The Photograph as a Photograph
While the JS photograph would be a revolutionary piece of art in the 1800’s, it would make quite a common photograph. It is beyond doubt that the JS photograph has been retouched — the cravat beneath the chin, the dark outlining of the left arm, and the nick beneath the right ear — however, retouching photographs was not uncommon. Retouching and hand painting over photographs was part of the artistry. Some photographers would carefully add color to a subject in order to make him more appealing. This technique is still used today.
On the bottom right edge of the JS photograph, there is a very realistic-looking button that is slightly out of focus. (see Fig. 19)
Just beneath the Prophet’s chin is a faded cravat that has been hastily retouched. (see Fig. 20)
Judy Kiel, a photographer and historian at the University of Utah, stated she believed the original to be a daguerreotype or ambrotype for the following reasons:
...the pose is a very common one for both early processes, and the background is a plain, light colored one with no visible texture (as a painting would have). Also, there is a button visible on the coat which is out of focus. This is a function of "depth of field", which renders things out of focus in front of and back of the focus plane. Since the eyes are sharp, that is the focus plane. In painting, one seldom sees this circumstance occur, whereas in photography, it happens quite often.
Kiel pointed out that “depth of field” is a process that occurs with three-dimensional objects. She further stated that early photographers had not yet perfected the ability to take light readings. Since the face was the most important element, they would set their exposure time to the face. This often resulted in overexposure of the white areas. It was common for the photographer to “touch up” white shirt collars and cravats when this occurred.
David Haberstich, head of photographic collections at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History added his opinion:
I strongly suspect that the image has a photographic origin... Certain areas of the photograph, especially the eyes, have a very photographic, optically correct appearance. ...I have seen many painted [retouched] silver albumen and salt prints from the mid- and late-nineteenth century that look rather like this image.
Gould mentioned the eyes as well, he pointed out that eyes of that clarity were difficult to paint, even for the masters. Since the photographer set the focal plane on the eyes, the eyes should be the sharpest part of the image. Old studios of daguerreotypy used sky-lights to illuminate the portrait rooms. This light typically came from above and to a slight angle of the subject. This type of lighting can be seen in the JS photograph. What makes this point interesting is the fact that when a human being is positioned so that one side of him is exposed to more light than the other, his irises will naturally dilate to equal out the difference. This is a natural response that is not used in painting. Human irises adjust to light by contracting in bright light and expanding in low light. If the light source in a room is coming from the right, the right iris will be smaller than the left one. This principle can be seen in the JS photograph. The right iris of the Prophet is approximately one-third smaller than the left iris.
The hair in the JS photograph has been the means of much discussion. Some feel that it is undignified, more like life than a painting, but others see it differently. One elderly woman, upon seeing the picture, said merely, “Isn’t he handsome in that lovely pompadour.” She said that her father used to wear one, “when he got dressed up.” So, perhaps, it is not as strange as it appears. Haberstich, of the Smithsonian, offered another explanation:
I think that the odd outline of the subject’s hair looks as if a stencil, frisket, or other masking or blocking device was used... It is very clumsy and unconvincing, and it seems to me that it is the type of masking which would more logically be done in... a photographic print than in creating a wholly non-photographic painting: it definitely produces an effect which I have seen in painted nineteenth-century photographic prints.
There are a couple of reasons why this was done. One reason is that the blank background of daguerreotypes could be “spotty” in appearance. (see Fig. 21)
...the pose is a very common one for both early processes, and the background is a plain, light colored one with no visible texture (as a painting would have). Also, there is a button visible on the coat which is out of focus. This is a function of "depth of field", which renders things out of focus in front of and back of the focus plane. Since the eyes are sharp, that is the focus plane. In painting, one seldom sees this circumstance occur, whereas in photography, it happens quite often.
Kiel pointed out that “depth of field” is a process that occurs with three-dimensional objects. She further stated that early photographers had not yet perfected the ability to take light readings. Since the face was the most important element, they would set their exposure time to the face. This often resulted in overexposure of the white areas. It was common for the photographer to “touch up” white shirt collars and cravats when this occurred.
David Haberstich, head of photographic collections at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History added his opinion:
I strongly suspect that the image has a photographic origin... Certain areas of the photograph, especially the eyes, have a very photographic, optically correct appearance. ...I have seen many painted [retouched] silver albumen and salt prints from the mid- and late-nineteenth century that look rather like this image.
Gould mentioned the eyes as well, he pointed out that eyes of that clarity were difficult to paint, even for the masters. Since the photographer set the focal plane on the eyes, the eyes should be the sharpest part of the image. Old studios of daguerreotypy used sky-lights to illuminate the portrait rooms. This light typically came from above and to a slight angle of the subject. This type of lighting can be seen in the JS photograph. What makes this point interesting is the fact that when a human being is positioned so that one side of him is exposed to more light than the other, his irises will naturally dilate to equal out the difference. This is a natural response that is not used in painting. Human irises adjust to light by contracting in bright light and expanding in low light. If the light source in a room is coming from the right, the right iris will be smaller than the left one. This principle can be seen in the JS photograph. The right iris of the Prophet is approximately one-third smaller than the left iris.
The hair in the JS photograph has been the means of much discussion. Some feel that it is undignified, more like life than a painting, but others see it differently. One elderly woman, upon seeing the picture, said merely, “Isn’t he handsome in that lovely pompadour.” She said that her father used to wear one, “when he got dressed up.” So, perhaps, it is not as strange as it appears. Haberstich, of the Smithsonian, offered another explanation:
I think that the odd outline of the subject’s hair looks as if a stencil, frisket, or other masking or blocking device was used... It is very clumsy and unconvincing, and it seems to me that it is the type of masking which would more logically be done in... a photographic print than in creating a wholly non-photographic painting: it definitely produces an effect which I have seen in painted nineteenth-century photographic prints.
There are a couple of reasons why this was done. One reason is that the blank background of daguerreotypes could be “spotty” in appearance. (see Fig. 21)
These unsightly spots were easy to remove when recopying an image. Close analysis of the hairline — particularly the Prophet’s right side — reveals what seems to be masking. There are also “water-spots” that could be from the wet-plate process done by Carson when he recaptured the image. And, there is evidence that Joseph Smith III was intending to sell a better prepared image to the public and merely needed a hastily prepared one for the copyright office to establish his ownership.
Computer enhancements of the JS photograph revealed many interesting details. Under digital magnification one can see what appears to be blood vessels and eye lashes in the eyes (see Fig. 22); in the coat there is a tweed pattern (see Fig. 23) and repair stitches along with irregular strands that appear to be coarse wool. (see Fig. 24) Even more interesting information was discovered when the Photograph was compared with the Death Mask.
Computer enhancements of the JS photograph revealed many interesting details. Under digital magnification one can see what appears to be blood vessels and eye lashes in the eyes (see Fig. 22); in the coat there is a tweed pattern (see Fig. 23) and repair stitches along with irregular strands that appear to be coarse wool. (see Fig. 24) Even more interesting information was discovered when the Photograph was compared with the Death Mask.
