PDA

View Full Version : Old wedding portrait customs


Justin J. Rebbert
07 January 2009, 03:31 PM
I have recently scanned a photo taken of my great-grandparents on the day of their wedding in 1918. There are four people in it; two seated, and two standing. I have not yet found any other photos of my great-grandparents taken around this time; the only other photos I have of them are from the 1940s or later, so I'm not familiar with what they looked like when they were that young. I'm also not familiar with this type of wedding pose.

So my problem is I'm not absolutely certain which couple in the photo are my great-grandparents.

http://web.me.com/jjr512/family/augustandcatherineseeholzerwedding.jpeg

I'm assuming it's the seated couple for three reasons: 1. The seated man has a top hat proudly displayed. The groom should be the most fancily dudded up gentleman in the wedding. 2. The seated woman appears to have a fancier veil and her dress train is displayed around the seat; just as with the man, the bride would have the fanciest dress and would display it in photos as much as possible. 3. A seated position would seem in my mind to be the place of honor.

Do you think the bride and groom are the seated couple or the standing couple?

ByronSpoon
07 January 2009, 03:49 PM
For all the reasons you have just described I would think the seated couple are the bride and groom.

But you have withheld the most helpful information for identification, that being the more recent older-age pictures you have. There should be enough in the way of features to compare young with old. For example the seated man has a rounder head shape and very distinctive droopy eyelids. The standing man has a prematurely receding hairline. And the seated woman has slanted eyes and a narrower smile than the standing woman. How do these features compare with the later pictures you have of your great-grandparents.

theKiwi
07 January 2009, 05:37 PM
And the newest version of iPhoto announced yesterday with its "Faces" feature which utilises Facial Recognition software to help you identify all the pictures in our library with particular people in them could probably help too - but it's not out until the end of January apparently.

Roger

kmuch
07 January 2009, 07:38 PM
I think it's a near certainty that the bride and groom are seated and their attendants stand behind them. The bride is wearing a veil with train; the "maid of honor" has a headband and a less-ornate bouquet. I agree with the guess that the top hat belongs to the groom, and note that he appears to have a lily-of-the-valley boutonniere, traditional for grooms, whereas the "best man" has a rose.

You may not have proof until you find some further photos of the participants, but I'd bet money that your identification is correct. If you ever find another picture, look closely at the ears, the most distinctive of a person's features and one that doesn't change significantly with age (except for droopy lobes).

Kathleen
The Book Doctor

WilliamTaber
07 January 2009, 07:49 PM
I whole heartedly agree. The seated couple are the bride and groom. In addition to all the reasons stated here, I have numerous wedding photos of my ancestors and other relatives which utilized similar posing arrangements.

I think it's a near certainty that the bride and groom are seated and their attendants stand behind them. The bride is wearing a veil with train; the "maid of honor" has a headband and a less-ornate bouquet. I agree with the guess that the top hat belongs to the groom, and note that he appears to have a lily-of-the-valley boutonniere, traditional for grooms, whereas the "best man" has a rose.

Kathleen
The Book Doctor

Nic Maennling
07 January 2009, 09:20 PM
The scanned photo exhibits a fair amount of "silver bloom" on the surface of the print. This is a function of the scanning process. It exists because of the original processing which I won't go into here.

This can easily be eliminated.

May I suggest that, instead of scanning the photograph, you take a high quality digital photograph of the original print and you will find that the silver bloom will disappear. You may need to make a few minor adjustments using digital image management software.

Contact me offline for further guidance.

Nic Maennling
Lanark, Ontario, Canada

Dennis J. Cunniff
07 January 2009, 09:56 PM
The scanned photo exhibits a fair amount of "silver bloom" on the surface of the print. This is a function of the scanning process. It exists because of the original processing which I won't go into here.


I'm trying to figure out what "silver bloom" is. Is it the lightening most apparent over the groom's pants?

Marilynn
07 January 2009, 11:27 PM
Justin,
My guess is that it was a double wedding, with the bride that's standing is the sister of the groom that's sitting. Look at the mouths of these two. The other possibility is that the couple that's standing are the best man and maid of honor.


Do you think the bride and groom are the seated couple or the standing couple?[/QUOTE]

Ursula
08 January 2009, 04:39 AM
May I suggest that, instead of scanning the photograph, you take a high quality digital photograph of the original print and you will find that the silver bloom will disappear. You may need to make a few minor adjustments using digital image management software.

Contact me offline for further guidance.


Nic, would you share your knowledge, maybe in another thread? I am very interested in this too.

Thanks in advance.

WilliamTaber
08 January 2009, 08:10 PM
Nic, I am interested in whatever techniques you might suggest. I have numerous photos with far greater degrees of bloom than the one exhibited here. I would be particularly interested in post scanning removal, as I have scans without access to the originals in some cases.

The scanned photo exhibits a fair amount of "silver bloom" on the surface of the print. This is a function of the scanning process. It exists because of the original processing which I won't go into here.

This can easily be eliminated.

May I suggest that, instead of scanning the photograph, you take a high quality digital photograph of the original print and you will find that the silver bloom will disappear. You may need to make a few minor adjustments using digital image management software.

Contact me offline for further guidance.

Nic Maennling
Lanark, Ontario, Canada

Nic Maennling
08 January 2009, 09:37 PM
My apologies if my response was incomplete. Some old photographs when looked at in reflected light show a metallic sheen or reflection. It looks like a greyish deposit on the surface of the photograph. It is most noticeable on dark areas of the photo. The reason for this deposit is because there is metallic silver on the surface of the photograph which should not be there. Scanning makes things worse (due to reflections off the silver) but taking a photograph with a digital camera usually eliminates this problem.

Some people may never realize that this flaw exists simply because they have not had the opportunity to view the image as it was intended !

While I discovered this solution on my own, I have seen web sites explaining this tip. I am away on business now but will try and locate a site soon.

I hope this helps.
Nic Maennling
Lanark, Ontario, Canada

Nic Maennling
09 January 2009, 08:34 PM
Nic, I am interested in whatever techniques you might suggest. I have numerous photos with far greater degrees of bloom than the one exhibited here. I would be particularly interested in post scanning removal, as I have scans without access to the originals in some cases.

I know of no method to delete silver bloom from a scanned image. Others may have tried but I have not. My guess is that it would be very difficult. An extremely clever Photoshop expert may be able to reduce it.

Nic

Justin J. Rebbert
11 January 2009, 09:33 PM
My apologies if my response was incomplete. Some old photographs when looked at in reflected light show a metallic sheen or reflection. It looks like a greyish deposit on the surface of the photograph. It is most noticeable on dark areas of the photo. The reason for this deposit is because there is metallic silver on the surface of the photograph which should not be there...
I got out the photograph and opened up the high-quality large TIFF version of the photo to compare them side-by-side again. I don't think I fully understood what you were talking about until I noticed that when I held the photo at a certain angle to the light, all the dark areas took on a silvery sheen.

I will have to remember your solution, but the only digital cameras in my family are smaller point-and-shoots, probably without the level of image quality to make it worth while.

In the meantime, if you have any tips or suggestions on what to do with the spotting that's much more prominent in the top half of the photo, I'd love to hear about that, whether in reply here or at jjr512nospam@mac.com (just remove the "nospam" from the address prior to sending). Thanks!

LarryB
12 January 2009, 07:29 PM
I got out the photograph and opened up the high-quality large TIFF version of the photo to compare them side-by-side again. I don't think I fully understood what you were talking about until I noticed that when I held the photo at a certain angle to the light, all the dark areas took on a silvery sheen.

I will have to remember your solution, but the only digital cameras in my family are smaller point-and-shoots, probably without the level of image quality to make it worth while.

In the meantime, if you have any tips or suggestions on what to do with the spotting that's much more prominent in the top half of the photo, I'd love to hear about that, whether in reply here or at jjr512nospam@mac.com (just remove the "nospam" from the address prior to sending). Thanks!

I have had the problem of silvering with some old black and whites. I have tried a couple of techniques I have found via some different discussion groups that involve how the original image is scanned, etc. In the end, at least with the particular images I was working on, I didn't find those satisfactory.

I finally tried re-setting or converting the images to black and white -- I know they already were -- but i had scanned them as color images to try to get any more depth I could. Then I have tried re-doing them into black and whites, but by not by using the very basic "Grayscale" option in Photoshop Elements. In the latest version of Photoshop Elements for Mac, version 6, there is an Enhance option, Convert to Black and White that gives you the ability various options for the look of the output, plus the ability to further adjust the Red/Green/Blue and Contrast to give even better results. The specific steps you would take would depend on what photo editing software you use and which version. But that is an approach you might try. It has worked for me.

Michael Talibard
13 January 2009, 10:46 AM
I have done some work on the wedding photo from Justin which started this thread and have achieved what I think are worthwhile improvements. When I explained to Justin how it was done, he thought it might be worth posting that information here.

In what follows, I name the tools as they are known in my particular system (called Photodesk, running under RISCOS): other image-manipulation software, such as 'Elements' will have essentially the same things, but maybe under different names.

I started by removing the spots, using

Andrew-Bede Allsop
01 February 2009, 02:38 AM
And the newest version of iPhoto announced yesterday with its "Faces" feature which utilises Facial Recognition software to help you identify all the pictures in our library with particular people in them could probably help too - but it's not out until the end of January apparently.

Roger

This is now available. I would be interested to know if anyone has tried the facial recognition facility and if they found it useful, how good did they find it? In theory it should be very useful and for the price if iLife would be a great investment if it works okay!

By the way I have a number of photographs similar to that being discussed and in every case the bride and groom are the seated pair, so I would be pretty confiodent in saying that this is true for the image here.

Andrew-Bede