Photography: Since When do People Smile?

I have been told that the older photographs required so much acquisition time that smiling for the duration of the shot was harder than a simple blank stare.

I am sure that cultural norms played a large role as well, but posing for extended periods of time is not an easy experience.

Adding to that remember the painful and uncomfortable neck and body braces sometimes used to keep a subject perfectly still would cause anyone to wear a pained expression.

I found a drawing of a "posing stand" that supports the idea of the long acquisition time

Searching on that direction I found that the posing time for a Daguerreotype was of 15 to 30 minutes in 1839, 20 to 90 SECONDS in 1841, but only 10 to 60 SECONDS in 1842.

I admit it must be hard to maintain a smile for 30 minutes (not even a politician can do it! ), but what happened from 1842 on?

May it have been because having a picture taken was a "once in a lifetime" experience, and people wanted to look honorable?

r&ddoc... I believe that is exactly the case. I do remember reading about this somewhere. Getting your portrait taken, alone or with entire family, was such a rare experience for most, that it was the general consensus that you wanted to look poised and elegant. That was deemed more appropriate than appearing "happy".

During those early years, these photographic portraits were seen as the natural extension of painted portraits. And aside from Mona... you don't see very many smiling painted portraits.

As to when we started smiling... I would hazard the guess that we started smiling when cameras were made available for personal purchase and use, as opposed to going to a professional photographer. So whatever year that was, may be the answer. Was it the Land camera that was first commercially available to the public? I'm not sure. Maybe the Brownie? No. it was probably before that. I'm not up on my camera history.

I do agree with you, and also believe this was related to the possibility people had of getting their own camera. George Eastman did a lot in that direction. I would say he meant to photography what Henry Ford did to automobiles...

You wrote, "And aside from Mona... you don't see very many smiling..."

You think holding a smile for 30 seconds is hard work, try posing that way for a painting! ;-)

When I look at old pictures of relatives from the early 1900s up through the depression and beyond, there are not a lot of smiles. My guess is that back in those days, there wasn't a lot to smile about...................life was tough.

I think in the US, in a historical perspective of photographs, smiles started becoming much more prevalent post WWII. Everything was looking better, and people had become much more optimistic. I think it was somewhere during that period that smiling for photos became the norm.................................not including mug shots. Those people are never smiling.

Al´s smile may suggest he thought he would spend only a few days behind bars!

That looks more like a smirk than a smile.

"A constant smirk upon the face, and a whifling activity of the body, are strong indications of futility,"

I have a picture of my Grandmother and Grandfather along with their 13 children (including my Dad) from 1928.

Grandpa is the only one smiling..........................go figure.

I was told the same thing, long acquisition time.

I have my doubts about long acquisition time, as they got quite short after 1842 (less than 30 sec´s): unless chained to the floor can you imagine your grandparents keeping 13 kids still during more than half a minute?!

Depends on the available light conditions, camera, and film used.

With the smile on Grandpa's face, I can only imagine what Grandma must have told the kids to keep them still even for a short while

Not sure where I heard it, but it was due to poor dental hygiene in those days. Many people didn't know how to take care of their teeth and had stained teeth or no teeth at all. A smile would reveal such. Through the early part of the 20th century, dentures were improved and photographic subjects were much more inclined to smile.

Also, as movies became prevalent, movie stars began to show their teeth creating a publicly acceptable practice.

Hm... I'm not sure I can go along with that line of reasoning. Plenty of people smile without showing teeth. Technically, some people define a toothy smile as a grin , whereas a closed lip smile could still be called a smile

I'm interpreting the OPs question as referring to the general demeanor of the subjects. Stoic vs. happy.

You know? a friend of mine had a bicycle accident a time ago braking his front teeth, as a consequence he completely changed his facial expression until he got implants done. The interesting thing about this is that despite the implants looked great, he had do rehab to learn again how to smile!

I also have some old photos from my grandparents' and great-grandparents' days, that were obviously taken by one of these professional travelling photographers. They followed certain conventions in getting people to pose. For example in a group shot, the shorter people would be made to stand on chairs so the heads were all in a row.

My guess is that the photo cost money (a scarce thing), so posing was a formal and somewhat stressful affair. They were no doubt advised that if anyone moved, the shot would be ruined and of course, a second shot would cost double.

I reckon the photographers set up the shots, and then told the buyer afterwards that there was an extra charge to crop the picture, or make a print of the head shot, at which point he was chased off with a broom. And this is why our old photo album has a number of pictures where some of the people are standing on chairs.

My great-grandfather was not a tall man, but he married a very tall woman. The faces in their portrait together are unsmiling and very dignified.... but my great-grandfather is standing next to his wife on a chair!!!

In our old photo album, the smiles start to appear or be dominant by the 1940's. It's easy to tell that these photos are taken by family or friends, not by a professional. There are lots of candid shots, also people caught as they go about their daily chores and not posed for a portrait. Some of these may be a bit older, but the difference is obviously, who's taking the shot!

Here in America (meaning the American Continent, not only the USA!) as cities were spread over huge distances, in the "good old days" the travelling photographer was as common as the merchants that brought "novelties" from over the seas or attractions like a circus, a charlatan or -even a well known artist. All these characters were a life time experience for many people and their visit was subject of conversation for many years in remote areas. The photographer was probably one of the most respected because he mastered the "magic" procedures that could depict a person forever. No wonder that people looked the way they did while posing in front of "such an important person" !

Yes, and the travelling photographer certainly did come to remote areas, as my great- and grandparents lived in very small communities in the bays of Newfoundland, with no roads and accessible only by boat. Visitors were rare in any case, I have no doubt that the photographer made quite an impression on them!

It reminds me of Marquez 'Hundred Years of Solitude', just thinking about it.

Hi Artsmith! I f you liked Marquez´s "Hundred years of Solitude", let me recommend you Pantaleon y las Visitadoras by Mario Vargas Llosa: it tells the story of an army post in a very remote area in Peru where soldiers started getting sad and lazy. The diagnosis officers made is they needed to get laid. Pantaleon (a regular soldier) was given the task of organizing regular visits of whores. The story is told keeping in mind the way a military man thinks, and tells about a small structure that grows to a point in which the complexity of Pantaleon´s structure overwhelmed the army itself: AMAZING!!!!

I'll have an eye out for that, then.. comedies are my favourite.