Photo And Portrait Of Joseph Smith

[KevinG]

Is this historic portrait a painted portrait of a photo or a photo of a portrait? How can we tell?

[wenglund]

I think it is pretty clear that the photo is of the portrait, and not the other way around.

It fascinates me how frequently the evidence leads you to the exact opposite conclusion from me and other LDS. However, try testing your hypothesis by taking a photo, yourself, of the portrait and see if it somehow comes out looking like the alleged photograph. This could be fun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

Vogladon

Looking at the jacket, I would say painting from photo.

mfbukowski

I think it is fairly clear that the photo came first, and they trimmed out the background on the photo- the hair is weirdly squared off- hair doesn't look like that naturally- and then the artist copied the photo and put in the brown background which makes the hair look a lot more natural with the background and hair being close to the same color. Whoever did the painting did a great job.

Sheilauk

As an aside, I'd say the painting is taken from the photo, mainly because of the background to them and the detail or lack of it in the face. It's also the more likely way about and, of course, is common now, for paintings to be done from photos.

Cobalt-70

Not in the 1840s. Daguerreotypes were considered to be a cheap and inferior version of a portrait, for those who could not afford a portrait. Portraits were always superior, and I don't know of any examples of early portraits based on photos. Any serious portraitist (and the RLDS painter has been described as "a very proficient primitive artist") would have required a live sitting.

I think it is pretty clear that the photo is of the portrait, and not the other way around. For one thing, you can see brush strokes in the photo. Also, the photo and the portrait match too perfectly. Further, the sharp hair-to-background transition in the photo indicates that the background has been matted away. Also, although some of the details match what is known about Smith, neither the photo nor the portrait quite matches the proportions of Joseph Smith's death mask. Examples of some of the differences are given in the link I provided above, which include the fact that for both the portrait and the photo, the mouth is too high and too narrow, the nose is too thin at the base, and the eyes are too close together. Finally, Smith's journal indicated that he sat for a portrait, and it was probably that one.

There have been at least one book (by Ephraim Hatch) and several articles that discuss the RLDS portrait, (here's another one). and I am not aware of any publication that gives any credence to the idea that the similar photo was a live photo of Joseph Smith.

Volgadon

Try this. Page 78. http://books.google....espised&f=false

It is better to say that reactions were mixed. Some artists despised daguerrotypes, others conceded some merit but still expressed concerns, while still others were quick to sieze upon the daguerrotype as a means for painting a subject who was unable to sit in person. While you may be right about the RLDS painting, indeed, probably are, the case is not quite as clear-cut as it might seem.

Cobalt-70

Maybe so. But in Smith's case, we already know from his journal that he sat for a portrait. It is pretty inconceivable that somebody would have just discarded an expensive and valuable portrait of Joseph Smith, and it makes sense that it would have been kept in the family. So there is every reason to believe that the RLDS portrait is the one he sat for. If the photo were an actual photo of Smith, rather than a photo of the portrait, then there would not be differences with Smith's death mask in both the photo and the portrait. Also, the portrait contains skin and eye details that are washed out in the photograph, which would probably have required Smith to actually be present. I think the biggest giveaway is in the details of the shirt and tie, which are crudely done in the portrait, and these crude details carry over into the photo.

[KevinG]

I separated the comments about the painting from the closed thread. I have heard both propositions (photo led to painting and painting led to photo). I learned of the question from an Elder giving tours in Carthage jail who had been a history professor prior to his mission. He did not offer a conclusion either way just some fascinating considerations like Volgadon and Cobalt have offered.

Anyway please play nice - this particular mystery in Mormon history has always fascinated me and the more informed discussion the more fascinating it gets.

[RobertAC]

I have heard that the photo is taken from an earlier glass plate that has been retouched. However, as I understand, the painting was likely derived from either the original glass photo, or a copy of the photo in existence.

[volgadon]

It fascinates me how frequently the evidence leads you to the exact opposite conclusion from me and other LDS. However, try testing your hypothesis by taking a photo, yourself, of the portrait and see if it somehow comes out looking like the alleged photograph. This could be fun.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Not particularly feasible, as the technology and materials have drastically changed since the time in question.

[KevinG]

My family and I are sitting around having this friendly debate and my wife mentioned a fascinating possibility. Could the portrait sitting have included a photographer and both were done at the same time (using the photo to complete the work in detail)?

[wenglund]

Again, try taking a photo of the portrait and see if you get the same results as the alleged photo--particularly the light glare on Joseph's eyes and the stray hairs to our right of Joseph's left eye. I don't know that different technology and material will make that much difference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[ERayR]

Again, try taking a photo of the portrait and see if you get the same results as the alleged photo--particularly the light glare on Joseph's eyes and the stray hairs to our right of Joseph's left eye. I don't know that different technology and material will make that much difference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its simple just take a digital photo of the painting and Photoshop it and you come up with the painting.

[Duncan]

My guess is it is a photo of a painting. it is obviously harder to paint a picture then take a photo of the subject.

[KevinG]

Its simple just take a digital photo of the painting and Photoshop it and you come up with the painting.

We got through a whole page without a Photoshop reference and you come along and...

I SENTENCE YOU TO 30 VIEWINGS OF THE RM!!!

[volgadon]

Again, try taking a photo of the portrait and see if you get the same results as the alleged photo--particularly the light glare on Joseph's eyes and the stray hairs to our right of Joseph's left eye. I don't know that different technology and material will make that much difference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

They can make a huge difference. I had a photography teacher who taught us how to use a dark room donated to our high school by a retired photographer, so the equipment was the old fashioned kind from the 60s. Even so, the film we used was from the 90s and early 2000s. You could still tell a difference between our photos and older ones. Going back almost a century and a half, both technology and material are drastically different, rendering any recreation using modern film and modern cameras an excersize in futility. You simply can't get similar results. Such a test would tell us nothing.

[volgadon]

We got through a whole page without a Photoshop reference and you come along and...

I SENTENCE YOU TO 30 VIEWINGS OF THE RM!!!

At least give him the option of the lash!

[ERayR]

My guess is it is a photo of a painting. it is obviously harder to paint a picture then take a photo of the subject.

If it were a photo of a painting how did they get the coat on him and remove the cheek lines and crease between the eyebrows. That is just two of many. A photo faithfully reproduces what it sees. It does not add and subtract details. Either Joseph sat for that painting or the painting or it was done from the photograph. The photograph was not made from the painting.

[volgadon]

If it were a photo of a painting how did they get the coat on him and remove the cheek lines and crease between the eyebrows. That is just two of many.

The coat is on the painting, and the face in the photo is rather washed out.

[KevinG]

The differences between the painting and the photo can be accounted for by washout and cutting around the image.

Has anyone done a forensic investigation of the images and compared distance of the eyes, length of nose, etc. to see if they are as similar as they look?

[Duncan]

If it were a photo of a painting how did they get the coat on him and remove the cheek lines and crease between the eyebrows. That is just two of many. A photo faithfully reproduces what it sees. It does not add and subtract details. Either Joseph sat for that painting or the painting or it was done from the photograph. The photograph was not made from the painting.

I am massively confused and pawn stars in on so I will have to get back to you

[Thunderfire]

I tried calling the Community of Christ archivist and was unable to reach him. I will try again in order to learn more about what we know of the portrait. The only thing I learned today: 1) The artist is unknown; 2) This portrait came from the Smith family collection through Joseph Smith III.

Hopefully I can learn more later. It is an interesting debate regarding which came first, the photograph or the painting. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I have seen photographs taken of pictures and pictures painted off of photographs. But I will say that the face on his death mask appears thinner and his nose slightly different than seen in both the photograph and portrait. But this could also be due to the time differential between the two I guess (with one being his death mask)

Edited October 10, 2012 by Thunderfire

[volgadon]

I tried calling the Community of Christ archivist and was unable to reach him. I will try again in order to learn more about what we know of the portrait. The only thing I learned today: 1) The artist is unknown; 2) This portrait came from the Smith family collection through Joseph Smith III.

Hopefully I can learn more later. It is an interesting debate regarding which came first, the photograph or the painting. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other because I have seen photographs taken of pictures and pictures painted off of photographs. But I will say that the face on his death mask appears thinner and his nose slightly different than seen in both the photograph and portrait. But this could also be due to the time differential between the two I guess (with one being his death mask)

Looking forward to what you can find out.

[wenglund]

They can make a huge difference. I had a photography teacher who taught us how to use a dark room donated to our high school by a retired photographer, so the equipment was the old fashioned kind from the 60s. Even so, the film we used was from the 90s and early 2000s. You could still tell a difference between our photos and older ones. Going back almost a century and a half, both technology and material are drastically different, rendering any recreation using modern film and modern cameras an excersize in futility. You simply can't get similar results. Such a test would tell us nothing.

I get what you are saying, though I disagree to a degree. I am not entirely unfamiliar with pre 60's photography and dark rooms, and I have been known to dabble in graphics programs that can alter various aspect of photographs. My point wasn't to exactly replicate old photography, but to get the mind thinking in the right direction--like trying to explain how old time photographic technology could get the eye glare of a portrait to increase in size and possible position and make strands of hair miraculously appear, among other differences with the portrait.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[webbles]

The differences between the painting and the photo can be accounted for by washout and cutting around the image.

Has anyone done a forensic investigation of the images and compared distance of the eyes, length of nose, etc. to see if they are as similar as they look?

I just loaded the two in photoshop and layered them on top of each other. After resizing the photo to be the same dimensions as the painting (or as close as I could tell) the eyes, nose, mouth, hair line, ears all look extremely identical.

[webbles]

Again, try taking a photo of the portrait and see if you get the same results as the alleged photo--particularly the light glare on Joseph's eyes and the stray hairs to our right of Joseph's left eye. I don't know that different technology and material will make that much difference.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Those stray hairs are also in the painting. They are more pronounced in the photo.

[Garden Girl]

I would say that the portrait was painted from the photo... look at the shading of the face, the lines around the mouth, the difference in the eyes. I see an artist's interpretation of the photo. Note the photo has no lines around the mouth like you see in the painting, etc. Notice also the lines from the nose extending to the mouth are more pronounced. Even a photo would have picked this up... and the darkness around the eyes. No, someone used artist's license to paint their interpretation...

Whoever the artist, they did a good job of recreating a realistic painting of Joseph based on the image in the picture, IMO...

GG

Edited October 10, 2012 by Garden Girl

[Cobalt-70]

It fascinates me how frequently the evidence leads you to the exact opposite conclusion from me and other LDS. However, try testing your hypothesis by taking a photo, yourself, of the portrait and see if it somehow comes out looking like the alleged photograph. This could be fun.

You can't just go and make a daguerreotype anymore. But I have played around with the images in Photoshop, and the only explanation for what I see is that the photo is an image of the portrait.

If the photo were taken of the portrait, you would expect that across a small region, everything could be resized to match perfectly, although over a larger region, there would be some size mismatch along the edges. This is because a camera is not like a photo scanner. There are perspective effects, and lens effects (such as the "fish-eye" effect). But on a small region, things should be able to match up very well.

This is exactly what I see. If you make one of the images partially transparent, you can put any given part of one of the images on top of the other one and they match up perfectly--far too precise for an artist to paint based on a photo.

[Cobalt-70]

Its simple just take a digital photo of the painting and Photoshop it and you come up with the painting.

As I discussed in my last post, this is not going to exactly work, because a camera is not like a photo scanner, and you have (1) perspective distortions, and (2) camera lens (e.g., "fish eye") distortions. These distortions will be in both the images above. So on the large scale, you will not be able to simply re-size and place one image over the other. But on the small scale, things should match up very precisely, as they do.