You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] chirogonemd 0 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.

0
3

[–] cohSh8Ca 0 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.

0
1

[–] Planetoftheclown 0 points 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.

0
0

[–] chirogonemd ago 

Well, sometimes you're the dog and other days you're a retard.