5 ms·

Properly exposing the plate—or whatever—took several seconds, and it's way easier to look dour for five seconds than to hold a rictus grin. Source: Among other

Properly exposing the plate—or whatever—took several seconds, and it's way easier to look dour for five seconds than to hold a rictus grin. Source: Among other things, I've sat for a tintype portrait before. https://twitter.com/aaronbrethorst/photo https://twitter.com/aaronbrethorst/photo

Markoff 5y ago
no, this is myth as clearly proven by these photos, it took pretty much no time to expose film/plate already in 19th century
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- aaronbrethorst 5y ago
  Photographic technology developed rapidly between the heyday of tintype (1870s'ish) and when these pictures were made (1890s). See my other reply for some readings to learn more about late 19th century photography. (Also, photography was invented in the 19th century. I'm not sure why you make such sweeping claims about a whole century when exposures went from taking hours to fractions of a second over the course of it.)
inglor_cz 5y ago
Tintype is a different technology. By the 1890s, it would have been as obsolete as rotary landline phones are today. I think the reason is different, because even I, as a kid in the early 1980s, was taken to a photo shop for "official shots", well dressed and told to behave. It was a bit unnatural, yes. People in staged shots are generally a little stiff.
- aaronbrethorst 5y ago
  Of course a tintype is a different technology from fast film or plates, or whatever this photographer was using. However, you're incorrect about the lack of usage in the timeframe specified: "Tintypes enjoyed their widest use during the 1860s and 1870s, but lesser use of the medium persisted into the early 20th century" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintype Besides, the GP comment referred to the era, to which I was responding. Your explanation is not without merit, however: "One common explanation for the lack of smiles in old photos is that long exposure times — the time a camera needs to take a picture — made it important for the subject of a picture to stay as still as possible. That way, the picture wouldn't look blurry." — https://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365997/smile-old-photographs https://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365997/smile-old-photographs

Markoff 5y ago

no, this is myth as clearly proven by these photos, it took pretty much no time to expose film/plate already in 19th century

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
aaronbrethorst 5y ago
Photographic technology developed rapidly between the heyday of tintype (1870s'ish) and when these pictures were made (1890s). See my other reply for some readings to learn more about late 19th century photography. (Also, photography was invented in the 19th century. I'm not sure why you make such sweeping claims about a whole century when exposures went from taking hours to fractions of a second over the course of it.)

inglor_cz 5y ago

Tintype is a different technology. By the 1890s, it would have been as obsolete as rotary landline phones are today. I think the reason is different, because even I, as a kid in the early 1980s, was taken to a photo shop for "official shots", well dressed and told to behave. It was a bit unnatural, yes. People in staged shots are generally a little stiff.

aaronbrethorst 5y ago
Of course a tintype is a different technology from fast film or plates, or whatever this photographer was using. However, you're incorrect about the lack of usage in the timeframe specified: "Tintypes enjoyed their widest use during the 1860s and 1870s, but lesser use of the medium persisted into the early 20th century" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintype https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintype Besides, the GP comment referred to the era, to which I was responding. Your explanation is not without merit, however: "One common explanation for the lack of smiles in old photos is that long exposure times — the time a camera needs to take a picture — made it important for the subject of a picture to stay as still as possible. That way, the picture wouldn't look blurry." — https://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365997/smile-old-photographs https://www.vox.com/2015/4/8/8365997/smile-old-photographs