In the 1870s, a “dry” version of glass negative was created which
was easier to use and required less exposure time. These glass negatives were used for almost
all types of photography until the late 1910s, when plastic negatives, known as
“films,” were introduced into mainstream photography after 20 years of being
inefficient and expensive. Although the
glass plate negatives provided better quality (more clarity of detail) than
films, they were more difficult to use, so quickly fell out of use for
mainstream photography. (Glass plate negatives remained in use for some professional
photography until the 1970s and there is still a small group of photographers
who use glass plates today for specialized photography.)
In performing this research, I realized that the glass plate
I held in my hand was not, actually, a glass negative. Glass plate negatives are extremely thin and
very fragile. Mine was thicker and more
durable. I wasn’t sure what to call what
I had, but I did know that I didn’t get a very good reading of the figure depicted,
so I set about making the image easier to interpret.
First I scanned the glass on my flatbed scanner, using a
high resolution file size. The result
was a “negative” image that clearly had damage.
Scars and scratches abound, as you can see!
Next, I used Photoshop to reverse the image, using the “Invert”
function, which essentially renders a negative image into a positive.
I then used image level controls to adjust the contrast and
brightness to bring better clarity to the picture. I expected a basic photograph that might not show too much detail, but was amazed at the clarity and, frankly, the warmth of this handsome image. But there was all that damage!
Finally, I used retouching options to clean up the scratches
and blemishes, to produce this wonderful photo of a striking young woman.
![]() |

I performed a Google image search which produced no results
(if you haven’t searched Google using an existing image, it’s a nifty tool: you
drag the photo you’re searching to the image search field and it will search
for matches to that image).
If she is a relation, she would be a sister to someone in
that line, with a surname of Rowland (from western Massachusetts), Gould (from
Portland, Maine), Burdick, or Carr (both from Newport, Rhode Island). I also
searched these surnames on Ancestry for images, to no avail.
Now that I have the image cleaned up, perhaps I’ll be able
to identify her one day. If not, she’s a
handsome mystery from my family documents. If any of my family members reading
this recognize her, let me know!
I was prompted to post this now because of a recent Facebook
post from the New England Historic and Genealogic Society from December, in
which they explain the ambrotype, an early version of a photograph, of which
this image is clearly an example! It’s
an interesting read and it helped me to understand exactly what it was I had in
my hands.
The Takeaway:
Scanning and restoring old family photographs can
be very rewarding! I have done photo
restoration from scans of family photos for all sorts of extended family besides
my own immediate line. It’s quite
rewarding to allow relatives who had given up on old photos to see them closer
to their original versions again.
It’s a good idea to save the original scans into high
resolution files and then save everything to the cloud (see the sidebar above). When you want to share the files you can
always reduce the file size to email it.
But you can never increase the resolution (clarity) of a photograph once
you’ve scanned it, so make them big!
I’ll leave you with one other restoration I did, this one of
my paternal grandmother from her heyday as a model in 1930s New York City.
Sources:
CBS News, Photography’s Era of Glass Plate Negatives,
October 12, 2016:
NEHGS Facebook post about ambrotypes: https://www.facebook.com/nehgs/posts/10157720408409451
No comments:
Post a Comment