# antique photos, how to tell if theyre fake?



## iPhoto17 (Apr 25, 2012)

i went to the antique store the other day to look for old cameras and photos and such and i came across a ton of old sepia toned photos, or what looked to be old, they were selling for 3 dollars each and varied in size. most of them had a hard cardboard type feel to them, but i can just take a copy of a photo glue it to cardboard rub some coffee on it and scuff it up if i really wanted to.

how can you tell if these are even the real deal? im heading back up there to take pictures again since they let me last time

what should i look for in these old photos?


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 25, 2012)

Most of the old photos I've handled/copied/etc are of a fairly thick card stock, perhaps 1/8th thick..maybe a bit less. The pictures are quite rigid, due to having been 'drying' for the last 60-100+ years. Often, they are oddly warped, as well. Typically, there may be water stains, bent corners, yellowed tape areas, photo-album stickum on the back, etc. One 'good' marker of a real old photo is broken-off/flaked-off image due to its brittleness...especially if the photo had been bent/creased. In my opinion, any photo paper newer than perhaps 50 years will not have image flaking off, exposing the white paper underneath. The paper qualities improved about WW II or thereabouts. 

Often, multiple pictures from the same era will have different levels of fading, as well. Different people stored their pictures diifferently, resulting in different fade/yellowing/browning/discoloring. 

Also, the focusing in the picture is typically soft compared to what we can get today, even with a kit lens. Fixed focus lenses of the 1800s and first half of the 1900s were merely a single piece of glass. Chromatic aberration correction and all the other fancy lens technologies hadn't been invented yet. 

Genuinely old pictures sometimes have small white spots on/in them. This is easily spotted in the darker areas of the pictures. Just another 'look for' item.

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to 'fix' a handful of 1870s pictures for our local historical society. Two of the pictures had been creased right through the midsection of the bodies of the 15-20 workers in the pictures, standing for their portrait. I spent several hours on each 'cloning' the mens' clothing and surrounding stone quarry walls/rocks/etc. I also cleaned up various white dots and what nots, boosted the contrast a bit, and did a little sharpening in Photoshop, as well. 

So, if the quality of the picture looks 'too good to be true', or if there's obvious cloning in the image, good chance it's a fake.


----------



## iPhoto17 (Apr 25, 2012)

thanks for the information, although i didnt get this message before i went, i did take closer looks at some of the pictures, they seemed to be real, i keep these things in mind next time im up there


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 25, 2012)

bratkinson said:


> Also, the focusing in the picture is typically soft compared to what we can get today, even with a kit lens. Fixed focus lenses of the 1800s and first half of the 1900s were merely a single piece of glass. Chromatic aberration correction and all the other fancy lens technologies hadn't been invented yet.


You'd be surprised what they could do back then.

I have a (tack sharp) portrait of my great-great-grandfather taken around 1880 on my wall right now.  I even looked up the photographer - he pretty much never made much money, was never famous, and was one of those types to always be undercutting the competition.  He was the Facebook Fauxtog of the 1880's, lol.

The print has some physical damage due to careless handling before it got to me, but other than that - it looks great.  And it also looks better than anything I've seen come out of an ink jet.


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 25, 2012)

My Dad has some Civil War tintype photos (fairly new technology at the time) of some other relatives.  They are not quite of the same quality as this print I have, but they are by no means 'bad'.  I have seen much worse on this forum.  :lmao:

People took their time to make sure they did it right back then...


----------



## iPhoto17 (Apr 25, 2012)

id love to get my hands on a daguerrotype or a tintype


----------



## 480sparky (Apr 25, 2012)

iPhoto17 said:


> id love to get my hands on a daguerrotype or a tintype









Not only a tintype, but according to family lore....... the sister-in-law of John Wilkes Booth.  So far, no luck proving or disproving it.


----------



## jowensphoto (Apr 26, 2012)

^Wow. Look at those eyes!


----------



## table1349 (Apr 26, 2012)

If the subject in the photo has an ACDC Forever tattoo"......it's a fake.

If the photo depicts a 2011 model vehicle.....it's a fake.

If the photo shows a bunch of college age females flashing their boobs for beads.....it's a fake.

Need more???


----------

