Comments (34)

1. I think the seriousness also had to do with the way cameras worked back then. Taking a picture meant holding still for a long time, lest even a small movement blur the image.

   posted by Pat on 1-16-2012 at 10:57 am

2. Actually, the shutter had to stay open a long time with the first cameras. That’s why most people are not smiling.

   posted by Russians Wife on 1-16-2012 at 10:58 am

3. Another reason for no smiles back then was dental hygiene. No one even then really wanted to look at rotted or missing teeth. Plus really dark teeth showed up black in that photo technique giving a rather sinister look.

   posted by Dave on 1-16-2012 at 10:59 am

4. It’s because they wanted a Playstation 3 but didn’t get one.

   posted by Dan on 1-16-2012 at 11:11 am

5. Wonderful photos. Some are from the 1860′s, but a number of them are more recent.

   posted by Mike H. on 1-16-2012 at 11:12 am

6. Some of these are really creepy. Especially the second to last one. What’s with all the dolls sideways on the floor?

   posted by Jennifer Kowkabany on 1-16-2012 at 11:22 am

7. I agree with Jennifer…these are a little creepy! Maybe I’ve just seen too many horror movies.

   posted by bookmaiden on 1-16-2012 at 11:31 am

8. The man in the last one looks like Benjamin Harrison.

   posted by Stefan on 1-16-2012 at 11:39 am

9. The first one that club the center boy’s holding is so pointy.
   The second picture illustrats the blurriness of not holding still (the littler one’s hands are blurred)
   The sixth picture… I don’t think that child has a toy with them.
   My favorite is the little boy in the car with the teddy bears – so cute.

   posted by Cattye on 1-16-2012 at 11:50 am

10. I agree the second to last one kind of gave me the creeps. The sixth picture does have a toy though, a boat in the water at her feet.

    posted by thezookeeper on 1-16-2012 at 11:58 am

11. The backgrounds look creepy to me… like they’re out of place in the photo. A few look like the background is a photo prop of some sort, but the ones taken outside look eerie.

    And WHAT THE HECK @ photo #1… why are our croquet arch thingies so much smaller now? If ours were still that size croquet would be so much easier. They used to be GIGANTIC.

    posted by Kelly on 1-16-2012 at 12:02 pm

12. The sicxth picture there is a toy boat in the water. But man does that kid look serious.

    posted by Chris on 1-16-2012 at 12:03 pm

13. The girl with the drum and the weird hat reminded me of the 90′s Pepsi commercial girl, Hallie Eisenberg!

    posted by Heidi on 1-16-2012 at 12:29 pm

14. In the second last picture, why is she sitting in a giant shoe? Is it the photographer’s prop? If so does that mean there are more photos of people sitting in the giant shoe? If so, I would love to see that photo collection.

    posted by James on 1-16-2012 at 12:30 pm

15. I’m a family historian and I collect photos and stories to go with the names in my family tree. I find all these photos fantastic and beautiful. I’d be thrilled to own such photos of my families.

    posted by SherryJ on 1-16-2012 at 12:33 pm

16. There are a few that are far more recent than 1864, such as the one with the toy car. However, these are all very interesting. I work in an archives that contains many images like these and I never tired of looking at them.
    Yes, in the early days people had to hold still for an photo. Daguerrotypes, for example (a different process than these above) could require a minute up to 30 mins. There was usually a neck brace for people to lean back on.

    posted by Jennifer on 1-16-2012 at 12:44 pm

17. Holy crap @James, I didn’t notice until now that she was in a shoe! Consider my mind BLOWN.

    posted by Kelly on 1-16-2012 at 12:50 pm

18. James and Kelly – I’d venture to say that she is demonstrating the nursery rhyme: “There was an old woman who lived in a shoe, she had so many children, she didn’t know what to do”, hence the masses of dolls, also.

    posted by Mare on 1-16-2012 at 1:04 pm

19. I think Mare is on to something, a creeepy something but…

    posted by LakeLover on 1-16-2012 at 1:16 pm

20. Is it weird that the first thing I thought when I saw the second-to-last photo was “This should be a prime candidate to include in Ransom’s sequel to Miss Peregrine”?

    posted by meg on 1-16-2012 at 1:55 pm

21. My old lady aunt told me (when I asked her as a kid myself) that the serious expression was usually because kids heard this right before the photo: “Don’t you move or I will whip you!” Photos were pricey and there were no do-overs. She said she was always terrified when a professional photo was taken.

    posted by Em on 1-16-2012 at 2:27 pm

22. @ Mare…at first i thought it was a play on Gulliver’s travels…but i think you are correct with the nursery rhyme theory. way to go

    posted by Megaroo on 1-16-2012 at 2:31 pm

23. A couple of those photos (second to last one that is so darn creepy) look like photos of dead children.

    posted by Renee on 1-16-2012 at 2:32 pm

24. The one in the shoe is just odd, but those dolls must’ve been a treasure to her. The one with the boat is a boy. He is in short pants. My grandfather wore dresses and long curls until age 7, as was tradition back then for some. Fascinating pictures.

    posted by Alison on 1-16-2012 at 3:43 pm

25. The little girl in the sailor’s suit is the only one that really looks mad.

    The eyes on the girl in the show are totally freaky.

    posted by Jen on 1-16-2012 at 5:28 pm

26. The early cameras were not the problem, it was the early photographic material. The film was an emulsion that the photographer coated on a glass plate (all in total darkness) then inserted into the camera through a special light tight slot. Taking the lens off the cover the photographer would count to 10 or 20 or whatever it took to get the proper exposure. The subject would have to remain perfectly still that whole time to avoid blurring. What’s not seen in the photos (by careful design) are the metal stands with U shaped brackets that were attached the subject at various places (arms, legs, neck, head, etc.) to ensure stillness. It’s no wonder that most kids only got their picture taken (as written about in early Mental Floss articles) when they had passed away. Much easier to get them to sit still for those photos.

    posted by Prism on 1-16-2012 at 6:33 pm

27. @meg
    I thought of Miss Peregrine, too! That book is awesome. And Shoe Lady is super creepy. Those eyes make her look kind of dead. She definitely belongs in that book.

    posted by Olivia on 1-16-2012 at 7:07 pm

28. I can never look at these funky old photos anymore without thinking of Ms. Peregrine. Amazing how Ransom tied those photos into a story…..

    posted by old hippy chick on 1-16-2012 at 8:10 pm

29. They’re all friggin’ CREEPY.

    posted by Datajack on 1-16-2012 at 8:15 pm

30. The second to last one is supposed to be the nursery rhyme There was an old Woman who lived in a Shoe…. Dolls being the children.

    posted by Stacy on 1-17-2012 at 1:57 am

31. I think the one in the shoe may be a post-mortem photograph. Sometimes they used to paint pupils onto a deceased person’s eyelids to make them look alive. I’m not sure if that’s the case here but her eyes are lacking life.

    posted by deux on 1-17-2012 at 2:39 am

32. i agree with @deux on it may be post-mortem, i was thinking that on antoher one-the kid standing next to the chair with a doll in it-cause there is something behind her that looks like it could be holding her up.

    posted by Jennifer on 1-17-2012 at 4:26 pm

33. Most of these old images took many seconds for exposure of the plate, so you really had to freeze – I’m sure the kids took it as seriously as the photographer who demanded they stay still! ;-)

    posted by Mike on 1-17-2012 at 6:58 pm

34. Love these old photos! They are charming AND haunting.

    posted by Catseye on 1-21-2012 at 4:00 pm

Comment