A friend sent me this picture of a family portrait from about 1908. One of those chaps is his grandpa. Given the date, would it have to be a hand colored photo? Anyway, what my friend noticed is the very bright white of the shirtfronts. I think the family feels there has been a change there, and they are is curious about what is going on. Maybe the white was always bright and the rest has just faded so much it the white is starkly obvious?
Anyone familiar with this type of thing? I'm not.
My bet is the white was hand-painted as well, so it stayed the same while the rest of the photo faded (inadequate washing)
Newly made large format dry plates available! Look:
https://www.pictoriographica.com
I've used Marshall Photo Oils to color b&w prints. I just left the print untouched where I wanted white areas. I don't know what they used in 1908 but the color probably just faded with age. I would think that the white paper would age too some. Look close. Maybe they used white paint for the shirts?
Here's a start. Artist paint varies, especially white as base for other tints.
Chaik
http://www.tate.org.uk/research/publ...ting-materials
Hand painting of such details has been done since the early days of photography. The paint may have looked right when the photo was new, but as the photo darkened with age, the white paint became conspicuous. Good quality white paint can retain its original color better than many photographs.
Thanks for the replies. Yes, the white paint not fading as much sound plausible. I will tell the owner of this photo that his white paint is "good quality", and he will probably like it better.
White Gouache was commonly used at that time and is an opaque paint as opposed to the watercolours used to colourize photographs otherwise. Clarence White's prints that have it now look like white out was painted on.
That's it Bill!Originally Posted by cowanw
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks