2006-09-03 13:07:46 · 30 answers · asked by skijon 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
2 reasons I can think of.
#1 in historical periods, all painting, photos etc...people were "serious" looking. There was not the cultural"smile, say cheese, it's a kodak moment"
#2 cameras back then did not have automatic apperatures & high speed film. You had to "freeze" and not move for a moment while the film was exposed to light
2006-09-03 13:10:55 · answer #1 · answered by Ken J 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Back then camera was new and it took a long time for it to take a picture, so it's hard to hold a smile, not like now. Plus it's Civil War, in which more Americans died than any other wars. and there's nothing to smile about during war when there's fighting going on.
2006-09-03 21:55:50 · answer #2 · answered by no one 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot of folks here have it basically right. But they're missing the essential word : Motion. A smile is a motion. You could not move for a photograph then, or you would show up as a blur. Or any part of your body that moved would be a blur. Blurred lips ruin a face. And yes, you couldn't move because it did take a long time to expose the film. That is also why there are no live combat photos- set up that camera and stand there that long and you are going to get shot before you get a blurry photo of soldiers running around.
2006-09-03 21:51:26 · answer #3 · answered by Thom Thumb 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
During the 1800's photography was done during a sitting at the studio of the photographer...it was a different process than we know now and it took a long time to pose and then the actual picture taking was several minutes. That was also a time of life when people were very staid and proper, to show emotion like that was not accepted in professional photos.
2006-09-03 20:14:51 · answer #4 · answered by romanov1918 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wellll considering there wasn't a whole lot to smile about, I would be surprised if anyone was smiling. Remember this was a very bloody war. On some days more men were killed than in the entire Vietnam war.
2006-09-03 20:11:29 · answer #5 · answered by Larry T 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In a lot of old time photos the people are not smiling because the cameras had such long exposure times that the subjects had to hold very still otherwise the picture would be blurred. Holding poses that long did not induce smiles!
2006-09-03 20:10:05 · answer #6 · answered by elk312 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
People were told not to smile. The cameras of the time took a long time to catch the picture. You had to remain still for a minute or longer. I'm not sure how long, but it was long enough that you could not hold a steady smile for the time that it took, it was easier to hold still with a straight sober face.
2006-09-03 20:17:33 · answer #7 · answered by irongrama 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Back when cameras were new, it took a couple of minutes to take a picture. The subjects had to hold the pose, and trying to smile would be very difficult (try holding a smile in the same position for two minutes!). So, that's why they didn't smile.
2006-09-03 20:10:13 · answer #8 · answered by Anne 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because 1. the exposure time for the photograph was long..and to keep a smile on thier faces would have been difficult and tiring..2. the fashion of the day was to be serious..photographs were expensive..people didn't waste their money on silly photographs.
2006-09-03 20:13:49 · answer #9 · answered by OliveRuth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No one had anything to smile about. It was war time and the men were leaving their wives and families. Not a happy time. Also the threat of losing their homes.
2006-09-03 20:11:10 · answer #10 · answered by Janet lw 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋