2006-07-17 16:01:30 · 17 answers · asked by Odette 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
Many of the old photos were taken with cameras that had no shutter but a lens cap. the film was extremely slow and required up to a minute or more for the exposure. If they smiled they couldn't hold that smile for the exposure time and it would look funny. They also used head rests to hold the head still but because it was behind the head it was out of the photo.
2006-07-17 16:08:06 · answer #1 · answered by pinelake302 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably because it was a big deal having your picture taken, so they didn't want to look goofy. Also, the exposure time was a few minutes - it is easier to have a neutral face than to smile for 5 minutes straight and risk the chance of the picture blurring because you couldn't smile any more.
There is some good discussion and interesting ideas on this topic in the following link (comments are from 2005): http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/23235
2006-07-17 23:12:57 · answer #2 · answered by Andrea F 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you are talking about the pictures from around the mid of the 19th century and the turn of this past century - early 1900s, you are right they rarely smiled. The reason for that is because cameras years ago took a long time to take a picture. People sometimes had to sit for very long periods of time, and they couldn't move or the photograph would come out blurry. To keep smiling for a long, long period of time becomes tiresome, so people, back then, found it easier not to smile.
2006-07-17 23:08:44 · answer #3 · answered by Emma 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
One reason is that old photos took quite a while to be exposed. The chemicals on the photopaper reacted a little slower, needed a longer exposure. It would have made a blurr on the photo if people smiled for a second and then didn't. The photographer most likely wanted the people to just remain very still.
2006-07-17 23:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by cehelp 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the cameras back then sucked and it took forever for the flash to go off and for the shutter to expose the film and everything. So people had to hold very still for an few minutes. And a few minutes can seem really, REALLY long when you are trying to be motionless, so I guess it was hard to hold a smile for that long. I dunno....I read all that somewhere, but I don't know how historically accurate it is.
2006-07-17 23:05:41 · answer #5 · answered by The Man In The Box 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
they had to sit there so long for the picture to take that they weren't having fun anymore, so they wren't smiling. sometimes they used these torture-ish-looking things that hurt to keep thier heads straight
2006-07-17 23:05:02 · answer #6 · answered by k8rudolph@sbcglobal.net 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've got plenty of pics with folks smiling.
2006-07-17 23:04:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yeah i think i heard that before about them having to pose for too long to smile for a while. probably originally from portraiture, and then it carried on to photography
2006-07-17 23:06:18 · answer #8 · answered by pinkcat613 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
because the camrea took longer to take the picture and no one could hold their face in that position for that long. it took, like, a long time....
2006-07-17 23:06:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You had to hold the pose for like two hours
2006-07-17 23:04:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋