next »

Total Members: 1578
New This Month: 7
New This Week: 1
New Today: 1

Banks

1800's young woman

20090501-DSC_0371.jpg

Head Transplant

[Mhayes]

I really love this old picture, but am not sure what to make of it. At first I thought it was a photo that had been hand tinted. However, the more I look at it, could this be a painting to begin with, which is why the baby looks more like a doll? The real fun is restoring the color, because it cannot be tweaked like a photo with color balance adjustments to find the original color. The other problem I am having is figuring out if the snake like strand running across the baby from one hand to the other is damage? Also, what is the baby holding—a rattle? Going up to the tip of the baby’s finger is either part of the toy that looks like a paddle or damage?

I don’t want to restore this picture to look like a sanitized version of the original. I feel comfortable with the baby’s hair, face, and chair on restoring. What I am not sure of is what color to lean towards on the baby’s dress. I want to back away from the orange shade, since I think it is part age and maybe the pink of the skin and the color of the dress running together. What color would you think would be a good shade? Thanks for any help on this one!

I have cropped this photo down.



Margie

[Hannie]

Margie, I looked at his photo for a long time, it is very strange but beautiful!  Because part is well defined (shoes) and part looks very much painted(dress, hands) I don't think it was a painting to begin with.  Rather a photo that was badly damaged/faded and then (badly)painted and colored.  I do think the snake like like strand is part of the painting, you can also see a similar line on the hem line of the dress.

The elongated blue shape coming down from the baby's index finger is probably part of the brass frame in the back.  The rattle looks strange but I think that is just what it is.
For the color of the dress I would stick to ecru or creme color or very light yellow.

What a challenge!

 

Hannie

[Ratz]

Hi Margie. What a beautiful picture! I agree that it is probably a painting,which should make it a little easier to restore.
On first look I thought the dress could be a pale yellow,or maybe white.
The baby is holding a ring with teethers or rattles on it that you can just see poking out at the tip of the finger.
Just my impression of it all,someone else may see more. Good luck! I look forward to seeing your progress on this one.
Vicki.

[schen]

Margie,

Here are what I see:
1, 2 - posts
3, 4 - pacifier
5, 6 - painted line

I agree with Hannie, this is a painted photo.

[klassylady25]

When in doubt about the dress - choose neutral, perhaps cream.I agree with Schen on the others.  Using an ivert of the picture, it brought out the toy.

[Mhayes]

Thanks for the feedback everyone! What's nice is that you are all pretty unanimous on what you see. I'm glad I asked, especially with the line that snakes across, because otherwise I might have removed it. Candy, I was startled when I first saw your version of the photo. I thought you had totally gone round the bend until I read your comment about the toy.  When I get further along, I will post different variations of this photo to see what you think looks the best.

Thanks again!

Margie

[klassylady25]

Margie, don't be so sure I haven't gone around the bend!!  

[Ausimax]

I agree with Schen, except for the "snakes" there is no reason that a dress would have lines like that across the bodice, its too irregular to be a pattern feature, also at the bottom you can see the hem line there is no reason for the extra lines.

Also the texture of the lines is similar to the vertical lines running down across the face, I think it may have been scribbled on with a crayon, it is probably an error to assume that all the damage we see is caused by the water damage, some of it may well be pre-existing damage.

Them's my thoughts, look forward to seeing the finished article Margie, it will be a major work retaining that original texture and dreamy look in the background, have fun.

Max

[Mhayes]

Hi Max, it good to hear from you!  Now I'm back to my original thought and that is to get rid of the "snakes." I find the line really distracting, since it draws the eyes right to it and then makes no sense.

Margie

[glennab]

Margie, it looks to me as if the coarse lines might indicate "sketch" areas of what appears to me to be an unfinished painting.  The baby's face, the table and the shoes are beautifully detailed (and it almost looks as there are whimsical figures atop the table that might be chess pieces).  And then there are the strange lines that certainly don't fit the rest of the painting.  The hand on the right as we look at the child are sketched in, yet the other hand isn't outlined and is nicely shaded and more natural looking.  The rough line across the bodice and those at the bottom appear to me to be "first drafts" of a hem and ruffles, and the dress itself has little detail and shading.  Do you suppose the artist got to a certain point in what I think is a lovely rendering  of this baby and then for some reason was unable to complete it?

G

[Mhayes]

Thanks Glenna, I think that is a good point about this being an unfinished painting, especially when you look at the baby's left hand. I cropped the photo is so you don't really see some of the detail of the chair the baby is sitting on. I'm not sure there is a table, but rather the outline of the chair at the top. I think the the whimsical figures atop that look like chess pieces are really part of the chair. They did strike me as rather odd looking and made me wonder if the back of chair extended higher with another piece on top.

Margie

[Pelican]

Hi Margie,

First off, I have access to a remarkably similar photo of my father that may help as a reference. I'll have to look again cuz its been hanging on the wall at my parent's house since I was a toddler myself and its been years since I've looked at it closely. I'll see if I can get a picture of it tomorrow. Regardless of whether its a true help, its a cool picture in mint condition.

I agree with the general consensus that this is an unfinished painting. The chair is so detailed cuz thats how painters paint. Finish the bg before you do much work on the foreground. The snakey line does appear to be a guideline drawn by the artist as it is so similar the the baby's left hand. If this is the case then it should probably be left in the picture.

Now for the chair. I built antique replica furniture for quite a few years. The chess piece things are finials (decorative turnings) mounted to the top of the chair back above each of the stiles (posts). It seems odd that 2 of them look to be tilted back but thats what they are. Generally the stiles in a chair back are smaller than the 2 outside back supports but that doesn't seem to be the case here. They look to be the same size and shape all the way across. The two outside back supports appear not to have finials. This was just as common in design as them having large ornate ones. Also, one of the stiles should be seen behind the baby's ear and its not there. Hmmm....

Not too sure about the left side of the picture though. It seems that the outside back support is either mixed up with something in the background or just caught up in the damage.

There's my 2 cents. I'll get that picture.

Curtis

[mschonher]

Hi Margie, I don't have much to add to all the comments, I just want to lend my support for taking such a difficult photo.  I do agree with Curtis that those are finials on the back of the chair.  I would not worry too much about the clothing until you've gotten some other work done on the photo especially the background. By then the photo may reveal itself to you on how to proceed with the color of the dress which I'm sure was linen and white in color.   As for those annoying lines, it's up to you in the end but what purpose do they serve on the finished photo? If they are distracting why not leave them out?  The only thing I can think that wavy ribbon like line is, just that, a ribbon attached to the rattle.  It's pretty much a crap shoot isn't it?  Like a lot of the photos we work on it looks like some of the image has slipped because I swear I see a large finial on the the back support on our right.  That support however, looks to be in the wrong place.  I also see a mirror image of the forearm on our left side of the photo.

Congratulations Margie, you now have enough opinions to be totally and utterly confused!

Mary   

[Mhayes]

Hi Mary and Curtis, thanks for the help on the chair. I had no idea what the ornaments on the back of the chair were. Like Curtis, I too thought it strange that two of them are tilted backwards and it's great you may have a reference photo.

I think I will work on one section at a time. I probably should have taken Mary's advice and started with the background, but I decided for fun  to work on the dress--convert to black and white and work on the shading, before coloring. I am going to do away with the wavy line for now.

Thanks again,

Margie

[Pelican]

I also see mountains in the background and the baby is holding a teddybear.....