Comments on: Friday Night Flickr stuff

By: Pete

Pete — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:31:12 +0000

@23: photoshop out the manacles and you could run it as a Gap advert. Or possibly for hair care.

By: Anders Widebrant

Anders Widebrant — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:53:05 +0000

Skin colour might well play a role—it’s definitely something we’re subconsciously very sensitive to.

By: Mike Shupp

Mike Shupp — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:57:30 +0000

I’d go for an age of 14-15 for Bodicea—she still seems to be carrying about some pre-adolescent baby fat. As for the women in the bottom picture, from left to right, I’d guess 20, 33-35, and about 30. Something about their expressions and the degree of wariness in their eyes.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:37:43 +0000

A startlingly modern old photo is the 1865 picture of a handcuffed Lewis Paine, one of the conspirators in Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Replace the old-fashioned manacles with modern handcuffs and the picture could have been taken yesterday.

By: Peter

Peter — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 21:23:12 +0000

I’m generally a poor judge of age, but for whatever it’s worth my guess is that the two women on either side in the bottom photo are no older than their early 20’s – in fact, the one on the right might still be in her teens – while the woman in the middle is in the 25 to 30 range.

By: Tangurena

Tangurena — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:10:33 +0000

I find it fun to look at Shorpy from time to time. The focus is mostly 20th Century, and almost exclusively American.

By: The Raven

The Raven — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:44:31 +0000

Danielle, I have real doubts that the photographic practices in such attractions are truly period; there are not many non-specialists who will use glass-plate negatives, for instance. Hand-painted prints are also no longer common.

BTW, I looked over the magnified images and there is more than enough detail in the eyes to show that the exposure time was relatively fast. I suspect everyone was sweltering in the sun, however.

By: Bloix

Bloix — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:28:50 +0000

“Guys back then tended to be skinnier.”

Back then, being heavily muscled meant you were a manual laborer. Now, having muscles means you have the leisure to work out in a gym.

By: Danielle Day

Danielle Day — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:08:21 +0000

Some US tourist attractions (especially in the West) offer photographs taken with authentic 19th century equipment, exposed/processed/printed the same way, etc. The subjects are allowed to dress in authentic period clothes and hold authentic period props (firearms, etc.) They still never look the same as 19th century people do in actual old photos. In fact, the difference is stunningly apparent.

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:44:23 +0000

Boadecia is clearly Miranda Richardson, from an episode of “Blackadder 0: Roman through the gloamin”

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:54:34 +0000

There have been pieces in the L.A. Times about costuming (1) for Disneyland employees, noting how much thicker we’ve become since the park opened back in the 1950’s, and (2) for movies, lamenting that contemporary actors no longer look convincing in roles set in the first half of the twentieth century. Guys back then tended to be skinnier.

By: mpowell

mpowell — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:21:18 +0000

14: There is no way on earth that is how those women looked naturally at the age of 40. So I’m going with the retouched/different photo explanation here… but the culturally different facial expressions are also an interesting point.

By: Bloix

Bloix — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:12:25 +0000

If you click through to the flickr link you’ll see that the birthdates of two of the women are 1863 and 1865 and that the image is dated variously as 1900, 1910, and 1905-15.

By: John Holbo

John Holbo — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:45:18 +0000

“Boadecia?” I know, I know. That’s what the photo is titled.

By: Z

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:32:02 +0000

And for the ultimate challenge, I recently stumbled on a copy of the portraits of the hundred most beautiful women of Osaka, as chosen by a women’s periodical of 1907. Not only is it hard to guess the ages of the person depicted (though it is reasonable to assume they are young), it is also often hard to guess the gender (though female should be a given). I also agree with Matt that “american faces” are easy to recognize, independently of the ethnicity, though in real life situation, the voice is a even stronger give-away (american speak a good third below most, and an octave below some). Such experiences lead me to conclude that the way we process physical appearance is much more culturally dependent than we would think.