Is This Possibly an Autochrome Print?

I've recently acquired this antique photo print. It's a fairly large image, roughly 8" by 8". It's signed J Wood Photo. Given the style of her hairdo and the laurel leaf band around her hair as well as the bare shoulder style of dress, I would estimate that this dates to circa 1910. My question is this: Is this an autochrome print? I can't see this as being hand coloured due to the colour complexity of her hair. But maybe it is. Any opinions?
Thanks for looking!

No it's hand coloured with water-colour paints. I have a set of 3 small prints of myself and my two sisters all around 2 years of age, while they match as a set they were made 1956, 58, & 61. There was a large group print, similarly hand coloured, but I gave that to my remaining sister.

Ian

Thanks Ian! They were quite skilled at this - how could they possibly get the fine tonal range in the hair?

Usually in this process of hand colouring, the first step was sepia or brown toning to some degree, then watercolours. Thats explains tonal range of the hair

Interesting - thanks Gorba and Ian for the education. My first instinct was hand colouring, but the complexity of the hair threw me off and I was looking for an alternative explanation. This is good information and I appreciate it!

Looks like someone put a lot of time and effort into that portrait. Note the extensive retouching in the facial features and the hair (extending the apparent depth of field). Also the laurel band seems to have been added in later, as is the texture on the dress and possibly the dress in its entirety. It's more a painting than a photograph, in fact.

Surprisingly a skilled retoucher could hand colour an image like this remarkably quickly, usually doing them in batches. It would be minutes in total per print, working on another as paint dried, to save time. In the case of my own family hand coloured photos it was the photographer's wife who did the colouring. I remember the last session, I was around 6 maybe just 7, the photographer or maybe his wife making meticulous notes of colours.

It looks like the laurel band maybe a different paint rather than water colour paint/

Ian

Ian Grant said:

It looks like the laurel band maybe a different paint rather than water colour paint/

Ian

Click to expand...

Definitely; the shading is actually quite crude--the leaves lack dimension and you can see the brush strokes. They were clearly laid in afterward and were not part of the photographic image. What's really clever though is the abstract shapes in blue and magenta behind the model. If you look closely you'll see that there are patterns that repeat: these were likely laid down in layers with a stencil to make the edge shapes (like the hair, using a watercolor technique working from lightest values to darkest) first very pale blues, then darker blues, then magenta. The laurel leaves lack the transparency of the rest because they were painted on in opaque colors over the image of the hair, possibly with gouache or even with oil colors. The hard line between model and background was probably done with a frisket, and the drape over her shoulders, like the leaves appears to be wholly painted on and not part of the photographed image. This strikes me as a high-end job done with a bit of extra time and care.

Edit: I'm suspicious of the specular reflections in her eyes too--I think they may have been added in post-production.

Thank you everyone for the interesting (and astute) observations!

Tel said:

Edit: I'm suspicious of the specular reflections in her eyes too--I think they may have been added in post-production.

Click to expand...

The eyes look almost Digital, but could easily have been done with a fine draughtsman's pen. They let the image down slightly as the sharpness contradicts the rest of the image.

Ian

Early 20th century photoshop!

Autochromes were transparencies on glass plates. They wouldn't be in print form. Printed images from that era would all be hand colored.

Ian Grant said:

The eyes look almost Digital, but could easily have been done with a fine draughtsman's pen. They let the image down slightly as the sharpness contradicts the rest of the image.

Ian

Click to expand...

The sharpness of catchlights in the eyes was often made if the overall image wasn't that sharp.
It creates an illusion that the image is sharp. Our eye sees the sharp catchlight and assumes the rest of the face has to be sharp as well. Of course, the trick is not to make the catchlights too sharp.

I have used that technique myself, many years ago, on a wedding 10x8 inch print where I was slightly out with the focus when taking the photo.

Not to mention the short side lighting is inconsistant with a large central key light in the left eye.

Notwithstanding the nit-picking of us grumpy old farts (even though we are probably right) when you look at the first image--as seen from a distance--the effect is quite flattering. I'm sure the sitter was pleased with the result.