The Photo Detective: Maureen Taylor Featured in the Wall Street Journal

Today's Wall Street Journal has a long article about the work of Maureen Taylor, a person mentioned a number of times in this newsletter. Quoting from the article, "With millions of Americans obsessively tracing their roots, Ms. Taylor has emerged as the nation's foremost historical photo detective."

The article goes on at length describing the techniques that Maureen uses, including these examples: "Maureen Taylor has dated a photograph to 1913 by studying the size and shape of a Lion touring car's headlamps. Armed with her collection of 19th-century fashion magazines, she can pinpoint the brief period when Victorian women wore their bangs in tight curls rather than swept back. Using a technique borrowed from the CIA, she identified a photo of Jesse James by examining the shape of his right ear."

It is an interesting story and one that genealogists should read. You also will want to view the accompanying video featuring Colleen Fitzpatrick, also mentioned frequently in past newsletters. Remember the articles earlier this year about the man sitting on a dead horse in the street? Colleen was involved in that one.

You can see both stories at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119214969916756801.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_weekendjournal.

NOTE: The Wall Street Journal typically leaves its articles online only for a very few days, then removes them. If you want to read this article, I'd suggest that you do so now because the article may not be available tomorrow.

You also might want to read Maureen Taylor's blog (not mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article) at http://photodetective.blogspot.com. I would especially recommend her "Watch and  Listen" video that shows how she solves photographic mysteries. The video is available at  http://www.photodetective.com/example_photo_detective_cases.htm.

 

Comments

[Happy Dae]

"Obsessively tracing their roots." I suppose that is true in my case, too. At least she didn't write "compulsively." We seem to be a nation of collectors, methinks.

I've enjoyed the work of Colleen Fitzpatrick for some time now, but am a bit confused as to why she appears in an article about Maureen Taylor. Both have contributed much to the genealogy community, but the video seems more an afterthought than a cohesive element of the article.

Of course, Alexandra Alter is the professional writer. Who am I to question one such as she? Still, my inquiring mind seeks to understand. Perhaps it was the nature of deadlines and such?

Happy Dae.
http://www.ShoeStringGenealogy.com/ssg1.htm

[Graham Jaunay]

Its a pity the article contains errors! Impossible to have daguerreotypes dated to 1830s!

[Dick Eastman]

UPDATE: You also might want to read Maureen Taylor's blog (not mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article) at http://photodetective.blogspot.com . I would especially recommend her "Watch and Listen" video that shows how she solves photographic mysteries. The video is available at http://www.photodetective.com/example_photo_detective_cases.htm .

[Judy Pfaff]

I was especially looking forward to the WSJ article on Friday, but was disappointed for what the article did not include. I know that there were some other possibilities as I was contacted by WSJ to submit two of my ancestor’s photos that had been previously analyzed by Colleen Fitzpatrick. It seemed strange that Colleen’s work in the article was only a very short interview and her website and weekly photo quizzes [http://www.forensicgenealogy.info/contest.html] were not mentioned at all. Colleen has quite a following of people who look forward to the photoquiz each week. And, when she comes to town the photoquizzers get in line for a chance to meet her. She gave appearances in mid July before the Mid Michigan Genealogical Society and the Library of Michigan in Lansing. In Sept. she visited the Detroit Society for Genealogical Research.

The WSJ article was lengthy and did cover a lot of information about photo analyses. Considering the details of the topic and the information left out, the reporter did an adequate job. I think that the reporter would have been better off making a series of the topic and doing separate articles on these two fantastic women and the progress they are making in helping the rest of us uncover the secrets in our photos.

[Mary Frasre]

As noted by Judy above, I was also disappointed by the lack of attention paid to the work of Colleen Fitzpatrick. With no disrespect intended toward Maureen Taylor (whose work I also admire), I feel that these women have very different approaches to the analyses of photos, and that more attention should have been given to Colleen's technological analyses, as compared to Maureen's societal viewpoints.

[Fred Stuart]

Dick,
As usual I enjoy reading your bog and articles. This article by Alexandra Alter in the WSJ, "The Photo Detective" was one I'd been looking forward to reading to get the balanced views of the experts in historical photo analysis. However, all Alexandra offered us was a mostly one source almost biographical look at the "foremost expert" in photo analysis. Maureen may be one of the experts but it seems a little cocky to bill oneself as the number one expert. Alexandra Alter should have balanced the article out with more of Colleen Fitzpatrick's work with her legion of quizmasters who weekly are treated to a photo to analyze. Each of Colleen's photos is a learning experience in the art of forensic photography using not only the clothing but scientific analysis of the surroundings in the photograph. One gets to use maps, almanacs, census data, historical data, and good old common sense to hunt down the photo data. I look forward to my dose of excitement every week and entertain my co-workers with the results at the end of the week when Colleen posts the “rest of the story.” To do justice to her WSJ readers, Alexandra Alter should write another article giving Colleen’s expertise and insights as another expert in photo analysis.
73,
Fred

[Helena Howell]

Dear Dick: The Northern Arizona Genealogical Society and the local community college are planning a joint symposium on genealogy next summer. NAGS is responsible for creating the syllabus. The talents of Maureen Taylor and Colleen Fitzpatrick would be a most welcome addition to our program. Could you provide me with a direct line of communication to both women? Thanks for your help and for your excellent newsletter. Helena Howell

[Dick Eastman]

Thanks for writing. For privacy reasons, I never give out anyone's personal information (e-mail address, phone numbers, home address, etc.) without their permission. However, both have very visible web sites and I think both have "contact me" links on those sites.

A minute or two spent on Google will probably uncover easy ways to contact both of those people.

Thanks.

- Dick Eastman

[Dawn]

I also was disappointed in the comments about Colleen Fitzpatrick in this article. While it mentions their are others who do this type of work, specifically Colleen Fitzpatrick it appeared to dismiss her skills (“she tries to answer questions about photographs by measuring shadows”) rather than examining how they can be useful in determining a number of facts about a photograph.

The video clip caption says Colleen “analyzes two vintage family pictures” but only talks about one of them. The constant white light on the images is very distracting and makes it difficult to see the image. Perhaps a red circle might have been more effective.

Both are very talented women and deserve credit for what they do. I would like to have seen more about the skilled professionals doing this type of work. In reading Maureen's blog I find that Alexandra Alter spent three months researching the article. It would have been nice to mention the Forensic Genealogy website and book, and the photo quiz's where we all can hone our own skills in this area.

[Delores Martin]

Mr. Eastman,

I was looking forward to reading the article featured in the Wall Street Journal ever since I heard that there was going to be an article in the Wall Street Journal about dating photos. I found the part about Maureen Taylor interesting. I was extremely disappointed that Colleen Fitzpatrick wasn't featured more in the article. Not to discount the knowledge that Maureen has accumalated over the years but anyone can study history and clothing styles. Colleen Fitzpatrick's method of photo dating is very scientific and involves a lot more than knowing the clothing and other objects of the past.
Next time give equal amount of space to each method.

Delores Martin

[Dick Eastman]

---> Next time give equal amount of space to each method.

I think you are writing the the wrong person. Alexandra Alter of the Wall Street Journal wrote those articles, not me. You should tell the Journal about your disappointment with their articles.

- Dick Eastman

[Dawn]

Dick,
I did not mean to imply that you had made the comments and have emailed Alexandra directly.
Dawn

[Paulette Spinella Janak]

I also was anticipating the WSJ article on forensic photography. The "bar photo" featured on the website is from our family album. Alexandra interviewed me twice for well over an hour about the stages of discovery and variety of resources that Colleen sought out to date and identify the subjects in the photo. Colleen did an awesome job with my photo; what a shame that Alexandra failed to recognize her high level of both skill and talent.
Paulette Spinella Janak

[Polly Kimmitt]

Hi Dick,
Just wanted to get my two cents' worth in about the article hardly mentioning Colleen Fitzpatrick's cutting edge approach to photo analysis. I've been following both Maureen and Colleen for years, and as has been mentioned by others, they have very different methods of evaluating a photo. I was really annoyed that not more was said about the scientific approach taken by Colleen, a much more modern and fascinating angle than the usual hairstyle/fashion method, though that, too, is also fun. I know YOU didn't write the article, and you sure are getting a lot of grief for someone who is just trying to keep us informed, so let me thank you whilst also critizing the WSJ! I'll write to them, too, of course.
Polly

[Bob]

First of all, that for your outstanding source of information.

I as well find the article interesting, but I think unprofessional. I have been looking at pictures (family) for years, and it was not until I found Colleen's web site and information, that I figured out how to analyze them. I like so many others, look forward to Sunday nights, when I can play detective to try and dig up some history, of both the photo and the folks surrounding it. In fact sometimes who took the picture or why proves to be even more interesting. The WSJ and Alexandra Alter should write an entire article on Colleen's work. Maybe Maureen is an "expert" in her ways, but they are totally different than that of Colleens'. Yes I will write the WSJ as well.

[Gwen]

I agree wholeheartedly with the entries above. Colleen is a true professional in her career, beyond compare. I've always seen Colleen as an educator in her forensic genealogy field. Colleen stands above the rest because of her unique ability to see details in photos that most of us don't see. The first few times I'd seen Colleen's work I thought she was a psychic, asking myself, how did she know that? Colleen's enthusiasm shines through even over the internet. I think she lives to educate and train us to do our own research, but she's always there to answer our questions too. She reminds me of that one favorite High School teacher that makes learning fun, you can't wait to attend class.
Mr. Eastman thanks for providing us with this little "forum". Colleen fans aren't selfish, we'd love to share her with the world.

[Diane Haddad]

I'm proud Maureen A. Taylor has written Family Tree Magazine's Photo Detective column almost since the launch of our magazine. I’m thrilled to see this profile about her work in the Wall Street Journal—both because of the recognition for her and because it shows non-genealogists what photos can mean to a family’s history.

Yes, “anyone can study history and clothing styles,” but Maureen’s done much more to reach her level of expertise. It comes from her educational background in history, her genealogical research, her professional work for historical archives, her library of reference material and her experience examining more than 10,000 photos (as stated in the article).

To Fred, please note the reporter labeled Maureen “the nation’s foremost historical photo detective.” She didn’t describe herself that way. I’m disappointed in the tone of some of these comments. Regardless of what the WSJ reporter chose to cover in her article, let’s not disparage the reputation of a consummate professional.

[Sue Edminster]

As several others have noted, the article by Alexa Alter really didn't tell the whole story about dating photographs. It was especially odd that Colleen Fitzpatrick's work was mentioned only in passing as identifying photos by analysis of shadows and types of camera. This is an incorrect and incomplete description of Colleen's work. I'm not meaning to devalue Maureen Taylor's work at all, but these two methods are entirely different and it's not telling the whole story of photo identification to focus on just one method.

Colleen helped me with a photograph of my great grandfather sitting near an old organ.... on the organ was a piece of music. By identifying the music and when it was written, the type of organ and yes, camera age, we were able to identify the earliest date the picture might have been taken. Other clues were found as well... the log structure could be seen where the sheet backdrop didn't cover it, etc.

Hopefully the WSJ will consider doing a second article featuring Colleen's methods and possibly others as well.

[Debbie Sterbinsky]

I too share the disappointment mentioned above concerning the WSJ article that barely mentions Colleen Fitzpatrick. I do not wish to discredit Maureen Taylor in any way, but feel the author did a major discredit to Colleen. Her professional talent was downplayed to the point it was barely noticeable. Perhaps we should all take the suggestion and let the author know how we feel about the way this article was handled. Both women should have been given equal exposure, if not seperate articles! Each has earned their own recognition for work well done in different ways. To lump them together and tuck one inside the other was unprofessional to say the least. The author obviously had not done her homework. I for one have learned a great deal and continue to do so on a weekly basis from Colleen. I think it would have been better not to have mentioned Colleen's work at all than to have given her such a trivial reference. She deserves far better than that.

[Dale Niesen]

I have to say that I am a little confused and disappointed over the article in the WSJ. I read the article on Ms. Taylor and thought it odd that Colleen was mentioned in passing only. I have been supplying and solving photo mysteries for Forensic Genealogy Quizzes for nearly two years now. I am not new to annualizing historical photographs. I have been collecting and identifying Civil War period as well as other period photographs since 1981 focusing on military images primarily. I have had my own site dedicated to the identification of the forgotten images from the American Civil War since 2000.

I too have learned much from Colleen’s quizzes through the sharing of ideas and debates over clues. I look forward to receiving her e-mails as much as all her other loyal followers and students. Colleen is a true teacher willing to educate others in her methods as well as a person that is open to learning from her trusted quizmasters. I am actually embarrassed to say that I have never even heard of Ms Taylor to tell the truth. So I guess what I am trying to say is that the WSJ should set the record straight and give credit where credit is due with an article sharing the techniques and strategies of a truly dedicated photographic historian and forensic detective as Colleen Fitzpatrick.

[Peg Fitzpatrick]

It just seems to me the expected high quality of reporting for the WSJ has been minimized. . . we have come to expect thoroughly researched and well-written articles exposing us to varied information concerning a subject. The article relating to forensic photography left much to be desired and we, as readers, were left with incomplete information about Dr. Colleen Fitzpatrick's professional experience in scientifically identifying old photos.

Could Alexandra Alter possibly reread her notes and in a follow-up article give us the pertinent information she left out regarding Colleen Fitzpatrick?

Thank you for this service of responding.

I just happen to have the same name as Colleen, but am no relation to her. She is the coordinator of our Fitzpatrick DNA study.

Peg Fitzpatrick

[Christine Gregg]

Several months ago I sent the blacksmith picture shown briefly in the WSJ video to Colleen Fitzpatrick. Having read her very interesting book, “Forensic Genealogy,” I was hopeful that she might offer a suggestion or two about how to analyze the picture. I had no idea who the people might be or where and when the picture was taken.

What Colleen did far exceeded my expectations. She did an extensive analysis focusing on many different clues. These included the general ambience (spontaneous as if taken on the spur of the moment by a traveling photographer) the man’s attire, his tools, the buildings, the clothing of the woman and child, and the other objects in the picture (which turned out to be logging sleds – a MAJOR clue in solving the mystery).

Further, Colleen made the photo the subject of her weekly photo quiz at her website, http://forensicgenealogy.info. This is the place where she encourages others to solve photographic mysteries of all kinds by having a weekly quiz. To my mind, this is a generous and fun way to share her considerable skills with others by educating others about how to think analytically. In time with the insights offered by Colleen and her enthusiastic quiz participants, I was able to identify the blacksmith as a brother of my husband’s direct ancestor and the location as the Arenac County, Michigan. I think all of us learned some valuable lessons from the discussion of this picture and its contents.

All this brings me to the impetus for these comments – the recent article about photo detectives in the WSJ. The skills of Maureen Taylor are certainly considerable and deserving of recognition, but I was expecting that Colleen Fitzpatrick would receive equal treatment. Instead, it appeared Colleen was an afterthought. The brief comments about Colleen’s analysis of shadows and aspect ratios for images lead me to believe the author did not appreciate that this approach is more scientifically rigorous -- and it is unique to Colleen Fitzpatrick. I would very much like to see another article which gives Colleen’s skills and contributions to forensic genealogy some richly deserved recognition. No comment at all would have been better than what was in the article!

[Anne R W]

I must disagree with Christine, and the implications of others, that "No comment at all would have been better than what was in the article". Although I have had the great opportunity to participate in a workshop given by Maureen Taylor and have read several articles by her in the Family Tree magazine and email newsletter, I am, quoting Dale, "embarrassed to say that I have never even heard" of Colleen Fitzpatrick. Maureen gives an informative and professional presentation and I was glad to see her making the pages of the WSJ.

Although the WSJ article appears to have only skimmed a minimal bit of information about her, I can see by Colleen's legion of supporters that her website will be a valuable addition to my genealogy hobby. Without that brief mention and video I wouldn't have this new lead in photographic analysis to investigate.

Frankly it seeems to me that their techniques are not so very different. Both look for details in the picture (including the style and type of image which might indicate what equipment was used to produce the image) and use those details to date the photo as closely as possible. Perhaps, as I check out Colleen's website, I will start to see a difference in their respective approaches to his field.

The title "nation's foremost historic photo detective" was wrongly assigned by the WSJ reporter. (Why does someone have to be the "best" to have an article written about their work if it's valuable?) It's an unnecessary and divisive title, flattering to Maureen, but offensive to Colleen's fans. Perhaps Colleen's contributions to the field were downgraded simply so that the reporter could imply that Maureen's achievements (and, consequently, her article) were of more importance. It seems as if a good reporting job (Three months? What--2 half hours three months apart?) would have told about both in a more equitable manner.

Considering all of the people who are Colleen's fans, and her reported achievements, it appears that a companion article on her background and techniques should be done in some future edition of the WSJ to give a more balanced represenation of the field of photographic analysis.

By the way, are there any other contenders?