period surface prep

Re: period surface prep

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>That is a silversmith's workbench?

Re: period surface prep

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I doubt that is his work bench, even though there are some tools laying on it for display. I doubt also he was working in that shirt before posing for the painting. Of course he would have needed a fine display table for dealing with customers, and the tools and clothing show that he was a craftsman, not some antique or tea dealer :^)

Re: period surface prep *LINK*

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>This pic sparked some thoughtful debate over on oldtools back in August...The question was whether the picture looked posed, and if not, what could they possibly be doing? A really nice picture nevertheless

What do you think?


Master and Apprentice

Re: period surface prep

Joel

>of course it's posed - that's a painted background in a photographer's studio. As for what he is doing - he is pointing - and this of course makes it an "action" shot

Re: period surface prep

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>Of course it's posed. No experienced woodworker would put their planes bevel down on the floor while they were working, or their chisels in a pile on the floor either.

I sometimes pose pictures, too. At the very least, I usually let go of the tool long enough to pick up the camera, since I can't afford a professional photographer to help me illustrate a point on a free hand tool forum. Sometimes, I'm too busy trying to get the steps in a complicated process right, to stop and take the photos while I'm doing the work. Sometimes, the light isn't right. Sometimes I think it makes a better illustration and a better use of bandwidth to show all the important tools I used in one photo. Sometimes I even pose a photo to add some humor to an otherwise tragic situation.

I suspect Mr. Revere posed for the painting for several sessions, unless the painters back then were as fast as the cabinetmakers :^)

Posing

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Well, yes, of course it was posed. I think that it is easy to forget that realistic paintings like that of Revere are not photographs. Who knows what sort of surface he was actually behind? Citing it as evidence of table finish quality seems speculative, at best.

Re: Posing

Joel

>THey painted what they saw. That particualr table that was used in the studio or wherever the picture was posed could have been completely different but the final picture would be realistic to what that type of table looked like at the time. If shiny tables were a typical of the period the people looking a the picture and saw a shiny table it would have been considered odd. So shiny table tops of the period were normal - maybe not that specific table but tables in general.

Re: Oops - Other posers

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>I got the response in the wrong place in the thread. I meant to reply to Johnathan Peck's comments on the old photograph of the master and apprentice.

On that subject, I'm not too clear on the chronology of the development of photography, and I don't know what technology would have been available at the time the photo was taken, but there is a possibility that the two carpenters would have been fitted with braces to keep them from moving during the long exposures.

Re: Oops - Other posers

Don Thompson - Cutler Ridge, Florida

>Yeah, I have heard of the brace thing. It seems to be an explanation of why some of the folks in old photos look so... odd.

Re: Oops - Other posers

Joel

>THe tools dictate that the picture must be post 1875 or later there is a plane with a lateral adjuster (don't remember the actual date of introduction). I'd acutally put the picture a little later 1880 or so. This is way after the brace period. Pictures with braces are typcially very static portraits and the brace is visible.