How much did the photos cost?!

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

When I first made friends with this website in 2004, the second piece I read was about Annie Chapman (yes, first I read about Polly Nicholls, then about Annie etc. ).

The thing making me wonder, that the Chapman family were pretty well-to-do, was the good quality photos of their kids. Thinking stereotypically, that the LVP people - since the innovation of photography was relatively new - paid pretty lot for such items...

So, does anyone know, what was the average price for such photos and how often common people could buy them?!

All the best
Jukka

[Sam Flynn]

A basic portrait photograph might have cost as little as a shilling as early as 1861, as this website shows. By the time that the Chapmans posed for their portraits (early 1880s), advances in technology had brought down the cost. A good quality, large-format "cabinet" photograph could be bought for 2 shillings or so in 1881, and it seems that photographers would offer "3 for the price of 2" type discounts if more than one picture were commissioned at a time.

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Sam!

Thanks a lot for the information!

One cannot help thinking, that some day there might show up a photo of an Irish family in Wales with a tall daughter...

All right, back to Annie; to my eyes the photos look like early colour photos (if I remember the contemporary term correctly, they were "tinted").

Anything to confirm/ban this presumption?!

All the best
Jukka

[KatBradshaw]

Hi there
I have often thought the same thing about the piccies but then was put right by a friends father who is a professional photographer. Interestingly my Bradshaw family never had piccies taken as it was seen as too expensive.

[George Hutchinson]

Hi Jukka

I have a large collection of Carte de Visites and cabinet cards, mostly concerning Guildford.

I have never personally seen a tinted one (but that doesn't mean they weren't done, of course). I have seen hand-tinted postcards, stereoviews and early tintypes, but never studio albumen prints like these.

Gareth is right. By the 1880s, these studios were everywhere and anyone with only a few pence to spare (the keywords here being 'to spare', of course) could get one made. I've seen quite a few family shots where they're clearly posing in their best clothes and even they are really shabby. What the giveaway is with the Chapman children is not the fact there are photos of them at all, but that their dresses appear decent. These are not children in poverty.

It is difficult to assess the 'wedding' photo because I think we don't really know if these are clothes they owned or hired for the occasion, or if such clothing was almost normal for them. Annie's dress is definitely an 1860s cut of a common appearance but not exactly cheap.

Does anyone know if the images are on CDVs or cabinet cards? I'd always assumed the 1860s one to be a cabinet and the 1880s to be CDVs but that is purely from the sizes they are when you see them published. I bet it's the other way round, as cabinet cards are usually found many years later (when the cost came down).

PHILIP

[anna]

Hi all,

I have some 6" x 4" 's that are "postcard pictures" of women in evening dress from the 1800's,which have been coloured in very strong colours,with glitter added where the lace and embroidery was.

[LadyG]

Regarding color photography-- cdvs, tintypes, cabinets and right up to the brownie shots of the early 20th century were a B&W process, or more correctly various processes. However, I collect vintage images and can assure you hand tinted photos were produced from the 1840s (with the first dags) right through the Victorian age.
Early cased images frequently only tinted cheeks and lips, with gold added to jewelry when appropriate. Many of the photographers supplied the service of 'tinting', or what was called crayon work, for their clentele who desired it and paid the additional fee. I have tintypes, CDVs and cabinet cards very nicely tinted, and others that look as if it was the work of a child. Crayons, watercolors and other means were imployed, sometimes pigmented powders that needed to be breathed on lightly in order to permenantly color an image. You can find images that are completely tinted, right down to the studio drapery, and often the larger photos displayed framed on walls are put through the coloring process, as they were showpieces for the family.
Check the backmarks on old photos when you find them in a shop-- many are large decorative advertisements for the studio, listing their specialties and availability of services such as copies, enlargements and coloring. If you find a photo with no backmark, it means it is a period copy, much like when we used to have copies made from negatives. Hope this helps.

[George Hutchinson]

^ Thanks, LadyG. You're right, of course. Since I made that post I've acquired my first ever hand-tinted CDV.

PHILIP

[Celesta]

Hi Anna,

I have a number of old cards like that from the turn of the century. They certainly reflect a more elegant age, at least for those who could afford elegance.

[LadyG]

You're quite welcome 'Sgt' Hutchinson, but be warned-- collecting images can be very addictive!

[George Hutchinson]

I don't know what you mean - I only have four shoe boxes at present crammed with Victorian stereoviews.

PHILIP

[miss marple]

Photpgraphy

Hi,
I fond out this information when researching my gt gt grandfather an east end hair dresser who took up photography in the 1860s.
quote
'' In March 1853 Frederich Scott Archer, an english scuptor and calotype photpgrapher described in the chemist a new process using collodian. This recently discovered material was made by disolving a form of gun cotton in ether. '' The Collodian positive or Ambrotype , became very popular for portraiture. Unlike Daguerreotype process it required little skill and a very modest investment in apparatus and materials. No licenses were needed for its operation. Portrait studios opened in any premises that could be found. Hairdressers, butchers , tobacconists coffee sellers and even dentists were among those offering framed photographic likenesses for as little as sixpence, sometimes with a cup of coffee or a cigar thrown in. Like the Daguerreotype the glass collodian positive required the protection of a matt, cover glass and frame or case, but the quality of the work was generally not as good. However the difference in cost was considerable, and even the poor could be temped into a photographic studio for a sixpenny portrait. The process remained popular well into the 1880s''

In the 1860s a woman would wear her best dress for getting married, not necessarily white.
Miss Marple

[George Hutchinson]

^ You're not wrong, MM. In the latter half of the 1800s there were easily half a dozen or more studios in Guildford alone, which effectively consisted of two streets as far as retail is concerned.

PHILIP

[Celesta]

In the 1860s a woman would wear her best dress for getting married, not necessarily white.
Miss Marple

It was Queen Victoria who started the white dress custom, or so I saw on a news item about brides recently, so it probably took a little while for the trend to set in.

[miss marple]

wedding dresses

It did take a while for white dresses to catch on, and firstly among the upper classes. Even then it was customary for the bride to wear her dress at the first ball she attended after the wedding. A special dress just for a wedding would have been an unheard of extravagance among the lower middle classes. I once sold a wedding dress and shoes from the 1880s, they were dark red. The special white dress only really took off in the 20th century
That was in the days when I sold vintage costume.
Miss marple