Actually, it does look like she's holding something in her hand that's covering part of her face. I have a dark filter on this monitor, it's hard to see.
I think that your link shows that this is a fraud, though. Dags are very sensitive to viewing angle, and it would be tough to photograph one well enough to make a print like this and not show the metallic sheen of the emulsion. I did photography for antiques for auction, and dags were REALLY tough. in 1840, there was no photographic process capable of producing a glass-plate negative that could later be printed, so this photo should be post-1850s at the earliest, after the development of the wet collodion process when paper positives could be made.
I also read that the type of lens that was used to make this type of picture was not yet avaliable in 1840. Why is it that I feel bad about bursting everyones bubble.?
Don't feel bad. Lots of people get fooled by old photographs, including antique dealers, who should know better. There was no means of taking clear group portraits until at least the 1850's, and in the 1860's (soldiers going away to the Civil War) saw a boom in cartes de visite photography and tintypes. In fact, some tintype photographers made quick money by photographing whole squads of solders (those that could afford it) one at a time with cameras that had multiple objective lenses. Some cameras had as many as 16 objectives, yielding 16 separate images on a single metal plate. The plate was cut up with metal shears, and the soldier had images to give to his sweetheart and parents, and some to trade with members of his unit. I have cataloged a box of these tiny "gem" tintypes of civil war soldiers, and though they were not individually identified, they brought a lot of money at auction. Any paper photograph made from a negative is generally post 1860. Matthew Brady was the most prominent photographer to document the carnage of the Civil War, which broke the long tradition of photography used for landscape scenes and portraiture. People were quite shocked by the battlefield pictures made by his staff of photographers following the troops around with portable darkrooms in their wagons.I also read that the type of lens that was used to make this type of picture was not yet avaliable in 1840. Why is it that I feel bad about bursting everyones bubble.?
Man, just how did anybody figure that one out?
You don't need to know the actual name of the device, just what category it falls into.The creatures probably a dust mite but I have no clue as to the name of the structure its on. Impressive though
I had the privilege to hold in my hands the very first photograph in the history of photography of a human being/(portrait)----I still (like right now even) get my hairs on my arms to raise thinking about it.
Yep, I'll give this one to you and Kurdt.
Ok, you also win. Any of you can post the next question.