MyHeritage's Photo Enhancements

Previously, I did an analysis of MyHeritage's photo colorizing tool. Since then, they have also added an enhancement tool, which identifies faces in photos and "enhances" them by making them sharper and clearer with more details. They also appear to have improved the colorizing. I noticed how the same photo I had colorized before, which left some areas like a hand here or there uncolored, are now magically colored (see bottom of article for example). It's still not perfect, but it's improving.

Normally, both tools are limited to 10 photos with a free account, so you have to subscribe with the Complete Plan (the most expensive one) to use unlimited photos with these tools. But right now, MyHeritage are trying to entice people to subscribe by making the tools unlimited for free for one month. They are obviously hoping people will be so impressed with the tools and get used to using them on unlimited photos that when the month is up, some will subscribe to continue having access to them. But personally, I'm not about to spend another $300 a year just for access to these fun little tools so I'm making the most of the free access while I can.

Much like the colorizing tool, the enhancement works best on images that don't have too much degradation or blurring. If you click the above photo of my Nan to enlarge it and see details, you'll see it had only some minimal blurring and the enhancement tool made it very sharp and clear, a much better picture of my Nan. You'll note that it does not remove scratches, spots, or other surface damage to the photo though, even when they appear on the face. And yes, you can enhance it and colorize it at the same time (see examples below), I just chose not to on this one of my Nan to show you the enhancement alone.

It also works best on faces that are closer to the camera - the smaller/further away the faces are, the less effective the enhancement is, and sometimes it's not effective at all. A few photos I've tested so far (see below), the faces were so far away and so blurry that the tool didn't even attempt to enhance it (though it did seem to identify it as a face since it colorized it correctly as skin colored). The ones that were enhanced were minimally done. 

The enhancement tool only worked on 3 out of 5 faces here, because they
were too small and blurry. The 3 enhancements were minimal too (see below).

A close up comparison of one of the small faces in the above photo with the minimal enhancements

Additionally, sometimes the enhancement leaves the face looking a little plastic and weird, like the person is wearing a mask (see below). This is more likely to happen the more blurring there is to the photo and faces, partly because it's difficult to enhance something so small and so unclear, but also because the tool only enhances faces and nothing else. A sharp, clear face next to blurry hair and clothing just looks weird. But in some cases, it's better than nothing, and it does give us somewhat of a better idea of what someone looked like.

Note how the one on the left looks fairly normal but the other two appear mask-like

Keep in mind though, that this tool is attempting to create data where it doesn't exist, so there comes a point on a heavily doctored photo where it may not be an accurate representation of someone's face. It's fun to explore, but for example, I would avoid using it while comparing people in two different photos to determine if they are the same person, or related. While it's tempting to use enhancements to do such comparisons because they seem clearer and sharper, making it easier to compare, it could actually be wrongly altering someone's appearance and leading you to the wrong conclusion about their identity.

So just like with the colorizing tool, the effectiveness of the enhancement tool can be a little hit and miss. It handles some images better than others, and there does come a point where certain photos and faces are too far gone to recover. Have fun with it, but don't expect too much from it with all your photos.

A comparison of the initial coloring of a photo (left) with the updated coloring of it (right), note
some of the hands that were previously uncolored are now a correct skin tone. There's also some
minor difference in the the darker skirts. Click to enlarge.

Best Friends Forever? Not Quite. The Original Bride Wars.

The best of friends, for a time: May Ellis (left)
and Emma Fallows (right) sitting on the back
patio of Emma's parents house

In the early 20th century, two young ladies, Emma Sarah Fallows and May Melson Ellis, were the best of friends. They met at teaching school, attended as many social events together as possible, taught at the same elementary school, and even lived together during that time. They were inseparable. But in 1913, something suddenly happened to cause a split between them, and their friendship never recovered. What was it?

My great grandmother, Emma Sarah Godshall (nee Fallows), left a wealth of information and photos of herself behind. Her family was somewhat wealthy and could therefore easily afford what was probably a Kodak Brownie, which they used to take dozens of candid photos of their family and friends that survive today. They were also frequently mentioned in the society section of their local newspaper, the Ambler Gazette in Pennsylvania, for some of the most mundane sounding notices sometimes. I can't imagine who at the time would have been interested in knowing about every vacation they took, for example, but I'm glad they reported it because these are the little snippets of information that give me insight into my ancestor's lives in ways most people don't get. And it's these mentions that could explain why Emma and her best friend parted ways so abruptly.

In September of 1904, sixteen year old Emma and seventeen year old May arrived at Millersville Normal School in Pennsylvania, what was then a teaching school. Today, it's called Millersville University and offers degrees in many subjects. May being a year older than Emma may have been a second year student, but for Emma it would be her first time living apart from her parents in a place were she scarcely knew a soul. It must have been daunting, but Emma was an outgoing girl by all accounts, and probably made friends quickly. Although we don't know exactly when Emma and May met, we know they were good friends by the time Emma graduated in June of 1907. After this point, Emma is mentioned in the paper as spending time with May almost every month, and I suspect the lack of reports of Emma's friends before this only had to do with the graduation milestone (there are always fewer social reports of children with less details).

May Ellis (left) and Emma Fallows (right) sitting on front
porch of Emma's parent's house

Emma (left) and May (right) at the beach in Ocean City, MD

The girls quickly became practically inseparable. May was from Delmar, Delaware, and Emma was from Wyndmoor, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, but that didn't stop them from regularly visiting each other and taking trips to the beach together. By 1910, they were living together with Emma's parents and working at the same elementary school in Wyndmoor. 

In December of 1911, Emma became engaged to Chester Harold Godshall, better known as Harold, or just C.H. They had been dating since 1908, when the first mention of them spending time together at a card game Emma hosted can be found in March, and when Harold began showing up in photos with Emma (clearly as a couple) sometime in spring or summer (they were on the beach at Ocean City, Maryland). Also featured in many of these photos are May and her beau, Boyd Morse Frymire. The four of them were tight, frequently taking trips together to places like Valley Forge and Ocean City, Maryland, and taking pictures of their memories along the way. Emma described them as "The Bunch" at one point. Boyd and Harold were both Civil Engineers and graduates of Bucknell University, so it's likely they were friends before meeting the girls. Maybe Emma and Harold introduced May to Boyd, or the other way around.

"The Bunch" at the beach in Ocean City, Maryland, 1908. Top photo: Emma (left), Boyd, and May (right). Bottom photo: Emma (left), Harold, and May (right).

On May 31, 1913, Emma took a break from planning her wedding, scheduled for November 11 of that year, to visit her best friend in Delmar for a house party May was hosting for several of her friends. She must have been excited to tell her friend all about her wedding plans, but Emma was about to receive a shock. Something changed in their friendship right around this time, and I believe it happened at this house party, because this is the last ever mention of the girls spending time together. They did not even attend each other's weddings, let alone stand by as each other's maid/matron of honor.

Coincidentally, only a few short days after the house party, May's parents announced her engagement to Boyd at a dinner party on June 3, probably attended by May's parent's friends this time. The next day, the announcement appeared in a Wilmington, Delaware newspaper. It seems likely that the house party May hosted for her friends was to announce to them her engagement to Boyd, and it seems significant that it coincided with the termination of her friendship with Emma.

Emma and May (with friends) "At Fretz's" place (Florence Fretz, Emma's Maid of Honor). Top: May (far left), Emma (second from left). Bottom: Emma (far left), and May (middle). Florence may be the other woman in the photos, or may be taking the photo.

But why would May announcing her engagement to Boyd cause the end of her friendship with Emma? It's unlikely Emma didn't approve of May's choice in Boyd because there are many photos of them all together looking happy and having a good time. And after all, Emma may have been the one to introduce May to Boyd. Could it be that Emma, after being engaged and planning a wedding for a lengthy two years, was offended that May would not only get engaged just a few months before her wedding, but also plan to marry before Emma? May and Boyd quickly married on September 17, 1913, less than four months after their announcement, and a mere two months before Emma was married to Harold on November 11. If you're thinking that May and Boyd married so quickly because maybe she was pregnant, there's no evidence of that. Their first recorded child wasn't born until August 3, 1914, nearly 11 months after their wedding night. Although it's possible May had a miscarriage not long after the wedding, and then quickly conceived again in what would have to be November, we can't assume that's what happened.

Whatever the reason for May fast-tracking her wedding, Emma absolutely might have felt that May was stealing her limelight by marrying so soon before her own wedding. Even today, there are women who would be upset about that, but particularly during a time of such formality and propriety, it could have been viewed as May upstaging her friend. There were social rules to be followed and this was definitely a bit of a slap in the face of etiquette. 

"The Bunch" - Emma taking a photo of Harold (second from
left), May, and Boyd (right) with unknown man (far left)

Emma's name is notably absent from May's wedding announcement in September. Although it doesn't mention the wedding party by name, it does name some of the guests who attended, and Emma is not among them. A week before Emma's wedding, she spent the weekend at the house of Florence Fretz in Bucks County, another long-time friend who also happened to be Harold's cousin. I imagine this was likely Emma's bridal shower since Florence was the one to serve as Emma's Maid of Honor. By the time Emma's wedding is announced in the paper, there is no mention of May among any of the guests or bridal party.

To my knowledge, the two never reconciled. May would go on to have two children with Boyd and moved all around Pennsylvania over the years. Emma and Harold also had two children and stayed in the Philadelphia suburbs. Maybe starting their own families and living in different places, they might have gradually drifted apart anyway, but it seems like such a shame that they never even kept in touch by letter, or introduced their children. While I can understand Emma feeling upstaged by her friend, it feels like a forgivable offense to me, and I would never begrudge a friend the happiness of her wedding, whatever the timing.

Emma (third from left) with friends during one of her visits
to May's home in Delmar, DE. May is probably taking
the picture.

Emma (left) and May (second from right) with friends
(looks like Boyd is on the far right)

Emma quit teaching full time after her marriage, as was typical of the times, but she did periodically substitute, and was active in her community and even politics. In 1938, she was the Secretary of Springfield-Whitemarsh League of Women Voters, and throughout the 1940s, she was first the Corresponding Secretary and eventually President of Eastern Montgomery County Council of Republican Women, as well as a representative of Wyndmoor Service Organization (a group that supported their local soldiers in the WWII armed forces, such as by sending care packages). She died December 18, 1954.

May's married life is less detailed, and it's unclear how her split with Emma effected their husbands, who were equally good friends with each other. Did they keep in touch, or did they side with their wives and never speak to each other again? The glimpses we get of our ancestor's lives are never enough, and always leave me with more questions that will probably never be answered.

"The Bunch" goofing off at an unknown location. Top photo, from left to right: Boyd, May, Emma, Harold. Bottom photo, from left to right: Emma, Harold, May, Boyd.

More Colorizing

After trying MyHeritage's new colorizing tool and then giving colorizing myself a whirl in Photoshop, I finally managed to test out another automatic colorizing tool at ColouriseSG. At first, it didn't work, or maybe I just didn't wait long enough, but today it worked!

I used the same first image I did at MyHeritage, the one I then colored myself too. My first impression with just this one photo is that it's better than the one at MyHeritage, but the human touch is still best.

Although it still looks a little like they just added a sepia tone to it, I felt like the colors were a bit more realistic than MyHeritage's, and the eyes appeared less brown. They could arguably be gray.

They also made attempt to add a touch of redness to the lips, but I'm not sure I love the effect, they look a little purplish.

Overall, the colorizing is better than MyHeritage, but I was very disappointed by the fact that ColouriseSG made the photo I uploaded smaller and therefore lesser quality. So if you use this tool, be prepared to sacrifice quality for coloring! For this reason, I decided to not even bother testing it with other images.

As always, if you want something done right, do it yourself.

MyHeritage's New Colorizing Photos Tool

Ever wanted to have your old black and white family photos colorized, but don't know how to do it yourself, and don't want to pay a professional an arm and a leg for it? Well, MyHeritage just launched a new free feature from DeOldify that will instantly colorize black and white photos. But how well does it work? I was a little skeptical and couldn't wait to test it out.

The photo I tested was just a simple portrait from about the 1880s. I was surprised how quickly it colorized, and I was pleased with how nice it looked but I realized that it actually just looked like a sepia tone had been added to it. I don't think that was the intention, and the skin tones did have a more fleshy color, but everything else looked like it'd just been sepia toned. A little disappointing.



Additionally, you may not be able to see it very well but this man's eyes were clearly light colored - blue, grey, hazel, etc. Something like that. But zooming in on his eyes shows the sepia/fleshy colors of the skin seems to have just been overlaid on his eyes, making them look brown, as if there was no attempt whatsoever to even color the eyes at all.

And while we're on the subject, they are beautiful eyes, aren't they? I've always thought this guy looks a bit like Leonardi DiCaprio.

To show you the difference between what a computer can do and what a human can do, here is my colorization of the same photo (including spot cleaning/restoration):

Back to MyHeritage. I then tried it with a group photo, thinking the multiple faces, garments, etc would add some variation to the possible colors. This was much more impressive:

Not bad for an automated system! Granted, the photo's highlights are a little blown out in places and some of the faces are blurred from too much movement, but colorizing system handled it pretty well in spite of that.

What's even better is that this is a high resolution image I used. I was a little worried that such an advanced tool available for free would only accept low resolution images (maybe charging for high resolution), but this was a fairly high resolution image and it not only accepted it, it still only took a few seconds to generate a color version. Unfortunately, although it will accept high resolution images, there is a limit to how many photos you can colorize if you have a free account. They don't tell you this anywhere but choose your photos carefully because you only get 10 of them, and deleting previous ones doesn't allow you anymore.

And the colorization still isn't perfect.

You may notice how it doesn't exactly take much risk or leaps with the colors it chooses. The men are in black suits, the women all seem to be in black and dark navy dresses, and the kids are all in white or neutral colors. You can probably understand why - I suppose they don't want a man's suit turning up bright red or something equally unrealistic for the era and gender. That's the downside to using a computer instead of a human who can distinguish these things and safely choose a greater variety of colors to apply.

Additionally, when I zoom in, there are areas that look like something almost resembling purple fringing except not along high contrast edges. You can see these sort of random purple splotches in the zoom-in below, particularly in her hair (pretty sure purple wasn't a trending hair color in 1880 Wisconsin), and sleeves. This is just a small area of the photo but these purple spots turn up everywhere if you look closely enough.

There's also some areas of the image that the computer seems to have some difficulty coloring. You'll note above how her one shoulder does not appear colored, or at least seems to be a different color from the rest of her dress - more of a sepia tone again. You see it most prominently in the skirt behind this child below:

At first, I thought maybe it was due to a shading variation in the original that may have fooled the system into thinking the difference in the shading meant a difference in color, but that is not the case. You can see in the original, there is no shading variation.

I guess the tool just sometimes has difficulty identifying edges and items so when it's unsure, it seems to do this. It's understandable, I suppose - after all, what is required to accomplish this in mere seconds must be an incredibly complex algorithm and coding, and it's provided for free, so I can forgive it for not being perfect.

Lastly, you may have noticed MyHeritage put their logo in the bottom right corner of the colorized image, and a little paint palette icon in the lower left. To avoid these, I'd recommend adding a superficial border to your image where the logo and icon will show up, which you can then crop off later.

I decided to try another photo (above), this time with more elements in it - horses, a house, etc to see if the same problems occurred, and they did. Once again, you can see all the clothing colors are very neutral. And again, you can see some weird rainbow-like discoloration at the top of the house.

And again, there were obviously some spots where the computer had difficulty colorizing or distinguishing between items - as you can see below, the hand on the shoulder looks like it either hadn't been colorized at all or it's blending in with the color of the other boy's jacket. Conveniently for the computer, it chose to "color" this boy's jacket grey!

So if you don't want any creepy dead hands like this, or your ancestors had blue eyes instead of brown, it's best to hire someone to do this for you instead of relying on an automated system. There are also Facebook groups with generous people who will colorize your photos for free, but be aware that Facebook doesn't easily support high resolution images like this does. This option from MyHeritage is still pretty impressive for what it is though, and if you're not bothered by the small problems that you might not even see very well when zoomed out, this will be amazing tool for many people. At the very least, I enjoyed seeing some color in the faces of my ancestors and relatives, as it seems to make them come alive a little more.

I haven't checked it out yet but there's an alternate colorizing option found at ColouriseSG. It appears to be free.

Genealogy Photos and Copyrights

Unknown women, possibly sisters.
The backs of these are stamped with photog's info,
J. Bronson of Philadelphia, who died 1914

This is a topic I've touched on before and something which has been very well covered by The Legal Genealogist too, but since it still persists in coming up in the genealogy field as greatly misunderstood, I feel the need to go over it thoroughly as well, as both an amateur genealogist and professional photographer (though I am not a lawyer). The following only applies to US law, though other countries may have similar laws.

Many people seem to be under the impression that because they inherited a photograph, particularly one of their ancestor, it means they own all rights to the image, and get upset when someone else, usually another descendant or relative of that ancestor, "steals" it and adds it to their own tree, or shares it in some other way, especially without "permission" or at least "giving credit" to them. Sure, it might be a little rude, but before you get outraged and indignant, first be sure that you really understand copyright ownership.

Most family photos are unpublished works, which means (unless otherwise agreed upon, which isn't typical) the copyright is retained by the photographer for the duration of their life plus 70 years after their death. How can a copyright be retained by someone deceased? Just like any property, their heirs inherit it. So unless you or your ancestor took the photograph, you do not own the copyright, and if the photo is still in copyright, you may actually be the one committing copyright infringement by publishing it online without the photographer's or their heir's permission. It isn't exactly fair to get angry at someone for "stealing" a photo you had no right/permission to publish online to begin with.

If the copyright has expired (so it's been 70+ years since the photographer's death), then no one owns it and no one is legally doing anything wrong by copying a photo you shared. Sure, it might be a little rude to do so without a thank you, but when you make an expired copyright image publicly available, you have to assume it's going to get copied, because people are going to assume you put it out there to share it, not just show it off. And as for "giving credit" - I can certainly see the value in identifying the source of who originally scanned and shared the photo, so that any questions about it can be redirected back to you, however, that is called citing a source, not giving credit. (While on the topic of giving credit, it is also worth noting that when an image is still in copyright, giving credit even to the rightful copyright holder does not absolve you from copyright infringement, only plagiarism. Copyright is the right to publish, distribute, alter, etc so if you do not own the copyright and did not get permission to do so, you do not have the right to publish it, even if you "give credit". A lot of photographers today will let it slide as long as you do give credit, because it's free advertising, but that's their prerogative, they still have the right to send you a cease and desist letter if they want to, so it's always better to get permission first.)

Maybe your ancestor did take the photograph. Maybe your ancestor was a professional photographer, or it's just a candid snapshot taken among family with a personal camera - they were available from 1900 onward, so it's very possible. Generally, professional shots are easily distinguishable from family snapshots, at least in history (today, there are lots of amateur hobbyists as good as professionals). Don't be fooled into thinking unprofessional photos aren't copyrighted, they are. The trouble with them is knowing who took it. If you can determine the photographer as your ancestor (pro or not), and that ancestor died less than 70 years ago, then congratulations, you probably do hold the copyright for that photograph. Only catch is, probably so do all the other descendants of that same ancestor, and if one of them was the person who copied the photo you shared, then technically, they are well within their rights to do so.

In conclusion, the only situation where you have any ground to stand on when accusing someone of "stealing" photos you shared of your ancestors is if your ancestor took the photograph, died less than 70 years ago, and the person copying the photo is not also a descendant of that photographer (pro or not) ancestor. I understand even if it's not a copyright violation, it still bothers people when someone doesn't say a simple "thank you", but all I can say to that is if it really bothers you that much, don't put photos online, or make your tree private (note: private trees are not available at FamilySearch or Wikitree). But if you do put them publicly online, and you're not the copyright holder, then you really have no one else to blame but yourself.

The photographs I've included above as examples were stamped on the back (shown right). J. Bronson turns out to be James (aka Jay) Bronson who was born May 23, 1862 and died April 13, 1914. Since this was well over 70 years ago, it means his photographs are assuredly in the public domain, which means I'm not only free to publish them without permission, I also really have no room to complain if someone wants to copy them. I would hope that anyone who does though could cite my blog as the source so anyone with questions about them, or seeking higher quality versions for printing, or anyone who knows who these women are can get in touch with me.

On another note, I have been unable to find Bronson at this particular address of 46 Main Street, Germantown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Although there are many other listings of him on Main Street (aka Germantown Ave), none at number 46. That makes it difficult to narrow down the dates of the photos, but I believe they were taken at the same time, and that the similarity of their dresses suggests they may have been sisters. I'll go into more detail on this in another post.

The Legal Genealogist goes into more details about copyright laws in different situations, but I focused on the most common situation for most genealogists with photos of their ancestors, as it's the most applicable.

Sources:

• U.S. Copyright Office FAQ - How long does copyright protection last?
• The Legal Genealogist - Copyright and the old family photo
• James Bronson, 13 Apr 1914, Pennsylvania, Death Certificates, 1906-1966

Dating Old Photographs: Example #4

A cabinet card of an unknown woman. I have a lot of unknowns in my family's collection, and I think many of them were actually friends or distant relatives of my ancestors that my family simply held onto even though they weren't labelled. Given the location and time period of most of them, I think they were probably friends or relatives of my Rorer or Fallows ancestors in the Philadelphia area.

Estimated date: 1892-1893

The first thing I looked for was the photographer. It may not look like anything more than a decorative flourish at first, but that swirly thing in the middle of the bottom margin is the photographer's monogram and if you look closely it's the initials A.P.K.T. City directories tell me this was Albion K.P. Trask and that his photography studio was found at 1210 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia from 1879 to 1893. This narrows it down to almost a decade.

The curly/frizzy bangs (or fringe, if you're British) were popular throughout the 1880s and into the early 1890s as well, so her hairstyle is very consistent with the photographer's studio years.

The dark color of the cabinet card is also telling. These were used from about 1883 to 1895, although they were more expensive, so lighter cards were still dominant at the time. This helps narrow down my time frame, but can I narrow it down further?

The clothing she's wearing is very interesting. From time to time, I see this kind of beaded embroidery on the chest, especially on shiny, satin material like this. It seems to have been popular in the late 1880s and early 1890s. Given the lack of puffed shoulders or sleeves, I would normally think it's more likely to be late 1880s, but I can't completely rule out early 1890s. Just because a certain trend was fashionable during an era doesn't mean it was the only thing people wore.

Even more telling is the back of this cabinet card. The artwork covers nearly the entire back of it, which according to Phototree puts it in the range of 1888-1900. But most notably is the beveled edges. You might be able to see them in the image above, decorated in gold. Phototree tells us that beveled edges were used 1892-1900. We already know this particular photo is not later than 1893, due to the photographer's address, so the beveled edges narrows it down to 1892-1893.

The other elements, though they may not have narrowed it down this far, are still worth noting and knowing for other photographs, and understanding more about the subject. The extra expense of the dark card and the elaborate artwork on the back of the card suggests this photographer was on the pricier end of the scale, and that tells us something about the woman in the photograph too, she obviously wasn't exactly poor. This also helps me narrow down which branch of my tree she came from (even if she was only a friend of that branch).

On another note, the photographer Albion K.P. Trask was born about 1831, and died November 11, 1900, which was well over 70 years ago, meaning that the copyrights of all of his photographs are expired and now in the public domain. This leaves me (and anyone else) free to share and publish his photographs without permission.

A Tip on Photo Dating

Emma Sarah Fallows, c. 1900-1910

More than once, I've come across people who seem to think that if a particular trend was in fashion during a certain era, it means people didn't wear anything else! This is definitely not true. Just like today, there was often more than one trend popular at the time, and not everyone wore the most trending fashion, at least not all the time.

Recently, I saw a group photo (shown below right, used with permission from owner Ashley McQuillen, who asks relatives to contact her by email) including several women wearing the popular light colored shirtwaists with darker skirts, which were popular around 1898-1910, apart from one woman who was wearing a darker colored blouse. An assumption was made by someone that because light shirts were popular at the time, the only exception to this would be if someone was in mourning and therefore wearing black.

Please, don't go down this path of tunnel vision.

The photo, which subsequent discussion inspired this post.
The Oliver family of Cumberland Valley, Bedford County, PA
Back row, left to right: Susan Wertz Oliver, her husband
Patterson Oliver, unknown woman, Francis Morgan Oliver,
his wife Jane Gillum Oliver. Front: unknown woman,
Owen Ash Oliver, Ida Oliver Mock, 2 unknown women,
Hosea Hudson Oliver

Just because lighter blouses were popular at the time doesn't mean the only possible exception would be someone wearing black for mourning. I am not saying the woman wearing darker colors couldn't have been wearing black, or couldn't have been in mourning, just that you can't make that assumption, partly because that wasn't the only exception, and partly because we don't know it's black. Remember, in a black and white photo, light colors will often appear white, and dark colors will often appear black. It's not as though no other colors were worn before color photography was available! People wore a variety of colors, both light and dark, even during eras when one or the other was more popular.

In this historical clothing dating guide, you'll see if you scroll down all the way to the bottom of the 1900-1910 page, a group of women riding bicycles, all in light colored blouses except one. However, the one in a darker color is clearly not wearing a black shirt, as it's obviously a lighter color than her skirt. So she is not wearing black, which means she's probably not in mourning, but she is wearing a dark color, proving that not all women wore light colors all the time during this time period.

Consider also the impracticality of always wearing light colored shirts for a span of about ten years and trying to keep them clean in an era before the convenience of washing machines. In the same way that men of different stations in life would wear "blue collars" vs "white collars" depending on the type of work they did, so too would it have been impractical for certain women to always wear white or pastels. Even women of luxury probably still wore darker colors for certain activities, at least. In the cycling photo from the clothing dating guide (which I don't want to paste here because the copyright ownership is unclear), it seems that riding a bike would be one activity where it might be smart to wear a darker color.

Above (top left) is an image of my great grandmother, Emma Sarah Fallows (1888-1954). This was probably taken around 1900-1910, for a number of reasons. Her hair style, a typical Gibson girl style, was popular at this time, as was the bell shaped skirt she's wearing. It's a candid taken at her parent's home which was built in 1900, so it can't be before that year. The fact that it's a candid means it was probably taken with a Kodak Brownie, the first "snapshot" camera available/affordable to the general public, first released in 1900. But her clothing does not yet have the straighter waistlines that became popular for women in the 1910s, so it's probably pre-1910. As you can see, despite lighter blouses being more popular during this decade, she is wearing a darker shirt. Below are a couple more photos probably from the same day (she is wearing a cardigan but you can tell it's the same shirt, or in any case, it's a dark shirt). Note how her mother (Mary Ann Rorer) is wearing a lighter shirt. Same day/era, one woman wearing a light shirt, the other a dark shirt. There were no deaths in the family around this time, so no reason Emma would be wearing black for mourning, and even if she were, her mother likely would be as well. So don't get tripped up by thinking a popular trend meant no one wore anything else! That's not how fashion has ever really worked.

Dating Old Photographs: Example #3

A carte de visite from my own collection, featuring one of my ancestors. I am fortunate to know who these children are, from left to right are brothers John Henry "Harry" Fallows (b. 1862), George Fallows (b. 1867), and William Fallows (b. 1863).

Estimated Date: about 1868.

Many of you may already be familiar with the fact that boys under a certain age were typically clothed in dresses in history. They were usually "breeched" (began wearing breeches/trousers) anywhere from age 2 to 8. So the fact that George is in a dress here is not unusual and does not mean he must be a girl. Even the pink tinting of the skirt is not proof of gender. The main way to tell girls from boys when boys are still in skirts is the hair part. Girls parted their hair in the middle, boys on the side. Here, although George doesn't have much hair, you can see an attempt to part it on the side, certainly not in the middle. More importantly, the Fallows boys had no sisters.

The trouble with photos of children is that their clothing tends to be difficult to date. Men and children's clothing generally changed much less drastically and quickly than women's clothing did. The upside to photos of children is that because they grow so quickly, it's usually fairly easy to judge their approximate age. I'm estimating Harry is about 6 years old here, George is around a year, and William is about 5. That would be consistent with this photograph being taken approximately 1868. Certainly, it can't be before 1867, and most probably it isn't later than 1869.

In addition to the ages, there are other elements that tell us a lot about the time period, which may help when your photos aren't labelled. The tinting or coloring was most popular in the 1860s. Although that doesn't narrow it down much here, it may for other photos so it's worth mentioning. The borders are very noteworthy; the use of one thin inner line and one thick outer line was seen from 1864 to 1872. The lack of a tax stamp also suggests it's from after 1866 (from August 1864 until August 1866, photographs were taxed to help pay for the civil war - of course it could also be from before 1864, but given everything else, that's unlikely in this case). The plain background and square corners make it most likely pre-1870. All of that fits with this being from circa 1868.

Another dating aid is the size of the card and the image on the card. While the size of the card itself didn't change much (carte de visites are normally around 2 3/8" x 4 1/4" and only varied by about 1/4"), mine is 2 1/2" x 4" and in the book '19th Century Card Photos KwikGuide' it tells us this exact size came into use in the late 1860s. According to Phototree, image sizes started out small and continued to get larger over time until they filled the whole card and were finally superseded by larger cabinet cards. Phototree says the following:

Image Size:  Less than 3/4" . . . . . . . . 1860-1864
Image Size:  About 1" . . . . . . . . . . . . 1862-1867
Image Size:  Between 1 1/2" - 1/3/4"  1865-1872
Image Size:  Fills Complete Card . . . 1874-1910

The trouble with this is that my image size is about 2 1/4" x 3 5/8". I'm assuming Phototree is going by width, but even so there's no listing for 2 1/4", yet it does not completely fill the card. I don't know why Phototree doesn't have details on this size, but given that image sizes got larger as time went on, I'm guessing this size was found in the late 1860s or early 1870s.

The only thing perhaps not consistent with this being around 1868 is the fact that the back of it is blank. In '19th Century Card Photos' it says carte de visites with blank backs were typical of 1858-1861. There must have been some photographers who didn't imprint the backs of their cards later on too, because all the other elements suggest late 1860s. I would imagine that having your cards imprinted may have been more expensive for the photographer so some may have opted not to include it, regardless of the time period.

Dating Old Photographs: Example #1

I have so many old photographs in my family's collection, many of whom are unknown, or at least the dates are unknown. Previously, I gave some tips on how I've narrowed down when a photo was likely taken, but I'd like share the multitude of photos I have as examples. I'll start with this portrait of an unknown woman from my family's collection. I believe her to possibly be a family friend of my ancestors, most probably the Fallows or Godshalls, given the location and time period.

My estimate: 1896-1899

With this one, the first thing I did was look up the photographer at these addresses. Louis Baul had a studio at 56 North 8th Street and also 1937 Germantown Ave, Philadelphia, during the years 1889 to 1908. This narrows it down a little bit, but that's still a 20 year period. To narrow it down further, we need to look at the materials used, as well as the clothing and hair.

The mount used is very ornate, and textured. According to Phototree.com, these became popular in the late 1890s, which fits within the photographer's time frame. Additionally, according to the fashion dating guide at the University of Vermont, the puffy shoulders you see here, particularly the size and shape, are indicative of the mid to late 1890s. The hair is also typical of the mid to late 1890s, as women began to grow out and flatten the frizzy bangs which were popular in the 1880s and early 1890s, and parting their softer waves in the center.

Lastly, the color of the photo is important too. In earlier decades, carte de visites and cabinet cards were printed on sepia like paper and card, with brownish tones to them. It wasn't until the 1890s when true black and white photos became available. This one may be a touch brownish, when I grayscale it completely in Photoshop, there's a notable difference, however, that could be attributed to age. In comparison with older cabinet cards, this is not sepia.

So everything is consistent with being from the 1890s, most probably from the late 1890s.

Dating Old Photographs

Example of cabinet card with
photographer's details - this photog'
was at this address 1879-1887

Like me, you may have a collection of old photographs handed down to you with no knowledge of who the portraits are of, or even when they were taken. Here's a few tips to help you out.

1. The Photographer. Many photos may be printed on paper and mounted to stiff cardstock and stamped with the photographer's name and address in the margin or on the back. Using directory records, you can track when that photographer was working at that particular address, narrowing down the time period in which the photo must have been taken. More details on this can be found here: Mystery Photos.
2. The Fashion. Get to know the clothing and hairstyle fashions of different eras. This article from SheKnows has many useful links to websites that detail fashion from the 19th and 20th centuries. I make the most use out of the University of Vermont guide which also has info on dating photos based on all different topics, not just fashion. Don't be fooled into thinking people in rural areas didn't receive the latest fashions from magazines and catalogs, or that older people didn't stay up to date with modern fashions. See the common myths on this website. Pinterest can also be a useful source to finding images of popular fashions from different decades.
3. The Format. The materials used to create the original image (watch out for copies made from the original in much later eras) can be very useful in dating them:
• Daguerreotypes. The first publicly available photographs were daguerreotypes from 1839 until about 1860. Peaked in popularity in the 1840s and early to mid 1850s. A positive image was produced on a sheet of silver plated copper polished to a mirror finish and mounted in a protective hard case. More info.
• Calotypes. Available from 1841, the process produced a translucent negative on paper, allowing positive prints to be created from the negative. This created a softer image, often desirable for portraits. Despite these advantages over the daguerreotype, the calotype did not replace it and both processes remained popular until about the late 1850s/early 1860s. More info.
• Albumen print. A paper photograph with a positive image created from a negative (typically a negative from a collodion process which created a negative image on glass). Invented in 1850 but not popular until 1855 when it became the dominant form photographic positives. Peaked in popularity from the 1860s to 1890s when used for carte de vista and cabinet cards (see below). More info.
• Ambrotypes/collodion positive. First available from 1854 and popular for a brief period of time in the late 1850s/early 1860s before superseded by tintypes. You likely won't see any after 1865. They created a positive image on glass. Required mounting in protective hard case. More info.

  

  A tintype, probably from the late 1880s

• Tintypes. A positive image produced on a thin sheet of metal, no mounting required but sometimes mounted in a paper mat. Available from 1856 and most popular during the 1860s and 1870s, but still remained in use up to the early 20th century, though by that point it was considered a novelty. More info.
• Carte de Visite. A small albumen print (54.0 mm/2.125 in by 89 mm/3.5 in) typically mounted on thicker card measuring 64 mm/2.5 in by 100 mm/4 in). Patented in 1854 but not popular until 1859 and remained so throughout the 1860s and 1870s until the larger cabinet cards eventually replaced them. They were popular as calling cards to be traded among friends and visitors. More info.
• Cabinet Cards. A larger paper photograph (originally albumen but later processes used other types of paper) mounted on thick cardstock measuring 108 by 165 mm (4¼ by 6½ inches). Introduced in 1866 and most popular during the 1870s and 1880s, beginning to decline in the 1890s, though they did not completely disappear until the 1930s but were rare by that point. A cabinet card with a true black and white photo (not sepia) was likely produced in the 1890s or later. Those photos with the photographer's name and address stamped on the margin or back (such as discussed above) were usually Cabinet Cards. More info.
• Film/Paper. The first translucent negative sheet film was produced in 1885, with rolls of film as we know it today available from 1888. In 1900, the first Kodak Brownie was released and sold for only $1 (about $28 today), with the film for it costing only 15c, making photography affordable for the masses and giving birth to the "snapshot". Positive images were produced on simple, unmounted paper. 

There is an excellent and more advanced guide to print types available at PhotoTree.com.

The Horse in Motion, 1878

Misconceptions and Myths.

I see a lot of misunderstandings about photography in history and perhaps dispelling them will also help people understand the time period in which a photo might have been taken. 

Exposure times. Many people seem to think that in history, the length of time required to take or expose a photograph was so long, one wasn't able to smile or move. This was true in the very early days of photography, but not by the late 19th century. The first daguerreotypes and calotypes in the 1840s had exposure times as short as 5 minutes in optimal conditions but later their exposure times were reduced to only a few seconds by 1864 with the invention of the collodion process in 1851 followed by improvements on it which increased sensitivity to light. Granted, this was in optimal (bright sunlight) conditions, but I have photographs of small children starting from the 1860s (shown below), which wouldn't be possible without exposure times measured in seconds because we all know small children won't hold still very long (and I don't care what time period they were from, small children still had little patience or self control). By 1871, the gelatin dry plate method made exposure times short enough that cameras could be hand held (ie, fraction of a second).

Small child, circa 1867

By 1878, technology shortened exposure times to a fraction of a second, about 1/25th of a second. Have you ever seen "The Horse in Motion", a sequence of photographs of a horse and rider at a gallop, analyzing it's gait frame by frame (shown above)? That was done in 1878. Without getting too technical, anything that is fast enough to capture and freeze the motion of a galloping horse is more than fast enough to capture a smile or movement of a human being.

Of course, it's reasonable to assume that not all photographers had the most advanced equipment the moment it became available. But it's also reasonable to assume it wasn't too long after 1878 before most photographers were using equipment that allowed them to photograph with exposures of at least only a few seconds, or even a fraction of a second.

So why aren't there more photographs of people smiling or moving around from the late 19th century? It's probably due to the fact that until about 1885 or 1900 at the latest, photography was not affordable to the masses and the processing could be complex. Therefore, the industry was very much controlled by professional photographers and that meant that getting one's photograph taken was a formal event. The concept of the candid photograph didn't really exist yet, and people's only basis for a formal image of themselves stemmed from paintings, where there was no smiling or moving around. So the idea of this as a formal portrait carried over into photography until the advent of the candid photograph. There are examples of candids in the 1880s and 1890s, but it really took off in 1900 with the introduction of the Kodak Brownie, which practically anyone could afford.

Detail. Many people also seem to think that pre-20th century, photographs didn't have much fine detail to them. And while it's true that many surviving photographs from the 19th century don't have much fine detail, that doesn't mean the technology didn't exist to capture it. Just look at some of the photographs of US presidents dating the 1850s and 1860s! While these were probably taken by some of the best photographers in the country, that doesn't mean such detail was exclusive to the best of the best photographers. Take for example the image to the right, which was likely from the 1870s or early 1880s. Note the fine detail in the strands of his hair and mustache.

Sources:

• History of Photography
• Timeline of Photography Technology
• Photographic Exposure Calculations - A History
• Black and White Photographs - University of Vermont
• Phototree.com
• And, you know... being a professional photographer...