Message-Id: <199810111856.LAA34640@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1998 14:41:15 -0400 From: Susan Knoer <mailto:smknoe01@GWISE.LOUISVILLE.EDU> Subject: Re: ? re photographics practice To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
It was indeed common, especailly after paper processes were introduced and multiple copies could be made; but dag studios often advertised that they would make copy dags of dags. Since many dags were post-mortems of people who hadn't had their picture taken in life, copy dags for family were quite common. The vertical lines where the tower meets the wall might be buff or wipe lines from the dag plate, hard to tell from the scan. If the details of the sole woman's clothing were clearer, I could give you an approximate date. As pure tupence opinion, I'd say that it might be a farewell picture to the old building, given the number of broken window panes.Susan Knoer Special Collections: Photographic Archives University of Louisville mailto:smknoe01@gwise.louisville.edu
<<< Jon Reynolds <mailto:REYNOLDJ@GUNET.GEORGETOWN.EDU> 10/ 8 5:53p >>> I would be interested in opinions on whether it was at all usual to copy dageurreotypes/ambrotypes, etc. in the 1870's or 80's. We have a photo - (see www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/i/page/holytr1.jpg ) - that would seem to be from that period. However, it shows the old Trinity Church in Georgetown, which was replaced in 1851 by an adjoining structure. Why would they pose around the old church, and not have a similar photo of the new? The newer church is very close to this structure, so close that I would think it would be visible, or at least its shadow. I thus wonder if this is not a copy of a very early photo.
We have a c. 1900 view of the two also, after the old church was extended. see: www.library.georgetown.edu/dept/speccoll/i/page/trinit~1.jpg
I know this can't really be answered, but I would be interested in any thoughts.
Jon Reynolds