Talk:William Eastman Palmer & Sons

Eastman

We're told (after markup-stripping):

It could have been her influence which brought the profession of photography into the family, but her husband's name, "Eastman", may suggest some connection with the American family of George Eastman. W.E. Palmer became a photographer in the mid 1860s, and by 9 January 1866 he was a journeyman photographer living at 31 Union Street, East Stonehouse, Plymouth. By 1871 they were at 13 Frances Street at St Andrew's in Plymouth.

Read after the first half, the second half of the first sentence seems to imply that "the American family of George Eastman" may have been what nudged WEP towards photography. Viewed as a whole, it suggests that if this were so, it would have happened by 9 January 1866.

However, I see nothing here to suggest that George Eastman (or his family) had any interest in photography until 1878, and of course it would be a few more years before George Eastman became prominent.

Of course, it's possible that the families were indeed related. George Eastman became well known while the British Palmers were still in business, and I presume that some genealogically minded biographer of George would have found any link that did exist. -- Hoary (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The Eastman connection is currently being investigated by a UK one-name-study researcher of the name Palmer. I am not involved in this research; I have to wait patiently for the results. These things do take time, and research was only begun fairly recently. I take your point, and I could have said nothing and just waited, but decided to mention it in the article on the off-chance that someone knowledgeable about the American Palmers might spot a connection in the early ancestry. But if you prefer, we can mention this on the discussion page instead?--Storye book (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

To me it looks like a red herring at this point. (One might as well say that Clinton Cards might be related to Bill Clinton.) Further, my limited reading of American biographies of the first half of the 20th century leaves me with the lasting impression of wallowing in genealogy: if there had been a link (other than a trivial one requiring a trip some way up the family tree and then some way back down), then some obsessed biographer of George Eastman surely would have found it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I agree. But any genealogist would say that we still have to check it ourselves. And the American genealogists of George Eastman will not have bothered to look at this set of Palmers. Mores' the pity, because if they had, we would not have all this groundwork to do in writing this article. Your Clinton analogy is amusing, but it's limited. There are lots of greetings-card companies and (probably?) lots of Clintons, so of course it is ludicrous to infer a relationship with Bill Clinton without evidence. However there were not that many highly-skilled photographer families in the 1860s, and that is what makes it worth asking the question. It must have been a huge investment: that great mahogany camera; all those glass plates and silver wash and a seven-year apprenticeship, let alone touting for patronage and custom and paying for a studio. It was a big deal. I'm very interested in the influences which made this happen so successfully in this family of a Devon naval bandsman.--Storye book (talk)

Are you saying that decisions in the 1860s of one branch of the Palmer/Eastman family to invest heavily in photographic equipment and supplies might have been influenced by a (geographically, at least) distant branch of the Eastman family that had no noted interest in photography until the late 1870s? Or do I misunderstand? If I don't misunderstand, the idea seems to me no less ludicrous than does a link between "America's first black president" and Britain's tackiest chain store. But perhaps I do misunderstand. -- Hoary (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that from my experience of genealogical research, ideally no stone should be left unturned, however ludicrous the theory of connection may be. Of course it often turns out that initial theories are way off the mark, but you almost always learn something unexpected along the way. Now wouldn't it be interesting if it turned out that the photographic influence went the other way across the Atlantic? But I am quite happy to excise the reference to George Eastman from the article, because it has now been mentioned quite enough on this discussion page. And the research will continue as planned.

Meanwhile, please try not to knock the research too much. There are pensioners tracking down and paying for these photographs out of their own pockets, and you are enjoying them for free. There was no pre-existing collection of Palmer prints to dip into. All these Palmer photographs are being donated gradually to the archives in the areas where the photos were taken, so people without internet access can enjoy them for free. It's not all bad news.--Storye book (talk) 11:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh I'm not knocking the work here at all. On the contrary: I'd never heard of the Palmers, I'm delighted to read about them, and I greatly admire your work. I'd just hate it to be devalued by this or that apparent hobby-horse (in the Shandean sense). Now, if somebody wishes to pursue the genealogical matter "off-Wiki", and if it bears [reliably sourced] fruit, then of course it will be welcome, and perhaps I should already start looking for a not-too-inedible hat. -- Hoary (talk) 13:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)