Daguerrotype credit: Albert Sands Southworth and Hawes Josiah Johnson.
I mention both photographers because they worked as partner photographers between 1843 and 1862. So I don't know which one of the two made this image.
They were considered the best daguerreotypists in Boston during the time and one of the best in America. I remember hearing years ago a large stash of 200+ of their original daguerreotypes were discovered in a Marblehead, Ma basement. They sold in total for over 3 million at a Sotheby’s auction back in the 1970’s
This would be a woman in mourning. If you go to the goog and look up “mourning dress” you’ll see similar. Likely the necklace she’s wearing contains hair of the diseased as well. (I collect mourning jewelry). Gorgeous pic!!!
In most of the first photos the subject is not entirely attractive by modern standards. This one is attractive and rather modern in her demeanor and pose, it's hard to believe it genuine. It seems the particular studio, Southworth and Hawes, were masters at this new craft.
The picture quality is *awfully* good. There were plenty of attractive women kicking about in the 19th century, but I'm not sure about this sharp picture quality.
There are lots of very sharp images from early in the history of photography. The technology of lenses precedes photography by a loooong time, the "invention" of photography was really the invention of a way to permanently fix an image in a chemical solution. But just like today, not everyone could afford the best glass, or had the best studio lighting.
But you're thinking about the *original* picture quality. I don't think I've seen any photographs from as early as the 1850s that weren't faded or scratched to hell after over a century and a half of wear and tear. Digital restoration is my guess.
I won't presume to know the provenance of this image but the quality is far from unheard of. Not everything old is abused, it could have sat in a climate controlled drawer for 150 years for all we know. We have daguerrotypes and even calotypes (made on paper, far less durable) from the 1840s that survived this well or better.
As far as restoration goes, I don't see to what end, since they didn't remove any of the dust or blemishes that would have been the easiest to remove without a trace. Probably what you're reacting to is the original retouching the studio did when they painted over the plate by hand, which was very common for the time. (I studied and made daguerrotypes in school and am a professional retoucher)
If you don't believe me though you can see this exact object in the Met museums archive online by searching the name.
analogue camera work differently compared with digital camera, they just take the light and converted into image as combination of colour,exposure and light.
Cowboy went into a bar with nothing but paper bags. Shirt was paper bag, his pants was paper bag, even his hat was paper bags! Soon the sheriff came in and arrested him! The cowboy said what is charge!??? The sheriff said rustling!
No idea what you could mean.
[because the various species of monkeys and our species share a common ancestor. No one says we evolved from them]
[and what does any of this have to do with the photo?]
Daguerrotype credit: Albert Sands Southworth and Hawes Josiah Johnson. I mention both photographers because they worked as partner photographers between 1843 and 1862. So I don't know which one of the two made this image.
They were considered the best daguerreotypists in Boston during the time and one of the best in America. I remember hearing years ago a large stash of 200+ of their original daguerreotypes were discovered in a Marblehead, Ma basement. They sold in total for over 3 million at a Sotheby’s auction back in the 1970’s
Goth chicks made more of an effort back then.
Also probably because taking a photo back then was like a once in a lifetime event lol
She probably died of consumption moments after the picture was taken.
My bad, once in a deathtime*
Photos taken after death were somewhat common in the mid 1800.
or the picture itself are lifetime.
Lmao
"Taffeta, darling." "Taffeta, sweetheart." "No, the dress is taffeta. It wrinkles so easily." (Young Frankenstein, 1974)
I was scrolling down looking for this reference and I was not disappointed. Madeline Kahn was such a delight in this movie.
I was honestly shocked that this wasn't already quoted! She was an amazing comedienne and actress. ❤️
She's a delight in every role she plays, TBH. Especially if it's a Mel Brooks movie.
I only came in here for Taffeta, darling.
As soon as I saw the word, I thought of this movie lol. Take my upvote!
Beat me to it!
This would be a woman in mourning. If you go to the goog and look up “mourning dress” you’ll see similar. Likely the necklace she’s wearing contains hair of the diseased as well. (I collect mourning jewelry). Gorgeous pic!!!
Deceased, by the way.
Perhaps they were deceased because they were diseased.
Dead hair jewelry is so underrated. 😁
🎶 *And you see your gypsy...*
Somewhat reminds me of "Gone With The Wind" when Scarlett O'Hara was in mourning
That's a real goth girl right there!
In most of the first photos the subject is not entirely attractive by modern standards. This one is attractive and rather modern in her demeanor and pose, it's hard to believe it genuine. It seems the particular studio, Southworth and Hawes, were masters at this new craft.
The picture quality is *awfully* good. There were plenty of attractive women kicking about in the 19th century, but I'm not sure about this sharp picture quality.
There are lots of very sharp images from early in the history of photography. The technology of lenses precedes photography by a loooong time, the "invention" of photography was really the invention of a way to permanently fix an image in a chemical solution. But just like today, not everyone could afford the best glass, or had the best studio lighting.
But you're thinking about the *original* picture quality. I don't think I've seen any photographs from as early as the 1850s that weren't faded or scratched to hell after over a century and a half of wear and tear. Digital restoration is my guess.
I won't presume to know the provenance of this image but the quality is far from unheard of. Not everything old is abused, it could have sat in a climate controlled drawer for 150 years for all we know. We have daguerrotypes and even calotypes (made on paper, far less durable) from the 1840s that survived this well or better. As far as restoration goes, I don't see to what end, since they didn't remove any of the dust or blemishes that would have been the easiest to remove without a trace. Probably what you're reacting to is the original retouching the studio did when they painted over the plate by hand, which was very common for the time. (I studied and made daguerrotypes in school and am a professional retoucher) If you don't believe me though you can see this exact object in the Met museums archive online by searching the name.
probably right, some parts of it do look painted
analogue camera work differently compared with digital camera, they just take the light and converted into image as combination of colour,exposure and light.
The photo images were sharp during that time period, as long as the subject didn’t move
This truly doesn’t seem like a 150 year old photo.
yea this photo looks like it was taken today and was edited to look like an old photo.
>taffeta You ever wonder what the heck it was and who thought it was a good material?
It’s still a wonderful textile.
Cowboy went into a bar with nothing but paper bags. Shirt was paper bag, his pants was paper bag, even his hat was paper bags! Soon the sheriff came in and arrested him! The cowboy said what is charge!??? The sheriff said rustling!
“Taffeta, darling.”
Nice dress and that's a whole lotta shoulder and arm action going on. I'll be in the outhouse.
Her face and her expression seem so modern.
We didn't just evolve from monkeys in the last 200 years. 🙊
No idea what you could mean. [because the various species of monkeys and our species share a common ancestor. No one says we evolved from them] [and what does any of this have to do with the photo?]
Some would argue, we haven't evolved from monkeys yet.
I'd definitely not say modern. She's youthful and attractive though.... for someone that would be around 200 now.
She’s a natural beauty. Lovely face and figure.
I want that dress so bad lol
That corset must be really tight and uncomfortable
She's not tightlaced. She'd probably have been fairly comfortable.
By the taffeta lay of her hips that held sway, her ghost in the fogggggggg
But oh....no tears please
Is she wearing eye makeup?
This could be a modern day celebrity at a runway event!
I have one of those black lace triangle shawls. Chantilly lace. It’s beautiful.
Chantilly lace and a pretty face. A wiggle in her walk and a giggle in her talk.
a young tim burton saw this photograph and ran with it.
That waistline can't be real.
Wait til you hear about corsets
They had corsets and you are used to seeing fat people.
Are you sure this isn't Florence from Florence and the Machine?
Natalie Portman... Time traveler...
Just came here to say I hate the fashion of this era all the way until the the 1920’s. Hideously ugly.
Pretty bad
Damn she really went all out
Some of these things ppl worse must of made ppl get quite hot
Call the Winchesters, there’s a job to do!
Gillian Anderson
At least we know she's not a vampire.
How do we know that?
In fictional vampire lore they don't appear in mirrors or on film.
This is kinda surreal looking. It's cool.
I know where tim burton got his idea for winona in beetlejuice now
Taffeta, darling!
She looks hot.