Might someone here know if photo-duplication of painted portraits was common in the 19th century?

Among the most surreal, unexpected, unique, once-in-a-lifetime, screwball-crazy and exhilarating occurrences I've encountered in 12+ years of dedicated genealogical research, was a recent the discovery of the existence of a circa-1860s photo album with images of my ancestors, their ancestors, their extended family and some descendants. Way cool! (The book is now in the possession of a 4th cousin who I met recently online.)

Questions:

1. Can anyone propose what is going on behind the head in the following vignetted portrait? Image-1: [obverse] [reverse] and/or Image-2 (this one, with photog details on back): [obverse] [reverse]. Pointedly; I don't understand the brush-stroke thing going on behind the head. These two images (one, a copy of the other) fall in this position for Image-1 and this position for Image-2 in the album.
   
2. If the caption is truly correct, the following image is most likely that of a 4th great-grandmother, who died in 1854: [obverse] [reverse] and [position in album]. (Most likely, because this image is not captioned with a name. Of the two "grandmother" possibilities, I believe one of the two died in 1813 at age 32, and am in the process of trying to definitively prove this particular parent-child link). I believe it is safe to presume the individual depicted died in 1854 at age 78.

Interested in thoughts from the braintrust here in terms of photographic technique given the technology of the time. Could these be duplicates that relied, at later dates, on photographic methods that didn't exist at the time the originals from which they were duplicated were made? Etc.

Thank you very, very much in advance for your thoughts and ideas!

- Ryan

[edited for clarity]

I would seriously doubt these are originals. I bet these are copies of the originals done much later than 1860.

#1 - This would be from the retouching done on the negative. In this case, the hair highlights would blend in to the background.

#2 - Unlikely that the original is a painting. This looks like a crop from a group photo, but could be from a much smaller original instead.

@cramej Thank you for this.

#2 is probably 1.25" h x .75" w (I do not have exact dimensions for it). I agree #2 is probably a duplicate. Could they go from tintype, ambrotype, daguerreotype, fartface-type etc. to these "cabinet card" printings we see in the album?

At the end of the day, our goal is to try as best we can to validate the names in the captions. i.e. are these the people the captions say they are? I think the distant cousin, and most certainly myself, are very concerned about this. I personally want to scrutinize this process, and I don't care if doing so will take years.

I concur with all thoughts you bring up here, perhaps less the (very real) possibility #2 might have been cropped. (Reason: it's dimensions as mentioned above.)

Your information is very useful. Thanks again. Thoughts from others most welcome too!

[edited for clarity]

I have a photograph of a g-g-grandfather from Scotland with the original studio's name on it (in Hawick, Scotland) AND on the bottom margin, a local studio in Milwaukee, WI. Obviously a copy of a an older photo. So, in this case, an older photo WAS copied by a later studio.

No. 2 is a 1860-1880-ish carte-de-visite copy of a daguerreotype with some vignetting.
No. 1 has a button front, home made dress and unfashionable hair, a common Jenny Lind collar with a bedraggled ribbon. The most remarkable thing is the large square scalloped cut ? jet stone. Impossible to date beyond post 1850. Sample one is the original of the two; sample 2 is the copy; look at the eyes. Are you sure No 1 has not been inked on the posiitive ie itself?

The Photographer appears in Google searches. Post Civil War seems right. Not sure what the size is but carte de visite was a very popular size wet glass plate negatives. I'm sure that back in the 1880s it wasn't a novel idea to make a "copy negative" I have mountains of ancestor pictures from 4 to 5 generations including me. Paper was thin and pasted to cardboard mounts.

cowanw said:

No. 2 is a 1860-1880-ish carte-de-visite copy of a daguerreotype with some vignetting.
No. 1 has a button front, home made dress and unfashionable hair, a common Jenny Lind collar with a bedraggled ribbon. The most remarkable thing is the large square scalloped cut ? jet stone. Impossible to date beyond post 1850. Sample one is the original of the two; sample 2 is the copy; look at the eyes. Are you sure No 1 has not been inked on the posiitive ie itself?

Click to expand...

@cowanw your assessment is very much appreciated. Now I know I came to the right place to ask about these images. Thank you so much for this--it greatly helps and untrained eye to understand what is going on here--and clearly I was overly presumptuous in OP concerning lack of other photo methods. I'll will be advising the owner of the album itself of this thread tomorrow. Thanks again.

I picked up this print at an antique store. It was fairly common for photographs of paintings to be sold so that people could enjoy classic works of art in their own homes.

#1 looks a bit like someone did their vignetting by using a brush to apply the developer.
#2 looks like a photo to me, not a painting. The pose and lighting don't look like something a portrait artist would do.

@Bill Burk - do you always hang photos from the trees?

Out in beautiful nature, and there's some paintings to look at, maybe for the bears entertainment or something? That's a new one.

Regarding the op's question, I would think that it's impossible to say anything one way or the other w/o seeing the original in person.

> so that people could enjoy classic works of art in their own homes
...or in your case @Bill Burk ; gardens! (When camping, it's always nice to carry certain portable accoutrements from home, isn't it?! Like wall portraits.

I have in my collection a nice daguerreotype and the same copied as a daguerreotype. the second has only a slight reduction in detail. Which brings me to the point to look for any details that might indicate right/left viewing. Trouble is that wedding rings could be on either hands and women buttons hadn't yet settled on buttoning from the opposite side as men yet. Images of book titles can be useful. 1850 men's ties had the large end pointing to the left of the daguerreotype image or the man's right in the image or the man's left in actuality.

Daguerreotypes and tintypes and some ambrotypes were reversed. Other ambrotypes and negative /positive processes would come out right. Copies would depend on the process and original