Dating photo stock

[drcy]

The back of photopaper before 1968 should be fibery. If it's smooth and plasticy on back like a 1999 Kodak snapshot, it's after. The fronts can be (and usually will be) glossy. In 1968 Kodak started making resin-coated paper, which means the paper back and front is very smooth and plasticy, though not all post 1968 photopaper is resid coated.

The back of the photopaper generally gets darker the older it is. 1930s is usually darker than 1950s-60s than 1990s. It's not dramatic, but if you directly compare to a 1990s or 2000s photo (say a family snapshot) to a 1950s-60s photo, the 1990s or 200s photo will be much brighter/whiter. This is part because the paper naturally tones with age and part because in recent decades they started bleaching photo paper which made it bright white.

I did a comparison with a whole mass of photos 1910s-modern, and while it wasn't foolproof, the tonal changes were consistent. Even a 1988 versus a 2005 photo was usually different tonally. For testing tone, you should do direct comparison with other photos. While a 1910s or 20s photo will be obviously well toned at first glance, a lot of more moder photos don't look toned or off-white until you directly compare them (literally one overlapping the other) with a modern photo. This is also just one test, and you should relay on one test-- but I've found it very helpful.

The chemicals that make photoper fluoresce brightly under UV were introduced circa 1955. Most photopaper after will flourese under blacklight, but not all.

When you get more modern photos, it is harder to date the paper-- which is nice when it has stamping or tags.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Originally Posted by drcy

The back of photopaper before 1968 should be fibery. If it's smooth and plasticy on back like a 1999 Kodak snapshot, it's after. The fronts can be (and usually will be) glossy. In 1968 Kodak started making resin-coated paper, which means the paper back and front is very smooth and plasticy, though not all post 1968 photopaper is resid coated.

The back of the photopaper generally gets darker the older it is. 1930s is usually darker than 1950s-60s than 1990s. It's not dramatic, but if you directly compare to a 1990s or 2000s photo (say a family snapshot) to a 1950s-60s photo, the 1990s or 200s photo will be much brighter/whiter. This is part because the paper naturally tones with age and part because in recent decades they started bleaching photo paper which made it bright white.

I did a comparison with a whole mass of photos 1910s-modern, and while it wasn't foolproof, the tonal changes were consistent. Even a 1988 versus a 2005 photo was usually different tonally. For testing tone, you should do direct comparison with other photos. While a 1910s or 20s photo will be obviously well toned at first glance, a lot of more moder photos don't look toned or off-white until you directly compare them (literally one overlapping the other) with a modern photo. This is also just one test, and you should relay on one test-- but I've found it very helpful.

The chemicals that make photoper fluoresce brightly under UV were introduced circa 1955. Most photopaper after will flourese under blacklight, but not all.

When you get more modern photos, it is harder to date the paper-- which is nice when it has stamping or tags.

Thank you!

So if this is a post 55 photo it will flourese under black light?

[Michael B]

Originally Posted by EYECOLLECTVINTAGE

Thank you!

So if this is a post 55 photo it will flourese under black light?

As David said in the next to last sentence "Most after will fluoresce..."

Having a very large archive of photos I would agree with all that David said especially about the aging of paper. There is also a feel to older papers. Many times you can hold it in your hands and feel the age by the texture and thickness. Heavy fiber papers used by professional studios for portraits are fairly consistent but even those have a certain feel. Another consideration is size of the image. 8x10 did not become common until the 1940's. Prior that smaller sizes were used more - 3x4, 4x5, 5x7 and 6x8. I have quite a few photos of the first three listed smaller sizes from circa 1903 to 1912. This relates to photos produced by professionals - Bain, Thompson, Bushnell etc. not snapshots.

[drcy]

The blacklight would identify most later reprints. But, as there are some later photos that won't fluoresce, the non-fluorescence would be "consistent with" it being old.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Understood Yú da best

[steve B]

Yeah, DRCY really knows this stuff.

I'm just someone who's looked through .....I don't even know how many boxes of old photos at shops and flea markets. I have a pretty good feel for the age of something, but it's usually harder to explain.

I will say that the stuff mentioned here about how the paper reacts to a blacklight applies to photo paper very well, but only in a general sense for other papers. Most of the modern acid free papers won't react, and neither will some modern low quality cardstocks. BUT, there are older papers that do react, back into the 1880's and perhaps before (1880's is the oldest I own) They're not exactly common, but they are out there.

[EYECOLLECTVINTAGE]

Very informative guys. I do have a feel for the stock. It's like rough grainy feel, however have come across some less fibery backs from the same period but can identify it from stamps and smell.

It is all practice and experience like you guys said.

I appreciate everything!