![Atop Empire State- in construction; Chrysler Bldg & [Daily] News in middle foreground. (1931)](http://cdn1.retronaut.co/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Atop-Empire-State-in-construction-Chrysler-Bldg-Daily-News-in-middle-foreground.-1931--199x123.jpg "Balancing on the Empire State, 1920s")
…
Thank you to Lisby
Victorian Husbands and Wives
If you like this, check out:
“Le Costume Historique”, 1888
Colourised photographs of Native Americans
Happy Retronautic Easter
Newcastle Criminals, 1871-1873
Lesbian Pulp Fiction, 1935-1958
Photographs of Abraham Lincoln during American Civil War
Evolution of Madonna Magazine Covers, 1983-2011
Duelling with Wax Bullets, New York, 1909
Colour photographs of 'The Grenata Street Army', 1915
Construction of the Capitol
Last Witness of the Lincoln Assassination, 1865
Steampunk Leather Masks
Women's 'Empire' Fashion, 1806-1813
Kanaval, by Leah Gordon
Kodak No.1 Circular Snapshots, c.1890
Sketches of Hell by Kawanabe Kyōsai, 1870s
Streets of New York, 1950s, by Vivian Maier
Blackfriars Bridge, 1896
Victorian Photocollage, 1860s-1880s
Invitation to a Ladies evening, 1897 
London Alphabet, 1850s
Some of them definately look related….2, 20 and 23!!
Good lord.
What surprises me is the stern faces on all of them really, no-one looks happy at all!
Some of those wives look like the husbands wearing different wigs and clothes.
Goodness! I am now slightly traumatised! I worry about my ancestors…
A great find and the only ones I might possibly identify with were the very first! They at least looked as though they might have a sense of humour!
For the record, they usually their mouths shut / look stern for the photo, due to bad teeth.
It was actually because the the exposure time of the image. A daguerreotype image required an exposure of between 30 seconds to a minute. Posing with an unmoving smile is very difficult for that length of time. Try it yourself and see. However, there are smiles in early photos on occasion, nonetheless. This circa 1860 ambrotype example is one of my favorites: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/5405900615/in/set-72157624766580068. As photography progressed, exposure times became shorter and shorter.
There an entire Flickr group in smiling Victorians. You can find it here: http://www.flickr.com/groups/513477@N22/pool/
Wow yah, very intense looking individuals!
The reason that everyone looks so stiff and unhappy is that when studio portraits were taken, any movement would cause a blur, so smiling was discouraged. Also (and this is just my assumption), the culture back then dictated that a serious picture showed that you were of good moral character. You see it even in paintings from the era.
So while all these people look unhappy, they probably laughed and lived just as much as we do now.
Based on body language, some of those couple REALLY liked each other, and some of them did not. It’s not even about facial expression.
Up until the 2nd world war a lot of upperclass folks considered it undignified to “grin’ for their
portraits.. probably (in part) a left-over of the technical restraints of earlier photography.
As noted by a previous poster, most painted portraits were pretty damn sober as well, for much the same reasons, ie. the neccessity to hold a pose for several minutes for photography..and for hours for a painted portrait, if done ‘from life.”
Those are not all from the Victorian era. The clothing in two of those photos is Edwardian.
Frankly, to me at least some of them look like modern fakes. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were taken in the past few years.
The very first one, in particular, looks like it was shot in one of those studios where you dress in vintage costumes, and then “antiqued.” I’ve never seen facial hair like his in real Victorian photos, and his cravat is a mess. He’s too unkempt/unshaven-looking. Her hair is wrong. I don’t believe a Victorian woman would pose with her arms crossed like that, either.
I disagree. I am assuming you mean the bride in the long white veil?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/5589418381/in/set-72157625504319342
I’d date that to 1895-1900, myself.
I absolutely love old photo’s like these, I could look at them all day!
Oh my god it’s impossbible they look so ugly because of the photography technique! There is no person I would invite home!
This was not a good period for hair. Must have been in a transitional stage.
The sternness is because the exposure lasted around 30 – 90 seconds as noted previously any movement during this time would blur and ruin the photograph. This was after all the waiting while the photographer set everything up – not a quick process! So it was easiest to hold a neutral expression, certainly not a smile, or the sitters where given a word to say at the point the picture would be taken which also left them serious faced.
What is not evident is that sitters were often also “clamped” in vices that supported their necks or waists to help them maintain their pose. It resulted in the stiffness seen in the pictures. Late Victorians also had the ability to airbrush so often the clamps were visible and airbrushed out.
I find it interesting how they seemed really uncomfortable with props though – the stiff grasp on flowers or books!
Fascinating and eye-opening posting. Thanks.
Though the stern-looking faces probably had something to do with how ashamed most Victorians were by the state of their teeth (a more taboo subject even than sex) as well as the long exposure times needed to take a photograph in those days, never mind whether they loved each other or not!
I guess the hipster chinbeard is yet another thing they swiped from a previous generation.
Definitely agree that some of these people must be related and, I hope, not married. Some serious family resemblances in a few of these pics!
Michael Lesy, the author of Wisconsin Death Trip points that photography in this era was really a form of iconography, and was bound up with issues of memory and mortality. Making a photograph was a solemn act, akin to attending a religious service, and displays of levity would have been out of please.
C’mon people, surely you know that the amount of time these old cameras took to expose a photo was on the order of up to 1 minute. These people look stern because they were instructed not to smile as that would be the expression one could hold for up to a minute without the picture coming out blurry.
As a former portrait photographer I can say with certainty that Mary is correct, although not for the same reasons she stated. The photo is a modern-day fake. Right click on the photo and open it in a new window. Go to the new window and click on the photo again to enlarge it. Look into their eyes. The white reflection in their pupils is a perfect sqaure, because it is a typical reflection of a modern day light diffuser box used in indoor portrait photography. If you look at the shadows under their noses you will see that it is a soft shadow that matches the angle of the light box. This is called “Rembrant lighting” after Rembrandt’s preferred light origin in his painted portraits. Victorian photographers did not use Rembrandt lighting, they used direct frontal lighting with flash powder that left far harsher shadows, or no lighting at all. This “eyeball trick” is how one photographer can tell how another photographer placed the lighting for a photo. Look at any professionally-shot photo such as clothing or make-up models and you will see the same.
Sorry, dude, but you are clearly no expert. The light reflected in their eyes is almost certainly from a window. Daguerreotypists did not use artificial light in their studios, which were often on the upper floors of buildings where skylights provided the illumination. (See here: http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/dagprocess.htm.)
Daguerreotypes are not made with “flashes.” Flash photography was not even close to invention when this image was taken in the mid 1850s. The flash-lamp was invented by Joshua Cohen in 1899.
Just because I really am annoyed at the accusations of fakery, I have added some shots of the originals in their original cases, sitting on my desk. The one you are calling a fake is included therein:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6643970239/in/photostream
And here is the image in its case: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6643975041/in/photostream/
And here it is removed from its case and held in my hand: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6643975041/in/photostream/
I hope this puts this nonsense to rest.
Sorry. That third link should be: http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6643975041/in/photostream/
Argh, still wrong.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/60861613@N00/6643979109/in/photostream/
I’m suspicious of #1, too, although they could just be lively and attractive people fortuitously well-photographed. It’s just – there’s too much expression on his face, her hands are wrong… can’t explain it. His facial hair could be more a lack of natural gifts than grooming. The thin shadowy mustache would be unusual now, too, but exists.
Intrigued by #10. He’s wearing that crazy sweater, looks as though he can’t sit still, they seem to like each other.
These people are ALL cousins!
1st picture is Hugh Jackman.
#1 should be removed.
#3: the woman is HOT!
that is all.
some of these people are dead. look at the eyes, and you can tell. Deasth photos were common at the time.
None of these are post-mortem images.
Love the couples who incredibly miserable and cross, touch and show the signs of intimacy. must have been the pose of the day! hoping not one of these hair styles comes back into fashion… although! I see the fashion in men’s facial hair in London is getting dangerously close..
Thank you ♥ this set !
Amazing photos. Some of these are VERY early, late 1840′s to early 1850′s. I agree, a few DO look too crisp to be as early as the clothing indicates, and I’m wondering.
A few DO look like brother sister pairs, but all of them are superb photos.
As far as lighting from above, some itinerant photographers set up a “set” with a painted canvas backdrop, and used natural outdoor lighting. Others used a “glass house” setup to use daylight.
One photo is Edwardian, one is about 1885, the ones with the frizzed hair and bangs are 1870′s, and the rest are American Civil War and before, according to hair and clothing styles.
#2 COULD be a Southworth and Hawes, soft yet crisp feel. Very nice collection!
The second above is not Southworth and Hawes. The Plate is marked “Double, A. Gaudin 40,” the hallmark of Antoine Gaudin & Bro. 9 Rue de la Perle, Paris, a French company whose products were widely used by daguerreians throughout America.
…am I the only one who was looking at the woman in #2 and trying to determine if it was, in fact, a woman? I mean, the facial shape, the hands – good gosh!
People had harsher features back then because it was simply a harder life. I always here commericials and people say that today we are so overworked and never have any family time or personal time. The work we know today in no way compares with what people went through back then. 14 hour days were the norm, unsafe working conditions, no unions, no social security. We work mostly 8 to 10 hours a day and most of the day isn’t occupied by work. We have more free time than ever.
I also think the 1st picture is a fake, it seems obvious. I agree with sparklesmom as well, some of the models were likely dead when it was taken : the men on picture 2, 8, 12, 13, 15 at least, seem to be.
Something that the camera catches – everyone looks like they are mad! Checkout the eyes. The women look so glomy and the men bored – what’s changed?
The first photo struck me as a modern interpretation as well. In fact, I thought to myself that they both looked liked they stepped right out of 2011 (definitely give off a hipster/alternative vibe). I guess I was right.
And I agree re: masculine women. 2, 4, 8, 17, 21, and 25 are particurly unnattractive.
Ils sont moches ,mais moooooooooches ….C’EST DES POISSONS!!!!
Anyone who knows can tell a lot of these were photoshopped. Just look at the colors and angles. Poor quality too. This should have been figured out before posting. It almost seems as if the publisher purposely did this.
Wow. I just discovered that my pictures had been used here on this site, and reading these comments has really soured what started off as a pleasant surprise.
Sorry, not a single one of these images is a modern “fake.” They are all genuine images from the approximate years. I am a historian, a journalist, and a collector of antique images. My images are often accompanied by historic research on the images.
You can see hundreds of similar images on Flickr, collected by others. None of us have faked anything. Why on Earth would anyone fake images that are easily purchasable on the open market? Can I suggest that to get some kind of clue you to the Daguerreotype Society web site, for starters, then perhaps check out the thousands of early images that change hands on eBay every day? Or the images being sold by various online antiques dealers and auction houses. Do you think these are all faked? Do you need photos of the originals in their cases to prove the are quite real because that I can do.
When I purchase an image, I remove it from it’s case, remove old seals, clean, and scan the plates. I often spot the digital images to remove dust and corrosion and cover scratches on the original, then I put them on Flickr so that the world can have access to these historic photos of these lovely, lovely people who lived in this world long before us. I do this as a labor of affection. The nasty negative responses here feel like a real smack in the face. Thanks tons for that.
I love these old Photographs. The creepy part is you know them, with their children are gone. Its like a peek at ghosts.
Great site.
@ Lisby
While I can see how the above peoples comments may upset you being that they are your photos and you clearly love them like they are your own children you should not let it get to you so much.
People have the right to make opinions and comments.
Not to sound harsh but if you can not take criticism perhaps you should just ignore what people are saying.
I love looking at old images myself and have enjoyed reading peoples comments even the ones that I think are incorrect.
Try not to hold peoples ignorance against them and embrace the fact that people are enjoying viewing your images as much as you do even if some of the comments are negative.
Bmac,
I invite you to come over to Flickr and look through the daguerreotype and ambrotype, CDV and Cabinet card, and other historic photo collections on the site, including the collections of some of the top museums in the world. You’ll learn a lot about history and photography and see some wonderful images from an age now long gone.
@Lisby
Your indignation is pathetic. Scams and frauds abound in all fields. Your hobby isn’t sacrosanct and immune to skepticism. Despite your claims of expertise in historical photography, you display immense ignorance in modern photo technology. Solely using visual photo authentication is the mark of a true amateur wandering flea markets and yard sales. Nice photos but get over yourself.
George, you are, quite frankly, an ass. However, I also invite you to Flickr to paratake of the same corucopia of beauitful historic images. Perhaps the experience will be edifying.
Might I suggest a funny caption competition? I’m not very funny, but I’m sure people who are could come up with some great lines.
All these people commenting on their looks . . .
If we dressed like that, we’d look like that. The faces are faces I see today.
Some of the men do look kind of dead, particularly in pictures 15 and 17. 15 is creeping me out just a tad to be honest, he looks scary!
The very first picture confirms wolverine is real. Or at least Hugh Jackman is really older than he looks!
Egad, these are not postmortem photos. If you had ever seen a real Victorian postmortem photo, you could never mistake these for them. We live in a very casual society now, and it is hard for us to imagine the very different lifestyle of the Victorians. These are not self portraits shot in a mirror to post on facebook. A portrait was meant to represent themselves and their values to others, for all time. They were expensive. You may not have had more than one or two portraits taken in a lifetime if you were not wealthy, and you would not have wanted to waste it by looking frivolous, or risk it being blurry by moving or being in a difficult pose. Add to this the fact that their clothing styles were meant for very upright posture, in fact it is impossible to slump in a corset, and yes, they are going to look very stiff and stern to modern eyes.
I have a photo of my father and uncle that was taken around 1938-39 and which has a very similar vibe to these, despite being from a later historical period. Since my uncle at least is still alive, I know a bit about the circumstances under which it was taken:
* It was at a professional photographer’s — in fact, you can see rolled-up, unused backdrop screens behind the two boys in the photo.
* My grandmother made matching outfits especially for the occasion, to be worn as “church best” thereafter
* It was the first time either boy had had a formal portrait photo taken
* The family did not own a snapshot camera, nor were they common in the part of the world they lived in at the time.
You never saw two more solemn, serious, stern-looking little boys in your life. My father is 3-4 years old in the photo, which makes my uncle 5 or 6, and they both look like the camera is causing them physical pain. They are staring at it with huge eyes and absolutely no smile on their faces. The stories from their childhood don’t make them sound like especially serious boys, though. It’s just portrait-taking was a very serious business, and probably they got admonished by their parents to behave all the way there and all the time they picture was actually being taken.
So please stop mocking the people in these images, and please stop putting down Lisby, who is still alive and has obviously done her research. Not every photo is taken in the context of a Kodak moment.
Question for Lisby: is it possible some of the photos people think are of dead people are of people who blinked too much during the exposure? I know one of the common touch-ups was to draw in corneas and pupils on people who closed their eyes too much, but I’m not sure what it would look like. I did notice that most of the standing women have had their feet airbrushed out, as was common practice during this period.
The simple answer to why one might think the people in these photographs look so unhappy or even miserable is that these photographs are portraits. Quite simply it would not have been dignified to smile. Portrait paintings are the same way are they not? It has nothing to do with the exposure time or the quality of their lives…it’ all about fashion. I’m kinda glad they don’t have spray on tans, puckered lips and flipin the bird or a peace sign.
Life was indeed different back then but not as difficult as one might think. Their lives only becomes difficult if using today’s standards. THEY didn’t have the future to compare their lives to. Things were what they were. Something so common place today like shampoo was introduced in the 1890′s or 1900′s ( I think ) Folks used what was available at the time, it’s not like they missed having shampoo or I dunno, cell phones. Our future ancestors may look back at our “primitive” society and wonder how the hell WE managed. I have been collecting photos such as these for decades and I assure you that none of these are fakes. Thanks for posting them, they’re fascinating…
I agree that none of these look like the postmortem photos I have seen – since several people have commented on the unnatural appearance of the eyes in some of the photos, I have a possible explanation.
Early photos were not only black-and-white – the tonal values were exaggerated; in other words, anything yellow or blue would register as a *very* pale grey, while anything red or green would appear as a charcoal grey. People with blue eyes therefore didn’t photograph all that well, as their eyes registered on film as creepily pale.