Photo And Portrait Of Joseph Smith

[Cobalt-70]

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

In fact, it appears that the daguerreotype is at least a second-generation photo (a photo of a photo). In the second-generation, a mask was used to remove the background. So you would expect a lot of washing out of the details and altering of the contrast and brightness.

Edited October 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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)

His bone structure would not change significantly after he stopped growing in his late teens. Moreover, a profile drawing by Sutcliffe Maudsley (probably done by silhouette or pantograph) dated 1842 matches the profile of his death mask very closely.

[wenglund]

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.

Evidently you aren't familiar with projectors and tracings used by artists as early as the 17th century (see HERE). I would expect the lines and dimension match-ups to be more perfect going from photo to portrait than from portrait to photo, and this because of camera perspective and lighting distortions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Can someone please explain to me how the photo can end up with much more space between the top of Joseph's head and the frame than in the portrait if the photo was taken of the portrait? Did the photographic technology back then have the capacity to defy the laws of physics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

Evidently you aren't familiar with projectors and tracings used by artists as early as the 17th century (see HERE). I would expect the lines and dimension match-ups to be more perfect going from photo to portrait than from portrait to photo, and this because of camera perspective and lighting distortions.

All I see in that website is a description of an 1850 invention of a transparent photographic slide that wass capable of being projected. I don't see any suggestion that anyone was using this technology to make tracings for later use in a portrait. And in any event, the daguerreotype at issue here was not a transparent photographic slide, and if it was made during Smith's lifetime, it was made too early to have been transparent. The 17th century projections were not projections of photographs, because photographs had not yet been invented. They were projections of painted glass.

[Cobalt-70]

Can someone please explain to me how the photo can end up with much more space between the top of Joseph's head and the frame than in the portrait if the photo was taken of the portrait? Did the photographic technology back then have the capacity to defy the laws of physics?

The background has been masked out. What was behind the mask was the original background of the painting, the frame, and whatever was above the frame when the photo was taken. They didn't have zoom lenses in those days. You put the camera where you could put it, and sometimes you had a lot of croppable dead space.

[wenglund]

For those who believe the photo was taken of the portrait, could you also please explain how the photographic technology back then was able to drop out the dark background areas in the portrait while retaining the dark foreground areas? For the life of me, I have tried every Paint Shop Pro tweak imaginable, though without success.

I can easily explain the reverse--i.e. artist's license.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[De Groote]

I direct those interested to the blog by Kim Marshall at JosephSmithJrPhoto.blogspot.com.

She has a small photo that, unlike the Library of Congress photo, appears to be not a retouched photo.

Her analysis is interesting and, for those interested in this thread, might answer a lot of the questions asked here.

She is convinced she has a printed copy made from the original and points out what she thinks are differences between the painting and the photograph.

I leave the verifying or debunking to others, but I have to admire her tenacity.

[wenglund]

The background has been masked out.

What evidence do you have that the background of the portrait was masked out, and why was it allegedly masked out? And, how does the alleged masking explain the disproportionately greater amount of space above Joseph's head in the photo than in the portrait? (Try proportionately resizing the photo so both heads are the same size and notice that the space above Joseph's head in the photo is considerably larger than in the portrait. How is that physically possible were the photo of the portrait?)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Nevo]

In fact, it appears that the daguerreotype is at least a second-generation photo (a photo of a photo). In the second-generation, a mask was used to remove the background. So you would expect a lot of washing out of the details and altering of the contrast and brightness.

Yes, this is correct. The "daguerreotype" in the opening post is a retouched photograph of the original daguerreotype. Which was a copy of the RLDS painting. Ephraim Hatch shows this pretty conclusively, in my view, in his book, Joseph Smith Portraits: A Search for the Prophet's Likeness.

[webbles]

For those who believe the photo was taken of the portrait, could you also please explain how the photographic technology back then was able to drop out the dark background areas in the portrait while retaining the dark foreground areas? For the life of me, I have tried every Paint Shop Pro tweak imaginable, though without success.

I can easily explain the reverse--i.e. artist's license.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is called "Masking" as cobalt explained earlier. With photoshop, just create a new layer, make it white, put it on top of the portrait and then erase out the part you want to show through. Back then, they probably just put paper over the parts that they didn't want to have in the photo.

[mfbukowski]

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

It is totally obvious to me you are right.

There is much more detail on the texture of the fabric of the coat in the photo which totally disappears in the painting- as it should as it is an unnecessary detail.

If the photo is of the painting- where did all the texture magically appear from in the photo which does not appear in the painting?

Photos do not add details magically to paintings, they reproduce what is there. Clearly the painting came second.

[mfbukowski]

All I see in that website is a description of an 1850 invention of a transparent photographic slide that wass capable of being projected. I don't see any suggestion that anyone was using this technology to make tracings for later use in a portrait. And in any event, the daguerreotype at issue here was not a transparent photographic slide, and if it was made during Smith's lifetime, it was made too early to have been transparent. The 17th century projections were not projections of photographs, because photographs had not yet been invented. They were projections of painted glass.

Transparency is not an issue- Vermeer and Canaletto both used camera obscura projections to capture scenes and then paint in the details, and there is no reason a similar technique could not be used here- not to mention tracing machines etc- with a skilled artist and a black and white photo pretty much all you have to do is get the eyes nose and mouth in with the correct dimensions from the photo and you would have the basis of a portrait in no time.

And then there is tracing paper- just a thin sheet of paper or vellum- it is extremely easy to trace especially black and white photos, and transfer them to canvas and all it takes is a pencil and paper. First you trace the image, and then rub the pencil on the back of the paper to deposit the lead or graphite on the back of the paper- then put the paper on canvas and press hard to trace the outline onto the canvas. It is in effect a primitive form of carbon paper.

Cheesh you kids and your photoshop- there are tons of ways of doing this the old fashioned way.

Am I the only one here to ever trace my parent's signature on a note to school? You don't even need carbon paper to do that!

Edited October 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

The background has been masked out. What was behind the mask was the original background of the painting, the frame, and whatever was above the frame when the photo was taken. They didn't have zoom lenses in those days. You put the camera where you could put it, and sometimes you had a lot of croppable dead space.

Yeah, and if you have junk in the background you don't want you can re-touch it out or physically cut it out- that's how this looks to me- and maybe if you want to get fancy- re-photograph it.

It looks to me like the photo was cut out and re-pasted onto a white background- that's why the hair is so blocky, without a single wisp sticking up- it looks very unnatural, like a paper doll cut out of a magazine.

But those eyes- that is a photograph- and again- the detail on the coat which doesn't appear on the painting- how did they manage a photo with details that don't appear in the painting if it is a photo of the painting?

Edited October 10, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Here's another obvious obvious clue- the painting has dark eyes and the photo has light eyes which look very lifelike.

How did the supposed photo of the painting suddenly get light eyes?

[wenglund]

It is called "Masking" as cobalt explained earlier. With photoshop, just create a new layer, make it white, put it on top of the portrait and then erase out the part you want to show through. Back then, they probably just put paper over the parts that they didn't want to have in the photo.

I am aware of what masking is. However, I was operating under the mistaken notion that the photo in the OP was the original, and it didn't make sense to me that the background of the portrait would be masked for taking the original photo--assuming Cobalt's hypothesis. Now that I realize the photo in the OP wasn't the original (I am now examining the alleged original), it makes more sense, though, as with mfbukowski, I still believe the portrait was painted using the photo. If the portrait's diminished detail (compared with the original photo) in the coat and the change in shade of the eyes isn't compelling enough evidence, the added detail in the portrait's background should help. Also, the face in the photo seems disproportionately wider than in the portrait, but that could be from recent digital distortion (I am working from graphics of both the picture and the portrait posted on line, which may have been altered somewhat by those who posted the graphics.)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2012 by wenglund

[KevinG]

Can someone please explain to me how the photo can end up with much more space between the top of Joseph's head and the frame than in the portrait if the photo was taken of the portrait? Did the photographic technology back then have the capacity to defy the laws of physics?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The portrait has no background and the outlines of the hair and coat are a bit different, as if someone cut the image out and put it on a white background. I'm not sold yet either way but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

[wenglund]

The portrait has no background and the outlines of the hair and coat are a bit different, as if someone cut the image out and put it on a white background. I'm not sold yet either way but it is not out of the realm of possibility.

Check out the original, unmasked photo (see the link above), and compare it to the portrait in your OP. Assuming that the graphic of the portrait in your OP isn't cropped, it has a disproportionately smaller amount of space between the head and the top of the portrait than may be found in the photograph. This wouldn't be physically possible were the picture taken of the portrait, though quite plausible were the portrait painted from the picture. In the portrait, the artist can easily crop out the unnecessary and un-artistic space in the photo, but photographs can't mysteriously add space that isn't there.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 10, 2012 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

I am aware of what masking is. However, I was operating under the mistaken notion that the photo in the OP was the original, and it didn't make sense to me that the background of the portrait would be masked for taking the original photo--assuming Cobalt's hypothesis. Now that I realize the photo in the OP wasn't the original (I am not examining the alleged original), it makes more sense, though, as with mfbukowski, I still believe the portrait was painted using the photo. If the portrait's diminished detail (compared with the original photo) in the coat and the change in shade of the eyes isn't compelling enough evidence, the added detail in the portrait's background should help. Also, the face in the photo seems disproportionately wider than in the portrait, but that could be from recent digital distortion (I am working from graphics of both the picture and the portrait posted on line, which may have been altered somewhat by those who posted the graphics.)

I don't think there is any diminished detail in the coat in the portrait. The details are all there, but whoever took the photograph of the RLDS portrait did so using a rather dark setting, so that the coat is low-contrast. Daguerreotypes, by nature, flatten the contrast. Also, if the daguerreotype of the photo was taken in the 1840s, then the camera would have used artificial lighting unless the photo was taken out in the bright sunlight, and reflections on the paint from the lighting are going to have an unpredictable effect on the contrast. You can see all the same coat details in the portrait, and you would see them more clearly if you looked at the painting live, under good lighting.

As to the fact that the face in the photo is wider, this could also easily be due to the angle between the camera and the plane of the portrait. Also, when the photo was re-photographed, any angles involved in that process might easily play a part. There are going to be all kinds of distortions due to perpsective and lens effects. What is important is that the whole image appears squashed from the top, and not just the face.

[Cobalt-70]

Check out the original, unmasked photo (see the link above), and compare it to the portrait in your OP. Assuming that the graphic of the portrait in your OP isn't cropped, it has a disproportionately smaller amount of space between the head and the top of the portrait than may be found in the photograph. This wouldn't be physically possible were the picture taken of the portrait, though quite plausible were the portrait painted from the picture. In the portrait, the artist can easily crop out the unnecessary and un-artistic space in the photo, but photographs can't mysteriously add space that isn't there.

Behind the upper part of the mask was likely the frame of the portrait, and whatever was above the frame. There was no need to "add space." Extra border space is a natural product of rephotographing something.

[webbles]

Yes, this is correct. The "daguerreotype" in the opening post is a retouched photograph of the original daguerreotype. Which was a copy of the RLDS painting. Ephraim Hatch shows this pretty conclusively, in my view, in his book, Joseph Smith Portraits: A Search for the Prophet's Likeness.

Reading that and seeing the comparison of the photo against the death mask and against the portrait, I believe I've been convinced that the photo is of the portrait and not a live photo. The photo doesn't have the correct dimensions to be a live photo.

[wenglund]

I don't think there is any diminished detail in the coat in the portrait. The details are all there, but whoever took the photograph of the RLDS portrait did so using a rather dark setting, so that the coat is low-contrast. Daguerreotypes, by nature, flatten the contrast. Also, if the daguerreotype of the photo was taken in the 1840s, then the camera would have used artificial lighting unless the photo was taken out in the bright sunlight, and reflections on the paint from the lighting are going to have an unpredictable effect on the contrast. You can see all the same coat details in the portrait, and you would see them more clearly if you looked at the painting live, under good lighting.

So, you are suggesting that a camera and photographer in the 1840's was far better able to photograph the details of the coat in the portrait than a 21st-century camera and photographer, while the opposite seems to be true for details of the background in the portrait (I am referring here to the original photograph and not the masked copy). Fascinating!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Behind the upper part of the mask was likely the frame of the portrait, and whatever was above the frame. There was no need to "add space." Extra border space is a natural product of rephotographing something.

If you look more carefully at my post you may notice that I was talking about the original photo, and not the photo of the masked original.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited October 11, 2012 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Reading that and seeing the comparison of the photo against the death mask and against the portrait, I believe I've been convinced that the photo is of the portrait and not a live photo. The photo doesn't have the correct dimensions to be a live photo.

Lighting and camera angles and development and modern digitizing of the photos may inadvertently alter the dimensions. The same is somewhat true if there is a significant age difference between when the photo is taken and when the mask is set as well as damage to the face prior to death.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

If you look more carefully at my post you may notice that I was talking about the original photo, and not the photo of the masked original.

If you are talking about the blurry, poor quality print that Kim Marshall found in her attic in St. George, that's not an original upon which the 1879 copyrighted daguerreotype was based. Kim Marshall's old photo was probably a rephotographed version of an uncropped photo from which the 1879 copyrighted daguerreotype was derived. Apparently, they were making several photographic copies of the painting, because another one was deposited in the Library of Congress, and is almost the same as the other two photos, except that it has more aggressive masking.

So what is the plausibility that some stay-at-home mom in St. George had the only existing copy of an original photograph of Joseph Smith? Marshall's image is a badly-degraded reproduction that blurs out many of the details which are found in the 1879 photo and in the portrait (as well as the similar Library of Congress photo), such as hair strands, fabric texture, and sharp transitions. When you rephotograph something, you lose detail. You don't add detail. Marshall's fanciful additions of reconstructed detail in her "painted" version of her photo, which she sells, are very imaginative, but not fashionally-correct, and nothing more than wishful thinking. She is seeing patterns in noise caused by the poor quality photo.

Besides, if the Kim Marshall photo were an original unretouched photo, why in the world would somebody mask out a white background with a white mask, to create the versions copyrighted by Joseph Smith III?

Edited October 12, 2012 by Cobalt-70