Edith Roberts, in costume for The Adorable Outcast (1928) - a pretty obscure Australian movie. She made a similarly themed/titled Universal movie for the same director, The Adorable Savage (1920), but I'm fairly certain it's the later film. If it is, that's quite a rare still you have there.
Thank you! It's most likely to be from The Adorable Savage, having been taken by Nelson Evans. Interesting that she is in costume; perhaps Evans did still work for the film as well. Here's a companion photo:
Then perhaps it is the earlier film. Such good quality personality stills were not terribly common in Australia at the time, so I did wonder.
It would not surprise me if publicity photos from the first production were recycled for the second. For example, this appears to be a (flipped) photo from the same session, but it was used to advertise the 1928 film:
I'm told that the Oregon Historical Society, of all places, owns a complete copy of the US release version of The Adorable Outcast, which was retitled Black Cargoes of the South Seas. The Adorable Savage, however, seems to be lost.
Sorry to disagree, but the above two portraits are in fact tie-in publicity images of Ruth Renick for the South Seas adventure THE FIRE BRIDE (1922), photographed by Nelson Evans in Los Angeles after shooting of the movie had been completed on location in Tahiti.
A close look at the above image of Edith Roberts shows that the necklace and flowers in particular are really quite different.
I own one of Ruth Renick's scrapbooks from this period, which contains both the second Evans image above, as well as an 8x10 photographic reproduction of a magazine article in which another shot from this set is employed.
And I'm sorry to disagree with the esteemed Doctor Kiss, but I am satisfied that the attribution to The Adorable Savage was correct. The two women look very similar, but the lady in the photo that tthacker originally posted, and the newspaper clipping I added, has two small orchids in her hair. Ruth Renick has a single large hibiscus.
The interesting thing is that they do appear to share the same necklace, and possibly even the same entire outfit. It could be that it was culturally authentic, but I'd say it's more likely that it was a hired costume that appeared in multiple productions.
I agree that it's a very close thing - what does everyone else think? Does anyone have some further stills?
This really is like a spot-the-difference competition, I have to agree, Brooksie,.. and yet... I can't help but remain convinced that these Evans portraits are of Ruth Renick! For one thing, the Evans portrait that I scanned above introduces a series of pages that all relate to THE FIRE BRIDE in her scrapbook; and for another, this was a portrait that she later had enlarged in the 1960s and on display in her home (I also have her larger later copy on Kodak paper)... and I'd hate to think that she could really have mistaken herself for Edith Roberts for all those years (though I will concede that stranger things have happened!).
Anyway... a look through the daily papers from 1921/22 turns up a few further images of Renick that were used in reports about the shooting of THE LAGOON OF DESIRE, or as it ultimately became known for its general release, THE FIRE BRIDE. These tie-in portraits really bear little resemblance to her costuming in the movie itself, and evidently two different floral arrangements were employed in her hair in different shots (hence the earlier mismatch with the hibiscus!).
Oakland Tribune, Entertainments Section, October 30th, 1921:
Daisy Dean's syndicated 'New Notes from Movieland' column of January 6th, 1922:
This, meanwhile, is the Edith Roberts costuming from THE ADORABLE SAVAGE which I believe is causing all the confusion, since it bears multiple similarities to Ruth Renick's appearance in the tie-in portraits for THE FIRE BRIDE... [image of complete lobby card - although forgive the fact you can see the join from my two quick A4 scans! - available at: https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7384/27910671796_eb79cf5c84_o.jpg ]
Thanks to both of you. This turned out to be far more fascinating than I would have thought! Amazing how close the two are, but clearly it is Ruth Renick. Glad to hear that it seemed to be one of her favorite photos.