Are these picture taking duds ?

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

And somewhere in there, I think there was also the practical idea that white cloth could be bleached, boiled, scrubbed, or whatever necessary to try to get it clean again, while a printed or solid-dyed piece might fade under such treatment. So the stuff that got dirtiest--underwear, tablecloths, bedsheets, napkins, etc.--tended to be white so it could be washed over and over again.

Well said.:)

When people look at original white linen or cotton men's shirts they're amazed at the quality of construction, 20+ stitches per inch isn't uncommon. Reenactors rarely put such effort into their shirts, the thought generally is that this is one of the least visible parts of their impression so why should it be sewn so fine. Precisely for the reason's Hank stated above, repeated washing over and over makes it necessary for shirts to be sewn that fine.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Society in general dictated that clean white shirts and collars showed cleanliness and respectability (then and now) regardless of class.

And somewhere in there, I think there was also the practical idea that white cloth could be bleached, boiled, scrubbed, or whatever necessary to try to get it clean again, while a printed or solid-dyed piece might fade under such treatment. So the stuff that got dirtiest--underwear, tablecloths, bedsheets, napkins, etc.--tended to be white so it could be washed over and over again.

Of course that also meant that if it wasn't clean white, you were either too cheap to have enough to change regularly between laundry days, or you skimped on laundry, which then led to the idea that pure white was the ideal and a sign of cleanliness, godliness, and all that good stuff. :)

Plus I wonder if there was also the practical consideration that linen was harder to dye than wool and silk, and cotton wasn't much easier, so even when cotton became king, there was already a tradition that things made of linen or cotton never took the rich colors of wool and silk, so if you wanted colors, you chose those fabrics, leaving linen or cotton to be white.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Society in general dictated that clean white shirts and collars showed cleanliness and respectability (then and now) regardless of class. So working class men, despite their humble station and means, as well as upper class men all accepted this notion. The Millinery clerk, Henry Southworth, ran all the way home during another busy day of sales just to change his shirt collar. "Diary of Henry Southworth, 1850-51," entry for June 17, 1851.

[/I]

I am with you on white shirts and collars (including paper), I was refering strictly to outerwear.

I try to keep my commentary on the hobby to a minimum as I am no longer involved (or welcomed!) save for the love of history...but I have said to former friends who are known material afficianados, approved vendors and home tailors, the proper biled white shirt, civilian in nature is under represented and its alternative, used too many times to express individuality and flair, is the colorful, checked patterned shirt.

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

The suggestion otherwise is that there is something inherent to the chemical process or the capture of light in period photography media that changes how the refractive properties of certain colors are reproduced

Yes, blue shows up lighter and orange/yellow shows up darker than how our eyes see them. That's what I was referring to when I said "allowing for the fact that blue-sensitive emulsion won't 'see' things exactly like the human eye."

I've worked with blue-sensitive dry film but not wet plate, so I don't know how sensitive to blue wet-plate is and if you can control it any. But that's why you can use an amber-colored light in a darkroom without fogging the film, because the film doesn't "see" amber light like we do, so it "thinks" the room is still dark.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Doesnt seem to be the style frock in the Spies and Scouts photo.....

No, they are not, they are civilian sacks, dusters or paletots.

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Am I reading the suggestion that the poor wore white / light colors out of a sense of self-respect to demonstrate cleanliness ? Never thought of it in those terms

Society in general dictated that clean white shirts and collars showed cleanliness and respectability (then and now) regardless of class. So working class men, despite their humble station and means, as well as upper class men all accepted this notion. The Millinery clerk, Henry Southworth, ran all the way home during another busy day of sales just to change his shirt collar. "Diary of Henry Southworth, 1850-51," entry for June 17, 1851.

As far as aprons are concerned, a shop keeper, etc., with a clean white apron shows that he keeps a clean neat shop, as opposed to someone who has a filthy dirty apron trying to give you service.

"...the age is, perhaps, forever gone by, when a privileged class could monopolize finery of garb; and, of all the civilized nations, it were least possible in ours." New Mirror, Oct. 21, 1843.

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Doesnt seem to be the style frock in the Spies and Scouts photo.....

Thanks for posting it

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[CJSchumacher]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Ian, thanks for all of the much appreciated thoughts and research. Here is the photo requested:

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Personally, if the whole concept of "maintaining white clothing was so much work and therefore a status symbol," and the working man wore dark clothing to hide the dirt, then why were white linen or cotton aprons so common for working men, seems like they'd get dirty real quick?

My common sense (which is little) based the practical evolution of these matters in postwar chronology (JLo is gwine to light my hair on fire) suggests promotion of a sense of cleanliness, utilitarian and perhaps a disposable purpose / aspect in shop keepers, medical and food preparation industry but I am not certain that other trades associated with apron use...i.e. craftsmen, blacksmiths, farriers exclusively used lighter, less durable, outer protective wear in those environs... this is based on having been around those trades in the interpretive envrionment at such places as Westville.

Why also did the army issue off-white stable frocks to keep their dark blue uniforms clean, seems like the dark blue would hide dirt and stains better?

Hmmmm.....army issue off white stable frocks....see my post regarding the frocks in the Scouts and Spies image (post # 29 in this thread)..got a pic of an army issue off white stable frock ?

And why will you see far more working men wearing white shirts and collars than plaids or other types of materials? I think the issue has a lot to do with self respect, just because you were poor didn't mean you couldn't be clean.

Am I reading the suggestion that the poor wore white / light colors out of a sense of self-respect to demonstrate cleanliness ? Never thought of it in those terms

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Yes, relative values will be constant if they're in the same lighting, so one can certainly tell whether an object is lighter or darker (allowing for the fact that blue-sensitive emulsion won't "see" things exactly like the human eye). But there's no way to tell if a light-colored item is pale green, pale yellow or pale blue, for example, and I thought that's what Beck Morgan was talking about--a way to figure out which colors were which, and not just what was lighter or darker, from black and white images.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Amended - reflective not refractive ..I used the wrong science term

My only point was if an image had the available light to represent a known white object as a light hue then a yellow object is not going to reproduce as a black / super dark hue in the same image, as yellow and white are towards the lighter end of the spectrum.

I have read on fora and such that the yellow trim on a Mtd Service Jacket reproduces as a dark, "very un-yellow to the minds eye" color in period images. It would if all the lighter, more reflective tones in the image where captured and reproduced based on the available light as darker hues. The suggestion otherwise is that there is something inherent to the chemical process or the capture of light in period photography media that changes how the reflective properties of certain colors are reproduced making them appear black or dark, which in the color world (which is nothing more that refration of light in varying wave lengths) black represents the complete absence of color and offers lower reflective, but higher absorptive properties.


CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Ian McWherter]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

As a very broad, general observation, people who worked outdoors a lot did tend to use broad-brimmed hats to protect the back of the nack, while those engaged in manual labor or service jobs often wore caps. An observation of northern city men's hats, especially those of wealthy types, shows a general trend to a narrow brim all round--in other words, enough to show it wasn't a cap, but not enough to imply the gentleman might be out in the sun for any length of time. Even summer straw hats usually had a smaller brim than was practical for anything but boating (since the narrower brim on any sailor's hat does serve a purpose by making the hat less liable to blow off.)

Broad-brimmed hats certainly are more practical for working out doors than caps or short brimmed hats, but the idea that short-brimmed hats were more popular in the North or that they were worn by wealthier men not generally engaged in manual labor is quite a stretch. Any photographic survey will reveal a trend toward short-brimmed short-crowned hats in the 1860s among all classes of men. High-crowned wide brimmed hats were the fashion of the 1850s. There are also many original wide-brimmed straw hats in existence and photographs of wide-brimmed straw hats are also abundant, particularly from the 1850s.

In the North, as most of you know, white outer clothing came to symbolize summer, putting away business affairs to rest on the cleanest available mountaintop or seashore, and a general freedom from care. It was also a status symbol. since maintaining white or light-colored clothes implies more work than a quick brush-down of a sensible brown or gray garment. The idea of separate wardrobes for leisure pursuits took hold even more in the postwar period, of course, but the seeds were there as boating, tennis and golf gained popularity among the rich. By contrast, in the South, white reflected light and kept people cool, and labor to maintain the clothing was an antebellum given.

New York, July 27
.... The town is completely running over with country people. In the stages, cars, and on the fashionable sidewalk of Broadway, one encounters nothing but black hats, satin vests, linen overcoats and sunburnt [sic] faces--the four characteristics which mark people from the rural districts. All the hotels are full, and every place of amusement is crammed nightly. It reminds me of Anniversary Week, without the white cravats, black thread gloves and cotton umbrellas. The principal object of this inroad from the interior is to see the Great Eastern which, for several days, has been as thickly crowded with inquisitive people as a sugar hogshead with flies. . . NOX. --CHARLESTON MERCURY, July 30, 1860, p. 1, c. 4

Personally, if the whole concept of "maintaining white clothing was so much work and therefore a status symbol," and the working man wore dark clothing to hide the dirt, then why were white linen or cotton aprons so common for working men, seems like they'd get dirty real quick? Why also did the army issue off-white stable frocks to keep their dark blue uniforms clean, seems like the dark blue would hide dirt and stains better? And why will you see far more working men wearing white shirts and collars than plaids or other types of materials? I think the issue has a lot to do with self respect, just because you were poor didn't mean you couldn't be clean.

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Are not contrast and exposure applied uniformly across a period image ? Hue is a product of a particular colors realtive refractive ability (impacted by a materials surface finish to a degree) in a period or B/W "unpushed" or altered image.

In this image, the constant is the amount of available, refracted light e.g. ...white buildings and shirts..... are not going to reproduce as a light colored highly refractive state and a white, yellow, tan light gray jacket show up as dark in the same image.

Yes, relative values will be constant if they're in the same lighting, so one can certainly tell whether an object is lighter or darker (allowing for the fact that blue-sensitive emulsion won't "see" things exactly like the human eye). But there's no way to tell if a light-colored item is pale green, pale yellow or pale blue, for example, and I thought that's what Beck Morgan was talking about--a way to figure out which colors were which, and not just what was lighter or darker, from black and white images.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[OldKingCrow]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

Long story short, yes, but it's impossible to tell what actual color something is/was, because a red fabric and a dark brown fabric, for example, might reflect the exact same amount of light. When the amount of light only is recorded, without regard to the hue, there would be no way to tell to color.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

Are not contrast and exposure applied uniformly across a period image ? Hue is a product of a particular colors realtive reflectitve ability (impacted by a materials surface finish to a degree) in a period or B/W "unpushed" or altered image.

In this image, the constant is the amount of available, reflected light e.g. ...white buildings and shirts..... are not going to reproduce as a light colored highly refractive state and a white, yellow, tan light gray jacket show up as dark in the same image.

Veering towards the edge of my lane....Mr. Todd Harrington ?

CJ Rideout
Tampa, Florida

[Hank Trent]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I asked this just before a forum crash some time back, but here goes again: As I understand it, old movies are colorized by taking a couple of known values from the picture (say, a red dress that has been preserved, or a blue uniform). Has any effort been made to develop a similar tool for still photographs?

Long story short, yes, but it's impossible to tell what actual color something is/was, because a red fabric and a dark brown fabric, for example, might reflect the exact same amount of light. When the amount of light only is recorded, without regard to the hue, there would be no way to tell to color.

The longer version:

The "zone system" for controlling black and white photography, popular in the early 20th century, is a good way of understanding it. By adjusting the exposure, a photographer can make any part of an image any shade of gray he chooses, and by adjusting the contrast, he can choose what will be pure black and white.

In other words, a portrait photographer could do any of the following things with a caucasian face and a dark green dress, just by adjusting the exposure and the contrast:

pale gray face, dark gray dress
pale gray face, black dress
dark gray face, darker gray dress
dark gray face, black dress
almost white face, black dress
almost white face, light gray dress
etc.

The only thing he couldn't do, except with filters or other manipulation, is make the dark green dress lighter than the face.

This kind of control was deliberately done in the heyday of black and white photography in the 20th century, but still occurs accidentally, more or less, in any black and white photograph, since every photograph has some specific exposure and level of contrast. As you can see, there would be no way to tell the actual color of the face or dress, only the relative darkness or lightness.

At most, one could say that the early blue-sensitive emulsion might make blues lighter and yellows/reds relatively darker than a pan-chromatic film, but it still wouldn't indicate what was blue or yellow.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@gmail.com

[Becky Morgan]

Re: Are these picture taking duds ?

I asked this just before a forum crash some time back, but here goes again: As I understand it, old movies are colorized by taking a couple of known values from the picture (say, a red dress that has been preserved, or a blue uniform). Has any effort been made to develop a similar tool for still photographs? I recall someone saying that light yellow, in particular, gives odd results in wet-plate photography. I'm not suggesting we colorize history, but that it could be a research tool. The man in front of Dunlap and Bowdre looks to be wearing a light-colored linen coat, but it would be interesting to see whether any of those other garments are really as dark as they look.

Other things I noticed:
The trees on the ridge line are in leaf, so it's spring or summer, and by the density of leaves I'd say summer.
Note the number of light-colored, but not white, shirts. Also note the white-jacketed man in front of Dunlap and Bowdre, who appears to be wearing a white jacket and black or dark shirt. Either that, or he has on a dark vest and a really long, full beard.
Wonder what color the stuff hanging in front of Scott, Keen and Co. is and whether those are coats?
Beards seem to be the order of the day. It's hard to see hairstyles.
There's not a woman in sight not any goods displayed that would be for women. At the moment, this is a man's town. That might account for some of the shirt sleeves. Has there been any study of when it became acceptable for men working in a grocery, or other place where women might venture, to work in shirt sleeves and a vest? Hospital pictures sometimes show nuses and a man or two thus dressed, but the exigencies of the moment would seem to require more laxity.
Two men in front of the Etowah Restaurant have what seem to be matching mid-toned jackets of some lightweight material. One is wearing his shoved back because he has his hands in his pockets. The other has his slung over his shoulder. It almost looks as if he's rolled it.

As a very broad, general observation, people who worked outdoors a lot did tend to use broad-brimmed hats to protect the back of the nack, while those engaged in manual labor or service jobs often wore caps. An observation of northern city men's hats, especially those of wealthy types, shows a general trend to a narrow brim all round--in other words, enough to show it wasn't a cap, but not enough to imply the gentleman might be out in the sun for any length of time. Even summer straw hats usually had a smaller brim than was practical for anything but boating (since the narrower brim on any sailor's hat does serve a purpose by making the hat less liable to blow off.)

In the North, as most of you know, white outer clothing came to symbolize summer, putting away business affairs to rest on the cleanest available mountaintop or seashore, and a general freedom from care. It was also a status symbol. since maintaining white or light-colored clothes implies more work than a quick brush-down of a sensible brown or gray garment. The idea of separate wardrobes for leisure pursuits took hold even more in the postwar period, of course, but the seeds were there as boating, tennis and golf gained popularity among the rich. By contrast, in the South, white reflected light and kept people cool, and labor to maintain the clothing was an antebellum given.

A Southern planter, no matter how wealthy, might be out on horseback a good bit of the day and would roast himself pretty thoroughly without sun protection. The fields, after all, were his place of business as surely as a Northern businessman belonged in his office most of the day. This might account for some of the Northern amusement at planter wear, however subconscious it may have been: if he's so rich, why is he dressed like a farmer, and if he's not lounging around all day, why is he wearing white clothes? That's not the worst of our mutual misunderstandings, of course, but it's certainly among them.