Hogwood Article, March 2000

My memory is not perfect, but in twenty-five years researching my family roots, I have never met a fellow genealogist who did not have some level of interest in old photographs -- perhaps not a consuming and self-destructive passion like mine, but at least a mild interest. Most likely, we share the belief that images help add a third dimension to the otherwise two dimensional documentation, narrative and text that is our stock in trade. Photographs allow us to better understand the people, places and events associated with our ancestry. And because we appreciate the value that such images hold for us as descendants, we are taking steps to ensure that future generations will have the benefit of photographs of ourselves and our families. Indeed, “photogenealogy” – the cooperative interplay of photography and genealogy – is fast becoming a legitimate discipline in its own right.

The marriage of photography and genealogy is both natural and mutually beneficial. For example, since photographic techniques, processes and mounting styles were often popular for only a few years, an understanding of them can be indispensable in dating old pictures that you encounter. In turn, becoming familiar with the fashion and hairstyles of the day may greatly assist in the process of dating and identifying old photographs, since a studio portrait was an important event and folks wanted to look “up to date” for the camera. Applying genealogical research techniques to the men and women who took the photographs can help shed light on the lives and movements of their subjects. City directories, for example, can help narrow the timeframe that a photography studio was in operation at a specific address. Learning from census records that a photographer had left a location before 1880 can also help date an image.

And if you are lucky enough to find a photo studio that is still in operation, there is no telling what its files might disclose. I have obtained many new facts about people from photo studio files, including marriage dates, military service details, address changes, physical details (e.g. blue eyes, red hair), public and political service, hobbies, clubs, educational attainment, and even financial status. One photographer’s card notation exhorted his staff members to insist on cash before performing any work for a specific customer.

The old photos in our possession – even the small, blurry snapshots taken with crude box cameras -- are priceless artifacts. Unless they are properly cared for, neither the physical objects themselves, nor the information they convey will be available to our descendants. On the bright side, however, the digitalization of images (“scanning”) is now both widely available and economical, helping to ensure that photographic treasures are not just backed up, but stored electronically, visually enhanced, enlarged, reproduced. Perhaps more importantly, though, the new technology allows our images to be circulated and exchanged with other family members and researchers. The increased circulation of our images not only allows more people to appreciate them and learn from them. By exposing our images (pardon the expression) to individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the subject or location, we may be able to identify or date them with greater precision. Recently, I took scanned copies of some of my family images with me when I visited relatives in Dinwiddie. By comparing their images with mine, we were able to successfully identify (and promptly label!) many photos in their shoebox that bore no inscriptions.

While experimentation in light-sensitive chemical processes began before 1800, the first commercially available photographs – daguerreotypes – were not introduced until about 1840. Photography was dominated by professionals until the advent of rollfilm by George Eastman about 1890.

We genealogists have become accustomed to the vast primary and secondary research resources available in Virginia, especially Colonial, Revolutionary and county level records. But since photography is a relatively youthful science, it may be argued that with the possible exception of Civil War era images, the Commonwealth of Virginia is not blessed with any special bounty or advantage over other states. So, we must manage our expectations that we will ever find the pictures of our Virginia ancestors that we seek.

Nevertheless, there are several important repositories of photographic images in Virginia, including the Library of Virginia, the Virginia Historical Society, the Valentine Museum, the Museum of the Confederacy, and Dementi Studio, whose holdings are largely well indexed. Many more sources exist that house collections of local or topical interest. They include local libraries and municipal archives, museums, historical societies, newspapers, university libraries, churches and diocesan archives, hospitals, correctional facilities, orphanages, businesses and trade associations, fraternal organizations and clubs, political parties, and more. However, the researcher should be aware that the holdings of these organizations may or may not be indexed at all, or in any fashion that helps find a specific person, place or event. The entity may be generally “sympathetic to your quest, but lack the resources to be of particular assistance.” (We genealogists hear that line all the time.) Once a print or negative is found, however, most collections will gladly facilitate making a photographic, photostatic, or digital copy at a price that reflects the professional quality and special handling required. Make sure you know who “owns” the image (not the physical copy) and what you are entitled to do with the image. In short, observe copyright law.

As with most genealogical endeavors, the rewards are usually proportional to the creativity and persistence of the researcher. On the other hand, the likelihood of discovering an early image of your Virginia ancestor diminishes if he or she was not urban, prominent, wealthy, well-connected, or white. This is primarily a reflection of the higher relative cost of photography during its infancy, the bulk and fragility of the images, and the resulting selectivity employed in retaining images. It was not uncommon for the cost-conscious portrait photographer to recycle and reuse his glass plate negatives unless there was a strong likelihood that the customer would reorder additional prints.

The location and acquisition of new images to complement one’s genealogical and family research objectives is but one facet of photogenealogy. We are also invited to learn about: early photographic processes, conservation techniques, display and storage tips, identification and dating of images, copyright law, digital image capture and enhancement, electronic storage and retrieval options, methods of indexing and sorting image tag information, conventional photographic copying technique, importing images into genealogical software programs, electronic image exchange, mounting images on an Internet website, and more.

In future articles, I intend to explore each of these topics in greater depth, trying to use examples that are specifically applicable to photogenealogy in Virginia where possible. Meanwhile, I welcome your comments and will do my best to answer your questions.

© Copyright Drew Hogwood 2000

feature