Idealized photos, idealized paintings
Do photographs tell the truth? Not really, and even old photographs were often touched up. Here’s a description, with illustrations. I have cued it up to show what I consider the most interesting part:
Speaking of which, I have a treasured photo of my grandmother, circa around 1902, taken at her graduation from Normal School (teacher training school). When she first showed me the photo I was a little girl, and it utterly fascinated me. For one thing, she had on such a gorgeous dress. For another, she looked very little like the beloved but elderly person I know. And for another, I could see that she looked like me (or I suppose you might say that I looked like her), especially the expression in the eyes.
My grandmother also explained to me that the photo was touched up to make her waist smaller. She showed me a series of little marks, almost imperceptible but still visible, where the original waist had been scratched out (on a negative? I’m not sure how it worked). Her waist hadn’t been large to begin with (she was about eighteen years old in the photo). But the aesthetic of the time dictated that a bit smaller would be even better, and the photographer obliged.
Here’s the photo and a close-up, neither of which show the faint scratch marks but both of which show the slightly imperfect rendering of the curve of the new waist:
The video at the beginning of this post mentions that even before photos, paintings often rendered their subjects in a more flattering light. That reminds me of what happened between Henry VIII and his fourth wife Anne of Cleves:
The artist Hans Holbein the Younger was dispatched to Düren to paint portraits of Anne [of Cleves] and her younger sister, Amalia, each of whom Henry was considering as his fourth wife. Henry required the artist to be as accurate as possible, not to flatter the sisters…
Negotiations to arrange the marriage were in full swing by March 1539. Thomas Cromwell oversaw the talks and a marriage treaty was signed on 4 October of that year…
Anne was described by French ambassador Charles de Marillac as tall and slim, “of middling beauty and of very assured and resolute countenance.” She was fair-haired and was said to have had a lovely face. In the words of the chronicler Edward Hall, “Her hair hanging down, which was fair, yellow and long … she was apparelled after the English fashion, with a French hood, which so set forth her beauty and good visage, that every creature rejoiced to behold her.” She appeared rather solemn by English standards, and looked old for her age. Holbein painted her with a high forehead, heavy-lidded eyes and a pointed chin.
Henry met her privately on New Year’s Day 1540 at Rochester Abbey in Rochester on her journey from Dover. Henry and some of his courtiers, following a courtly-love tradition, went disguised into the room where Anne was staying…
According to the testimony of Henry’s companions, he was disappointed with Anne, feeling that she was not as described…
Most historians believe that Henry’s misgivings about the marriage were blamed on Anne’s alleged unsatisfactory appearance and her failure to inspire him to consummate the marriage. He felt that he had been misled after his advisors had praised Anne’s beauty: “She is nothing so fair as she hath been reported”, he complained. Cromwell received some blame for the Holbein portrait, which Henry believed had not been an accurate representation of Anne, and for some of the exaggerated reports of her beauty. When the king finally met Anne, he was reportedly shocked by her plain appearance, and the marriage was never consummated.
Cromwell paid dearly, but Anne consented to an annulment and lived out her life in England.
I had a darkroom back in the early 60s when I was in Jr. High. The equipment was my father’s that he bought after WWII. Some of the books then discussed retouching both prints and negatives. The older negatives on glass were anywhere from 4×5 to 8×10 and there were varnishes to put on negatives to give some ‘tooth’ for retouching pencils used. IIRC there were also various inks and very fine brushes too.
On that picture since light shades like the dress are dark on the negative they would have to be shaved/scratched down and the the proper shade put in to match the background. Never did any of that myself just read about it.
From Brian De Palma:
In pre-digital photography, especially portrait photos, air brushing was common. I don’t know the technique well, but I think it was mostly a smoothing effect and could remove or minimize wrinkles. Something I did do on occasion was “spot” B&W enlargements with an artist’s ultra fine paintbrush.
When you can’t get the print entirely dust (on the negative) spot free, you dilute some dark gray ink until it matches the area around the white spot and then fill in the spot with the brush. I suppose one could draw in lines and so forth though that seems like it is much more difficult.
You look nothing like your grandmother. For one, there’s no apple.
My father was a touch up artist before photoshop and desktop machined started… I used to work with him a bit as a kid… but he spent his days hunched over what was usually 4×5 negatives… it wasnt easy work at all….
he did this for a place called Kriegsmans copy art “photographers of the stars” – often working with that Russian Ballet photographer who was great family friends Maurice Seymour…
He did work for Tony Randall (whose personality was much like the show), and lots of luminaries since they did mostly headshots of famous stars who constantly updated them… they also did autograph shots… the 8×10 black and whites that the stars would sign at apperances or always had around… i think in later years these became 4×5, but that was long after Kriegsmans closed… and even Ponti’s was gone (he was a famous Oboe player who had a music shop where Sam Ash is now, and he helped young musicians like me get instruments… its where i got my low serial number Buffet Clarinet (yes i still have it)… i remember Ponti well… and Maurice… they are both gone now)
i could tell you all kinds of things..
but for fun, one of the newest things that may interest you is a new great set of AI based filters for the new photoshop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
it would be much worth it for you to check them out and put up some shots… one is an AI version of colorization that will blow you away… you ever wanted to see that black and white of your family done in real life color? well now you can and its VERY VERY good… not like the first colorization for movies… totally blow you away stuff..
there is a few more AI filters for doing things like adding lens blur in backgrounds and so on.. but the colorization stuff is incredible… (dad used to make a bit of extra cash adding color to black and whites for special clients which had a special look to them that everyone has seen, and not intended to be realistic like the photoshop filter)
there is another one, i wish i can afford that will take a good head shot or photo and turn it into drop dead awesome quality.. though i fear it will have the same effect that auto-tune did… (dont get me started!!!!)
🙂
I guess new is relative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2xxCcnZNk
these are Neural Filters.. from 2020 —
Featured Neural Filters: Skin Smoothing, Style Transfer
Beta Neural Filters: Smart Portrait, Makeup Transfer, Depth-Aware Haze, Colorize, Super Zoom, JPEG Artifacts Removal
Future Neural Filters: Photo Restoration, Dust and Scratches, Noise Reduction, Face Cleanup, Photo to Sketch, Sketch to Portrait, Pencil Artwork, Face to Caricature.
Photoshop 2021 NEW feature -Neural filter-Facial Age
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-8O-LDH1ec
The above filter will even make it appear your smiling when your not smiling!!!
Neural Filters list and FAQ
https://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/using/neural-filters-list-and-faq.html
I wish i could install these on my old version of photoshop
but unless i could make a buck with it, its not worth paying or upgrading..
Photoshop CSS version 12…
no more updates 🙁
enjoy!
I sent you a gift in the emails.. 🙂
She showed me a series of little marks, almost imperceptible but still visible, where the original waist had been scratched out (on a negative? I’m not sure how it worked).
well… the process depended on what kind of “film” was used..
Between 1900 and 1910, film formats gradually became standardized and film stocks improved. A number of film gauges were made. Eastman increased the length of rolls to 200 feet without major adjustments to the emulsion, retaining a large market share. Lumière reformulated its stock to match the speed of Eastman film, naming it ‘Etiquette Violette’ (Violet Label). Blair sold his English company to Pathé in 1907 and retired to the US. Pathé began to supplement its operation in 1910 by purchasing film prints, stripping the emulsion from the film base and re-coating it. 35mm film began to become the dominant gauge because of the commonality of Edison’s and Lumière’s cameras. Consumers usually purchased unperforated film and had to punch it by perforators that were often imprecise, causing difficulty in making prints for the opposite perforation format. In 1908, the perforators began to be made by Bell and Howell. Eastman Kodak used the Bell and Howell’s machine to perforate its films. In 1909, Edison’s organization of the Motion Picture Patents Trust agreed to what would become the standard: 35 mm gauge, with Edison perforations and a 1.33 aspect ratio.
and here is a bit more on the process of touchup
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/83262/how-photo-retouching-worked-photoshop
Photographers and retouching specialists would scrape their film with knives, draw or paint on top of it, and even paste multiple negatives together to create a single print. And just like today, photographers and cultural critics of the 19th and 20th centuries debated the ethics of retouching.
later i can speak from experience..
in the 1960s and 1970s, solvents were often used..
as were reprints… ie. taking a negative, cutting a small mask and using it to make a positive film with a space missing… then using oil paint which was clear… (tiny tubes) and 000 brushes that were literally only a few hairs.. one would repaint in photo realistic manner what was needed…
other tricks were to use a piece of gray film… this would not remove all the image, but would leave some remaining as a base that one could ‘change’..
it was not an easy art… and it would strain one to work that hard in the dark with a light table and magnifying glasses… (not the dental kind they were too expensive)..
for the best, it had to be done in such a way that even a trained eye would not be able to see what was done…
follow the link above and there is an example with the caption: “Reducing size of stout subjects.”
The article has more than i could ever cover, and my expertise was in the 1970s…
Quote: In pre-digital photography, especially portrait photos, air brushing was common. I don’t know the technique well, but I think it was mostly a smoothing effect and could remove or minimize wrinkles.
air brushing was not all that common.. Dad experimented with it in the 70s… I still have his airbrush.. an expensive item with the same kind of expensive handle as top of the line fountain pens… in a case.. reservoirs were just cups with holes, and dad would put a rubberband around to keep them from falling out and you had to be careful not to spill..
an airbrushed ‘photo’ was often a large print… they worked on the large print, and re-photographed it.. it still required covering over the old mark and making a new seamless one… it wasnt a cheap process…
it was VERY hard to almost impossible to do the work on a 4×5 negative or positive film. One of the problems was you had to use frisket well, and even then, it added a characteristic look or feel to the image that was not all that hard to spot… ie. people could tell the image was airbrushed…
[Frisket film is a clear acetate film with a low tack adhesive backing]
Anne lucked out as Henry was poxed by that time.
He did work for Tony Randall (whose personality was much like the show)
I’m fascinated. Which personality: Harvey Weskit, Felix Unger, Walter Franklin, or Sidney Shorr? (Or did they have just one personality recycled 3x over?)
“Impossibly small waist”?? Not that impossible.
I had a 22 year old girlfriend back, um… (yee gads!) 57 years ago who was 34-17-36. I used a tailor’s tape (a bet) and that is accurate.
A unique figure, a beautiful face, and long blond hair. After she dumped me, I mooned over her for six months. Then I met my wife :-).
@ Art Deco – The Felix Unger one… that was closest to his real personality… very very persnickety… perfectionist… annoying… though not necessarily a cleanliness bug… but you can think of the cleanliness thing being a symptom or output of the other quirks… hard to work for… dad would come home with headaches and be upset.. almost nothing was good enough no matter how hard you tried…
as for the other parts, probably bits of him here and there with other things..
I remember when i was with Kaufman i heard a fun story about Dustin Hoffman… a producer really wanted him for a project and made the mistake of saying to Mr. Hoffman that he loved his personality and would like to hire him for the part… and Mr. Hoffman said, which personality? You do not know my real personality… which for an actor like Hoffman, is quite true… but as you can tell, many many parts are written for actors who really dont act much, but are themselves in a part… or some who can vary in a range like many of the gangster parts and why some get so type-casted…
Want to know who was interesting to meet? Anni Sprinkle… now there was a boisterous confident fun lady… yes… even porn stars need head shots… Harry Reems was a family friend… but as a kid i didn’t know him by his Deep Throat stage name… I knew him as Herbert Stryker. There were others i met or knew that i found out who they were later…
Same business did the shots for Carole Demas and Paula Janis
you might know them as Carole and Paula from the magic garden with the pink squirrel named Sherlock…
My life has been one weird strange trip…
but would only make a great book if at the end here i got wealthy and did well for a happy ending… 🙂
Gosh, what could go wrong with a marriage in which the husband cared about absolutely nothing but the wife’s looks, and the wife presumably cared about nothing but his rank? Anne of Cleves got off easy, though–no murder, not even a dose of syphilis. She was #4 in the mnemonic: divorced-beheaded-died, divorced-beheaded-survived.
Artfldgr – wonderful memories and information!
My Dad also took up photography after the War, and I remember that his magazines, in which some of the artistic models anticipated Playboy, disappeared from the garage shortly after Mom found out we kids had discovered them.
He kept his gear in a shed at his parent’s house in the same town we lived in, and we were always awed by the process on the few occasions we were allowed inside. His sister’s sons took over the “business” (none of us were interested), and made their money for HS and even college doing the usual work of weddings and birthdays.