In this delightful portrait, the act of touching conveys some meaning. His fingers cover hers and both hands rest on her thigh (though quilted skirt, woolen jacket and excessive quantities of undergarment intervene between flesh and flesh). However unexceptional it may appear to us today, this pose is unusual and therefore remarkable. In nineteenth century photographic portraiture physical contact between adults was formulaic, devoid of any feeling of excitement or sense of emotion. A couple can appear arm in arm as they could be seen in public. More usually the hand of the partner who stands rests casually on the shoulder of the other who sits. The nature of the contact usually suggests connection, but never even hints at intimacy.

The slight disregard of conventional practice in this example has occurred precisely where we should expect to find it - in front of the camera of the itinerant photographer. Itinerants operated al fresco studios in the street throughout the week, on the sands in the summer, in the fairground during highdays and holidays, and in public parks and local beauty spots on Sundays - in short, in venues which attracted leisure crowds in search of entertainment.

These speculative operators were held in contempt by the proprietors of highstreet studios. Among their many faults they were accused of paying scant regard to posing by allowing each customer to "have his own way entirely" as long as "he pays his sixpence in advance". 

The glass positive style of photograph (the crack in this example sadly reveals its inherent fragility) enabled the itinerant photographer to finish the goods 'while-you-wait' - i.e. within five minutes or so.

 After exposure in the camera the glass negative was converted into a positive picture by coating the back with black varnish. No printing was involved so production was quick and easy. The cheap framing of this example confirms its lowly, itinerant origins.

The absence of any rings on the fingers of Mary Hannah Blackwell's left hand indicates that at this stage the couple were not married. No respectable woman, however, would agree to be photographed with a man to whom she was not related unless she wished to publicize the message implicit within the photograph that the couple had reached an understanding and intended to marry. Such a photograph served a similar purpose for less privileged couples as the formal studio engagement portrait for the more affluent.

Mary's future husband was James Sharples, a plate layer. This outdoor occupation may account for James' ruddy complexion. Throughout the nineteenth century the tonal translation of colour in black and white photography was incorrect. Colours at the red, yellow, orange end of the spectrum translated black; blues, lilacs etc. translated white. James' face appears dark, particularly on his cheeks and nose, which suggests that those areas were redder than the rest. His hat would have covered his forehead.

While James appears earnest but slightly uncomfortable Mary projects a composure which suggests a degree of contentment at future prospects. After marriage James and Mary Hannah lived in Hawk Green, Marple where he worked on the railway. They had eight children of whom one died in early childhood and two were killed in fighting in France during World War One.