How do I assess the legitimacy of photos?

+6 votes
230 views

I have seen uploaded photos on Wikitree and other sites that seem to predate photography as a technology. In some instances the photo could possibly be legitimate, but I am not aware of exactly when photography became commercially available in this country. Does anyone know of a good source for the history of photography so that one might more exactly assess whether or not a photo is a legitimate image of a person?

Here is an example of a photo that cannot possibly depict the person to whose profile it is attached: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Van%20Bibber-Photos-5 (unless I am missing something)

Here is an example of a photo depicting an individual who died in rural VA (later WV) in 1850: https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Richmond-Photos-1010. Was photography available in the hinterlands before 1850? 

in Photos by Stanley Elswick G2G1 (1.3k points)
In the Bibber photo, might Olive be one of the children, just not identified as such?
If Olive Van Bibber born in 1783 were one of the children shown then the photo makes even less sense (No photography in the 1780s). More likely the woman or one of the children is a different Olive Van Bibber born in the late 1800s--there seems to have been a lot of them.

8 Answers

+8 votes
by Living Poole G2G Astronaut (1.3m points)
+6 votes

The first Daguerreotype (a fixed image that did not fade) was done in 1837. I believe it was at the turn of the 20th century (1899-1900) when the first mass-marketed camera went on sale to the public. So if the image is claimed to be from around 1850, it is possible, yet highly unlikely.

As it pertains to the profile in question, I would say that this is without a doubt not Olive and Nathan Boone. For this to even be feasible, Olive and Nathan would have been in her mid- to late-sixties, but the couple represented appear to be in the their 20's or possibly their early 30's.

If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the image was taken after 1900 since it appears to be a paper-based image.

by Steven Harris G2G6 Pilot (738k points)
+5 votes
I'd look at the US Civil War as a point of reference or demarcation. That's about the time portrait photography really took off in the US. It was rare and relatively expensive prior to then (limiting it use to the wealthy), but became cheaper and popular afterwards.
by Matt Melcher G2G6 Mach 1 (19.6k points)
edited by Matt Melcher
+7 votes

I have a photo on the profile of one of my own ancestors that is a copy of an original taken in 1847 (below), and I am quite confident it is authentic.  It came from my grandmother's collection.  Generally, if I see photos that are said to have been taken after 1850, I believe they are possibly legitimate, but that by no means proves they are properly identified.  In special circumstances, earlier photos might be authentic.

When I find a photo of an ancestor on-line that I didn't already know about, I usually contact the person who posted it and ask where they got it.  One of my most precious photos, of my third great grandfather and his wife, came from a distant relative I'd never met before a third person brought the photo to my attention, and based on our correspondence, I am very sure it is authentic.

by Living Kelts G2G6 Pilot (545k points)
+3 votes
I looked at the second picture on Ancestry. There was a disagreement as to whether or not it was a picture of  the above-mentioned gentleman.

Two of the descendants agreed it was his son, who lived from 1786-1860 and was actually as Jr.
by Cheryl Hess G2G Astronaut (1.8m points)
+3 votes

I like to use this very simple chart to date photographs. I have others that you can use when it comes to hairstyles and clothes.

http://www.phototree.com/identify.htm

by Cheryl Hess G2G Astronaut (1.8m points)
+3 votes

I found the FAG page for the Van Bibber family, and am including it here for you to see.

I don't believe that the pictures on the profile are the same people.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/8853841/olive-boone

by Cheryl Hess G2G Astronaut (1.8m points)
+3 votes
The clothing the adults are wearing in that photograph along with the man's haircut and moustache puts the date sometime around the 1880's at the earliest, most likely. The photo is also an albumen print or gelatin silver, some other later process than daguerreotype, which puts the date after the 1850's. The man and woman in the photo are both in their late 20's to mid-30's and are far too young for one of them to have been born in 1783.
by C Handy G2G6 Pilot (208k points)

Related questions

+1 vote
0 answers
79 views asked Dec 20, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Larry Baxter G2G1 (1.7k points)
+2 votes
1 answer
76 views asked Dec 15, 2018 in Genealogy Help by Larry Baxter G2G1 (1.7k points)
+9 votes
0 answers
+4 votes
0 answers
49 views asked Oct 9, 2023 in WikiTree Help by Bev Spreeman G2G6 Mach 3 (32.9k points)
+13 votes
3 answers
170 views asked Sep 1, 2023 in The Tree House by Kathryn Morse G2G6 Mach 6 (62.3k points)
+2 votes
0 answers
+7 votes
6 answers
+7 votes
2 answers
+11 votes
1 answer

WikiTree  ~  About  ~  Help Help  ~  Search Person Search  ~  Surname:

disclaimer - terms - copyright

...