My mom’s interested in our family tree, and she’s slowly piecing together the people and information. Every so often she finds a new cousin via email and gets new photographs, but often it’s a case of, “Here’s a picture I have of some people in the family but I’m not sure who they are or when it was taken.”
Here is a piece of the newest photograph (mom didn’t want the entire photo online since 1 - it had names on it (first names only) and 2 - we don’t technically own the photograph). http://winstonlf.com/hotaru/whatdate.jpg
We’re figuring it’s from somewhere between 1890 - 1910, but that’s a rather wide window. The standing lady on the left has a dress in a different style than the woman next to her, so we’re hoping that maybe a more specific date could be determined.
1899 sewing pattern collection from the Cosmopolitan Fashion Co. I notice that the women in the photographs are not wearing the puffy sleeves that were popular in the mid-1890s, which makes me think the photo is more toward 1900.
Okay, I can’t say exact date, but looking at the bodices, I’d say 1903-1906. They’re wearing the “pidgeon-bust” look-the lower part of the blouse sort of loose and bloused out, which was popular around that time period. T
It’s definitely later than the 1890s,(then you’d see the really tight waist, mutton chopper sleeves, and poodle hair) and I’d say no later than 1908. If you want, I could show the picture at a vintage clothing board I belong to and get a more definitive answer.
Smiling for pictures is a recent thing. Back in the early days of photography, you had to sit super still for a few minutes, otherwise the photograph would be blurred-so it was easier to just keep a neutral expression on one’s face.
Also, taking your picture was a big ordeal, until the invention of the snapshot-so you wanted something serious and dignified. Personally, I wouldn’t mind a return to this idea-I always look so fake when I smile in pictures.
So, so far the year is between 1902-1906 (1902 given over Yahoo by a member who didn’t renew). That seems pretty likely.
Heh, yes they are stern. I think the one in the lower right looks like she’s plotting to kill someone. And I cropped out the one lady who looks extremely depressed. Here she is, in her gloomy glory: http://winstonlf.com/hotaru/depressed.jpg
Early in the history of photography, yes. The first commercial daguerreotypes had exposure times ranging from 3 to 15 minutes in bright sunlight; later modifications to the sensitization process and the improvement of lenses in the 1840s reduced exposure to less than one minute. You can see from this photograph of President Lincoln’s funeral in 1865 that exposure times were reduced sufficiently that even some slow movement could be frozen.
By 1872 exposure time for the tintype varied between three and twenty seconds. Then in the late 1870s, the commercial dry plate process was introduced, reducing exposure time to less than a second — in bright sunlight, to 1/30 of a second.
The picture of the four women was made about twenty years after that. So long exposure times are not why the weren’t smiling.
It might help if you say where the photo was taken and what the women did for a living (obviously, if you know). Often styles took quite a while to get “out West”. Much the same goes for profession. According to my friend at the local historical society, “school marms” tended to be more hip regarding their clothing than most people in isolated communities in the West and it is easier to date an old photo with (especially new) female school teachers in it than most other professions. Although he said prostitutes had some very era specific attire.
I am going to take your photo by him tomorrow after I get off work.
I have a photograph of my grandmother that I believe was taken around the time of her wedding in 1906. She’s wearing a blouse similar in construction to the white blouse in the photo.
That white blouse and black skirt combo was the equviellent of the 1980s “power suit” after 1900. You’ll see it very frequently in photos of working women.
It also greatly depends on what those women had been doing that day. If they’d gathered to can vegetables, or just on a casual visit to Sister’s house, they wouldn’t necessarily have worn their most fashionable clothing. Also, older women were sometimes more resistant to newer styles. Sometimes, you’ll see photos which have a concrete date, but the clothing is ten years out of fashion.
It would also help to know what the original photo looks like. A lot can be told from the backing, etc.
Okay, I was told that I’m wrong-it was 1890s, because of the sleeves. I still think it reminds ME of 1900s, but the people I asked know more than I do. If you’d like to ask further:
They were obviously trying to look cool for their album cover.
But seriously, folks, I think potrait photography at the time was thought of as an extension of portait painting, a serious artifact for posterity. You don’t see much smiling in painted portaits either. I think it was a cultural holdover rather than a technical issue. Once photos became more common and cheaper you get to see the goofy candid shots and those pearly whites.
