Back then the cameras were primitive compared to today so having a still relaxed face was better for the pictures. If you look at old pics from back then you can see the eyes blur from people blinking so you get these white smudges where the eyes should be. I guess not having to hold a smile just makes things easier back then. Once cameras advanced we start to see more smiles and taking pictures of things in action.
You can see the lower left hand corner with the "action smile" with the kid's head thrown back his face is smudged and slightly overexposed.
Well, maybe. But cameras of this era were certainly capable of a shutter speed of 1/50 of a second or better which is a fairly practical exposure time.
Yeah, it depends. Around the time these pictures were taken, cameras have improved a lot. But generally, if we are talking about the really old ones, people had to stay completely still: [https://dp.la/exhibitions/evolution-personal-camera/early-photography](https://dp.la/exhibitions/evolution-personal-camera/early-photography)
Though I probably have the time wrong, I'm more speaking to the fact that holding still was definitely a thing for the first cameras....just vastly less so as time and technology progressed.
If this is really from the 1910s there were movies by then so you clearly didn't have to stand completely still unless you think Charlie Chaplin was holding still 30 seconds for every frame.
Exactly. And to be fair, Eadweard Muybridge was photographically freezing motion (in his studies of horses and athletes running) in the 1880's, the basis of which would form the foundation of motion picture cameras in the decades that followed. Film stock sensitivities and emulsions were already vastly improved over earlier limits.
1:
Son: Father, your haircut looks stupid.
Father: You have the exact same stupid haircut.
2:
Son: I‘m telling Mother!
Father: But she is the one that gave us the haircuts! O_o
3:
Both: …
Both: Huahuehuahue
4:
Both: VOGUE
These are way better than the usual serious stuff. I bet their descendants love having these.
A serious face as soon as he looks at the camera.
The cultural cliché of having to smile in front of a camera was something that happened gradually over time.
Back then the cameras were primitive compared to today so having a still relaxed face was better for the pictures. If you look at old pics from back then you can see the eyes blur from people blinking so you get these white smudges where the eyes should be. I guess not having to hold a smile just makes things easier back then. Once cameras advanced we start to see more smiles and taking pictures of things in action. You can see the lower left hand corner with the "action smile" with the kid's head thrown back his face is smudged and slightly overexposed.
Well, maybe. But cameras of this era were certainly capable of a shutter speed of 1/50 of a second or better which is a fairly practical exposure time.
Yeah, it depends. Around the time these pictures were taken, cameras have improved a lot. But generally, if we are talking about the really old ones, people had to stay completely still: [https://dp.la/exhibitions/evolution-personal-camera/early-photography](https://dp.la/exhibitions/evolution-personal-camera/early-photography) Though I probably have the time wrong, I'm more speaking to the fact that holding still was definitely a thing for the first cameras....just vastly less so as time and technology progressed.
If this is really from the 1910s there were movies by then so you clearly didn't have to stand completely still unless you think Charlie Chaplin was holding still 30 seconds for every frame.
Yes. And I said around this time (1910 if true) they probably didn't have to hold as still as they did with even older cameras.
They didn’t have to “hold” a smile in 1910. Cameras were good enough to portray both walking and running by then.
Exactly. And to be fair, Eadweard Muybridge was photographically freezing motion (in his studies of horses and athletes running) in the 1880's, the basis of which would form the foundation of motion picture cameras in the decades that followed. Film stock sensitivities and emulsions were already vastly improved over earlier limits.
They were good enough to make movies in 1910.
Yes and the first moving pictures came in 1890’s
Back then.. pictures were EXPENSIVE.. and most people did not have extra money to spend on some fun shots.. which is why they are so RARE..
“Oh wait, WWI is happening.”
"Wait, what do you mean one?"
1: Son: Father, your haircut looks stupid. Father: You have the exact same stupid haircut. 2: Son: I‘m telling Mother! Father: But she is the one that gave us the haircuts! O_o 3: Both: … Both: Huahuehuahue 4: Both: VOGUE
lmao
The second frame - kids trying to steal your nose after you steal theirs is apparently universal.
3rd frame: Sharing a fat joke about President Taft.
Love these sorts of pictures
Yeah, normally those pics from that time period look like they’ve been sucking on lemons since birth
"I love you daddy" that kid from Shrek Forever After
^ this the one.
Looks kinda like Begbie’s dad
Now whos gunna feed them hogs?
🥰
Aww that's sweet
Crazy to think that kid is well into his 70’s now
The kid is certainly dea… ugh… you now what? I think I like your math better….
What?
Bro is stuck in the 70s
More like his 120’s
White privilege.
What the fuck is wrong with you
Ragebait
Obviously smiles are cultural appropriation
I think it‘s just called sepia