mental_floss magazine
SUBSCRIBE >
GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONS >
DIGITAL SUBSCRIPTIONS >
subscriber services >
Since my recent visit to the End of the Oregon Trail, I’ve been wondering about daguerreotypes. After a bit of research, I bring you this Daguerreotype Q&A:
Why doesn’t anyone smile in these pictures? The common answer for this is a partially fact-based myth: because it took a long time to expose the image, the subject had to sit still. And, the story goes, frowning is easier to hold in place than smiling. The truth is that very early daguerreotypes (those from 1839-1845) did take 60-90 seconds of sitting still to capture an image, but the majority of daguerreotypes we see today are from post-1845, when new technology (the addition of bromine fumes to the process) reduced exposure times to a few seconds. A more plausible story is that people weren’t used to having their pictures taken — the expense and seriousness of the occasion (getting quite possibly the only photograph you’d ever have of yourself) led people to adopt a serious pose.
When were daguerreotypes popular? Although they’re well known today (possibly due to Brady’s Civil War images), daguerreotypes were merely one of several competing formats in nineteenth-century photography. They were introduced by Louis Daguerre in 1839 and remained popular into the 1860’s. Because daguerreotypes developed a positive image directly onto the photographic plate, there was no way to reproduce them without sitting for multiple shots (there was no negative). This, combined with the expense, fragility, and technical difficulty of the process led to competitors including:
- Calotype – which used paper negatives
- Ambrotype – which produced a ghostly positive glass image that was then backed with black paper to produce a complete photograph
- Tintype – which was durable (being printed on a plate of metal) and thus popular during the Civil War for soldiers in the field
Does anyone still make daguerreotypes today? Yes, though it’s a complex and potentially toxic process. The Contemporary Daguerreotypes site (warning: a few tasteful nudes are included) features the work of modern daguerreotypists. See also: The Daguerreian Society, which has an excellent Daguerreotype FAQ with tips on preservation and much more.
Are there daguerreotype images online? I’m so glad you asked, rhetorical question-voice. Check out America’s First Look into the Camera from the Library of Congress (including lots of Mathew Brady material). Also try The Daguerreian Society’s searchable daguerreotype database or Daguerreotypes at Harvard. Finally, searching Google Images for “daguerreotype” turns up a variety of fun stuff.
Comments (13)
Comment
- Follow mental_floss
There are still cultures where people don’t smile for photographs. Working in Haiti in 2000, we had to persuade colleagues that smiling actually gives better results.
posted by AJ on 7-16-2007 at 11:02 am
I always thought that people didn’t smile for photographs because they didn’t smile in general, due to the sorry state of dental hygene at the time
posted by Colin on 7-16-2007 at 2:13 pm
While the dental hygeine issue is true, it probably had little to do with the no-smiling pose. It probably has more to do with the fact that photography was thought of something like a cheaper alternative to a painted portrait and you rarely see anyone smiling in paintings. The desire was to have an accurate likeness and since people don’t generally sit around with grins on their faces all the time, a big smile would have seemed almost bizarre.
posted by Bibli0phile on 7-16-2007 at 6:35 pm
My grandparents passed down the idea that during that time, people who smiled in pictures were considered to be crazy.
posted by Truovrld on 7-18-2007 at 9:43 am
There is an excellent novel of historical fiction called Yellow Jack by Josh Russell. The main character, Claude Marchand, steals photographic equipment from his mentor (the aforementioned Louis Daguerre) and moves to New Orleans where he calls this invention “soliotypes.” Quite a good read, especially for fans of daguerreotypes and their history.
posted by Winnie on 7-25-2007 at 2:34 pm
Why do we smile for photographs anyhow? When did this custom actually begin?
posted by Adam on 7-27-2007 at 7:26 am
I heard that you didn’t smile because people would think you were crazy as well…
posted by Jerry on 7-28-2007 at 11:10 am
I was always told that they didn’t smile b/c the pictures were posing for something that may become historical in the future and they had to be serious.
posted by Christine on 7-28-2007 at 11:57 am
They didn’t smile because they *were* serious people. Life was a struggle, half of your brothers and sisters died in childhood. Over 90% of the population had to be farmers, which was constant back-breaking labor. There was no plumbing for most people–only the pump or the well. We can take life lightheartedly–thanks to capitalism and the industrial revolution.
posted by Harry on 10-3-2007 at 11:20 am
Every president since Nixon sports a jackass smile in the official portrait, unlike their predecessors. When Clinton or Reagan go on the $5 bill will they be smiling? I hope our next president doesn’t smile like a doofus!
posted by Thom on 10-4-2007 at 3:48 am
It’s culture thing. Even now when you look at picture taken in Russia, Ukraine, Poland and so on-you won’t see lots of people smiling. Smile is for friends, relatives, loved ones and such-why whould you smile all the time? Are you retarded? This is kind of thinking of not smiling all the time for people in Ole Europe.
posted by Sergey on 10-4-2007 at 9:29 am
The main reason we see the dour looks on the faces of those old daguerreotype photographs is due to the long exposure times. It’s a lot harder to hold a smile on your face for the 2 – 3 minutes it took to complete the exposure. It was a hold over from the only other method of available at the time of leaving a copy of your mug for posterity, portrait painting. Again, if you were posing for a painting you couldn’t spend that much time smiling! There are some neat dag photos of children where they are smiling. I gues noone told them the rules!
posted by Dan on 7-31-2008 at 9:58 pm
Strange you chose that Edgar Allen Poe photo and asked why nobody smiled in photos. I’m reading Roy Merediths “Mr. Lincoln’s Camera, Man Matthew B Brady” where he describes actually taking that photo.
According to the book, Poe had entered Brady’s New York gallery with a friend (Ross Wallace, a poet) who wanted his picture taken. Brady had tried to get Poe to sit for a picture but Poe wanted nothing to do with it, even though he curiously watched the process.
Poe’s wife had died two years before and he was drinking heavily. Brady noticed, as you can sort of see in the photo, that his hair was messed up, his bowtie a mess, and his jacket very poor. Brady, as diplomatically as he could, assured Poe that the picture would be free, as he knew Poe was penniless. Well Brady and Wallace finally convinced Poe to have his picture taken.
He sat in front of the camera and didn’t fix his hair, his jacket or his bowtie. He just didn’t care. The picture was taken and he left the gallery. He died months later from grief and drinking himself to death. So in this particular photo, he was definitely miserable.
Though I’m looking at the photo in the book and comparing it to the one you have posted. He’s wearing the same jacket and tie, his hair is the same, the jacket has the same unbutton, and it’s almost an identical pose. It has to be the same sitting but it’s definitely a different shot, as his shadows are different and his face is slightly more depressed in yours. His hair is better in yours too. Also one of these two images is reversed, as the part in his hair is on the left side of the photo in the book. I don’t know which one is the real reversed negative.
Anyway, it’s a really interesting book. Some of the stories he shares about Lincoln getting his picture taken are cool too.
posted by Daguerreotypes on 8-12-2008 at 11:45 pm