photo that isn't what it seems

[OC Richard]

I saw this photo when it came up on Ebay. Now it has lots of bids and I think that the bidders might think that the photo is something that, in my opinion, it isn't.

What it appears to be, at first glance, is an image of a Scottish soldier during the period when they wore coatees 1800-1854. There's the coatee, there's the buckled shoes.

But it looks all wrong! The photo itself, the feather bonnet, and the sporran are all much more recent-looking, c1900 would be a guess.

And if you look closely you'll notice that he's wearing hosetops/halfhose, and what appear to be ordinary shoes with costume buckles crudely stuck on. And the jacket is somewhat crudely made as well.

If I had to make a wild guess, I would say that this is a fellow done up for a Napoleonic movie or reenactment or something.

[cessna152towser]

Also the quality of the picture looks much too good for pre-1854 when photography was in its infancy.
As an example of the clarity of photographs from that era, here is a scan of a photo of my late wife's great great grandfather who was born about 1807 and died from typhoid fever in 1868, therefore the photo would probably have been taken during the eighteen sixties.

The Jolly Fisherman

[Chas]

To my mind it looks as if was photographed yesterday.

Most pictures of the time, that I have seen, do not sow the 'Stand at Ease' pose. But rather a hands at sides or holding something.

His body shape looks all wrong for the mid 1800s. He looks to have a 21st century gut developing!

Regards

Chas

[Thomas H]

+ 1 to all the above - you can do wonders with Photo shop now a days ,making any pic like old . the Ebay pic. looks not right .
Good catch - wonder who will buy it ?

[Woodsheal]

Definitely modern. Sepia-toning a photo is done with one click these days. The shoes and hose are indicative of a rather farby reenactor....

[Piper]

While the photo certainly appears to be a recent one, PhotoShop was not necessarily involved. A few years back, a friend of mine developed (no pun intended) an interest in wet plate photography, one of the earlier forms of the process. He had the old box style camera with the lens in a bellows that he moved back and forth to focus, then he removed the lens cover and counted down the proper number of seconds for the exposure. The subsequent print was made on a glass plate. He took a couple of pictures of me at a living history event. Really looked authentic. Unfortunately, they have faded over time, even though stored in a covered book case out of direct light. I understand that was the fate of many of the originals. So even though is is most likely a modern photo, it may still have been done with 19th century technology.

[Woodsheal]

While the photo certainly appears to be a recent one, PhotoShop was not necessarily involved. A few years back, a friend of mine developed (no pun intended) an interest in wet plate photography, one of the earlier forms of the process. He had the old box style camera with the lens in a bellows that he moved back and forth to focus, then he removed the lens cover and counted down the proper number of seconds for the exposure. The subsequent print was made on a glass plate. He took a couple of pictures of me at a living history event. Really looked authentic. Unfortunately, they have faded over time, even though stored in a covered book case out of direct light. I understand that was the fate of many of the originals. So even though is is most likely a modern photo, it may still have been done with 19th century technology.

Quite right! Here's an image of yours truly taken with the 19th C. wet-plate method that Rick describes (though in this case the photo is on a tin plate instead of glass):

[TheOfficialBren]

+*** to all of the above. Only a schmuck would be fooled by that one. Very bad hoax job.

[TheOfficialBren]

Quite right! Here's an image of yours truly taken with the 19th C. wet-plate method that Rick describes (though in this case the photo is on a tin plate instead of glass):

Very cool photo, Brian.

[freddie]

I would date that photo to the 1950's.