Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmer | Hacker News Reader

Somewhat unrelated question that I could probably Google, but I figured it's more interesting to hear your take.

Why do people on old pictures look like they're from a completely different era? They look like they're from the 1800s. Is it the camera, the clothing or did they actually look slightly different from us? Or perhaps it's just an illusion?

Realistically I wouldn't expect humans' appearance to change that much in 100 years?

View on HN

I suspect a large part of it is caused by facial expressions and how the people pose. Having your picture taken was very serious business, so no smiles were allowed. Show your most serious, regal pose.

If you look at the "Happiest man in China" photo, it doesn't look like an old photo - it looks like a modern photo of somebody dressed up in old time clothes. There is no hard evidence, but many people believe that the man just wasn't aware of how people were expected to pose for a picture.

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/09/story-behind...

Another older example of this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:A_LAUGHING_VIOLINIST...

Originally shutter speeds were very, very long (and that lasted decades for more budget equipment), so smiling was generally a bad idea as people couldn't hold their smiles for so long and would just be blurred weirdly.

That probably influenced how people thought photos should be posed for, even when shorter and more reasonable shutter speeds were the norm.

For me it's usually more the quality of the film/print/color/etc. Most 70s pics have a certain color/tone/hue/saturation that says '70s'. 60s too. And so on. There may be easier determinations between 1920s and 1930s pics, perhaps, but not quickly to my eye.

What's interesting about these is that... they're candid. Most 1800s photos were people explicitly sitting for a photo. Not smiling. Sitting, posing, very grim. Many of these pics showed people being natural - smiling, chatting to each other, etc. Normal human stuff.

The disturbing thing for me is that I noticed that special atmosphere/patina in 70s photos when I was a teenager in the 90s, but now I can see something analogous in pictures from the 90s.

The same thing will exist for people in 2010/2030 because of computational photography filters/algos.

In 2050s they'll look at today's smart phone selfies and wonder why people liked these smooth skin auto glamour edited fakes so much. Then the androids will chuckle to themselves and move on.

They'll probably do societal studies to determine if it helped with mating, just like how we analyze those colorful birds dancing weirdly in the forest.

I think it will have much more to do with the lack of HDR of today's photos.

Generally it's a shame that real HDR photos (not merged exposures, but "Dolby Vision for photos") ain't the norm yet.

I thought this too, until I saw the pictures in the TFA.

They literally look exactly the same as people from our times.

Now I look at "1800s pictures" on some search engine's images, and they look completely different.

I'm gonna guess it's a mix of: doctoring/"touching up," camera, lighting, and cognizant angling/positioning of the people in question.

The candid shots look like people I would see on the street. While the stereotypical "1800s pictures" look like something I'd find on Instagram: completely alien to reality.

TFA?

“The fucking article”

It's usually, "the fine article," but yours works, too.

Or alternatively “the featured article” is common

I see, thanks! :)

What a perfect example of https://xkcd.com/1053/

And the humility that it recommends.

Have a nice day!

No it's not usually "the fine article". That is just a euphemism.

TFA originates from RTFM, which stands for "read the fucking manual". And it is "fucking" and not "fine", because people would be frustrated by noobs not reading manuals.

It is always funny when people try to euphemism things to avoid obscene or scary ideas spoken out loud.

My pet peeve is a 'lottery factor', because even if a guy would win $$$m you still can at least try to talk to him. You can't talk to a bus factored person.

RTFM was always, "read the fucking manual." In my experience, this is the first time I have seen TFA as anything other than "the fine article." YMMV.

And you don't see the obvious link between people saying RTFM! because someone didn't read the manual, and people saying "RTFA" or "it's in TFA" because people are writing comments on an article when they clearly didn't read it?

These acronyms are born out of frustration and not cordial conversation. Again using "fine" instead of "fucking" is just a euphemism. It is not the original nor correct phrase, and it doesn't make sense for it to be anything other than "fucking".

While that's 100% correct as the origin of the acronym, it should be noted that using TFA doesn't necessarily imply any frustration or condescension. It may, but often or usually these days it really is just shorthand for "the article" and nothing more.

Yeah there's a number of people nowadays that will dress up in period dress, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Same with films set in those times, the wardrobe department does a great job and if they would record in period cameras you wouldn't be able to tell it's a 'modern' person.

Aside from photo technology and clothes, there's hair and facial hair styles which make a big difference. Look at people from the 80s compared to now in color photographs for examples.

People aged differently "back then" too. If you look at people in their 20s from many decades ago, possibly particularly during war eras, peopled seemed to just age faster. Soldiers in photos look nothing like baby-face soldiers from the modern era (when I was enlisted).

I mean, look at George Lazenby in his role as James Bond; how old do you think he was?

He was 30 years old. He looks closer to his 50's if he were alive now. He was a heavy smoker and in Malboro adverts, possibly lots of tanning as well, etc. Lifestyle differences and experiences are a big factor.

Diet has changed drastically since the 1950s. Approaching 50% obesity means we are never going back.

I didn't even think of that, the average person in the US these days is a lot wider these days.

When I first stepped afoot in the US (Newark Airport) in 1999 I saw more grossly overweight people in the first half hour than I had in the last half year in Norway. Easily.

Coming from Oslo, Norway, going to a dev conference. Cultures were very, very different then.

I absolutely loved walking up and down the streets of Boston though, it was simply amazing. I'll always be a bit sad I couldn't organise a visa for going there; instead I ended up down under - not a bad plan B!

1890s?

For my eye I think it's mostly the hair style. E.g. there are no women with long open hair. And men have fancy beards and mostly wear a hat.

I didn't find them that radically different. I can see resemblances in my own family members. Their facial hair is far superior though.

May I offer a guess about you personally? From your question, I’m guessing that you’re fairly young, possibly under 30 years old. I’m only guessing this, because, as people age, they begin to see the similarities instead of the differences when looking at old photos of people. Younger people tend to react the way you do to these kinds of photos.

It's a combination of

1) the technology used to take the image (or video!)

2) the fashion of the subjects - Fashion includes more than just cloths.

3) the overall aesthetics of the scenery around the human subjects.

IMO, when the face is very clear, it just looks like an ordinary person wearing fancy Victorian clothes.

It's only when the faces are small or blurry do they look old.

It's part clothing, and for men different facial hair, and for women far less/different makeup, and the fact that the picture is black and white and grainy has a bit of an effect too.

Also different attitudes and culture - it affects how they stand and walk, and even probably to a certain extent facial expressions are expressed more often than others.

Could be modern lenses, filters, and/or touchups (i.e. photoshop) that distort images in a (typically) flattering way and distort some people's perception of "normal" photographs, since it's all pretty ubiquitous. Cell phones apply all sorts of processing effects, starting with the lense.

One thing during that area is tooth health. Almost everyone had severe issues with their teeth. Rotten black teeth were not an uncommon thing back then. People were aware of that and avoided opening their mouth.

Clothes and photo style.

If you've ever seen a colourised and touched-up photo from the early 20th century, the only giveaway is the clothes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com