Everyone has those old family photos of people we know are related somehow, but don’t know exactly who they’re supposed to be. Genealogists have often found themselves questioning relatives in vain for hours, trying to get any kind of a name to put to the mystery subjects of old & faded photos, to get any idea of when or where the photos were taken.
It can be incredibly frustrating!
But there is an easier way.
Even if you have no idea of which family line the photo comes from, you can often deduce what year the photo was taken; and by extension, who is in the photo… with just a little help from Google & the internet.
Here’s how…
Analyze the photo, and look at every detail.
If you’re extremely lucky, there might be a date already on your photo– possibly handwritten on the back or printed in the border around the edge of the photo. BUT… be careful trusting this information too confidently!
If the date is printed in the border, this is NOT the date the photo was taken, but is actually the date the image was developed and printed. Most of the time, this is close to the original date; but occasionally, this can be markedly different. This habit of putting development dates on photos began in the 1950s and continued for many years.
A handwritten date on the back of a photo is great. But like any oral history, it’s possible that the information is wrong or that it was a poor guess made by someone several years or even some decades after the photo was taken. It’s a great start, but take it with a grain of salt, and double check that information against what the photo itself tells you.
In my family, we have a very large, very old (and crumbling) photo of this man.
At the time I was trying to identify him, my mother had Alzheimer’s, and I only had an idea of which family line he was in. I couldn’t give him a name… yet.
We knew he belonged in a specific family line, and that meant he would likely have been one of two men: either Nicholas Wiersema or his father, Albert/Ulfort Wiersema.
Back then, I was new to Genealogy, and the internet was still very young. Facebook didn’t even exist yet. But I did still have email.
I was fortunate enough to have learned about a historical costume designer and to have found her email on her company’s website. I took a photo of the huge photo, and sent a digital file of it to her email. I was soon astonished by her generous response. What she sent back was a three-page (printed out, single spaced) detailed analysis of the image, at no charge to me.
Her wonderful analysis dated the photo to sometime in the early 1870s. And because I knew Nicholas Wiersema (the son) would not have been old enough at that time, I could then be certain that the photo was a picture of his father, Albert/Ulfort.
Later, after attending some workshops on dating photos and learning a lot more about the topic in social media posts, I discovered that I didn’t have to be a Historian or a professional Genealogist to do much of what that wonderfully generous lady had done…
And neither do you!
THE PHOTO PAPER
Examine the type of paper or other material the image is on (if you have it physically with you). The thicker and/or more unusual the material is, the older it is likely to be. The photo itself can give you some great clues about when & where it was taken.
The most helpful clue in dating a photo is, if it has an imprint from a photography studio. This can usually be found on the back (embossed/engraved into the image itself) OR on the border/below the image.
The studio imprint sometimes names the city where it was taken. But just as importantly, it can narrow down the date range for the photo. While some photography studios have been in business for many decades (making dating with this information difficult), many more have come & gone.
Google the studio name and city to find out about the photographer. If the studio was only in business for a finite time, you have a range of years when the picture was taken.
Generally speaking: The thicker the paper, the older it is likely to be. Slides, negatives, and photos on metalic materials (most of which are called “deguerrreotypes”) also date themselves by their material. Check on the internet to learn more about the kinds of materials used for photos thought the ages, specifically which thickness you are holding. (Art Taylor’s comment below also contains some excellent information about photo formats, for photos from the 1950s onward.)
https://www.iphotocentral.com/collecting/article-view.php/12/10/1
https://www.aarp.org/relationships/genealogy/info-11-2011/dating-old-photos.html
“Instamatic” photos were made directly from the camera, with no film negative. These had a specific size and border.
Framed (often oval) photos whose glass “bubbles outward” (called “Convex Photos,” see the link at the end of this article for more on this type of photo) are usually from a specific era, around the 1890s to 1920s. This was done for a kind of 3D effect. BUT the photos that were put into such frames were often reprints of older (usually smaller) photos, so their display should not be taken as a definitive date of the photo itself.
Also, these should NOT be removed from their frame if you can avoid it. A professional scanning company can often safely remove the photo and recreate these images in a nice, high-quality 2D scan, by taking multiple images of the photo at various angles, then merging those images together. It’s well worth the money to leave the digitizing of these photos to paid professionals.
An Example of a “Convex” Photo
COLOR vs B&W
The first color photos came out in 1907, but the higher expense meant that they were not commonly used for home cameras for many years later, and even studio photos were still done as black-and-white for many years.
Some early photos that seem to be color were actually hand-painted black-and-white photos (see below).
https://www.widewalls.ch/magazine/color-photography
FASHION
The most obvious clues to the year the photo was taken are in the fashions of the time. Not just clothing, but hair & beard styles, and even commonly used body poses. You don’t have to be an expert on fashion to identify the trends and when they were popular, though. Once again, Google can be your best friend.
When you search the internet for images of dresses, hair, mustaches, shoes, hats, etc. through the years, be sure to use search terms to get the best results. Use specific items and decades when searching. For example, “Women’s dress fashions in 1890s” will get you far more helpful image results, than something as general as “women’s fashion through the decades.”
Another good search term would be “1890s children’s fashion catalog images,” which would also show you examples of catalog pages from that era. Product catalogs (like the famous Sears catalog) have a large variety of popular fashions of the time. They are especially helpful when looking for images of shoes and of children’s clothing fashions.
You will probably be unsure of which decade the photo was taken in. That’s okay. Just Google each decade that you think might be correct for the photo you’re looking at. You’ll quickly be able to narrow down the years for your photo identification.
Most decades tended to have a similar fashion throughout the ten-year span. A few had noticable changes between the first and last half of the decade. The 1890s are a good example of this.
Men’s fashions tended to be very similar over the decades, making it difficult to narrow down a photo with only males. Be sure to look closely at any hairstyles, facial hair, hats, tobacco pipes, and suitcoats you might be able to find.
Some men’s facial hair fashions are unique to certain eras (such as the infamous handlebar mustache of the late 1800s to WWI, or the sideburns of the 1970s). Even a lack of facial hair has been a fashion statement at various times in history. Especially after the 1950s, hairstyles and length can say when the photo was taken.
The oldest two girls have their hair in a style called “ringlets” or “sausage curls.” This can help date the image. Also note the very large ribbons in their hair, the length of their dresses, the size of their dress collars, their shoe styles, etc. This photo is from the 1910s.
While men’s hairstyles tend to not have changed much for many decades up until the 1950s, women’s hairstyles could be very easily identified and were sometimes common only during a specific span of just a few years.
https://vintagedancer.com/victorian/victorian-mens-fashion-history/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_facial_hairstyles
https://vintagenewsdaily.com/vintage-portraits-depict-victorian-mens-hairstyles-and-facial-hair/
https://menhairstylesworld.com/mens-hairstyles-through-the-ages/
https://www.vintag.es/2017/03/victorian-men-hairstyles-thats-what.html?m=1
http://www.photosmadeperfect.com/Hairstyles%20From%201840%20to%201960.htm
https://hair-and-makeup-artist.com/womens-edwardian-hairstyles/
https://www.leaf.tv/articles/womens-hairstyles-from-1900/
https://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com/fashion-history-eras/history-childrens-clothing
An important thing to know: Disposable diapers were not invented until 1942, rubber panties for infants were not invented until 1910, and washing machines were not common until the 1930s. Until the popular use of disposable diapers and washing machines (around the 1930s or so), it was common for little boys who had not been potty trained to wear nursery dresses (which were easier for changing diapers and for keeping clothing clean). Be careful not to judge gender of very young children using modern ideas of fashion.
https://dirtydiaperlaundry.com/the-history-of-cloth-diapers/history-of-cloth-diapers-timeline/
For vintage photos, you can also look at the pose of the photo’s subjects. For example, and generally speaking…
Before the popularization of kitchen appliances, working-class women tended to pose differently in photos than more well-to-do women who had servants. A woman whose hands were blistered from scrubbing clothes on a washboard, farming, etc. would tend to pose for a photo with her hands closed into fists or hidden from view. A woman of means would tend to proudly show off her smooth unblistered hands, as a sign of her social status. This was not a hard-and-fast rule, but it can be used as a general guideline.
EXTRANEOUS ITEMS
Look at more than merely the people in the photo. Look at EVERYTHING.
Other items in the image can also help you date the photo. Look at cars & horse-drawn carriages, bicycles, baby buggies, houses, appliances, furniture, lighting, machinery, military medals, and anything else in the image that might possibly help date the photo.
If you are not an expert on the item, remember that (again) Google can be your friend. You can also go onto social media and ask for others who are experts to help you identify and date various items in the photo.
Every detail can help.
If there are any pets in the photo, and you know which family pet is in the photo, this also helps to date it. If you know that Uncle Fred had a Beagle when he was a little boy, but had a sheepdog when he got older, whichever dog is in the photo will help verify whether the image is of your Uncle Fred or of some cousin as a boy.
Business signs, stationary, and other company names in the photo can help to narrow down the date. Even companies that have been in business for many years might have changed their logos over time, which can help you to date a photo.
FITTING THE PUZZLE PIECE
Remember that one detail alone should not be used to date a photo. This next photo is a good example of not being able to date a photo based only on one factor. In this case, the boy was having his Catholic Confirmation ceremony. But his clothing was very outdated, since it had been handed down from another family member. It required multiple factors analyzed before the boy’s name could be determined accurately.
Remember, a “puzzle piece” has more than one side. Be sure to analyze an image from all angles before you let yourself feel confident about its date.
To use a metaphor: Once you have defined how your particular “puzzle piece” is shaped, you can then figure out how to fit it into the whole picture. It’s the same with identifying ancestors: Once you have analyzed and determined some of the information about the photo, you can start to figure out where it goes on your tree.
After you have determined the likely year(s) of the photo, make a list of all the ancestors in that family line who would have been remotely close in age(s) at the time, to the person/people in your photo.
The most important piece of information to remember is that photos before 1930 or so would likely not have been taken for casual snapshots. Whereas nowadays we can easily, instantly, and cheaply take a photo of the kids playing in the front yard, in early years of photography, people would have had to pose for several minutes at a time, and/or the cost of having a photo taken would have been prohibitive for casual photography.
So, most photos were taken for special occasions, or as special items for the home. For example:
It was very common for young adults leaving their birthland & immigrating to another country, to take a photo with their parent(s) before leaving, so that each of them would have a memento of the other(s). It was also common for new immigrants who had recently arrived and made enough money, to have photos made and sent back to their families in “the old country” (showing off their success and their good health). A man who had just bought a new house might have his portrait taken to proudly hang on his walls. And like the photo mentioned above, a religious ceremony or wedding would also be worthy of a photo.
Btw… For weddings from many years past, a bride– especially one who was not rich– was not always expected to wear white, nor was a groom expected to wear a tuxedo. Don’t assume a photo is NOT a wedding photo, just because the couple is not dressed in expensive wedding attire. This next image is one of my own Grandparents, Mary Watt and Nicholas Wiersema, on their wedding day (also posted earlier in this article). The original was black & white, this copy was hand-painted to add color.
Take all of these previous ideas into account when dating a photo and matching it to people. Look for people in your tree who are not merely from the same era, but have good reasons to be investing in taking a photo like the one you have in your hands.
It helps to make a list of all the likely “candidates”– the names, their birth year, their immigration year, wedding year (if there is a possible spouse in the image), and likely age range at the time of the photo. That way, you can quickly and easily compare the data to your analyzed information.
An example is this photo, of three Scottish ladies from my own Cameron surname lines. I know from strong oral history that one of them is my Great-Grandmother, Annie Cameron. But is it the old lady or one of the young ladies?
Dating the clothing, paper, studio, etc. puts the photo around 1883-1890. The only possible Cameron-line ladies whose ages might fit with this photo are Annie, one of her sisters, and her Mother. It would have been taken around the same time that two of the young ladies left Scotland for America, and the mother would have stayed behind in Scotland. So I can feel confident that one of the young ladies is indeed Annie, and I can “guess* (but not be sure) that the other of the young ladies is Maggie Cameron. But I still cannot say for sure which one is which. (Comparing it to other photos of Annie when she was much older, gives me the idea that Annie is the one in the middle. But the two young ladies’ faces are too similar to each other to say for certain.)
Another good example of making puzzle pieces fit:
A researcher friend of mine had old photos that she only knew what family line they were from. One was of three men and another was of a man and some children.
After dating the two photos, we soon realized that the names written on the photo did not fit with the possible identities of any of the people. (Proof that you cannot always trust what is handwritten on a photo.) Also, whose “father” was in the photo? No one could say for certain who had written that notation.
When we made up a list of males born in the correct years to fit the photo AND to have the correct ages for the image, the first photo (the three men) could only have been brothers Petrus, Joseph, and Lorenz. But we had no other image of two of the brothers to compare to, in order to be more certain.
However, comparing the first image to the second, we could say with confidence that the man with the children was probably the same man as the middle brother (the one whose face looks like “he’s an angry elf” actor Peter Dinklage). We also looked at the list of children for all three brothers, and only Joseph had a girl as his oldest, followed by two boys (fitting with the image).
The likely ages of the children in the photo (the boys at 1.5-to-3 years, and 5-to-6 years, and the girl at 7 to 9yo) matches perfectly with Joseph’s oldest children. And the middle child in the family photo has distinct facial features that can only match an adult photo of Joseph’s elsest son, so all of this further proves our hypothesis.
PLUS, because we had the age range for the children, we could definitively date the family photo to around 1892.
It’s important to note here that the first photo would have been older than the second, BUT the immigration year for the youngest brother, from the family tree (post-1900), didn’t fit with the likely year range of the photo (1880-1890). This made us take a second look at the source she had attached to her tree for Petrus’ immigration. It turned out that closer examination proved it could NOT have been his immigration record, since it said he was heading for Pennsylvania where he had relatives, but my friend’s line would have had to be living in Chicago. So dating the photo helped her to catch an error in her tree.
Remember: Sometimes your tree has errors. Don’t disqualify a photo identification just because one piece of data from your tree, out of several, doesn’t fit, while the rest of them do. Check if there are any mistakes or explanations.
IN CONCLUSION…
Be sure to take the time to look closely at every detail, to not dismiss any detail as trivial or useless to your analysis and identification.
In order to know who unidentified people are in old photos, you first have to know what year it was taken. Trying to identify a photo’s subject without this vital detail will leave you severely handicapped and prone to errors. Once you know when the picture was taken, you can find out where it fits in your tree– just like finding the right spot for a loose piece on a jigsaw puzzle.
[Additional family photos and research information courtesy of fellow Genealogist Kathleen Atwood Ward.]
RELEVANT LINKS OF INTEREST
As I come across new links, e-docs, and websites, I will add them to this list. Be sure to check back occasionally for updates.
Colorizing Old Photos
https://youtu.be/cLVCGEmkJs0
How Color Film Was Intended for White People
https://youtu.be/d16LNHIEJzs
Paintings Transformed into Photos
https://youtu.be/gSTBJPUOXYg
Dating Old Photos: Information about Types of Photo Papers, etc.
https://www.cartedevisite.co.uk/dating/
A Brief History of “Convex” Photos
https://www.inlineovals.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-convex-glass/#:~:text=Between%20the%20years%20of%201880,circular%20or%20oval%20in%20shape
Transforming Old Photos
https://youtu.be/hjZnb_26uQs
Organizing Old Photos
https://youtu.be/KVAgUmHv47A
Preserving Old Photos
https://youtu.be/VUHprZ30BV8
Preserving Old Letters
https://youtu.be/6wHGVrcQlsw
Crayon Portraits of the 1800s http://sgarwood.com/node/52
History of Fashion, 1840 to 1910
http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/h/history-of-fashion-1840-1900/
Fashion in the Early 1900s
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900s_in_Western_fashion
Fashion in the 1910s
http://fashionthroughtheyears.weebly.com/1910-1919.html
More About Fashion in the 1910s
https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/1910-1919/
Children’s Fashion in the 1910s
https://childrens-clothing.lovetoknow.com/1910-1919-kids-fashion
Dating Photos by Children’s Fashions
http://www.photosmadeperfect.com/Photo%20Dating%20Page%20Top%20pg/Childrens%20Fashions%20By%20Decade.htm
History of Shoe Fashions
https://bellatory.com/fashion-industry/HistoryofShoes19thand20thCenturyWomensFootwear
Victorian Women’s Hats
https://vintagedancer.com/victorian/victorian-hat-history/
More about Victorian Women’s Hats
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widow’s_cap
A Brief History of Bonnets
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonnet_(headgear)
Helpful Document for Identifying Military Medals
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/49986/49986-h/49986-h.htm
Legacy Tree: How to Date Old Family Photos
https://www.legacytree.com/blog/date-old-family-photos
AARP: How to Date Old Photos
https://www.aarp.org/relationships/genealogy/info-11-2011/dating-old-photos.html
Lisa Lisson: Identifying Family in Old Photos
https://youtu.be/cgONkrap-dc
Victorian Women’s Hairstyles
https://www.whizzpast.com/victorian-hairstyles-a-short-history-in-photos/
If you enjoyed this blog, please remember to “Like” it (click on the star below) and to “Like” any social media posts/comments where you saw this link. And don’t forget to “Follow” me here on WordPress, for more helpful and concise Genealogy research tips. Your positive feedback helps me to help more people online. Thank you!
Great article!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you!
LikeLike
I really had to take a double take here because you have a photo here of a man in a yellow shirt from June ’71, he looks EXACTLY like my grandfather, and the woman behind him who looks very close to my grandmother and how her hair was worn at the time. If you don’t mind messaging/emailing me, I’d love to know who that family is and if we’re related?!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That photo came from a friend of mine. I think it’s from her husband’s family (surnames there include Ward and Whitnel). She’s also researching her family. I’ll ask her who they are and comment here again later. Maybe you two connect in your trees somehow!
LikeLike
Thanks for a comprehensive post on this topic. You cover it well.
However, your paragraph ‘“Instamatic” photos were made directly from the camera, with no film negative. These had a specific size and border.’ may be misleading to some readers. Some of the earliest photo processes did indeed lack the use of a negative, as did many, but not all, of the Polaroid films of the 1950s, 1960s,1970s, and 1980s, as well as a few Kodak products from the same era until Polaroid won a lawsuit against Kodak for patent infringement. There was at least one Polaroid film that did include a negative, along with the print, although that film may have been used more frequently by professional photographers, especially industrial photographers, than by amateurs.
Except for the Polaroid positive/negative film, the so-called “instant” pictures were exposed in the camera, then the film packet was passed through several rollers that released the chemicals to develop the image as it came out of the camera. The earlier Polaroid pictures needed to be coated with a particular chemical applied with a roller that was provided with the film pack. Later pictures did not need this coating. Polaroid photos were viewable faster than traditional film images, but because they were processed individually in the camera, they actually took about a minute per image, so quick sequence shooting was not practical. The cost per image was generally higher than the cost per image for conventional film images. The images also tended to fade more than conventional prints, whether they were B & W or color prints.
Different Polaroid cameras did provide images in several sizes, although each camera model produced pictures in only one standard size. I believe all Polaroid prints had a white border, regardless of which size the image was. Because there was generally no negative, multiple images had to be exposed if more than one copy was desired. The lack of negatives also meant that there was no way to enlarge or reduce the size of Polaroid prints. For a time, there was at least one Polaroid transparency film available that produced “slides”. It required a special film processor unit and the quality of the finished images was inferior to conventional transparency images.
In the early 1960s, Kodak introduced its line of “Instamatic” cameras that used size 126 film for slides or negatives. The films came in plastic cartridges that could be quickly and easily dropped into, and later removed from, a variety of Instamatic cameras, hence the name “Instamatic”. Usually, the film cartridges were sent to a photo lab for developing and printing, although some amateurs did do their own negative developing and printing. A decade or so later, Kodak introduced their line of “Pocket Instamatic” cameras and a “Pocket Instamatic” slide projector. Films were available, in size 110, for B & W negatives, color negatives, and color slides. The 110 films were about 16 mm in width, and like their predecessors, came in small plastic cartridges. Both “Instamatic” and “Pocket Instamatic” formats involved negatives on film or positive color slides and required processing before a viewable image was created. Because both formats used negatives, prints could be made in any desired size, although the small format negatives did not offer the same degree of enlargement quality as the 35 mm and larger format negatives did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wow! THANK YOU for all of this information! It’s very detailed and thorough. I’ll leave your comment visible, so others can also read all of it, and edit a reference to it into the main article.
LikeLike
Glad you enjoyed the information. I’ve been an amateur photographer since the late 1960s so have experienced most of the changes in technology since then. I’ve also done some research into photo history to help establish dates for my inherited collection of photos dating back at least to the 1860s.
In case you are not aware, the British Photo Detective site will be closing soon, according to its home page. The menu bar has been replaced with a group of blocks of letters spelling out “C L O S I N G”, where a click on each letter leads to a page of further links, most with a lot of information. Last night I finished spending many hours checking out each available link. A few links gave Error 404, File not Found messages, but such links were few and far between. There’s “tons” of valuable reference information on the site, especially about various British military uniforms.
LikeLiked by 1 person