A couple of thoughts on outfits and "Old Time" pictures

[Delmonico]

The tintypes we have seen in the last few days are exallant to look at, one thing I noticed about all them are the fact that everyone in them wore clothes that did not blend into each other.  This really helps on these photos wheither they are the true "old time" photos or modern digital that have been sepi toned.  This is something I always point out to folks who are new when they are starting out, because most folks like to have their pictures taken and many often end up sepi toned.  Some combinations do not really work this well even though they will look good in color. 

Just some thoughts to pass along, I hope this helps.

[Irish Dave]

...clothes that did not blend into each other...

Del:

Seeking a little clarification..
Do you mean as in vests not blending into pants and shirts not blending into vests etc or am 
I missing the point?
Thanks.

[Delmonico]

Yes that is what I mean, colors show up different in black and white or sepis than they do in color, when clothes are all light or dark colors they tend to blend and are almost lost when the color goes away.  Also patterns help contrast clothing.

[Irish Dave]

Got it. Thanks.
Good point, too.

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Got it. Thanks.
Good point, too.

Yes, indeedy-doody

[Mick Archer]

  Howdy Pards!

  I'm cornfused...

  People in the Past color-coded or pattern-coded their clothing to make better photographs, so we need to acquire our clothing from the stand-point of having our pictures taken?

  Not cracking wise here, really.  I just don't fully understand the point is all.

   Mick Archer
   Confused Posse

[Steel Horse Bailey]

As I can't REALLY speak for Glen (Delmonico), I'll hazard a guess:  NO!  Buy what clothes suit you.  He only suggested using contrasting patterns/shades IF you plan to have a B&W or sepia-toned picture taken.  As I'm sure you know, contrasts between dark and light, different patterns and so on will show up better when NON-colour film/tin/etc. is used.  Dark jackets or holsters, for example, can get lost against a dark background.  And so on.

Hope this helps.

[Delmonico]

Yep, you have it right Jeff, although I'm sure that was often taken into consideration in pictures by the photographer and the photo-eee.  I offer this because I have seen and had taken photos when black and whited or sepied, do not have that desired affect one wants.  Even color photos don't always come out like folks want when color isn't considered.

With the amount of folks getting the original tintypes one might want to consider how it will look in the end before getting it done.  Just take a black and white digital and look at it, won't be exact but it will give you a good idea.

[Books OToole]

"Cold hearted orb that rules the night,
removes the colors from our sight.
Red is grey and yellow white.
But we decide what is right."

I think that applies to old style photography.

Books

[Steel Horse Bailey]

Gee, Mike.  Now I'm all moody and blue. 

[Delmonico]

Thats a good one Books, but it is so true.  

[Delmonico]

Notice in the black and white how the slightly different reds on the braces and the neck rag showed up way different.  I normally don't wear a plain red one because it tends to blend in with my hair in the B&W and Sepi.  But it was about 29 when I started that morning and it was the only silk one I had, although by the time Oscar took the picture I had loosened it on my neck.

Notice how the red on the cupboard shows good in B&W but blends with the green in the sepi.

[Mick Archer]

  Howdy Pards!

  Thanks!     

  Yes, I once had a bad result wearing black hat, dark and medium blue clothing, with dark leathers- where the wet plate collodion photographer underexposed the image and then his varnish blackened.  I ended up looking like a ninja warrior at midnight on a moonless night.
   But, my clothes were my clothes...   

    Mick Archer
    Clothes Horse Posee

   

[Buffalow Red]

so does anyone know what the options were on material avalible in say 1860
cotton
wool
silk
was rayon ( made from cotton i was told) around,& what others were avalible
how about buttons
i found some shell buttons in antique store
was thinking about useing deer antler slices but how did they sclice them probly not on a table saw
any other ideas on buttons
braces: my pattern shows only the style that has only one strap in center rear. but the ones i got when asking for authnitc brases had 2 straps in rear so did they use/have both types
were do we find the ansers

[River City John]

Rayon was not really commercially viable until into the 20th century.

As far as the other fabrics you mentioned, they were available in many varied patterns, weaves and colors.
Buttons were shell, bone, glass, metal, gutta percha, wood, ivory, rubber . .

Both double strap and single strap braces were seen, with the double-strapped back having a tendancy to be more common 1860-1880 and the "Y" backed 1880-on, but not a hard and fast rule.

If you are going for a very rural look, then you could use sawn antler buttons. I would use a hacksaw or bandsaw rather than a table saw. The smell will be something fierce, be warned (ever burned fingernail clippings?) They look best on buckskin clothing.
Dixie Gun Works sells those type of buttons already sized and drilled w/ thread holes.

Most clothing sewn of cloth works better with a smaller, more polished button. Easier to fit through the smaller sewn buttonhole in shirts etc.

If you search the archives in this forum and in the Historical forum, these subjects have been covered. There are some good sites offering period fabrics, such as www.periodfabric.com.

Many of the Sutlers offer fairly good products if you want to go store bought. For Civil War it's hard to beat the offerings of James Country Mercantile, www.jamescountry.com. Jean really knows her stuff, and has a good crew.
Early shirts were almost always the pullover type with two, three or four button closure of the neck. Both ones with collar, and the band-type that accepted seperate collars, were seen.

What you did not see were any of the bright, 'electric' dyes. Silk was a rarity for most folk in the CW, and expensive.
RCJ

[Delmonico]

so does anyone know what the options were on material avalible in say 1860
cotton
wool
silk
was rayon ( made from cotton i was told) around,& what others were avalible
how about buttons
i found some shell buttons in antique store
was thinking about useing deer antler slices but how did they sclice them probly not on a table saw
any other ideas on buttons
braces: my pattern shows only the style that has only one strap in center rear. but the ones i got when asking for authnitc brases had 2 straps in rear so did they use/have both types
were do we find the ansers

Well as John said, go back through the forums and look first, but you find it by doing research from multiple sources.  Not wanting to sound harsh, but it looks like some research would be a good place for you to start, simply because although boards are a good place to ask questions they are not always the best places to get all your knowledge because many folks have different opions.  These are often based on their own research which can be different than others.  Also if you ask questions about everything from soup to nuts with out doing some basic research folks will get tired of answering questions.

[Books OToole]

Rayon is one of the earliest synthetics.  It is actually man-made silk.  It will pass the burn test.
[Nearly all synthetics will melt when burnt; rayon burns and produce an ash just like silk.]

Books

[Delmonico]

A quick minute with Mr. Google produced this.

http://www.fibersource.com/f-tutor/history.htm

[Pitspitr]

BR
If you're ever in KC and want to see original cloth and clothing go to the Arabia museum.

[Lone Gunman]

Absolutely Pitspitr,

The Arabia was a supply boat that sank in the Missouri River in 1856 near Kansas City before ever getting to unload any of it's cargo. A couple of rivertowns in Nebraska actually moved across the river to Iowa because they didn't get their supplies because of this wreck. There is no better evidence of what actually existed than seeing the genuine items first hand. See their website by clicking HERE. 

Donna won't go out in her 19th century finery without her genuine 1856 vintage perfume from the Arabia.  Since it was buried for all those years under all that silt, mud and water there was no oxygen to promote decay of the cargo. For instance, samples of the perfume were sent to International Flavors and Fragrances in New York, where they were analyzed and copied. The IFF believes it to be the oldest intact perfume in the world. The cotton stitching rotted out of the footware but the leather itself is as good as new (and has been re-stiched for the displays). The pickles and brandy have been consumed with no ill effect. Using modern preservation techniques even wooden items have been preserved. There are two rolling pins displayed, the one allowed to dry out in the open is about 1/4" thick, the one treated in the glycol pressure chamber looks like it was made yesterday.

Lastly I'd like to point out that this entire effort has been privately funded from the time the very first shovel of dirt was turned. No taxpayer funding has ever been used. That fact in itself should make it worthy of your visit if you're ever within driving distance of Kansas City. It's a facinating exhibit and story, don't miss it if you have the chance.