Evening Gentlemen, you are both circling the drain in some manner and if I may correct you both briefly as a modern-day practioner of wet-plate collodion photographer. Hatchmo; it was not that it was so much encouraged as it was a formality within the manner of Victorian potraiture and, by extension, photography. There are many examples of photographs from the period where the sitter(s) are smiling and/or goofing around, much in a similar manner to photographs of today and this brings me around to Mr Caldwell's proposition. It is a fallacy that photographic exposures were lengthy and beyond the capacity of one to hold a smile. It is true that the daguerreotype (1839) required exposures times upwards of two minutes however this method of photography had largely died off by the turn of the 1860 in favour of the wet-plate process (1851). This is the process that was prevalant during the 1860s and the American Civil War; it was significantly faster than the daguerreotype and could, with the correct chemical balance and sufficient natural light, create images that were less than a second in exposure.
Feel free to write me if you have any more questions on this matter.
ALL of this is interesting for sure,,, but the OP is expressing a desire that we, as grown ups, can act more civil to each other on these forums. and I agree.. the forums is not the battlefield, it is a place where us of like mind can come and help promote and develop a game we are of course all very interested in.. no need to be a turd to one another.
but the info on the picture taking is interesting.
All governments, everywhere derived its power by the consent of the people. The government you have is by your own consent. Not by those brave grey dead of one hundred and fifty plus years ago.
@Dether
TBH that was pretty polite and formal. He didn't insult or belittle anyone, he just stated the facts and informed them of the facts.
I think perhaps the OP and you may be a tad oversensitive (no offence intended). I have a lot of experience (ex Moderator) I can honestly say that this is one of the best forums I've joined. Mature, knowledgeable and often polite... with the likes of Leifr on the case Im sure it'll stay that way.
See this is one of the many reasons I enjoy this forum, you can learn something every day. I do have more questions and still wish to defend my 'proposition'. Sorry to go off topic still this'll be my last questions on the topic.
I bow always to someone who walks the walk, and as an actual 'Wet Plate' photographer Leifr I trust your knowledge completely however the little knowledge I have causes me concern (a little knowledge in my case may be a dangerous thing). Let me expand, though significantly faster, seconds in photography is a lifetime, even with perfect lighting conditions, any movement without flash or ultra sensitive 'High speed' film can cause motion blur. Lets face it most of the formal Portraits were staged, no-doubt indoors with very poor light conditions (compared to modern standards or equipment). I'm sure that maintaining a stern look 'non smilie' was effective in avoiding any chance of failure in the exposure. I sure the time and expense used in creating the plates, failure could be costly in that non throwaway culture. I dare anyone to test with modern equipment a 2-3 second exposure, no flash in a poorly lite room to mimic the quality of the old photos.... a held smile, even in seconds becomes a false grin and is prone to movement!
Which brings me to my second point regarding the 'custom' of the Victorian formal look! Habits in photography are handed down from generations to generations, example: why do the older generations and even kids today still insist on saying 'CHEEEEEEEESE' to hold and create a "natural" smile. It stems from, in my humble opinion from the old custom of portraiture of holding a pose or expression. From having to literally sit or stand for hours having some artist paint you, to the old long exposure photographs of the day. Smiles are difficult and impractical for old style portraiture to maintain and look natural. 'Old Habits die hard' and using the cases of General Lee and Jackson they would have grown up with the tradition of the old style portraits and merely continued that into the 1860's along with many others victims of the lens. Technology in those days, and traditions crept along compared to today's lightening pace.
Finally, I am also sure with the case of these fine men (Lee & Jackson)... having the weight of the Confederacy on their shoulders they didn't particularly feel like smiling all that much and were prone to seriousness. Weren't both men sufferers of depression?
4th Texas 'C' Company
There isn't an ounce of sensitivity in me. All I am saying is that we should maintain a hospitable environment when others ask a question or make a statement that may highlight the fact that they are new here. Maybe you just misunderstood my intent by this post.
All governments, everywhere derived its power by the consent of the people. The government you have is by your own consent. Not by those brave grey dead of one hundred and fifty plus years ago.