REAL TREASURE!!!!!! Best of Luck!!!!!

 

Please read my replies to several other members. Every time I attempt to answer questions in this forum I discover new twists about the photos which may be of interest. The two sheets are not part of the glass. The glass is not part of the picture. It is just a pane of glass. The first pic. Facing the glass, looking toward the viewer is thin and has a polished surface. It also has a translucent quality which allows light through it when held up to the light. The inner side of this sheet looks and feels like regular paper. The second sheet is also thin and looks to be regular paper on both sides but has the print on the inner side. Originally the first sheet was aligned with the second sheet and backup cardboard and the three layers taped together. Since the Old bets image was facing inwards towards sheet one and two I surmise that its purpose was merely a prop and stabilizer to the first 2 sheets. I also surmise that the placing of the date "Dec. 1861" in the upper right corner of the backside of the Old Bets picture is the date of the framing of the picture of the gentleman. In addition I would postulate that the Old Bets picture was the original occupant of the frame and that the photographer or framer was merely an early conservationist and re-using items which had not sold.

 

Yes. Of course you have my permission. I'm just as curious about this as you are! Please post any comments you receive back. I appreciate your interest. Thanks

 

I'm in Wenatchee, Wa. (Going to have to fill in my profile) This forum is turning out to be more informative and interesting than anticipated.

 

Gus, I posted a later post saying that I was withdrawing the offer. Mainly that is because I won't be on Facebook for a few days after today, and I won't be able to monitor the responses there. If you still would like me to post I can, if you would just be aware that I may not be able to check for a while. What do you think?

 

To get the best answer as to what you have, I think you may need to take them to a photographic conservator - someone who has seen a lot of historic photos in the flesh. You really need to have such things in hand to see the important features. I checked on the website of the American Institute for Conservation, and there is a photo conservator in Seattle, Lisa Duncan:
https://www.culturalheritage.org/membership/find-a-conservator/detail?id=11323

 

That's an even better idea than my posting it elsewhere. So, try that!

 

Great. Would appreciate it.

 

May just contact her later but for right now I'm having too much fun and learning quite a bit. Quite often it boils down to asking the right question, at the right time, to the right person or sometimes just one of the preceding.

 

Thanks, will do. Gus