Found Treasure, A Portrait of my Grandfather as a Boy

[akfreak]

Link to the video please watch in HD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW7Udix-yGk)

First, I hope someone here can help me identify the process used to create this image. Also what kind of paper and chemicals are used to make such a print. I want to create some prints like this. It is not really a black and white, it is more of a Brown and Cream.

Here is the story,

I was looking through some old trunks and found a blinder of sorts, in that binder there was a portrait inside of a very nice mount. I was astonished at what I saw inside. But before I opened the main flap It was astonishing just to at the craftsman used to create the mount. Everything had a wonderful texture.

The print is amazing and i made a video to show you. IMO the video I shot doesn't do the portrait justice but it will show you exactly what type of image it is. I was hoping someone here can better explain. I shot the video in HD to let you see the detail better. When the image is turned A bluish silver negative looking image appears, Is this a Silver gelatin print? I dont really know much about old papers.

One last thing I found out the studio in Dallas that made the print Burned down and all of the equipment was lost.

on an embarrassing note, I dropped the image a couple of times trying to adjust the camera, but did not harm the picture. I plan to fnd a way to archive the print. I also plan to scan it in and retouch the blemish in the bottom right corner. Have it reprinted to hand on my wall. I dont want this Image to endure any more damage due to my handling or that of others.


Any and all information about how one could make prints like this would be wonderful. I just love to see that silverbluish information when you hold the print at an angle.

[akfreak]

Not a single person can tell em anything about this image. That is depressing, it only took 55 posts here to be put on the pay not attention list, LOL I guess I will have to double post it on Apug. This type of image is one I want to create. I dont have a clue as to what process was used to make an image like that. Was it shades of black that faded to brown? Was the paper yellow or white? Oh wait I alomst forgot, I almost forgot no one is going to answer. Just Kidding!

I hope I havent pissed you guys off. If I have please tell me what I did so I can address any issues. This pleace is invaluabe as a resource, all of the knowlegde from the experts is going to be gone unless you share it with others. When the demand for film dies off so does this type of photography. If mre people are inspired to create with film then so does the demand to produce it.

I forsee the price of film to skyrocket in the next 20 years. Look at the price od a pack of expired polaroid 600, $100 I have seen. That is rediculous! Help film stay alive, share your knowledge

AKf

[Ari]

I don't know, others will certainly chime in, but the look you speak of has a lot to do with the type of paper used, the toning of the image, and it looks like it might have been hand-coloured as well.

[BrianShaw]

I don't think you are suffering a problem resulting from offending people, but you might want to be a more patient. Not everyone sits all day waiting to answer questions on on-line forums.

I suspect your photo is a silver print that was toned and perhaps has oxidized some.

For me, at least, it would be better to post a scan than a video.

[Jim Jones]

I totally agree with Brian. One good photo is worth a thousand words, while a 7 minute video is a PITA. Many of us on a large format forum have seen many similar photos. That quality was fairly common almost a century ago. The folders were mass produced. The discolorization in your speciman would trouble the photographer if he could see it now, instead of being something exotic. I suggest that you do a top quality scan of it, correct a few flaws, and spread copies among your cousins so it might never become totally lost as long as there is any interest in your grandfather.

[akfreak]

I totally agree with Brian. One good photo is worth a thousand words, while a 7 minute video is a PITA. Many of us on a large format forum have seen many similar photos. That quality was fairly common almost a century ago. The folders were mass produced. The discolorization in your speciman would trouble the photographer if he could see it now, instead of being something exotic. I suggest that you do a top quality scan of it, correct a few flaws, and spread copies among your cousins so it might never become totally lost as long as there is any interest in your grandfather.

Great advice. The reason I did a video was to show the silver/blusih cast at an angle. I would of much rather canned it and posted the iamge, however this would not show the total picture as I see it. The video did show you exactly what I see. The color on ly calibrated monitor is identical to what I see.

I do plan to scan it and retouch it then make some prints for my family members. I only have an all in one Brother scanner MFC-665CW. So I am goinmg to find a local pro that had a better scanner so I can have a better file to work woth. The scans from my Btother are less than ideal to say the least.


The only reason I mentioned about no responses is I saw the post had over 50 views and not a single mention about anything. Thanks for those that too time to waatch and respond, I apprciate your time. AKf

[cowanw]

The folder suggests post WW1
The shine is poor fixing. The colour is toning.

[Nathan Potter]

Well the suspense during the opening of the video is sort of Hitchkockian. Dunno; the bluish tint changes as the angle changes and is reminiscent of a surface contamination such as cigarette smoke. There is the possibility of incomplete fixing as mentioned. The sepia could be toning or characteristic of early emulsions.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Nathan Appel]

Well the suspense during the opening of the video is sort of Hitchkockian. Dunno; the bluish tint changes as the angle changes and is reminiscent of a surface contamination such as cigarette smoke. There is the possibility of incomplete fixing as mentioned. The sepia could be toning or characteristic of early emulsions.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.
I think Nate might be right about the cigarrette smoke, I have some magazines that have a similar cast, but, I'm taking a guess.

[akfreak]

I dont know about the smoke, I guess it could be, but it is pretty uniform and seeing how it was stored in a closed binder I dont think smoke could uniformly attack the image and create the blue cast evenly.

Based on an earlier poster advice, I did scan it, (with my crappy scanner) and I am going to attempt a retouch (my first one). The image is much darker when it is small and before I converted it to Jpg, it also has the blue cast. The compression to .jpg the file has lost a lot of information and most of the blue cast. I will do the retouch on a .tiff then make my prints.

Here is the first scan
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5230/5695224880_228dfe5425_b.jpg

[Doremus Scudder]

It looks like a typical studio portrait from the early decades of the 20th century to me. The olive tone is likely a characteristic of the paper used and not toning. I would suspect that it is a contact print made on a standard silver-gelatin paper of the day.

The metallic sheen you see is called "silvering out," and is a patina that forms from the silver in the image as it starts to degrade somewhat. Usually this is due to atmospheric contaminants or less-than-adequate processing.

There are lots of postcards and portraits from this time that now look a lot like your photograph.

Hope this helps some.

Doremus Scudder

[de-lux]

This is why I've went back to film, it has much better archival properties. I found an old book of kodak prints with each picture printed on a different type of Kodak paper, Kodak used to make such a lot of different type and finishes of paper, but now we're quite limited. I'd say the print of your grandfather was printed on a silver gelatin warm tone type paper, but hasn't been fixed for longer enough which has given it a metallic look, I've also so this effect with old film. Don't know if this effect can be achieved with modern paper as some of the formular has been changed in some papers, and the matallic effect comes with age as far as I know. Some film and papers from the eastern block are best as they're still made in the old ways.

[Brian Ellis]

I certainly understand the emotional attachment of the photograph for you and I think it's admirable that you cared enough about it to take the time to make the video. But from a technical/aesthetic standpoint neither the folder nor the photograph itself are anything unusual. Those kinds of folders were used and those kinds of portraits were made by portrait photographers for years, I have a bunch of the same kind made in the 1920s and forward. As for the photograph itself, like others have suggested it's probably a gelatin silver paper that's been toned with a brown toner or a sepia toner.

I don't know what caused the bluish stuff but as others have said, it likely comes from a lack of care in processing or storage. Whatever the cause, it's probably only going to get worse with time so if you really value the photograph I'd suggest having it duplicated digitally so that you and later generations will have it without the blue sheen.

[BrianShaw]

It looks like a typical studio portrait from the early decades of the 20th century to me. The olive tone is likely a characteristic of the paper used and not toning. ...


... Kodak used to make such a lot of different type and finishes of paper, but now we're quite limited. I'd say the print of your grandfather was printed on a silver gelatin warm tone type paper, but hasn't been fixed for longer enough which has given it a metallic look, ...


Kodak Ektalure paper, perhaps, or something similar??

[sanking]

Not suggesting that the OP do so, but what would happen to a print that shows this kind of patina or shine from silver oxidation if you run it through a fresh fixer? Would this remove the patina or slow down the process in the future.

Sandy

[BrianShaw]

I suspect that the non-archival nature of those old folders might be a major contributor to the degradation. I have an old family wedding picture (1920's) that exhibits similar degradation. It has been in one of those folders since it was printed. First action should be to get the print out of the folder and into an archival envelope.

I have not idea if the original print is salvagable or not, but re-photogrphing to a high-quality interneg and re-printing would be my action. (Some think I'm crazy but more archivists are starting to acknowledge the benefits of "traditional" restorationa nd archivery techniques versus the "scan everything and discard the original" approach that seems to prevail lately.)

[akfreak]

Thanks again for everyones input. I did scan it, I am working to retouch it. I plan to buy an archival envelopes.

@Brian Ellis " But from a technical/aesthetic standpoint neither the folder nor the photograph itself are anything unusual."

I made such a big deal about it because what was once a standard back in the day, would not cost you a small fortune to replicate. It seems mot places want extra $$$ for the slightest effort above standard printing. I have to assume that getting an embossed sleeve was just part of the portrait back in the days. Today that mount/sleeve embossed with beveled corners would cost more than a few dollars.

I guess my point is what was standard back in the day was much better, people took pride in their work and craftsmen, artisans, of most all trades and produced superior products. This kind of quality doesn't seem to be available today with the same attention to detail. If one does find it, they pay through the nose to get it.

Back in the day, simple tools used create superior products. Today complex technology that on average achieve a far less quality product. I know that some of the studios still achieve excellent results.

I would venture to guess those studios would charge a premium to create an image that would represent what I took a video of. This is what I was trying to say

[Doremus Scudder]

Just a short follow-up.

I have a few portraits like this in the family pictures. It seems to me that the olive tone is part of the silver image itself, and not toning, but I could be wrong. In any case the paper base is a cream color and the image an olive green/brown.

As for silvering out or tarnishing, it could be due to contaminants in the sleeve, as Brian points out above, or atmospheric contaminants and/or poor processing.

Take a look at http://nga.gov.au/Conservation/prevention/photos.cfm for more info.

Here's a quote from the site: "Particulate silver, the principal photographic image-forming material in both the 19th and 20th centuries, reacts dramatically to atmospheric contaminants such as hydrogen sulphide and peroxides. Visible deterioration of the photograph or negative will manifest as tarnishing in darker image areas (known as ‘silvering out’), changes in image tone from black to brown (‘sulphiding’) and overall fading. To avoid this, photographs should be mounted and framed or interleaved and stored with archival quality chemically stable acid-free plastics such as polyethylene, polypropylene or polyester. Archival paper products should be neutral pH, unbuffered and lignin, sulphur and peroxide free."

I don't think there is a way to reverse the silvering out, but certainly, the image is good enough to be copied. With proper storage it should last another century or more with luck.

Best,

Doremus Scudder

[akfreak]

@Doremus Scudder this a perfect response. Thanks for your time and link. Splendid indeed. AKf

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks again for everyones input. I did scan it, I am working to retouch it. I plan to buy an archival envelopes.

@Brian Ellis " But from a technical/aesthetic standpoint neither the folder nor the photograph itself are anything unusual."

I made such a big deal about it because what was once a standard back in the day, would not cost you a small fortune to replicate. It seems mot places want extra $$$ for the slightest effort above standard printing. I have to assume that getting an embossed sleeve was just part of the portrait back in the days. Today that mount/sleeve embossed with beveled corners would cost more than a few dollars.

I guess my point is what was standard back in the day was much better, people took pride in their work and craftsmen, artisans, of most all trades and produced superior products. This kind of quality doesn't seem to be available today with the same attention to detail. If one does find it, they pay through the nose to get it.

Back in the day, simple tools used create superior products. Today complex technology that on average achieve a far less quality product. I know that some of the studios still achieve excellent results.

I would venture to guess those studios would charge a premium to create an image that would represent what I took a video of. This is what I was trying to say

I think you have some massive over-generalizations here but there's no point in arguing about it. It's nice that you found a portrait of your grandfather and have taken the time to make the video and discuss it here. I would suggest again that you have some copies made digitally so that the on-going deterioration doesn't ultimately leave you and later generations with no photograph at all.

[Michael E]

I have to assume that getting an embossed sleeve was just part of the portrait back in the days. Today that mount/sleeve embossed with beveled corners would cost more than a few dollars.

Back in the days a visit to the local portrait studio was not cheap. A sleeve like that might cost a few dollars today, but we earn a lot more (in absolute numbers) than they did back than.


I guess my point is what was standard back in the day was much better, people took pride in their work and craftsmen, artisans, of most all trades and produced superior products. This kind of quality doesn't seem to be available today with the same attention to detail. If one does find it, they pay through the nose to get it.

People still take pride in what they do. Tools change, always have. Photographers in 1930 would have killed for a tool like photoshop. People in another 80 years will find early digital photography incredibly charming.


I would venture to guess those studios would charge a premium to create an image that would represent what I took a video of.

Because it is not standard procedure anymore. It is not hard (for someone who knows what they are doing) to produce this kind of print quality. Back then they had fixed setups and large numbers, now it's special order.

If you are interested in producing similar photos: Much of the magic of this image is due to good lighting. Also, the contrast range of the lighting in this image is a perfect match for the tonal range of the film. It was probably taken with a large camera and contact printed - it was simpler and cheaper than getting a small negative enlarged. Contact prints have advantages when it comes to smooth tonal transitions and the rendering of fine details. The paper was probably a warm tone paper, or was toned, or faded to brown. This refers to the silver image. The paper probably had also a creme-colored base (at least here in Germany it was called "chamois"). Todays papers usually have a bright white base. You can "tone" it by bathing it in coffee, tea, herbal tea, etc. (FB paper only, this does not work with RC paper).

If you work along these marks (good light, contact printing, warm tone(d) paper with warm tone(d) base), you should be able to achieve a similar quality. Well, that plus years of study and practice. It's not the material alone...

Michael

[tgtaylor]

I watched the video but I don't have the sound hooked-up on this box. However, it appears that the studio's name is shown below the photo: Voorhers & Brudsa... . With that information you could search the Dallas City directories and newspapers of the time for information on their services. Surely they advertised. You can also consult this online source http://www.langdonroad.com/ and the book Catching Shadows: A Directory of Nineteenth-Century Texas Photographers by David Haynes which is available at amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Catching-Shadows-Directory-Nineteenth-Century-Photographers/dp/0876111304#_

A little time spent digging should turn-up a wealth of information about their methods and services.

Best of luck with it,

Thomas

[Daniel Stone]

vorhees & burdsall studios, I just searched it on google:

seems they were a studio of some sort, I can't seem to find any more info that what is referenced below

http://books.google.com/books?id=DvfNAAAAMAAJ&lpg=PA534&ots=HJP2lLsOWK&dq=voorhees%20%26%20burdsal%20dallas&pg=PA534#v=onepage&q=voorhees%20&%20burdsal%20dallas&f=false

-Dan

[Sevo]

Not suggesting that the OP do so, but what would happen to a print that shows this kind of patina or shine from silver oxidation if you run it through a fresh fixer? Would this remove the patina or slow down the process in the future.


Re-fixing will do all kinds of nasty things to the toned image, and will not remove dichroic silvering. There are some funky tricks with hydrochloric fumes which are sometimes used in severe cases when important documentary photographs glaze over to invisibility, but you would not do that on such a overall nice picture.

Careful washing might help to get the hypo residues out, but it is risky, and in such a mild case, the damage done by having to remove the original mounting board is much worse than any improvement you can expect from wet reprocessing, so I'd urgently recommend to leave it alone. Further decay can be slowed by placing a sheet of alkaline buffered archival tissue over the image before folding the cover sleeve, and storing the image perfectly dry and protected against environmental gasses.

[akfreak]

vorhees & burdsall burned down lost everything