Forensic photography sleuths -- help me understand this old picture

[Dusty Negative]

I inherited a clearly very old picture, just 2 1/2" by 3 1/2" :

There's a stamp on the back which reads: "Finished by Wallis Art Gallery, Sweetwater, Texas." (partially obscured, I *think* it say Wallis).

Based on the texture and coloring of the print, I'm guessing it's an albumen print. However, with the sky so clearly blown out, I am guessing that originally it was some type of collodion capture.

Guesstimating the date of the photo just based on who this person is (a great-grandfather of whom we know practically nothing) I'm putting the date in the 19 teens or perhaps early 1920s.

But...to my limited knowledge, albumen, collodion, and 1920s don't seem to line up very well. Wasn't collodion pretty much finished by the turn of the century?? Does the word "Finished" have any further implication other than enlarging? Perhaps this is a copy of an earlier print?

Anyways, a bit of history I though I would share with the group.

 

[Donald Qualls]

It's probably a contact print on gelatin paper from a 120 ("6x9" = 2 1/4 x 3 1/4) negative. Contact printing was the common way of making positives for in-hand viewing from the 1890s until the 1950s; pretty much all formats from 127 and larger were contact printed. A 120 camera would have been a common size; the format was introduced in 1900. "Finished" was a term used for developing and printing -- as in "photofinishing" which was still a common term until the digital era (and even into that era; I've seen it applied to printing from thumb drives or phones).

Most consumer films from roughly 1920 were orthochromatic, which would still blow out skies (it happens even with modern panchromatic films, because skies are often quite bright compared to the important subjects, so wind up overexposed). The fairly hard shadows suggest it was a clear, sunny day, so nothing in the sky to provide any texture, and the detail of the face under the hat indicate an exposure that would have blown out any light clouds in a non-dramatic sky anyway. In this case, based on the color of lips and the evenness of the skin tone, I think this was probably panchromatic film -- which was available by 1920, though ortho hung on into the 1950s (the change from Verichrome to Verichrome Pan was in 1950, as I recall), in part because it could be processed in red safelight conditions.

Angle of view suggests a waist level viewfinder, which were almost universal before 1930. No way to know if it was a box camera or folder, and in hard, direct sun this could have been done with (old) ASA 12 film at f/11 and 1/25 or so.

 

[Dusty Negative]

It's probably a contact print on gelatin paper from a 120 ("6x9" = 2 1/4 x 3 1/4) negative.

Makes perfect sense. What helpful information. Thank you, sir!

 

[awty]

What a great picture, love the hat, tilt of the head and cigarette. Looks like he spent a lot of time in the saddle.

 

[revdoc]

If you Google "Finished by Willis Art Gallery, Sweetwater, Texas" you'll find other images from the same source.

 

[Two23]

Might be a contact print from a Kodak Brownie.


Kent in SD

 

[removed account4]

Might be a contact print from a Kodak Brownie.


Kent in SD

+1. printed on azo or similar silver chloride / gaslight paper...

 

[Dusty Negative]

What a great picture, love the hat, tilt of the head and cigarette. Looks like he spent a lot of time in the saddle.

Right? The water sack hanging from his hip looks like something out of a movie. I honestly cannot imagine what this man's life was like.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Might be a contact print from a Kodak Brownie.
Kent in SD

While I am familiar with Brownies, I had to look up the following from Wikipedia

The Brownie was a long-running popular series of simple and inexpensive cameras made by Eastman Kodak. Introduced in 1900,[1] it introduced the snapshot to the masses. It was a basic cardboard box camera with a simple meniscus lensthat took 2 1/4-inch square pictures on 117 roll film. It was conceived and marketed for sales of Kodak roll films. Because of its simple controls and initial price of $1 (equivalent to $31 in 2019) along with the low price of Kodak roll film and processing, the Brownie camera surpassed its marketing goal[2]

It was invented by Frank A. Brownell.[3] The name comes from the brownies (spirits in folklore) in Palmer Cox cartoons. Over 150,000 Brownie cameras were shipped in the first year of production.[4] An improved model, called No. 2 Brownie came in 1901, which produced larger 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 inch photos and cost $2 and was also a huge success.[2]"

This print I have is 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 measuring from border edge to border edge (of the paper). The image size 2 1/8 by 3 1/8. So unless there were additional varieties of Brownies, not sure that would be it.

 

[awty]

Right? The water sack hanging from his hip looks like something out of a movie. I honestly cannot imagine what this man's life was like.

Could be the original Marlboro Man.

 

[Donald Qualls]

This print I have is 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 measuring from border edge to border edge (of the paper). The image size 2 1/8 by 3 1/8. So unless there were additional varieties of Brownies, not sure that would be it.

A 1/8 inch crop was common in the contact printing frames and masks of the day, to cover irregularities in the negative edge. I'll still contend this was made from a 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negative, though from what camera (given almost all hand held cameras had waist level viewfinders prior to the 1930s) will probably never be more than guesswork.

 

[pentaxuser]

Could be the original Marlboro Man.

I knew this was somehow familiar and yes it is the Marlboro man who was still on adverts until quite recently when our love affair with smoking began to fizzle out. It reminds me of a post by I think Sirius who spoke about Texas and smoking. Perhaps it was the lung cancer capital of the world at one time

pentaxuser

 

[Hunter_Compton]

While I am familiar with Brownies, I had to look up the following from Wikipedia

The Brownie was a long-running popular series of simple and inexpensive cameras made by Eastman Kodak. Introduced in 1900,[1] it introduced the snapshot to the masses. It was a basic cardboard box camera with a simple meniscus lensthat took 2 1/4-inch square pictures on 117 roll film. It was conceived and marketed for sales of Kodak roll films. Because of its simple controls and initial price of $1 (equivalent to $31 in 2019) along with the low price of Kodak roll film and processing, the Brownie camera surpassed its marketing goal[2]

It was invented by Frank A. Brownell.[3] The name comes from the brownies (spirits in folklore) in Palmer Cox cartoons. Over 150,000 Brownie cameras were shipped in the first year of production.[4] An improved model, called No. 2 Brownie came in 1901, which produced larger 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 inch photos and cost $2 and was also a huge success.[2]"

This print I have is 2 1/2 x 3 1/2 measuring from border edge to border edge (of the paper). The image size 2 1/8 by 3 1/8. So unless there were additional varieties of Brownies, not sure that would be it.

That information is correct for the original Brownie camera, also known as the No.1 Brownie camera or Brownie camera of 1900. However, the Brownie line of cameras encompassed a number of different models made from 1900 until the 1980s. For example, the very popular No.2 Brownie camera introduced in 1901 but kept in production until the 1930s, introduced the 120 film format and the 2 1/4 x 3 1/4" negative size, and thus could be one of potentially many cameras taking 120 film which produced your photo.

 

[Dusty Negative]

What was the actual print, the output of the Brownie? The printing/enlarging was done by Kodak, right? Or, would the negatives be sent back?

 

[voceumana]

The actual output of a Brownie was an undeveloped film negative; "photofinishing" involved developing the film, drying it, and then printing onto paper.

 

[Hunter_Compton]

What was the actual print, the output of the Brownie? The printing/enlarging was done by Kodak, right? Or, would the negatives be sent back?

The original Brownie was the first truly inexpensive Kodak cameras, but Kodak had already been marketing daylight loading cameras by then. The input and output were as with a modern camera, one loads a roll of film and unloads the film from the camera after it had been exposed. The film could then be mailed to Kodak, who offered photofinishing services, sent to a local lab or developed at home. The original Brownie used 117 film, which had similar dimensions to 120 film, but half as long. It yielded negatives 2 1/4 x 2 1/4" square. But many other models of Brownie offered many different negative sizes.

 

[mmerig]

If he is wearing sun glasses (seems that way to me), the photo is more likely from the late 1930', or maybe later. The hat style, with its rolled brim, and creased crown, points to a more modern time (say 1930's or later). In the opposite direction, is a much more dubious hint, and that is the wooden posts for the barbed wire. If the desert scrub is at all typical for the area, straight wooden posts would have been harder to come by locally, and could have been expensive. I don't know when the metal T-posts first came into common use, but in later they are a more likely choice. Bu then again, I have seen fences in the eastern Montana prairie, built in the late 1950's still in good shape now, with wooden posts.

I work with a lot of historic photos, and re-take them in similar light at the same time of year, with ortho and pan film. I can usually tell what the original emulsion was when I compare them (that's not why I do it). The starker shadows indicate pan film. Ortho usually picks up the UV bouncing around in shadows, so they are usually not so stark.

The faded print may be giving it an older look, but still, it is probably about 90 years old.

 

[cowanw]

He also has lace up city shoes. Was that common in a working cowboy?

 

[mmerig]

He also has lace up city shoes. Was that common in a working cowboy?

There are lace-up boots for riding horses, with a lower heal, usually called "packers", for those that have to walk around some while out in the backcountry for example (these are what I wear). There is a safety down-side to these, as the boot won't come off if you get knocked-off the horse and dragged around by a stirrup. Such a boot would be unlikely in Texas cow country.

Perhaps the cowboy was not really working that day, and put on chaps and posed for the photo. It's fun to try and guess what was going on in pictures like these.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Or perhaps the "cowboy" was a guest at a dude ranch. Those chaps and his other clothes look awfully new and clean. Sure, in those days, you'd clean up and dress up for a photo, if you knew it was coming, but the hat? Hats were/are expensive enough that working cowboys often only owned the one...

 

[wyofilm]

My family settled in that part of the country in the 1860's and ranched there until the 1960s. I don't know when this photo was taken, but I'm leaning more towards the the 1930's, except for the boots. They seem earlier, or just not right. They don't look like packers, which would not have been common there anyway. The hat and chaps in good shape doesn't bother me much. Especially the chaps. Many of the ranchers and cowboys of that era were handy with leather work. No reason to think the chaps were store bought. The chaps look right for this part of the country, hot but full coverage. Mesquite tree thorns are big, sharp, and will tear a man up. I don't think that he has sunglasses on - at least that is the way it looks to me.

The fence post to the right looks right for the era - hand cut from local wood.

I don't think that there is any reason to think this is a dude ranch photo. NOBODY would pay for the cowboy experience in this part of the country.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I love (and appreciate) the comments and thoughts. I wish, as the photo owner and descendant, that I could offer more information. Here's all I can say: His daughter, my grandmother, was born about 1920 in OK. This fellow's parents were born in Georgia...and he was part Cherokee, so likely part of that big migration (forced and otherwise) out of the deep South. I *think* Texas was just a way-station. If this was the 30s, then he came down from OK to work, and wasn't on his way to OK by way of Georgia. I suppose that is possible. Whether this fellow was actually a cowboy is ultimately unknown to me.

I do not believe he is wearing glasses. Here's a scanned (camera) and enlarged image:

Unfortunately, there is a lot of degradation (not sure if over-retouching initially or through copying or some other reason?) in the upper part of the photo including the face, so you see a lot of interpolation here. At least it gives a suggestion of his original visage.

 

[Dusty Negative]

There are lace-up boots for riding horses, with a lower heal, usually called "packers", for those that have to walk around some while out in the backcountry for example (these are what I wear). There is a safety down-side to these, as the boot won't come off if you get knocked-off the horse and dragged around by a stirrup. Such a boot would be unlikely in Texas cow country.

Perhaps the cowboy was not really working that day, and put on chaps and posed for the photo. It's fun to try and guess what was going on in pictures like these.

I noticed the lace-up shoes as well. Also strikes me as odd for a working cowboy. But then again, I drive a BMW and sneeze and wheeze compulsively around dust and animals. I'm not exactly country material, and wouldn't recognize it if it bit me.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I have to disagree on glasses -- he's not wear dark glasses, but he does appear to have small, round clear lenses. I can see the bow on the sunlit side of his face between eye and ear, and the arc of the frame around his left eye, plus some frame features around the other eye. Working folks glasses were often quite small -- you only really needed clear central vision, peripheral vision isn't all that clear anyway. Take a look at Ben Franklin (if you have a C-note around; I don't); his style of glasses lasted well enough to show up as a prop on John-Boy Walton on TV in the 1970s.

 

[Dusty Negative]

I have to disagree on glasses -- he's not wear dark glasses, but he does appear to have small, round clear lenses.

I may have to agree with your disagreement. You (I) cannot see lenses but there does appear to be a trace of a line that could be the arm/temple of eyeglasses. Huh.