rare smile

[Bill Cross]

This one almost looks like a modern photo being palmed off as an antique.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: rare smile

I don't think it's a modern one--just taken with a fast lense toward the end of the war. The squared off neckline has some really interesting trim that I've never seen before. But overall, her hair and jewelry are too good to be a modern pic, in my opinion. She wears a hairnet in the right position, and most folks these day who are sitting for pictures while wearing hairnets Don't.

[markj]

Re: rare smile

Greetings Bill,

Shucks, it's too bad I saw this photo 140 years too late. She's just my kind of gal.

That aside, what kind of provenance (if any) did the dealer provide for this item?

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[Bill Cross]

Re: rare smile

Sorry, Mark, I didn't make a note of which auction this came from. It is fairly recent, and probably could still be found. Most auctions give pretty thin provenance information ("found this at an estate sale...."). The ability of current wet plate photogs to mimic the originals is often spot-on. My wife looked at a recent ambrotype of me at "War on the James" and said "you better label this, or 100 years from now it will end up on ebay as a CW photo."

[va-yank]

Re: rare smile

I dunno. She seems to have quite a large Adam's apple. :(

[BobSzabo]

Re: rare smile

Hello Elizabeth,

Just a quick tecnical note.

As far as "portraits" go there wherent any faster lenses toward the end of the war. The fastest "portrait" lens I own is from about 1855. The older dag lenses were as fast if not faster than the CW period lenses.

Now if we are talking "landscape" lenses then yes, there were some faster lenses. One was The Dallmeyer Rapid Rectilinear that came out in 1868.

Ill make a statement here and also have to admit, Im guilty of it too. Most modern wet plate photograhers like to use a portrait lens for group pictures. The portrait lens when used for landscapes has that fall off effect on the edges with the blurry, swirrling edge effect. You dont see that in the Gardner pictures because they were done with a landscape lens, probably a wide angle lens and are likely half of a stereoview.

Most reenactors though like to see that effect, I hear ALL the time how old and period they look, but hmmm, I dont see it when looking through Garders, Brady, O'Sullivan pictures.

By the way my gut feeling about this pic is it screams 1860s, early or mid 1860s.

Bob Szabo

http://www.robertszabo.com

I don't think it's a modern one--just taken with a fast lense toward the end of the war. The squared off neckline has some really interesting trim that I've never seen before. But overall, her hair and jewelry are too good to be a modern pic, in my opinion. She wears a hairnet in the right position, and most folks these day who are sitting for pictures while wearing hairnets Don't.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: rare smile

Thanks for info! I should have used a comma between lense and toward... it's the dress style that's mid-later war, with the squared neckline. :)

So, how long would one have to hold that smile, if it's shot with a portrait lens? I know for me it's a matter of moments before a smile becomes a grimace...

[BobSzabo]

Re: rare smile

Its hard to tell but I would say that on a bright day with a nice big sky light and side light anywhere from just a few seconds on up. I can take pictures outdoors in the shade at about 1 second when my collodion is new and fast.

Thanks for info! I should have used a comma between lense and toward... it's the dress style that's mid-later war, with the squared neckline. :)

So, how long would one have to hold that smile, if it's shot with a portrait lens? I know for me it's a matter of moments before a smile becomes a grimace...

[tenfed1861]

Re: rare smile

To tell you the truth,this picture scares me alittle.I don't know why,but it does.I guess she has a creepy smile.I guess because this is a rare picture. I guess I must be weired.
Cullen Smith
Bluegrass Rifles

[Doug Harding]

Re: rare smile

To tell you the truth,this picture scares me alittle.I don't know why,but it does.I guess she has a creepy smile.I guess because this is a rare picture. I guess I must be weired.
Cullen Smith
Bluegrass Rifles

It's not the smile, but the fact that she is looking right at you. Portrait photographers had to seel and image to make any money. One trick I have noticed is that they focus on the eyes. If you can not see the puples in the eyes the subject looks blind. No one will buy a image that makes them look blind. So, the photographer had the sitter look strait into the camera. This was the fast an easy way to get a good image. More proficient photographer could take the time to pose subjects in more pleasing ways, but to most photographers, time was money. By doing this the subject appears to be looking right into your eyes when viewed. That's what makes them look so intreeging.

Doug Harding

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Re: rare smile

I for one think she looked cute as a bug! However I was thinking the hairstyle and etc was more late 50's early 60's. What am I getting wrong here?

[C. Hyson]

Re: rare smile

She certainly does have a weird look to her.

[Joanna Jones]

Re: rare smile

I for one think she looked cute as a bug! However I was thinking the hairstyle and etc was more late 50's early 60's. What am I getting wrong here?

Here is a dress with a similar neckline dated March of '64: http://tinyurl.com/2ltwcu

As I understand it, hair commonly covered the ears in the '50s, and as the '60s progressed, the ears became more exposed, especially with the younger crowd.