Posted 6 years ago
PostCardCo…
(437 items)
I bought this real photo postcard,postmarked 1907 from a dealer who said it HAD TO BE an intentional experiment with a home camera, and a sort of success producing a DOUBLE EXPOSURE. Can a camera man tell me IF this actually appears to be what she said?? I wonder, if so,--how they managed it.? Could it have been done on a vintage Kodak Brownie?? However it happened---I for one am glad that it did.
This is such a great postcard!!!
DOUBLE EXPOSURE ON PURPOSE? OR A MISTAKE,Read description please.
I've not seen anything like this from the early 1900s as the postmark attests to. I am sure you know (but I am mentioning this as a point of interest for others who may not know) that aside from the postmark, one can tell that this is early as the postcard is not the divided Winsch-back and the space at the bottom of the front of the card is where the text is written.
PS It looks intentional to me.
Thanks betweenthelens! Yep. I know the undivided backs start about 1905. but i don't know when the line did come in. Do you? I can see it was glued down at some time. I cannot make out the state it was sent to, but it was mailed from Illinois. I see "IL" Why it was postmaked 2 times is odd, but I do see that sometimes. I as well have never seen a trial shot like this. I suppose it isn't rare, and maybe done MUCH earlier in a studio. I collect old photos and have albums full, but nothing matching this. That little boy is a beautiful toddler, isn't he!
But it couldn't be a home camera. It's before a staged backdrop which normal people wouldn't poses. I'd not suggest it were accidental, but, rather, an option given by the photographer. As for being double-postmarked, it probably passed through more than one town, in which they postmarked it as well.
This is an intentional double exposure. There is a rectangular band running down the center of the image that is lighter than the left and right sides. This is the area where the two exposures overlapped ... a really well done exposure would have a minimal overlap if done on a proper view camera with a shifting back because there would be registration hardware on the camera.
Anyhow, the picture is lighter where the images overlap because the exposure value is doubled (causing over-exposure) in that specific rectangular area. The left half of image (standing child) ends where the light band becomes dark on the right side. And vice versa for the right half of the image (sitting child). The left edge of the overlap is subtle but it's there slicing through the standing child's forehead.
Dressing the child in light colored clothing conceals what would be a slight transparency showing the background. This is because, in a negative, printed highlights are in areas where silver development is densest (darkest).
However this can be done in a roll film camera. I've done double exposures on 120 roll film with a Bronica GS1 6x7 medium format camera and early 1900s Kodak Panoram No.1. The challenge is knowing how far to wind the film to get a minimal overlap.
What is the size of the image area (not including the white border areas)? It would help me understand if this could have been done on roll film or sheet film. Regardless, both types were widely available in the early 1900s.
FWIW ... there is a backdrop behind the child. You can see the weighted seam where it meets the floor.
Lois, yes, a beautiful child. According to the website emotionscards.com, divided backs appeared in 1902 in England, 1904 in France, 1905 in Germany, and 1907 in the U.S.
The postmark on the right is for certain a Washington one, and I can see Ritzville, Washington on the postcard in the address area.
I am fascinated by all of the information imparted by rniederman. This has been a real learning experience!
Lois, yes, a beautiful child. According to the website emotionscards.com, divided backs appeared in 1902 in England, 1904 in France, 1905 in Germany, and 1907 in the U.S.
The postmark on the right is for certain a Washington one, and I can see Ritzville, Washington on the postcard in the address area.
I am fascinated by all of the information imparted by rniederman. This has been a real learning experience!
rniederman,
I appreciate your help very much.
I measure 4 1/8 size of the image itself. Sent a special message to you with ruler and photo--but HOLDING the ruler and photo myself, exactly 4 and 1/8th
Also vintage home camera photos with simulated "backgrounds".. Over there I love that woven tapestry or bed covering!!Cheers for you! Lois
Thanks to the "lovers" of this odd photo.
Collectomaniac loves this.
ManikinManikin loves this.
fortapachefortapache loves this.
TassieDevil
AnnaB
SpiritBear
AdeleC
betweenthelens
jscott0363