Miscellaneous desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 12[edit]

Duchess of Argyll photographs[edit]

For research purposes, I am looking for the famous photographs of Margaret Campbell, Duchess of Argyll that were produced at her divorce case. But there seems to be no trace of them on the internet, which seems odd. Were they ever made public, and if so where can they be seen? (This question was asked on the article's talk page almost four years ago, and has not received a single reply, which just goes to show how useful article talk pages are.) --Viennese Waltz 12:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's infinitely improbable that photographs produced as evidence would ever be made available the press (especially ones showing the duchess "dressed only in a string of pearls"). I can't think of another case where this has happened. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They wouldn't have been officially released, but even if someone with access to the exhibits did not illicitly and/or corruptly pass copies on to the Press or other recipients, or allow copies to be made (and such leaks have and do sometimes occur) there may, given the Duchess's proclivities, have been other similar photos extant.

(To anticipate one possible point: the photos given in evidence were polaroids, so there were no negatives from which further prints of those particular pictures could previously or subsequently have been made.)

I have in the past seen (whether on the internet or elsewhere I cannot recall) at least one photo that was alleged to be (and probably was) one of those in question. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.227.133 (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very old pictures[edit]

Whenever I see any, very old black and white picture, everybody is serious and sad, nobody is laughing. Nobody is smiling or happy. Whether single picture or family picture, from kids to parents all have serious faces.

I am not talking about pictures taken after the 1930s.

Is there any reason behind this? --Knight Skywalker (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is going to find a better link than this one History of photography but part of the reason is people had to hold still for quite some time in order to not have a blurred picture. There were even devices to prevent the head from moving. MarnetteD|Talk 15:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A web search for smiling in photographs provides various clues. A quick answer is that looking happy just wasn't something that anyone thought would be a thing. Laughing Cavalier notwithstanding, people in oil paintings were not high-fiving each other, so the concept of being happy in pictures had to be invented later on. 85.76.71.10 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's more likely about exposure times, as MarnetteD says. By about 1900, exposure times were getting short enough that people could be more "natural" in their poses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The irony being that smiling is not at all a natural way of holding one's face, except for fleeting moments. We still have to be told to smile or say cheese. That's why I have always hated having my photo taken. Do it by all means, but do it when I'm being me naturally and probably not aware it's happening, not when I'm posing like some loon. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "natural", I should have said "casual". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best pictures ever taken of me was by a photographer who, after I got into the requisite pose, suddenly smiled. I naturally smiled back. Click. --184.144.99.241 (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the section Smile § Cultural differences, "While smiling is perceived as a positive emotion most of the time, there are many cultures that perceive smiling as a negative expression and consider it unwelcoming. Too much smiling can be viewed as a sign of shallowness or dishonesty." And the caption of an old photograph in that section of a smiling Chinese man states, "In the late 19th century and early 20th century, photographs didn't often depict smiling people in accordance to cultural conventions of Victorian and Edwardian culture." This is cited to an article on Vox, "Why people never smiled in old photographs". This article mentions several contributing reasons, including the one given by MarnetteD. --Lambiam 17:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Carroll's splendid Hiawatha's Photographing, though a parody, gives what I suspect is a fair account of the kinds of things contemporary photographic subjects were looking for: "He would contemplate the distance / With a look of pensive meaning, / As of ducks that die in tempests"; "Gracefully she sat down sideways, / With a simper scarcely human"; "She suggested very little, / Only asked if he would take her / With her look of 'passive beauty'". --ColinFine (talk) 18:11, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read This. --Jayron 32 12:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]