Real or fake?

[terri]

Looks fake. It's the tail that is most suspect. Someone sure spent a lot of time playing with it, though.

 

[Fujidave]

In Topaz plug ins I could make a image look over a few hundred years old.

 

[Fujidave]

This was taken in 1787..lol Fuji were good then too.

St Nicholas Church by Dave, on Flickr

 

[webestang64]

Could be real BUT what about this daguerreotype was taken sometime between 1840 to 1860.

 

[Designer]

Anyone else thinks this is faked?

There appear to be some artifacts in the image that may be the result of poor editing.

 

[vintagesnaps]

I started do some searching (because it's mostly poured rain for days and I've been stuck in the house too much! lol).

I thought at first it seemed edited and not an actual vintage photo, but then again, I wondered... I found the cats in Brighton too, and other cat photos from that time period. So yep, cat photos were a thing even that early.

Found an NPR article (and apparently the one photographer posing cats only did it 3 months out of the year because it was so stressful trying to pose cats!). Found a picture in the Getty, and even Boston's Public Library has the same cat stereo photo on the Flickr page of its collection. I found a website that somebody's doing on Sussex photo history that has some Brighton cats mostly in baskets, next to cups and saucers, etc.
The Sad, Happy Life Of Harry Whittier Frees
Hoosac Kitty Series John P. Soule
Harry Pointer

Found another couple of cat photos on Luminous Lint, one of which is a cat 'taking a picture' with a big wooden camera - of another cat!
Luminous-Lint

But what looks different to me with at least some of them is the quality of the photos - some I found look like photos taken with daguerreotype cameras, etc. that I think is the effect from using those big Petzval style lenses. I just don't see that in the example.

To me it almost looks like an actual vintage photo may have been scanned for a background and then a photo of a cat edited into it. I see what looks like grain you see thru a grain scope, so to me it seems like a background of a wet print possibly enlarged. But the edges of the cat seem soft and I don't see that grain in the cat that I see in the background, the texture looks too even across the cat.

Hard to know without any provenance or citation - who was the photographer? where is this photo located? Doesn't seem to show up anywhere such as a private collection or a museum.

 

[limr]

I started do some searching (because it's mostly poured rain for days and I've been stuck in the house too much! lol).

I thought at first it seemed edited and not an actual vintage photo, but then again, I wondered... I found the cats in Brighton too, and other cat photos from that time period. So yep, cat photos were a thing even that early.

I knew that cat photos were a thing for quite a while and had seen the same examples as you gave. So I don't doubt that it could be a photo from the 1880s, but I also have a strong suspicion that this particular photo is at least partly faked.

To me it almost looks like an actual vintage photo may have been scanned for a background and then a photo of a cat edited into it. I see what looks like grain you see thru a grain scope, so to me it seems like a background of a wet print possibly enlarged. But the edges of the cat seem soft and I don't see that grain in the cat that I see in the background, the texture looks too even across the cat.

It seems pretty clear that there has been some digital editing on the photo. It's just hard to tell if the photo is at least partly authentic, or if the entire thing is a joke on us.

And if it is, it seems to be working on a lot of people. Funny - one of the most frequent comments I've seen on Facebook, reddit, etc threads that I found when I was investigating was something along the lines of, "And they must have trained that cat well because back then, it took 20 minutes/an hour/hours/[insert inaccurate time here] to take a single picture!" I don't even bother commenting, but in my head, I'm all "NO, IT DIDN'T!"

Hard to know without any provenance or citation - who was the photographer? where is this photo located? Doesn't seem to show up anywhere such as a private collection or a museum.

This to me also suggests shenanigans. I haven't seen it on any site other than some kind of social media, or some kind of blog that reports on social media. It just showed up and started making the rounds as "one of the oldest pictures of a cat." I find that dodgy and believe that somewhere, someone is laughing their ass off, saying "What a bunch of rubes!!'

 

[snowbear]

This to me also suggests shenanigans. I haven't seen it on any site other than some kind of social media, or some kind of blog that reports on social media. It just showed up and started making the rounds as "one of the oldest pictures of a cat." I find that dodgy and believe that somewhere, someone is laughing their ass off, saying "What a bunch of rubes!!'

It seems it may be of Russian origin, so it's likely "What a bunch of derevenshchina!!"

 

[Derrel]

This does NOT look like a vintage photo to me...in a number of ways, from the tight composition, and the deep depth of field for such a frame-filling close-up, to the weird tail cloning or whatever, plus the weird, digital-appearing texture that appears to have been overlayed on the image,etc..etc.. This just looks like a modern hack job to me. I could be wrong, but...I've seen a LOT of old, early photos, and this lacks a number of things that photos from that era would typically have. The most significant issue that makes me ask WTF is going on here is that,when I look at the level of detail resolved, which goes down to the whiskers on the cat's face, I wonder why is there a horrible, artifact-mottled appearance to the image? That's just not right!

 

[Tim Tucker 2]

What must not be forgotten is that photos of the time were not processed with digital and so an understanding related to digital should not be applied here.

Images were routinely overpainted or modified, and not all were done well.

However there are a few oddities here that resemble modern processing rather than original and one must ask why...

In the 1870's celluloid film was not quite there, in fact stable emulsions were only just becoming available. So the approach to photography was a slow one where things were arranged with care, by a select and educated few who could afford rather than the masses. If this wasn't shot with a wet plate the habits of wet plate would still be there.

So why has the background been blurred? This is a modern technique and aesthetic, not one of the period. With the period a suitable backdrop would be there. And a many have noted the line from the background to foreground at the (added/modified) table edge has been quite horribly fudged. Again not consistent with the time. The edges of the table do not line up on the left and right, it extends to the cat's tail and also the apparent sharpness on the right hand edge is not consistent with the DOF. Further to that the edges of the cat's fur are blurred, again suggesting digital rather than period manipulation.

Subject separation by limited DOF was really the result of wider apertures to facilitate hand held photography. It was not really part of the *photographic landscape* and only became common and recognised with the faster celluloid roll films of the late 1890's and early 1900's. Lenses of 1870 were standard to long focal lengths, the first true wide angles were only just becoming available. Though apertures of f4 and f5.6 were available f7-f9 were far more common and coupled with the longer lenses of the time, and the camera/subject distance, did not produce *paper thin* DOF.

As indicated, if of the time a suitable backdrop would've been used, often painted and intended to give the impression of being real.

So why has the background been blurred out, it being so un-characteristic of the era?

 

[zapadeeboom]

I think there is too little information to know if it's faked. I would want to see the original print. When photoshop can edit every pixel in an image there is no way to know because the resolution isn't great enough for us to have enough information to know if it's fake.

So I saw this on Facebook - the claim is that it is one of the first photographs taken of a cat, dated 1870-80.

Anyone else thinks this is faked?

 

[Wildlife_Nut]

I don't really have anything to add other than to say some of you guys are funnier than all get out!

 

[bulldurham]

It is definitely a fake. Give me a shot of your kitty and I can make it look like this one in about 20 seconds.

 

[Ductor]

So I saw this on Facebook - the claim is that it is one of the first photographs taken of a cat, dated 1870-80.

Anyone else thinks this is faked?

 

[Ductor]

I suspect that it is faked. The ghosting around the edges is synonymous with Photoshop.