[–] Zed_Leppelin 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
This is what they are telling you you can't have because it's killing the planet.
[–] modsrcuntz 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
They all look worried
[–] chirogonemd 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago (edited ago)
I saw someone post recently about how the camera technology in this era and prior meant that people had to hold still for a while for the picture to "work". I'm totally ignorant on photography, so I apologize. Since a person shouldn't be moving their faces the whole time, which is likely when fake smiling, it was often easier to just not smile. But we always get the impression that these times must have just been really bleak because of their blank expressions, but it wasn't the case. This post I mentioned featured some of the "gag" photos of a couple that were caught smiling. But it did mess with the picture quality because they were obviously moving.
[–] Planetoftheclown 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
You're thinking of the early cameras in the 1800s where they required long exposures of several seconds. By the 40's camera technology improved to allow for quick exposures.
[–] cohSh8Ca 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
There's probably an argument for a certain amount of social convention carrying over from the days when it was not practical to smile. I suspect another aspect of it is that at that time people had not de-evolved Russian Arctic Fox* style. What you are seeing is the human equivalent of a lack of rounded ears, coloration, etc. When people of European descent were not so fucking domesticated.
[–] Ctrl_Alt_Llama_ ago
Poor guy couldn't get at least one boy.
[–] TabascoTabasco 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Scared.
So not much has changed then.