ukelele lady Posted December 23, 2012 Author Share Posted December 23, 2012 To add even more insult, the wartime GERMAN BMW motorcycle was actually a BRITISH Triumph TT650, as you sayUKL, dating from 1950's-early 60's That's right Dave , wasn't it a Triumph Thunderbird which I believe was from the 60s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
History dude Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I would say that the photo dates to around 1910. In fact they look a bit like the middle class passengers of Titanic!! The bloke with the watch chain is a dead give away to the date. On close up the ghostly faces seem to be dust marks and damage to the image. The reason we see faces is that the human mind is nuts at finding faces. This is something to do with reproduction I think. It seems our mind has the ability to recoginse the future partners as we look into faces of other people. We "read" them and can identify everyone's possible future partners in them. Researches also found out the very young babies have the abilty for a very short time to recognise the difference between any face on this planet. Even tell the difference between animal species faces of the same breed that even an adult wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Such as Lima monkeys!! Clearly a form of this ability is not lost. You can trick your mind into showing this little known ability by concentrating hard on a photo of a face and squinting or adjusting the light to the picture. I tried it out on several different pictures and in some the face changed only once or twice. When I checked the person out they often had been married to one person most of their life! Whilst on others it switched many times. Due to the fact it seems connected with light, photos of dark skinned persons will give poor responces I have found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 That's right Dave , wasn't it a Triumph Thunderbird which I believe was from the 60s. It was a Triumph TT 650 so it was the TriumphTrophy rather than the Thunderbird which would have been a TR 65 A Thunderbird was riden by Marlon Brando in "The Wild One" (1953) but Steve McQueen rode the Trophy in "The Great Escape" (1963), it was a 1961 model. The Thunderbird was also famously owned by Buddy and Holly & the Crickets in 1957, - there is a picture of all 3 of them buying them from a Texas motorcycle store. Only a decent British bike for those boys, - Harley Davison stuff! Both bikes (Thunderbird and Trophy) were on sale and marketed at the same time, and it is still possible to get a brand new, 1200cc Triumph Trophy today! Both bikes look very similar but the Trophy apparently looked more like the German military bikes and so was better disguised as it in the film. It was actually a triumph TT special 650 model which was even closer to the BMW and Zundapp models used by German military motorcyclists. Although I would love to ride a classic British motorcycle I don't fancy trying to jump one over the triple wire border fence, - those older bikes had suspension systems which left a lot to be desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Did I use that one here? I don't recall that, but then I have no recollection of a lot of this year. Thankfully it is no longer in use if I did (although I expect one of the techno-wizards could find it hiding somewhere). I thought it was quite a nice picture madannie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike142sl Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 That very young girl being held by the man one in from the right doesn't look right. Is her white dress cut and pasted in? It has some very sharp, squared off angles on it. Where are the girls arms exactly? The man does not seem to be holding them as the picture indicates. ..and what has the man got in his left hand (the one on the right of the picture)? Is it a TV remote? Her hands are in his, held almost straight up. We have to remember that photographic equipment wasn't as good as it is today and exposures were much longer. This would lead to whites being over exposed etc plus any movement would be blurred which is probably whey the child was being held. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lyn 1 Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 looks okay to me - pre WW1. Very early 1900s. Lyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unitedite Returns Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Her hands are in his, held almost straight up. We have to remember that photographic equipment wasn't as good as it is today and exposures were much longer. This would lead to whites being over exposed etc plus any movement would be blurred which is probably whey the child was being held. I seem to think that Victorian and Edwardian photographers were mindful of the technological limitations of the equipment that was available to them at that time and that they were more than capable of manually retouching photographic negatives in order to further enhance any image. Image enhancement is not a new practise, although the improvements that were made in those days, were probably effected by the use of inks and paints and not the use of pixels as nowadays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted December 24, 2012 Author Share Posted December 24, 2012 No one ever seemed to smile for photograph in those days. Maybe there wasn't much to smile about or they had never heard the word cheese. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vox Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 My Mom used to re-touch photographs for a photographer in the 50's. Mainly slightly tinting black and white photos with watercolours, but sometimes sharpening up blurred edges etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 Her hands are in his, held almost straight up. We have to remember that photographic equipment wasn't as good as it is today and exposures were much longer. This would lead to whites being over exposed etc plus any movement would be blurred which is probably whey the child was being held. Still can't work out what is in his left hand, - it seems to be part of the sleeve of the girls dress, - but looks wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 No one ever seemed to smile for photograph in those days. Maybe there wasn't much to smile about or they had never heard the word cheese. Look at the picture i put in post #18 No one seems to smile these days either. Especially hairy Sheffield History admins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 24, 2012 Share Posted December 24, 2012 I seem to think that Victorian and Edwardian photographers were mindful of the technological limitations of the equipment that was available to them at that time and that they were more than capable of manually retouching photographic negatives in order to further enhance any image. Image enhancement is not a new practise, although the improvements that were made in those days, were probably effected by the use of inks and paints and not the use of pixels as nowadays. When me and Stuart did photo retouching at school we always worked on the print and not on the negative. Admittedly working on a 35mm negative would be a lot trickier than working on a large glass plate negative from around 1900. However, if you make a mistake or do a bad job on the print you can always use the original negative to make another print and start again. If you mess the negative up then you've had it. Also, it must be a lot easier to work on a positive image to see what it will look like rather than a negative. I suspect the white burn out is not over exposure due to the sharp edging on it but is more likely to be retouching or possibly artifacts produced when the image was scanned into digital form for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted December 24, 2012 Author Share Posted December 24, 2012 Look at the picture i put in post #18 No one seems to smile these days either. Especially hairy Sheffield History admins Tut Tut Dave, are you " meddling?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest plain talker Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Still can't work out what is in his left hand, - it seems to be part of the sleeve of the girls dress, - but looks wrong It's the white lace cuff to the baby's dark dress. The cuff appears to have slid down a little more on the baby's right arm, and the lace cuff does not show as much, it's more hidden by the sleeve. The man is holding the baby's left hand more by the wrist, it seems, so his hand seems closer to the lace, if you get my drift. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unitedite Returns Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 When me and Stuart did photo retouching at school we always worked on the print and not on the negative. Admittedly working on a 35mm negative would be a lot trickier than working on a large glass plate negative from around 1900. However, if you make a mistake or do a bad job on the print you can always use the original negative to make another print and start again. If you mess the negative up then you've had it. Also, it must be a lot easier to work on a positive image to see what it will look like rather than a negative. I suspect the white burn out is not over exposure due to the sharp edging on it but is more likely to be retouching or possibly artifacts produced when the image was scanned into digital form for posting. To my eyes, the child's white dress seems to "hover" above the rest of the image, which is what I think is the effect that you might have achieved if you were to retouch the outer surface of a photographic plate and not the actual developed image itself. This is the reason why I opted for that particular solution, although I am no expert in such matters and I am happy to be corrected, if the same effect could have been achieved by other means. However, it is still a fascinating image never the less and I hope that more information as to it's origins and as to the people it portrays, come to light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 Tut Tut Dave, are you " meddling?" Yes, - just a bit of Christmas fun after a few drinks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 It's the white lace cuff to the baby's dark dress. The cuff appears to have slid down a little more on the baby's right arm, and the lace cuff does not show as much, it's more hidden by the sleeve. The man is holding the baby's left hand more by the wrist, it seems, so his hand seems closer to the lace, if you get my drift. Yes that would eplain it plain talker, thanks I am no expert on Edwardian little girls dresses but I follow what you are saying and it makes sense, - that's what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 25, 2012 Share Posted December 25, 2012 To my eyes, the child's white dress seems to "hover" above the rest of the image, which is what I think is the effect that you might have achieved if you were to retouch the outer surface of a photographic plate and not the actual developed image itself. This is the reason why I opted for that particular solution, although I am no expert in such matters and I am happy to be corrected, if the same effect could have been achieved by other means. However, it is still a fascinating image never the less and I hope that more information as to it's origins and as to the people it portrays, come to light. It certainly is a an interesting image (as all old photographs are). I am absolutely convinced however that any editing and retouching of this picture which has been done is probably as old as the picture itself (not a recent modification) and has been done genuinely to try and "enhance" the picture and NOT as a deliberate attempt to deceive or forge details in the picture. To this extent the picture is "genuine". I don't even think, white window frames or not, that the picture is a modern staged re-enactment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted December 26, 2012 Author Share Posted December 26, 2012 It certainly is a an interesting image (as all old photographs are). I am absolutely convinced however that any editing and retouching of this picture which has been done is probably as old as the picture itself (not a recent modification) and has been done genuinely to try and "enhance" the picture and NOT as a deliberate attempt to deceive or forge details in the picture. To this extent the picture is "genuine". I don't even think, white window frames or not, that the picture is a modern staged re-enactment. I think things are getting a little carried away as to the touching up unless it's post 18 [ Daves creation ] This is a genuine family picture which as to my knowledge has never been touched up. That was just a joke about the re-enactment, but it was the white window frames we found unusual for the era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveH Posted December 26, 2012 Share Posted December 26, 2012 I think things are getting a little carried away as to the touching up unless it's post 18 [ Daves creation ] This is a genuine family picture which as to my knowledge has never been touched up. That was just a joke about the re-enactment, but it was the white window frames we found unusual for the era. Did say I thought it was genuine and that what looks like "touching up" could easily be .jpg digital artifacts produced by scanning the original picture. Digital pictures are fantastic and easy to work on / with, - but they are not always the best. I'm fairly sure they would have had white window frames around 1900 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tozzin Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 It looks like a perfect period photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted December 30, 2012 Author Share Posted December 30, 2012 The date of the photograph is May 1900. It is a wedding day photograph taken outside the Toftwood cottages in Crookes. The wedding took place at St Thomas's church in Crookes. Who invited Richard & Co? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ukelele lady Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Has anyone any photographs of Toftwood cottages Crookes, I've searched the Library Pictures but I can't seem to find any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vox Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I'm sure I've seen photos somewhere but I cant think where. There are a couple on Pic Sheff but not very good ones. Search for Cocked Hat Cottages and Toftwood Houses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilldweller Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 I used to live about 100 yards from the site of Toftwood Cottages. They were located at Bolehill Lane at the end of Duncan Road. There were two separate groups of cottages. Parallel to Bolehill Lane were four three stories back to backs with three two stories cottages stuck on the western end. They were replaced by a sloping grassed bank with modern flats at the top. At right angles to these running down the then extension to Bolehill Lane were another two cottages. These were located at the top of what is now a footpath running down through the estate. I would say that the photo is of the top cottage of the two which ran down the lane. Now number 77 St. Anthony Road stands on the site. Immediately below these cottages was located St. Anthony's Well, nowadays culverted under the footpath and exiting on the allotments below. The second book published by the Crookes Residents Association, called Crookes Revisited, has a good photo showing most of the cottages. The photo is credited to Sheffield City Libraries. Muir Baxter's newsagent on Crookes used to have some copies left a few months ago. HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now