As one who is interested in photography, I’ve often wondered at what point in time subjects started smiling at the camera. Obviously, it wasn’t 1903 when this picture was taken of my great uncle Raymond, great aunt Ethel, and great uncle Chester. They are as sober looking as can be. Even the baby appears pissed off. All the pictures I have of them as children have similar expressions. Was someone standing in front of them saying, “Frown for the camera.”?
I’ve read various theories as to why vintage photography was usually smile-less. One idea is that having a picture taken was then considered a serious, important occasion. Nothing funny about it. Another is that exposure and camera shutter speeds were slow, forcing subjects to stay extremely still. It was easier to hold a frown than a smile. If you know of any other reasons, I’d be happy to hear them.
“Say cheese” and have a picturesque weekend!
5 comments:
the boys were probably really pissed off at having to wear those little sailor suits...
I wondered about that myself, M2. They were poor people...don't know how they afforded them...perhaps outfits the photography studio had on hand?
I think I have heard something about the shutter being so slow if you moved it would be burry. I have seen some family photos of my family that the babies hands or feet are blurry probably because of this reason.
But really how still can a kid be?
I want to say something smart on here about why that is, but I got nothing. It does make them look smarter than us though, doesn't it?
Anyway, hello. Just popped over from Tara's blogroll. Nice blog you've got. I liked the conversation with your mom about the convention. She sounds funny.
Well, for someone who has had a helluva life at times,and who is currently battling the loss of her eyesight, Mama Bore has tried to maintain her sense of humor through it all. She is a sweetheart and never at a loss for words.
Post a Comment