"What's the deal with the photo of Mary that looks photoshopped to the point of changing her appearance? Michael Schein uses it in his book and it's just not accurate. "

That was no superficial observation; you were clearly insinuating that Mr. Schein (or someone else) had doctored the photo. I think many of us also understand your motives regarding any mention of Mrs. Surratt. You have certainly attacked others enough times... Enough said.

As for your comments about her wearing the same dress in both photos: Are you comparing the 1850s one to the one taken in probably 1864 or 65? They are definitely two different dresses. Again, you would need to see the original CDV - which extends below the waist - to see that even the bodice is different, as well as the treatment along the neckline.

Now, if you are talking about the chestline-upwards photos that usually appear in things about Mary, those are all the same photo cut from the 1850s original. And, those are the ones that some people think were retouched by the War Department in order to make her appear more like a criminal. Whoever cropped the portion below the bustline knew what they were doing because her hands, sleeves, and prayer book show her refinement.

Just to help relieve the tension I'm sensing in this thread, here's something that might help clarify things.

There are only two photographs of Mary Surratt. This one:



and this one:



The thing that Pamela has accurately noticed is that in most of the modern books and articles about the Lincoln assassination, Mary Surratt is shown like this:



Now, technically, this is the same photograph as the first one I posted. However, Mary Surratt's features have been softened a bit and, admittedly, she looks prettier in this image. I do not believe that this was done purposefully, however. Instead it is the result of the former method of duplicating a photo, which was to take another photo of it. In the same way that photocopying a photocopy results in a loss of contrast and detail, photographing a photograph causes you to lose details. The resulting duplicate is blurrier and the detailed lines are softened. Researchers would often photograph a photograph in order to duplicate it for their files. James O. Hall, for instance, did this often and there are many enevelopes in his files of photo duplicates returning to him from print shops and photography studios. Whenever Mary Surratt's portrait was called for in an article or book, the image would need to be duplicated and dispatched. Over time, the image was repeatedly duplicated from prior duplicates and eventually the fine details of the original photo were lost. This is why, today, original photographs or images are scanned in high resolution and turned into a digital file. These digital files will not lose detail when duplicated.

There's no conspiracy over the Mary Surratt photo. It's just that back in the 1970's - 1990's the methods of duplicating a photo resulted in a gradual loss of detail and authors and groups today are still unknowingly using these lower quality duplicates.

Thanks Dave - now it's clear what is talked about. And she did wear different dresses.

I don't attack anyone--Mary Surratt, or "others". I didn't insinuate about Schein, but yes, I thought someone had, in the minor way I mentioned, retouched a photo--not the foggiest idea who or when, and I didn't speculate in writing or in my mind, other than I thought it was not in long ago times. You are much more knowledgeable about any and all Mary photos than I. To be clear, I'm comparing a photo of Mary in Schein's book, dated 1851 (I know it appears elsewhere) with a photo of Mary in Weichmann's book, undated (and I know it appears elsewhere). The picture in Weichmann's book is an oval bust image, in Schein's a 3/4 showing arms, hands, waist, lap and bible. IMO, she's wearing the same bow, brooch and collar and dress in both.

I've just gone to BoothieBarn.com and in Dave's images of Mary the first three seem to show her wearing the same dress, collar, brooch and earrings but the heads look different in the first two, possibly a bit different in the third compared to the first. The third head has a slightly different tilt from the first, but the heads look the same otherwise. The caption for pic#1 says original photograph of Mary Surratt Source Dave Taylor. Pic#2 caption says, Mary Eugenia Surratt, image source Surratt Museum. The source for pic#3 is Huntington Library, Mary Eugenia Surratt.

Also, to be clear, I wonder about image #2 on BoothieBarn compared to pic#1.

I wasn't aware about suggestions that the War Dept altered a photo of Mary.

This is all JMO and I've said it before, I'm not a historian.

---

Thanks for all your information, Dave. I saw your post after I posted.

Is there a photography studio noted on the back of the CDV? Many from that era don't have any studio listed--just curious if this one happens to have one.

(09-24-2015 06:30 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In my mind, "fair" would mean "nice looking." There appears to be only two known photos taken of Mary - other than those taken on the scaffold. The one that is commonly seen appears to have been taken ca. 1850 (judging by the style of clothing). That would make her about thirty (born May or June of 1823).

Thanks, Laurie!

(09-25-2015 01:25 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Is there a photography studio noted on the back of the CDV? Many from that era don't have any studio listed--just curious if this one happens to have one.

Susan,

I do not know if the CDV of Mary Surratt has a backmark. That would be a question for Mike Kauffman since he was the one who found the original. Mike found it in the New York Public Library in the papers of Jerome Howard. Howard was an associate of Benn Pitman's, the court reporter for the conspiracy trial.

Thanks for the explanation, Dave, but I am not sure that Mr. Hall's copy of the original (ca. 1850) was reproduced over and over again. He kept that photo close to his chest at the request of the family and also because he intended (and had permission) to use it for the first time in his proposed book, Murder at Ford's Theatre -- which never came to fruition after he turned his efforts on Come Retribution with Tidwell and Gaddy.

When he gave rights to the photo to the Surratt Society, I believe that it was about the only duplicate that left his hands. We have allowed a few others to publish it, but it is not that many generations evolved from the original. Hall's guarding the original duplications was one of the reasons that he was upset when he could not determine what happened to the negatives and proofs when Harris & Ewing went out of business.

Susan - I had my keeper of the photographic archives here check the copies of the ca. 1865 CDV - nothing on the back. There were so many photographers in Washington, D.C. during the Civil War that it is anyone's guess. Lots were lined up one right after the other on Pennsylvania Avenue in the same area where Brady's Studio was (and where the building still stands).

Unfortunately, I am hearing more and more stories about folks who are having photos that they own pirated by bloggers and authors nowadays when they share with others. Be careful what you pass on for others to see. You may find them online with someone else's watermark on them.

P.S. I forgot to mention that the medium on which the photograph is printed would make a difference in some features, I would imagine (i.e. paper, vs. glass or metal)? I suspect that the Harris & Ewing paper version softened the original image.

Thanks, Dave and Laurie!

In the CDV, it looks as if Mary is holding something--a book or a glove?

(09-25-2015 02:08 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Thanks, Dave and Laurie!

In the CDV, it looks as if Mary is holding something--a book or a glove?

Both of her hands in that photo look misshapen or too large. We have often questioned the gloved, right hand because it almost looks like it was drawn in. We think that she's holding the left glove in that hand.

We also know that Mrs. Surratt had severe health problems while in prison. Years ago, an OB-GYN member of the Surratt Society looked at that photo and declared that she had all the bloated symptoms of fibroid tumors. That seems to coincide with the reports of her condition during the trial.

Maybe someone has some answers--I've been puzzling over a few details in Mary's photos. If "pretty" Mary is the result of loss of detail due to generations of copying, why is there detail added to the fingers on her left hand? What happened to all the damage/dust from Dave's original photo? Why is the light on her shoulders and top of bust dramatically lighter in "pretty" Mary? Why is the shadow next to her Bible so much darker so that the folds of her dress disappear and the decorative swirls and cross on her Bible altered? Why are her earrings more visible and in better repair in "pretty" Mary? What happened to the scratch along her left cheekbone? It's not there in "pretty" Mary.

If you do a screen capture of the two photos of young Mary, you can enlarge them to the point of pixelating in a photo or paint program. When you compare them side by side, as I have done, you will see many differences. Pretty Mary--Eyes altered, irises and pupils made distinct, highlights added, eyebags and shadows gone and "eyeliner" added to each upper eyelid. The tip of her nose and her columella has a different, narrower shape. The scratch across her chin is gone. There are other changes. IMO.

(09-25-2015 01:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Susan - I had my keeper of the photographic archives here check the copies of the ca. 1865 CDV - nothing on the back. There were so many photographers in Washington, D.C. during the Civil War that it is anyone's guess. Lots were lined up one right after the other on Pennsylvania Avenue in the same area where Brady's Studio was (and where the building still stands).

I checked my records and found the back of the CDV of Mary Surratt that Mike Kauffman found:



This particular copy of the CDV was duplicated in Cincinnati, Benn Pitman's home. Where it was originally taken around Washington, we don't know.

(09-25-2015 12:19 PM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  Just to help relieve the tension I'm sensing in this thread, here's something that might help clarify things.

There are only two photographs of Mary Surratt. This one:



and this one:



The thing that Pamela has accurately noticed is that in most of the modern books and articles about the Lincoln assassination, Mary Surratt is shown like this:



Now, technically, this is the same photograph as the first one I posted. However, Mary Surratt's features have been softened a bit and, admittedly, she looks prettier in this image. I do not believe that this was done purposefully, however. Instead it is the result of the former method of duplicating a photo, which was to take another photo of it. In the same way that photocopying a photocopy results in a loss of contrast and detail, photographing a photograph causes you to lose details. The resulting duplicate is blurrier and the detailed lines are softened. Researchers would often photograph a photograph in order to duplicate it for their files. James O. Hall, for instance, did this often and there are many enevelopes in his files of photo duplicates returning to him from print shops and photography studios. Whenever Mary Surratt's portrait was called for in an article or book, the image would need to be duplicated and dispatched. Over time, the image was repeatedly duplicated from prior duplicates and eventually the fine details of the original photo were lost. This is why, today, original photographs or images are scanned in high resolution and turned into a digital file. These digital files will not lose detail when duplicated.

There's no conspiracy over the Mary Surratt photo. It's just that back in the 1970's - 1990's the methods of duplicating a photo resulted in a gradual loss of detail and authors and groups today are still unknowingly using these lower quality duplicates.

Mary Surratt 1

"Granted these “airbrushed” photos make her appear prettier, but it doesn’t give a completely accurate view of her features." Dave Taylor, BoothieBarn

Dave, I found this statement on your site, that you admit to this photo of Mary "pretty Mary" being "airbrushed". What are you talking about? In your post here, you said, "I do not believe this was done purposefully, however. Instead it is the result of the former method of duplicating a photo...." and so on. So which is it, "airbrushed" or "not...done purposefully"? Why are you making two opposing statements about this picture?

(09-26-2015 10:33 AM)Dave Taylor Wrote:  

(09-25-2015 01:54 PM)L Verge Wrote:  Susan - I had my keeper of the photographic archives here check the copies of the ca. 1865 CDV - nothing on the back. There were so many photographers in Washington, D.C. during the Civil War that it is anyone's guess. Lots were lined up one right after the other on Pennsylvania Avenue in the same area where Brady's Studio was (and where the building still stands).

I checked my records and found the back of the CDV of Mary Surratt that Mike Kauffman found:



This particular copy of the CDV was duplicated in Cincinnati, Benn Pitman's home. Where it was originally taken around Washington, we don't know.

Thanks, Dave! Makes me wonder if other duplicates are there to be found.