Father Browne phtographs


D

Dave Wynn

Guest
Is it known for sure what type of camera Father Browne used on his short excursion before he disembarked at Queenstown?
Was it a Kodak Vest Pocket camera? Model number? And why did it take so long for those photos to come to light?
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
Looking at his book, I fancy the film used was about the old 120 size or a bit bigger. Browne printed many photos and put them on cardboard with captions. They look like contact prints. You can compare them with his handwriting and get some idea of their size.

We know from Father O'Donnell that Browne used nitrate film. This has now been copied to modern film and preserved properly. His camera must have been pretty basic. It had no means of preventing double exposures.

The photos were largely published in magazines in 1912. At least one was published in 1932 for the twentieth anniversary. On Browne's death, the negatives were filed away in the Jesuits' files in Dublin. In modern times hundreds of Browne photos of many subjects have been published.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
May 3, 2005
2,599
291
278
Did Browne do his own processing...developing, printing, etc.? I remember reading that early Kodaks had sort of a mail in processing system.

Some of those old photos show persons with a folding type camera rather than a "box" type. Bellows type,etc. My parents had something similar that used the larger 116 size film. Those cameras used paper backed roll film and you had to manually turn the crank to advance the film or you would get double exposures .(Such as the apparent case in the picture of the Marconi Room.) I used to play around with this way back in my younger days. Took a bit of time and effort to get the end result as compared to the present digital cameras ! LOL.

Most always contact prints.

I don't think there were exposure meters in 1912, (?) but the old camera I remember did have adjustable f-stops and shutter speeds. Were settings just based on experience and trial and error or was there some sort of guide with the film ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

Dave Gittins

Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,055
339
433
I think Robert's ideas are pretty right. Browne's camera may well have been a folder, with at least variable aperture. He was able to do interior shots without flash.

I'm ancient enough to have been photographed with a Box Brownie from around 1912 and the quality was nothing like Browne's work.

Film used to come with exposure guides and maybe it still does. There used to be little drawings showing dull sky, broken cloud, bright sun, etc, with suggested exposures. Sometimes cameras had similar drawings.
 
May 3, 2005
2,599
291
278
>>He was able to do interior shots without flash.<<

From the looks of the photos, it would appear that Browne was a fairly skilled photographer and he could have "pushed" the film's exposure rating in developing to come up with those interior shots without flash.

Some films still do have exposure guides on the boxes or with instruction sheets.
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
Looks like either AS William McCarthy or AS Albert Horswill. Thoughts? I lean toward McCarthy.

7759971.jpg


z9UqE1v.jpg
 

Gaston Sam

Member
Aug 16, 2016
142
107
88
He's actually wearing a QM outfit, and I would suggest he is Sidney Humphries, who signed on as quartermaster but served as a saloon deck day-hand
 

Ryan Burns

Member
Sep 23, 2016
121
26
73
39
He's actually wearing a QM outfit, and I would suggest he is Sidney Humphries, who signed on as quartermaster but served as a saloon deck day-hand

Interesting that it's a quartermaster. I don't think it's Humphries because you can see Humphries in newsreel footage when they landed in New York and this chap doesn't look like him and doesn't appear old enough. This chap has a black mustache and Humphries was gray by that point.

GQQ2Bi2.jpg


So, if it isn't Humphries, let's try and narrow it down. We know what Hitchens looked like and it isn't him. It's not Rowe and doesn't appear to be Bright or Perkis.

uSs5s9O.jpg

So that leave us with Olliver

mol_Olliver.jpg


or Wynn

mol_WynnWalter.jpg


I guess I'd lean toward Olliver because of the darker mustache.
 

Peter Riches

Member
Nov 25, 2016
9
0
11
61
I am Albert Horswell's Gr Gr Nephew and I have to say this man bears a striking resemblance to other family pictures. Could I ask what distinguishing features in his uniform mark the wearer out to be a QM?
 

Bob Godfrey

Member
Nov 22, 2002
6,043
107
333
UK
Peter, deck crew in the merchant service were not required to were a formal uniform, though they are often seen wearing thick jerseys provided by the shipping line and adorned with its name. Also Royal Navy style caps were provided if the men chose to wear them, though many preferred ordinary flat caps as worn by a great many working men ashore. Only the quartermasters wore a Royal Navy style tunic with the large 'Jack Tar' collar, as seen in both the large photos above.
 

Peter Riches

Member
Nov 25, 2016
9
0
11
61
Thanks Bob. That's very helpful and explains why every other picture of Uncle Albert shows him dressed as you describe rather than in uniform.

It is interesting that in his 1934 radio interview he claimed to be QM on Titanic. But he also made a number of other claims that were somewhat embellished such as being in Lifeboat 16 when we know he was in the infamous boat No.1.

There's something of the Walter Mitty about him!
 

Similar threads

Similar threads