Meet the author

Robert Pols Robert Pols is a long established expert on understanding historic photographs. His previous titles include "Dating Old Photographs", "Understanding Old Photographs", and "Looking at Old Photographs".

"Family Photographs 1860-1945" is his latest book.

We had a chat with Robert about some of the topics in the book and asked him to choose an image from this website to discuss.

You can either read the interview straight through by scrolling down the page, or use the links below to jump to a question and answer.

Q1) How important is it to have a technical understanding?
Q2) Were photographs only for the very wealthy?
Q3) What can the subject’s physical appearance tell us?
Q4) Could you comment on a photograph on this website?
Q5) How did you become interested in old photographs?
Q6) Could you give some tips on caring for old photographs

Question 1

FamilyRecords: How important is it to have a technical understanding of photography and the printing process to be able to age a photograph?

RP: To identify process of format is very helpful in aging a photograph – although it could give you a wide span of years – it would be a start. It is useful to have a working idea of the main processes. A rough notion of how it works – the transformation of an image onto metal, glass or paper – that magic is part of the appeal.

Some techniques span a number of years, techniques were refined over time but each new invention spread fast and widely (internationally). E.g. the daguerreotype of the 1840s and 1850s was superceded by the wet collodian process which was cheaper and more popular. If an image is printed directly onto glass, it is most likely to be from the third quarter of the 19th century. In the 1870s the "Carte de Visite" and cabinet prints really took off. In fact, such was the craze for Carte de Visites that it got its own name – "cartomania".

Question 2

FamilyRecords: Were photographs for everyone or were they out of reach for all but the very wealthy?

RP: At first only the very wealthy could afford a photograph – at 1 Guinea, the daguerreotype might have been slightly cheaper than having a portrait painted, but at that time, a Guinea would have been more than a week’s wages for most people, and several weeks’ wages for many.

With the development of the wet collodian process e.g. Ambrotypes, prices would have come down a bit, but it wasn’t really until the arrival of the Carte de Visite in 1858 that photography became accessible to more people. The prices were then in shillings although this depended on how fashionable the photographer was, and the price came down over the years. By the 1880s servants too could afford to have their photograph taken.

The Tintype or Ferrotype as it was known in the United States would have cost a few pence putting it in reach of everyone. This was a print made directly onto a very thin iron sheet which was coated in a photosensitive emulsion.

In the UK, tintype photographs were usually taken by itinerant photographers who set up stands at Agricultural Fairs or at the seaside and people would have been offered a souvenir of their trip.

In the United States the Ferrotype was held in higher regard and was used by photographers in their studios too.

In around 1900 the Box Brownie put the camera into the hands of the people - at around 5 shillings or US$1 it made photography affordable. By around 1920 almost every family would have one. You will probably also see a change in your family photographs - they become more informal, people are smiling and photographs are often taken outside.

Question 3

FamilyRecords: What can you tell from the subject’s physical appearance?

RP: The clothing and appearance of the subject can help to age a photograph. Women’s fashions changed more dramatically and frequently than men’s and so it is useful to learn about these fashions. However, it is also worth bearing in mind that for most people, once a set of clothes had been purchased they would be worn and mended for even a decade after they were fashionable. It is also worth considering the age of the subject - older people tend to adopt more old fashioned dress than the younger ones. Clothes can certainly help you work out which decade your photograph was taken in - for example help you establish whether two photographs of a similar looking man at different ages are of father and son or the same man at different times in his life.

Again, it probably becomes quite hard to guess the social class of someone from their photograph, as everyone would have dressed up in their ‘sunday best’ to have their picture taken.

Question 4

FamilyRecords: Would you like to comment on one of the photographs featured on this website - and see what your deductive powers can tells us?

RP: Yes - I have chosen the "Inheritance" illustration (used on the "Wills" page).

It looks as if the group was rather larger and that it has been cropped for its appearance on the website.

Victorian women with hats and parasols at a gathering of Zoologists. Taken from The National Archives ref: copy1/437 The fairly plain skirts, with the fashion emphasis on the top half of the women’s bodies, indicate the 1890s. So do the tall (but not yet particularly wide) well-decorated hats. Blouses, often well bestrewn with lace and frills, were also in favour at this period, and maintained their fashionable status into Edwardian times. The women’s sleeves suggest the middle of the decade. The woman behind the central figure wears leg-of-mutton sleeves, which were very popular in the mid-1890s, and the jacket on the woman right-of-centre is cut to accommodate a full upper sleeve. But the woman to the left has not yet abandoned the ‘kick-up’ shoulders that were in fashion in the early 1890s. The men’s collars, though quite tall, have probably not yet reached the height they were to attain at the end of the century. The boater (front right) has quite a wide band. A wider band, perhaps in two colours, might have been more in vogue by the late 1890s. So 1895, give or take a year or two, seems a fair estimate of the date.

The group looks rather too big for a family gathering. (Wedding pictures tend to be the largest family groups, but they did not really take off until the Edwardian years, and, if what we see are the central figures of the original, a bride and groom are lacking.) So it’s likely to be a public rather than a private occasion, and it’s one where the women are given prominence. Not only are the men relegated to the second and third rows, but they also lack the proprietorial air that they often assume in family (and, sometimes, other) pictures. Perhaps they are being gallant, or perhaps the women are more important to the occasion being marked.

The parasols remind us that the age of the suntan was still about a quarter of a century away. A pale delicacy of complexion was still considered more ladylike.

The tailored suit with blouse, as worn front right, became popular in the 1890s, and its smart and businesslike air coincided quite well with the idea of the New Woman – the sort of capable self-assured young woman who can be found in the early plays of Shaw. (This sort of costume would do quite well, for instance, for Vivie Warren in Mrs Warren’s Profession.) This does not necessarily mean, of course, that the woman in the picture thought of herself as ‘New’. She may be adopting a style of dress because she likes the look of it, rather than in order to make a statement. Her body language doesn’t seem especially confident, though that may be because she is leaning slightly to be sure of getting in the picture. (It depends on how much, if at all, the picture has been cropped.) On the other hand, she is holding a book, which confers on the holder associations of greater seriousness and intellectual substance than does a parasol.

View the original image

Question 5

FamilyRecords: How did you become interested in old photographs?

RP: There is no one easy answer. I was interested in family history and a number of photographs were passed on to me from my father - these were all already identified. There was the realisation that photographs bring history alive. I became interested in the history of photography itself when I read a book about Hill and Adamson - scottish practitioners of the Calotype - a british invention announced just after the daguerreotype. They were a photographer and painter who worked together.

Then my wife bought me an old photograph album at auction. This had a bit of mystery around it - I think that it wasn’t a single family album as it lacked an overall coherence. I believe that it was two or three collections gathered together.

Through gradually collection old photographs I realised that it is possible to date them and as the Federation of Family History Societies were looking for new titles, I suggested that I write "Dating Old Photographs". That was about eleven years ago.

Over the years I published three more books on photography aimed at family historians - these vary from a book of case studies to a guide that takes in modern photography and how to take photographs now for future generations.

My latest book "Family Photographs" includes many more images of old photographs than my previous publications - 150 in all.

Question 6

FamilyRecords: Could you give some tips on caring for old photographs?

RP: It is important to keep photographs out of sunlight. You should also try to write accompanying information on a separate sheet of paper or notebook - not on the photograph. If you must write on the back of the photograph use a very soft pencil - for example a 6B. The idea is that you never make a mark that can’t easily be removed. Obviously be careful - avoid having food and drink around and keep out of reach of children! If you are rich, you should invest in archival materials but at the very least you should avoid adhesive backed photograph albums and avoid PVC which can cause problems. I go into this in some detail in the book. If an image is particularly fragile - it could be worth having a copy made - this way the image will live on, even if the original artifact deteriorates.