Topic: What camera took this?

[Pete_R]

Here's a puzzle for everyone. I'm trying to date this picture and I though maybe the picture format might be a clue as to what camera type was used and thereby give some idea of a date. The picture looks to be on pretty standard paper for early to mid 20thC photos but I'm no expert on identifying papers. I have pictures which I know date to around 1920 which are clearly an earlier type and are in worse condition so I'm assuming this dates from around, say, 1930s. But... I've been told by an elderly family member that this person was married by 1940 - which would mean it was taken, say, 1920 at the latest.

The image area is 52mm x 79mm and I'm assuming it's a contact print.

Any ideas?

Edit: or if anyone is an expert in baby prams, maybe there's a clue there.

[Francois]

I just looked at the film formats page on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

and couldn't find anything that was the same format as your image. So my guesses are that it was either a camera that can take half frames, that the image was cropped or that it was enlarged from a smaller negative.

[Pete_R]

I just looked at the film formats page on wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

and couldn't find anything that was the same format as your image. So my guesses are that it was either a camera that can take half frames, that the image was cropped or that it was enlarged from a smaller negative.

Yeah, I looked at that too. The nearest is 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 which is basically 6x9. I don't know how these contact prints were made in those days but I guess there must have been a mask around the negative to create the white border so I'm thinking the mask could have cropped it a bit. But I still couldn't identify any camera that took vertical 6x9 images. And I think that must have been the natural orientation for the image as I have four pictures taken at the same time and they were all vertical even though a landscape format might have been more obvious.

[imagesfrugales]

Imho it's impossible to tell which camera has taken the picture. Most probably it's a contact print of a 6x9 neg that is usually 56 x 86 mm sized. The contact frame will always crop a few mm.

Almost all folding or field(plate?) cameras had a "natural" vertical orientation at that time, simple box cameras could easily be held in both directions, and of course any other camera. It depends only on the photographers taste. F.e. google for "kodak autographic" images, almost all cameras are displayed vertically.

Best - Reinhold

[Pete_R]

You mean this type of thing?



I've never used one but I thought the viewfinders on these could swivel 90 degrees so it could be used either way. You always see pictures of them propped up vertically as that's the way they sit but handheld they could be either way (I thought).

[Terry]

I agree--it's most likely printed from a 3 1/4 x 2 1/4 neg through a slightly smaller mask.  The problem with this, of course, is that it was one of the most popular formats between the wars.  All the consumer-market Kodak cameras came in this version--the folding pocket Kodaks, Autographics and box Brownies, etc.  I'm sure it was equally popular among the Kodak clone cameras too, which would make it well nigh impossible to pin down.  The pram is a better bet!

You're right about the orientation; the folders, autographics and even the earlier 'cycle' cameras all had viewfinders that rotated to allow for portrait or landscape orientation.

[imagesfrugales]

Yes of course you could always use any camera in both directions. But most were easier to handle vertically. Some that were made primarly for landscape had a horizontal front door, but they were quite rare: http://www.museum-digital.de/san/singleimage.php?imagenr=7395&inwi=1&w=1280&h=873

[Francois]

Knowing if this was an expensive baby carriage would be of great help.
My theory is that if you're rich enough to have an expensive baby carriage, you probably won't use a box camera.

[Pete_R]

My theory is that if you're rich enough to have an expensive baby carriage, you probably won't use a box camera.

Good thought there Francois.

But I'm begining to think I won't get anywhere using this line of attack. Any other way you can date old photos?

[Francois]

Carbon 14... 

[Jack Johnson]

Initially I would have wagered that it was a contact neg from a box camera, but if you think about the DoF and the distance to the carriage it has me second-guessing myself.

So, maybe pre-war folder? At that aspect ratio it could still be 35mm enlarged, but likely we're looking at something like a random Kodak Autographic. Plaubel Makina I?

[Jack Johnson]

Here's another tactic: $10 USD says it's Ilford. Maybe they can date it?

[Pete_R]

Here's another tactic: $10 USD says it's Ilford. Maybe they can date it?

Maybe. There's nothing on the paper to say what type it is though.

I think I'm going to have to rely on more regular genealogy methods but, so far, I haven't been able to find anything on this person in the births, deaths and marriages.

[Francois]

I must admit that things like that can get pretty hard...
I just hope for you that the person's family tree isn't a stick!

[limr]

Does this help any?

http://www.babble.com/mom/the-evolution-of-the-stroller-a-photographic-history/the-1920s/

[Pete_R]

Does this help any?

http://www.babble.com/mom/the-evolution-of-the-stroller-a-photographic-history/the-1920s/

Thanks Leonore,

It's amazing what's on the Web these days. Looking at that, it dates the picture to the twenties or later which is when I was thinking it was from.

Prompted me to do a Google image search for prams. Came up with this one which is dated 1935.

[Verian]

The pram in the photograph does not appear to have a butler bar (this would be at the hood end) which allows the butler to help lift the pram up steps into the house by taking hold of the bar, as the nanny held onto the handle. Which might suggest moderate wealth, however, it appears that many houses had a family pram, as it was an expensive item, that would be used for all the children and so could be +10-15 years from when bought and maybe even passed on to another family member. So whilst the pram might be 20’s it could still have been in use a lot later.

This image from a Nanny training centre is dated  1926



Not sure if any of that helps, and I’m not an expert, just did a bit of googling!

[Terry]

That's a wonderful photo: nanny's army on the march!

[nachtiris]

Hello Peter,

I have no idea about your photo. I know (but do not own) a book that might help, but up to now there is no translation in english . Anyway it will possibly help you:
http://www.amazon.de/Bildbestimmung-Identifizierung-Datierung-Fotografien-1839/dp/3894454237

There is most likely that at least one library in Oxford owns this book.

Timm Starl is a well known photohistorian and wrote various books about the history of photography and a couple of great essays. http://timm-starl.at/profil.htm

cheers,
Christian

[Pete_R]

Hello Peter,

I have no idea about your photo. I know (but do not own) a book that might help, but up to now there is no translation in english . Anyway it will possibly help you:
http://www.amazon.de/Bildbestimmung-Identifizierung-Datierung-Fotografien-1839/dp/3894454237

There is most likely that at least one library in Oxford owns this book.

Timm Starl is a well known photohistorian and wrote various books about the history of photography and a couple of great essays. http://timm-starl.at/profil.htm

cheers,
Christian

Thanks Christian. That looks like a really interesting book. Shame it's not been translated. Prompted me to do a wider search for other information about dating a photograph and there's actually quite a bit of information around once you start looking.