2006-11-19 13:32:25 · 14 answers · asked by JJW 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
THe answer to this is due to the methods involved in taking the photo at the time period. One had to remain perfectly still for about 5 whole minutes in order for the film to not come out blurred from movement. Holding a smile for up to 5 minutes is rather difficult. And to the IDIOT who said it was concidered bad taste to smile youre a freaking moron, sames goes for the fool who said people had bad teeth LEARN ABOUT HISTORY.Do you just pull answers out of your asses?
bush-deathgrip- just because theyre STRANGERS doesnt MAKE THEM NOT idiots. an idiot is as an idiot does and my knowing them in person doesnt change that. How about you actually ANSWERING instead of commenting on me, fool.
2006-11-19 13:34:20 · answer #1 · answered by . S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As a photo historian I can tell you that by the 1850's, with the introduction of the glass collodion process, exposures could take as little as 1 to 5 seconds with a large aperture of around F4, and good lighting conditions.
When people speak of long exposures such as 5 minutes and beyond they are refering to the Daguerretype process introduced in 1839 and lasting up until the 1850's until other more practical processes took its place. But even with the Dagguereotype process some dagguereotypist could make exposures of less than a minute especially when newer camera lenses with bigger apertures were introduced.
This of course wasn't true with the dagguereotype process, the first practical photographic process introduced in 1839. Exposures for these photographs could sometimes take 5 minutes. However, a good Daguerreotype portrait photographer could take a portrait in less time.
The issue as to why most people didnt smile in portraits has more to do with aesthetics of the day early portrait photography tried to mimic oil painting and the academy style portraits of the day which if you look at most of your oil painting portraits from a long time ago you will notice too that people dont smile as well. Remember that one of the reasons why there was a push for photography was because of an emerging middle class and a need for a cheap and fast way to produce portraits.
2006-11-20 21:41:58 · answer #2 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exposure time is definitely the answer to this question, but there's more to it than that. Because it took upwards of 5 minutes or more to get a proper exposure, people had to sit perfectly still and posed for that entire time. Often, children's heads were held still by metal clamps that are sometimes visible in some daguerreotypes. I even read a story that one photographer instilled fear in his subjects to keep them still. He was a perfectly nice gentleman until he tripped the shutter, starting the exposure. At that point, he would draw a pistol from his pants and threaten death to anyone who moved.
Try smiling and being happy while being held by metal clamps and having your life threatened while sitting perfectly still for 5 whole minutes.
2006-11-21 20:58:01 · answer #3 · answered by blphotopia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Generally because people sat for phots and it was a formal portrait that required sitting for longer than one could keep a smile (exposures took too long...trying smiling for a minute!). Check out a photo call "The Last Joke" by Alfred Stieglizt...its one of the first earlier photos where people are smiling (a watershed moment in photography).
2006-11-20 18:59:56 · answer #4 · answered by ♫ giD∑■η ♫ 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think there was one more reason for this.
Cameras were not so common and not were too many photographers.It was an expensive activity too.
Anyone who was privilliged to b a photographer was considered an artist who is meant to create portraits of persons.
The pictures were very seldom taken in light(mood) enironment.
It was not taken as a casual procedure.
...so,the photographer as well as the people who were snapped took the procedure with due sincerity.People do what they are told to do by the photographer.
(was 'cheese' invented that time?)
2006-11-20 11:17:05 · answer #5 · answered by age_of_brains 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because they had to stand still for quite some time while the photo was being taken. The camera worked very slowly, and it is quite impossible to hold a smile that long.
2006-11-19 21:38:55 · answer #6 · answered by Ceajae 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Exposure times were much longer back then and it was very hard to hold a smile for the amount of time to take an image.
2006-11-19 23:55:49 · answer #7 · answered by Sweet Cakes 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
S is right. It took a long time to take a picture. I have a picture of my great grandparents and they look like they are in agony honestly. It was taken in 1872.
2006-11-19 21:38:48 · answer #8 · answered by greylady 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They didn't smile because the denistry in those days were not very good. Their teeth were rotten and if they lost their teeth, they would wear dentures made of a type of wood. Sounds crazy, but true.
2006-11-19 21:39:03 · answer #9 · answered by Victoria 1 · 0⤊ 2⤋
the smile wasn't invented until 1950's
2006-11-19 21:46:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋