A true photographic image of Joseph Smith Jr.

Order a print for the holidays!

2011-11-16T14:35:00.000-08:00

For a limited time you can buy a copy of this one of a kind photo of Joseph Smith Jr.

Prices start at $5.95 and up.

What did Joseph really look like?

2011-06-28T00:24:00.000-07:00

Even though I love black and white photos, I wondered what a colorized version of the unedited photo would look like. Here is my colorized and digitally painted artistic rendition.

Below is a copy of the Unedited Photo of Joseph Smith, however I did do some editing for this copy such as upping the contrast, sharpening the details, a slight trim on the top to fit a more standard size print frame and of course the addition of lettering.
.

Joseph Smith Junior copied from his daguerreotype.

It was a very interesting process working in Photoshop, I found so many more hidden details in the unedited photograph. Each time I would approach a new section of the picture, I would find something new I hadn't seen before. It was quite exciting even though it was a very tedious and complex process reworking the colorized image. I didn't just want the standard black and white photo with flesh tone applied. I felt like I had to rely on my artistic skills to bring him to life the best I could, not with oil paint but with pixels. While the 2nd generation photo of Joseph has more details than any other image, unfortunately, certain particulars are only partially visible and others completely lost because of the daguerreotype reflection and paper stippling. For instance, only the top of his watch fob is visible but the direction of the chain quickly disappears.

Note the orange highlighted beginning of what appears to be a watch fob.

What I thought was a filigree "S"cravat pin in gold, actually appears to be an embroidered "S" button embellishment. Once I found the small ribbon edge around the octagon medallion, I suddenly could see the ruffled edges of what appeared to be lace on his cravat.

With the contrast amped up I added a few highlights to direct the eyes to the button and ruffles.

Next, what I thought was a button on his vest, was not just a button but possibly a military insignia with a star above it. I wondered if there was possible a ribbon attached to it, but without certainty I did not add it. I searched the internet for pictures of his Lieutenant General insignia but could only find tiny artist renditions of it. They did appear similar but nothing exact. If anyone knows anything more about this metal, please let me know.

Last, was the discovery of what appears to be an embroidered ribbon, perhaps a black mourning ribbon. I wondered if it was just a pattern in the fabric that was on the lapel of the jacket but the light shadow under the bow makes me believe it is sitting on top of the fabric but stitched in . The ornamental edging of the button hole appears to be tied into the design. Again, if anyone knows more about Joseph's clothing and can identify anything I have posted, please let me know @ josephsmithjr2009@hotmail.com.

I have had a few inquires about people wanting to purchase copies of the unedited photo. I decided to upload it as well as the colorized edited version on the website where I sell my art and prints of my art. It's a very reputable and high quality print-on-demand site. I hope this will work for you guys. The links are at the top left corner of this blog under BUY NOW. Thanks.

P.S. I just have to add one more thing. Again, none of these tiny, tiny details show up in any of the artwork (i.e. RLDS painting) of Joseph. The Library of Congress edited albumen print of Joseph does show a faint indication of a fob and button. Proof these two images are tied together. Leave it to a micro-scanner and digital files that can have the contrast/lighting worked with to bring out these hidden treasures.

A Photographic Comparison of Joseph's Injuries

2011-06-18T21:02:00.000-07:00

In 1928, the RLDS church began a quest to find the buried remains of Joseph and Hyrum Smith. The church was worried that rising lake water would destroy the final resting place of the men, and that a more suitable gravesite was needed. The graves were finally found after a difficult struggle to locate the hidden spot where they had been secretly buried. The remains of both Joseph and Hyrum were located under a buried brick foundation of what appeared to be an outbuilding of some kind. The then prophet of the RLDS church, Fred M. Smith, told excavators that the Hyrum’s skull could be identified by a bullet hole through the right side of the face, near the nose. Unfortunately, President Smith was mistaken about the placement of bullet, it was in fact on the left side of the nose and the RLDS church did not have a death mask in its possession for comparison. The skulls of the two men were photographed and their remains were again laid to rest, this time on higher safer ground. These photos remain in the archives of the Community Church of Christ (formally RLDS).

Understanding that the two skulls were mislabeled helps us understand which one we should use for a photographic comparison. Unfortunately, the Joseph Smith photo and the photograph of his skull are shot at two different angles, but still tiny details in both tell an incredible story. Below is a side by side comparison of the photograph and RLDS photo.

Note the slanted indentation on Joseph's nose in the right picture. What brute force could have created this and was it enough to break his nose? I have always contended that his nose was crooked and appeared broken; something only the unedited photo of Joseph has been able to show. In the left picture you can also see what appears to be a raised scar stemming from an identical indention mark in the nose. Below is a side view of Joseph’s skull. Note the fracture lines that would be consistent with the broken bend of his nose.

I then went to the death mask; would it show any signs of this scar? Remembering that only second and third edition masks were available, I upped the contrast to examine it closer. Each time the mask was copied tiny details were lost but luckily enough remains for a comparison.

From what I can see from the death mask, there does appear to be a raised scar that runs from his nose to the corner of his right tear-duct, another conformation of this injury. Sadly, this early Mormon prophet had many opportunities in which such an injury could have been sustained and the unedited photograph shows more injuries then just the one we are speaking about.

There is scar on his left eye brow and eye lid, which is also present on the death mask. Another scar runs above the right side of his upper lip to his nose, this can be observed on the death mask as well. A personal written account from March 24, 1832, tells of when Joseph was attacked by a mob, the assailants attempted to shove a glass vial of tar into his mouth but it broke against his teeth.

With such positive forensic evidence I wonder what argument my critics could come up with. When Joseph Smith III had his father's daguerreotype photographed in 1879, no artwork showed his father's injuries, the RLDS Church did not have a copy of the death mask, and it would be another fifty years before the prophet and his brother would have their graves moved.

The Daguerreotype and Joseph Smith Jr.

2011-05-24T02:21:00.000-07:00

I wanted to create a time line of various historical references that would pertain to a daguerreotype of Joseph Smith.

Self portrait of Robert Cornlious (1839)

1840 – While in Philadelphia, Joseph Smith Jr., stayed only a mere couple of blocks from a budding daguerreotypist by the name of Robert Cornelius. Mr Cornelius, a lamp maker, had received written instructions via Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre’s 1839 pamphlet by the title “An Historical Account and a Descriptive Account of the Various Processes of the Daguerreotype and the Diorama”. Robert Cornelius later became known as one of the most prominent American pioneers in this field. Word of this exciting new art form quickly became that talk of the town, especially in Philadelphia. Most scholars are in agreement that this new invention would have definitely drawn the interest of the LDS Prophet. Unfortunately, not much is written about Joseph’s time in Philadelphia, so we are left to examine a second-generation photo and compare it to the daguerreotypes of this time period and the work of Mr. Cornelius. To the right is a photo Robert Cornelious (1839), below that is an example of his work from May 1840.

A Dag. by Robert Cornelious (May 1840)

1. A shallow depth of field. Much of Mr. Cornelius’ early work shows this in abundance. A short focus (shallow depth of field) allowed for a shorter sitting time when a portrait was being created. At that time, scientists believed that the daguerreotype process could not be used for anything other than “stills”, but Mr. Cornelius proved them wrong with a daguerreotype self-portrait he took of himself in 1839. To early photographers the bokeh (area out of focus) was considered a defect and undesirable. Through the 1840’s the entire daguerreotype process quickly progressed as well as the skill and knowledge, hence sharper and higher quality images. Early on in my research I sought the advice of a well-known and highly educated “photo detective” and asked her opinion in regards to my photograph, she informed me that “All daguerreotypes are sharp in focus and anything but that is not a daguerreotype photo”. At the time I had a much more naive understanding of the process but yet her statement did not make sense. Now, I truly understand how completely generalized her assessment was, she apparently did not even understand the basics of photography or its early evolution.

2. A flat plain backdrop, most likely gray or off white in color and made of canvas. As photography developed so did the backdrops and settings they were used in conjunction with. Some of Cornelius’ early work shows the use of a very similar backdrop. However this specific detail of the image is not exclusive to Robert Cornelius or the 1840 time period but if in contrast it could conceivably rule it out.

3. Evidence of an outdoor photo-shoot. This theory is based on the high, small circular catchlights that appear in his eyes as well as the sharp shadows under his nose, chin, and collar. Most early daguerreotypes were produced in this method and again this detail of the image falls into alignment with some of the early work of Cornelius.

4. The lack of any type of inner oxidation rim or marking caused by a decorative mat, which would have sat directly on top of the polished image. Many early daguerreotype photos do not have mats or if they do they are very plain and square in design. As the photographic art progressed so did the cases, mats, and preservers. Almost all daguerreotypes that have managed to survive until now have a heavy ring of oxidation that occurs around the outside edges as well as along the edges of the mat. I might note that my image shows a dark rim around the outside that is embedded within it and is not a result of the paper aging process. I think it is reasonable to say that it is comparable to the oxidation that could have occurred to a daguerreotype that aged thirty to forty years but there is not exact science to determine this. The initial preparation, process and aging environment play such a heavy role in shaping such factors as these. Again the image of Joseph cannot be ruled out and becomes comparable to the daguerreotype specimens of 1840 that are attributed to Cornelius.

5. Blown- whites that create a halo-like effect around the figure as well as lack of detail in the shirt and cravat. For early daguerreotypists not overexposing an image was very tricky, a planned expose for a portrait was usually calculated for the face, not the clothing or the background. This is especially seen in some of Cornelius’s first daguerreotypes. This imperfection is still seen today in the work of amateur photographers but occurs significantly less due to technology.

I do also want to point out that the RLDS painting of Joseph Smith has been photographed many times and I have yet to see an example of the whites being overexposed. Another thing that is interesting, is the extremely smooth appearance of his face, possibly a result of the overexposure or maybe something else. In 2009 when we did our initial high-resolution scan of the photograph at Borg Photography, reporter Barb Smith of ABC4 news was in attendance and stated upon seeing the photo enlarged that he (Joseph) looked like he was wearing makeup. Interestingly, I read recently how early daguerreotypists used flour as a face powder in an effort to match other light tones being photographed and create a better exposure.

1843- A traveling Daguerreotypist by the name of Miller took “a miniature” of Wilford Woodruff in Nauvoo as noted in his August 28^th, 1843 entry. This could have sported an opportunity for Joseph to be photographed.

1844 – Daguerreotypist Lucien Foster arrives in Nauvoo on April 27^th, 1844; two days later he meets with Joseph Smith Jr. as recorded in Joseph’s journal. Many have noted that the Prophet made no mention of ever sitting for a Daguerreotype, but in using healthy reasoning, the possible omission could be easily justified. It was a very a turbulent time for the man and the plausibility of various events not making it onto the pages of a journal are easily understood. The void of such a reference could never be exclusive proof of its lack of existence. An example of that is my grandmother, she was an extremely prolific writer, especially in regards to her personal journals, there are numerous volumes from her life, but she definitely did not record every eventful experience that one might deem significant.

Lucien Foster wasn’t just within close proximity to Joseph; he rented a room in the Nauvoo Mansion and was on his presidential campaign. After the Prophet’s death he ran an advertisement in the Nauvoo Neighbor, dated August 14, 1844.

MINIATURE LIKENESSES.

L.R. FOSTER, is now prepared to take Likenesses, by the Daguerreotype process, in the most beautiful style of the art, either plain or coloured, at his Daguerreotype Rooms, on Main Street, a few rods above Ivin's Store.

By this wonderful process, which is a combination of nature and art, a more correct and beautiful likeness can be obtained, than by any other method which had been known to man. An image of the person, as exact as that formed by a mirror, is transferred to, and permanently fixed upon a highly polished silver plate, through the agency of an optical instrument. Only two or three minutes are required for the operation. The discovery was made by a Frenchman named Daguerre, (hence the name Daguerreotype,) and has excited the wonder, admiration and surprise of every one, upon first beholding the effects of the art; and such is the beauty of the work, and so perfectly to the life is nature shown up in her every lineament and feature and expression, that each succeeding specimen serves only to increase but not to satiate these emotions of the mind. How valuable or rather invaluable, would be such a likeness of an absent or departed friend.

Specimens may be seen at the Rooms, and at the Nauvoo Mansion;

Price only three dollars, including a handsome morocco case.

Instructions in the Art, given upon reasonable terms, and Apparatus for sale.

Lucien Foster referred to specimens at the Nauvoo Mansion. What were these images of that they needed to be viewed there instead of at his shop? We do know that in early months of 1845, Lucien photographed Emma with her young son David, who was born on the 17^th of November, 1844. I might add that her photograph has an arched-shaped mat as well as the residual oxidation from that interior shape.

1852- A Daguerreotypist named William A. Smith (also known as Amor de Cosmo) operated a photography studio in Kanesville, Iowa. On May 13^th he ran an advertisement in the Kanesville Frontier Guardian and the Iowa Sentential.

NEW ADVERTISEMENT.

“Those once lov’d forms, still breathing through their dust,

Still from the fame in mould gigantic cast,

Startling to live, -sh whisper of the past.”

Daguerrean Pictures

JOSEPH AND HYRUM SMITH,

AND THE

NAUVOO TEMPLE,

May be seen at the Smith’s Gallery.

Pictures of all kinds copied.

Some researchers believe that the images of Joseph and Hyrum were most likely a copied from paintings of the two men. What their argument in regards to this is unknown to me. Nowhere in the advertisement does it refer to these images as being derived from artwork. We do know that it was a common practice for Daguerreotypists to copy daguerreotypes via another photograph. There was no way to duplicate these one of a kind images other than re-photographing them. We also know of at least six daguerreotypes that were taken of the Nauvoo Temple before it was destroyed in 1848, so the advertised image was likely copied from an original source. I might add that one of those photographs of the temple is believed to be taken by Lucien Foster.

1879- On April 30^th, Emma Smith passes away at the age of seventy five. It has been said that in the last years of her life she was quite protective of her images of Joseph and only allowed a select few to view them.

On the 27^th of June, Joseph Smith III sent a letter to a John A. Robinson, husband of Mrs. Robinson, a photographer.

Do you remember the question about father’s picture? If so, are you and Sr J.A. still desirous of going into it? I have intended all along to come down, but can’t see the way clear just yet. If and so have determined to send the pictures to you for a trial, if desired…. My step father Mr Bidamon wants to sell the pictures and with this exception and what we might sell here at the office. You can have sole sale of them; and the exclusive manufacture of them, if we can agree as to terms, after we see whether they will copy well. It is the only picture (real) of father in existence. Not so many of mother’s would be wanted. I think there is a good bit of money in it for someone; and Sr Robinson and you may as well get it as anyone.

Clearly, Joseph’s statement of “It is the only picture (real) of father in existence”, is not a reference to a painted image because he would have known his father sat for more than one painting. It is clearly in reference to a specific and singular image. The question of whether “they” would copy well appears to be more relevant to that of the difficulties in copying daguerreotypes. Joseph also states his wish to send multiple pictures, not just a singular picture. These multiple images could have easily been a combination of photographs as well as artwork.

On the 25th of July, Joseph Smith III files a copyright via the Library of Congress. The image submitted is retouched Albumen 3^rd generation print of his father Joseph Smith Jr. It reads:

Library of Congress, to wit:

No. 9810 K.

Be it remembered, That on the 25^th day of July anno domini 1879, Joseph Smith of Plano Ill has deposited in this office the title of a Photograph and title or description of which is in the following words, to wit:

Joseph Smith (Mormon)

E Thurton?

Patt Atty

319 Main Dr?

The right whereof he claim I as proprietor, in conformity with the laws of the United States respecting Copyrights.

What does all of this mean, especially pertaining to the copyright laws of 1879? To file something under a K. classification meant it was filed as a “Print or pictorial illustration. This term comprises all printed pictures not included in the various other classes”. There are only two other classes that could possible pertain to this submitted image and they are J. and G.. The J. classification reads as:

“Photographs. – This term covers all positive prints from photographic negatives”. Well, daguerreotypes are not from negatives and the image submitted was re-photographed multiple times and was artistically enhanced. The G. classification referred to Works of art, this term includes all works belonging fairly to the so-called fine arts. (Paintings, drawings, and sculptures.)

It is the opinion of many scholars that the albumen image submitted to the Library of Congress was just an edited version of the famous RLDS painting. There are many defects in this theory though, if Joseph Smith III had intended to copyright a copy of the RLDS painting, it would have been considered a work of fine art. Along with that, Joseph Smith III, could not be considered the proprietor of this image. He was not the artist of the RLDS painting. The only way he could as an heir, control the copyright of a portrait of his father, is if the artist had given written permission in regards to this or given them a bill of sale for the portrait. Unfortunately, the artist was unknown to them, therefore there was no written permission or sales receipt. Any reproduction or replica of this image would have fallen under the artist’s copyright, especially if the artist was still alive. (The artist Selah Van Sickle did not die until 1880)

Here’s where it gets interesting, it wasn’t until the 1860’s that photographers could copyright their portrait work. Up until then, if you were photographed, you owned the copyright to the image. Unlike the modern laws of today, when you or a family member is photographed, you can buy a copy of the image but the photographer owns the copyright to the image as an artist of that image, though he/she may not have the right to distribute it for sale without your permission. Early photographers were not considered artists but more like technicians that delivered a product of reproduction.

So why did Joseph Smith III copyright his father’s image? Clearly there was an intention to reproduce images for distribution in the effort to create revenue as stated in his letter to Mr. Robinson. If Joseph had an original daguerreotype of his father and copyrighted it, in actuality that copyright protected against any type of reproductions and perhaps he hoped this would encircle the RLDS painting as well as other artistic renditions of the image. If he could prove that the artist used a copyrighted photo of his father to create a painting or drawing from, he could have exclusive control of his father’s image.

On August 15^th, The Saints’ Herald ran an advertisement listing for sale, various sized photographic copies of the famous RLDS painting of Joseph Smith Jr.. To some researchers this is proof positive that Joseph Smith III had his father’s image copyrighted so he could sell this specific image exclusively. To this I refer back to the copyright laws of 1879. All copyrighted materials for distribution and sale must have the copyright information displayed in plain view. Through all of my research I have yet to find a copy of the RLDS painting with Joseph Smith III’s 1879 copyright on it. As a matter of fact some antique postcards of the painting clearly refer to the RLDS painting as an original source. You can see an example of this on the website photographfound.com, which is written and ran by some great researchers named Reed Simonsen and Chad Fugate.

The image below is a comes from a glass plate negative of a daguerreotype of the RLDS painting.

Negative

The negative at one time was apparently a very clear and detailed image. Why am I showing this to you? The Saints’ Herald advertised large solar prints of the painting upon request. Only a highly detailed negative could produce such a large and detailed print. The RLDS painting apparently had no problem being photographed even in the days of the daguerreotype. Clearly the albumen of Joseph Smith Jr. submitted to the Library of Congress was not of that caliber and detail, which might offer an explanation to the initial hesitancy in sales of that particular image. In defense of this theory I will also point out that the photographer, Mrs. Robinson, enlisted the help of an albumen-photographer by the name of William Carson. It was with Mr. Carson’s help that the photograph was edited, retouched, and re-photographed again. Why would they have this need if the initial negative turned out so well? Unless, we are talking about two separate images that were photographed for reproduction and sale, one a copy of a painting, the other a copy of a difficult to photograph daguerreotype.

Another thing I might point out is that in the early history of photography, a daguerreotype was not always considered the most flattering image. Many patrons were displeased upon receiving their images from their Daguerreotypist. Sometimes an artist rendition was preferred and most good artists of the 1800’s were in the habit of beautifying through subtle corrections. So, another theory is perhaps Joseph Smith III and his step father Lewis Bidamon preferred the painted version instead.

1885 - 18th of August, an announcement was posted in the Desert News:

“C.W. Carter, photographer, of this city, has in his possession a daguerreotype portrait of the Prophet Joseph Smith, taken in Nauvoo in the year of 1843 – probably within a year of his death. The old acquaintances of the illustrious man to whom it has been shown, pronounce it an excellent likeness. We have always been of the opinion that the busts and most of the pictures of him in existence made him appear too effeminate looking and this portrait tends to confirm that opinion. The face as shown in it appears to be stronger and more mature looking and the head broader than generally pictured. Mr. Carter has taken photographic copies of the daguerreotype, which he proposes to touch up with India ink and have copied again, until pictures as true to nature as possible and in various sizes can be produced.”

On September 18^th another announcement was made via the Desert Evening News:

“THE ONLY CORRECT PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH….copied from the original daguerreotype taken in 1843, kindly loaned to me by Joseph Smith jr.”

There are some skeptics that point out the advertisement referenced the name of Joseph Smith Jr., not Joseph Smith III, and it was virtually impossible for Carter to have ever met the first Prophet of the Mormon Church but that can be attributed to a simple misunderstanding. Various times through my research I have seen where Joseph Smith III was referred to as Joseph Smith Jr. One of these references came from an online source via a photo album of his adopted sister named Julia. Underneath his photograph was written “Joseph Smith Jr.”. Another thing perplexing about the photograph was that Julia died in 1880, but the photograph of Joseph Smith III was taken by C.W. Carter. Perhaps it was taken when he came to Salt Lake City in the year 1876. Either way, that photograph definitely solidifies some type of relationship with Carter.

The Carter image.

Carter even reproduced and sold the image with Joseph with his son’s copyright attached, as he was legally bound to do. I think it is quite reasonable to believe the two men came to some type of mutually beneficial agreement. I am sure Joseph knew that Salt Lake City would be a productive market in regards to the sales of this particular photograph.

What becomes confusing is three drawing show up with copyrights that same year (1885), all say they are “copied” from a daguerreotype taken at the city of Nauvoo in 1843 and are copyrighted in C.W. Carter’s name. One of the images is the work of a popular Utah artist named Danquart Weggeland. In no way is C.W. Carter proposing that all four images were all in the same, when they clearly were not. The three he copyrighted without a doubt were artwork and the word “copied” in this instance was the term he used to express a reproduction via an artist’s eye. No Indian ink was used to block out the background and define the hairline as the “Carter” and the “Library of Congress” images display. Why Carter choice to have the drawings done is a mystery. Perhaps he came to some type of agreement with Joseph Smith III and wanted to have a variety of images to reproduce and sell. One thing I thought about was how Joseph Smith III, spoke of coming to some type of agreement with the Robinsons pertaining to the exclusive sale and manufacturing of the images brought to them. Perhaps Carter, had to find a different product to sell because the Robinsons were promised exclusivity.


Danquart Weggeland drawing for Carter.

Another drawing Carter sold.

Over the last century and a half a flood of various artistic renditions have come forward, almost all citing a daguerreotype of Joseph as the source. With this came a mass of confusion. The uneducated would refer to the reproduced drawings as actual photos of the late prophet. The word “copied” lost it meaning because it could refer to two separate and completely independent processes.

It’s understandable but a bit too simplistic to say that if some are wrong in their definition, then all are wrong in their definition.

1910 - Refined artist Lewis Ramsey paints an oil painting of the late prophet and states that “No authentic pictures are in existence of Joseph Smith". Upon receiving notice of this, Joseph Smith III writes a letter to the Salt Lake Tribune dated March 10^th. It reads:

Gentlemen:

I notice in your issue of Saturday morning, March 5, 1910, a copy of which was handed to me by a neighbor, a cut purporting to represent a life-sized portrait of my father, Joseph Smith, painted by a Utah Artist. I do not regret to see the picture, but I do regret to know that all the reverence said to be held by the people of Utah toward Joseph Smith, the first president of the church, they know so little about the appearance of the man. I regret the statement that is made, that there is no authentic picture of my father in existence, for this is a mistake. If your artist, Mr. Ramsey, should ever visit the capitol of Iowa, he will find a duplicate oil painting of Joseph Smith in one of the halls, placed there by myself and my son, at the request of Mr. Charles Aldridge, then curator of the historical society.

There is an authentic oil painting now in the possession of my son. Frederick M. Smith, at Independence, Mo., painted by the same artist, that painted one of my uncle, Hyrum Smith, which has formed a basis of pictures of him since his family went to Utah. It fortunately happens to us that this portrait, painted in 1843, is sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by the daguerreotype in our possession, taken the same year, I think, by an artist by the name of Lucian Foster. The picture in The Tribune looks like it had been made up of a composite of superimposed photograph, creating an ideal face. It represents him as wearing a ring on his right hand. The only ring he ever wore was worn on his left land. The picture represents a curly-headed man, but my father's hair was not curly. It was quite light in color and altogether the picture fails to essentially represent the man.

That Mr. Ramsey has done well from the material which he had to work with, I can believe, but the expression about the lower part of the face, taken from the death mask, which I saw reproduced in Ogden, executed by one Brown, several years ago, gives too full prominence to the lips and chin. It is a pleasure to think, however, that the remark made by you under the cut, that the artist had given a human touch to the picture, may be true. The recollections of the man so far as Utah is concerned had been kept alive by flat side views, by pictures originally executed by Sutcliffe Maudsley, an English designer, and a good many of them are but caricatures. I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to.

Yours truly, Joseph Smith (III)

In reading this, I refer to various truths; one of them is that the RLDS painting of Joseph Smith Jr. does not an artist signature or completion date. In a previous blog post I discussed the possibility of three different artists and only one of them (Rogers) was in Nauvoo in 1843, yet Joseph records sitting for a portrait with Rogers in September 1842 not 1843 and that painting is a profile image. So what was Joseph Smith III talking about as far as a painting that was done in 1843? Perhaps the sixty-seven years that had passed left room for error. In addition, Lucien Foster did not come to Nauvoo until 1844, the year that the prophet died, but in fairness Joseph Smith III did not name him with complete certainty.

In his letter to the Salt Lake Spectrum, Joseph, refers to the paintings as being “sustained in its characteristic likeness to my father by a daguerreotype in our possession”. In essence, we know the painting looks like him because we have a photo of him. It was Joseph’s goal to prove that the painting of his father was more accurate/authentic than that of Mr. Ramsey’s. Not once did he reference his father sitting for that painting but used his daguerreotype as the ultimate proof of his likeness. It would not make sense if Joseph said “I know the painting looks like him because we have a photograph of that painting”.

I understand that it is easy to read something that is written a thousand different ways but he clearly stated he had a daguerreotype in his possession in 1910. Now the question arises was a daguerreotype ever taken of the RLDS painting? Yes, a copy of it can be seen in Ephraim Hatch’s book named “Portraits: A Search for the Prophet's Likeness", as well as in this blog. Did it ever belong to the Smith family? I don’t know but it is an incredible sharp daguerreotype image of a painting with no blown whites, no short depth of field, no “S” cravat pin, no button on the vest, no scars, no Esotropia, no plain blank background, or numerous other details that match my photograph. Back to 1879 when Joseph wrote the Robinsons, he refers to waiting to see if some of the images would copy well. Well apparently the RLDS painting had photographed just fine in days of the daguerreotype.

1992 - The Library of Congress photo of Joseph Smith Jr. is found in the archives. Most did not even know of it's existence until then.

So now is the time to weigh the current evidence. Was a daguerreotype photograph ever taken of the once living and breathing man Joseph Smith Jr.? To date, there is no fragile daguerreotype to hold, to examine and test, but does this mean one never existed? Does a small 2 5/6” x 3 7/8” photographic print hold clues to its existence? A photo that shows a shallow depth of field, something only a 3D object could create, not a flat painted canvas. Does it mean anything that it sustains subtle details that are lost in edited 3^rd, 4^th, or 5^th generation copies? I have had critics that have told me that what I have is and edited edition beyond that of Library of Congress or the Carter image but do you see a hand and cuff in bottom those images?

I understand the conservative nature and skepticism that surrounds this subject as well as any historical document. Mark Hofmann forever changed the way these historical items were looked at, but amid all the fear of being deceived some truly incredible artifacts might go unrecognized. For your benefit or peace of mind I list the following details that would need to be included in a not-so-believable conspiracy theory.

1969 - My grandmother and grandfather receive a photograph of Joseph Smith Jr. while on their mission in Texas. On the back of the photograph is my grandfather’s name and their temporary address while in Texas, all written in his handwriting. Please note this occurred a few years before my birth.

In 1981 my Grandfather passes away, I was nine.

In 1985 my Grandmother crosses out his name, writes her name as well as “Property of” and a new current address. At this time she creates a scrapbook page with the photo as well as clippings from various newspapers. She photocopies this page and hands it out to some of her friends and family. It is also important to note that neither my grandmother, nor my grandfather were skilled in the art of photography or any art in that matter.

1991- My grandmother has remarried and is on a mission in California with her new elderly husband. She makes a reference in her journal in regards to a 16” x 20” painting her husband, an amateur artist with a shaky brush stroke, is working on. My grandmother refers to his use of her “Original Photograph of Joseph Smith copied from a Tintype” as a reference for Joseph’s likeness. (My grandmother would not have known the difference between a tintype and a daguerreotype.) Her husband does not put a cuff or hand in the painting for the sake of composition and my grandmother makes copies of the amateurish work of art and sends them out to various friends and family members.

1997- I come into possession of the photograph, from that time until present it has remained with me or within my access.

2009 – I read of the controversy about a photograph of Joseph Smith and my research begins.

If there had been any type of conspiracy prior my grandparents receiving the photograph, you would think it would have manifested before now. Why would these so called conspirators, then give my grandparents a copy and lesson the value of what they had? The photo-like qualities of image would either have to come from an actual photo or someone who was trying to deceive the masses with these details. I have always told the LDS church that they could test the image fully as long as the process did not cause harm. I have also contended that why would someone go to so much trouble to create a 2^ndgeneration print, why wouldn’t they have just created a daguerreotype and avoided the majority of the argument?

In my efforts to be an honest human-being and not mislead any of my readers, I feel the need to tell you that I am not an active LDS member. I grew up in the church and left the church for reasons pertaining to my own personal belief system. I do not need this photo to “be” Joseph for any religious reason and my research has been one of more a historical interest and fascination.

My grandmother was a Johnson; her great, great grandfather was Joel Hills Johnson, friend of Joseph Smith. My direct maternal line goes back to Rebecca Bearse Reed, a part Native American woman who became the nineteenth member of the Mormon Church. Her husband John Reed helped build Haun’s Mill and is said to have fashioned the key that let Joseph out of the Liberty Jail. Their daughter, my great-grandmother(X5) Clarissa worked in Joseph’s mansion and was married to Levi Hancock. While all of this does not give me pedigree that could absolve me from committing any criminal act, it shows my true motivation. I love genealogy, I love hearing something new about my heritage, and an alignment with the religious beliefs of my ancestors just doesn’t matter to me.

I have given this analogy when speaking of photograph to help my LDS friends understand my perspective. If you had a photo of Abraham Lincoln, your grandmother worked in his house, another grandparent was his friend. Would you not research it? Do you need to be the same religion as Abraham to do so? Do I think photo has value? Of course, to many it offers a photo of their beloved Prophet but to others a historical figure that shaped America.

P.S. I apologize for the long read and errors in grammar. Luckily spell-check is alive and correcting. If not my writing would have an abundance of illiterate words plaguing it . :D

Nauvoo Artists and Joseph Smith

2011-03-26T17:45:00.000-07:00

Many have speculated who actually painted the famous RLDS painting of Joseph Smith Jr.. Joseph reported sitting for a painting by a Brother David Rogers on September 16, 1842. Some experts drew a line to the famous painting, claiming that the well-known RLDS painting was it. The problem with their theory? We have the painting done by Rogers and Joseph is sitting in his standard profile stance.

Well, if it wasn't the work of the artist Rogers, who did it? There has been a fairly large consensus that it was the work of a Nauvoo portrait artist named William Major. The problem with this theory is that in comparing the work of Major and the RLDS painting we see that the artist styles do not match. Whoever painted the RLDS painting knew a great deal more about layering skin in oil and creating depth. Artists tend to always have an individual style, kind of a fingerprint of their work. Especially when problem solving difficult issues in their artwork. Here is a portrait of Brigham Young done by Major around 1845.

While cruising the internet I stumbled onto an article about another artist that was present in Nauvoo in 1845, and as a matter of fact, he shared an artist studio with William Major. His name was Selah (Seal) Van Sickle and was a self-taught artist. I went back to scouring that internet for his work, the only image I found was a black and white, low resolution photo of Brigham Young, titled "Delivering the Law of the Lord". The original painting is located at the Daughters of the Utah Pioneers building. They have graciously allowed me to post part of their copyrighted painting on my blog. If you are interested in seeing the full work or getting a copy of Van Sickle's painting please contact them at http://www.dupinternational.org/. Below is a side by side comparison of the Brigham Young painting and the RLDS painting of Joseph Smith.

The two faces have a very similar artistic style. Being an artist myself I could probably sit and list a good hundred similarities, but that's a bit boring and most readers can easily see what I am talking about without that aid. I will say, that when examining the entire painting, I am led to the conclusion that Van Sickle was quite talented when it came to painting faces, but an amateur in regards to understanding perspective. Though it's not uncommon for an artist to be highly skilled in one area and undeveloped in another. Van Sickle tended to elongate the necks of his subjects in an effort to create a regal-like effect but in reality it really only creates an unnatural appearance.

What does all of this have to do in regards to my Joseph Smith Jr. photo? Well, if Van Sickle or Major painted the famous RLDS painting, it was done after his death, because neither were in Nauvoo before the Prophet's death. Where did the artist get the source of information for such a detailed painting? Hmmm, perhaps the source was a daguerreotype and the artist used a Camera Lucida or Obscura to enlarge it. Remember, all the other known artist works of Joseph done during his lifetime were done as profiles.

Hidden clues in a photo.

2011-03-02T20:07:00.000-08:00

While studying a poster size print of the photo (Joseph Smith Jr.) in a meeting with the LDS Church, Head Photo Archivist Bill Slaughter pointed out that something seemed off with his left eye. My husband and I were in agreement. We wondered if perhaps he had a lazy eye, the gaze of each eye appeared off from the other. We noted the large scar over his eyelid and wondered if it was a contributing factor. A couple of months later while attending an eye appointment for my daughter my husband decided to take the poster in and get a professional opinion. The Optometrist informed my husband that from what he could tell it was not a lazy eye but a condition called Esotropia, which is a form of strabismus, in which one or both eyes turn inward. The doctor noted that it could have easily been caused by the apparent injury to the eye, noted in both the death mask and photo. The doctor also brought to his attention that the eyelid had a pronounced droop in comparison to the right eye, which was indicative of a severe injury/trama to the muscle.

Please note the following image has had the contrast enhanced as well as a reversed image for viewing. Some find it easier to view the issues in which I am speaking about if the photo is flipped.

Click on image to enlarge.

After hearing all of this, I began searching to see if any of the artists that had drawn or painted Joseph had translated these issues into their work. Oddly, out of my huge digital collection I could only find profile pictures of Joseph done during his lifetime. This got me thinking, why did he not pose straight forward? I understand why Sutcliffe Maudsley drew his images this way. He was known as a profilist, but what about the others? While this is just my opinion, I wonder if perhaps Joseph was a bit self conscious about his eye, or maybe he felt his profile was more distinguishing. Who knows?

A picture is worth a thousand words.

2011-02-16T22:58:00.001-08:00

I think one of the most important points in my research is that the evidence clearly shows that it is a photograph of a person and not of a painting. Here are just a few basic reasons that lead me to this conclusion.

1. Depth of field. In optics, particularly as it relates to film and photography, depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the nearest and farthest objects in a scene that appear acceptably sharp in an image. Although a lens can precisely focus at only one distance at a time, the decrease in sharpness is gradual on each side of the focused distance, so that within the DOF, the unsharpness is imperceptible under normal viewing conditions.

In some cases, it may be desirable to have the entire image sharp, and a large DOF is appropriate. In other cases, a small DOF may be more effective, emphasizing the subject while de-emphasizing the foreground and background. In cinematography, a large DOF is often called deep focus, and a small DOF is often called shallow focus. Thanks Wikipedia for your quick definition.

In the case of the Joseph Smith photo, there is a shallow depth of field. His eyes and face are in focus and quickly graduate out of focus in the foreground and background. Only a 3D object could create this.

I have a link to a great website that shows early daguerreotypes that had these same focusing issues as well as giving a great little history lesson about daguerreotype photography. Here's the link.

2. Reflection. Daguerreotype photographs are a mirrored, polished surface that must be tilted slightly in order to view the image. Photographing a daguerreotype becomes even more tricky, especially before 1879. Through my various research, I believe that in fact that my photo as well as the two Library of Congress photos of Joseph all have the same embedded reflection.

Please note that the following image has had the contrast enhanced to show the details of the reflection. While it can be seen with the naked eye on the original it does make it easier for the viewer to screen it via the internet.

Click on image to enlarge.

Note the various 45 degree angles as well as parallel lines. I highly doubt that scratches/defects would happen randomly in this manner and so repetitively. I did originally believe that this was just a defect of my photo as well as the Library of Congress images. At the time I did not understand the difficulty in photographing daguerreotypes. Back to the whole photo of the RLDS painting argument, why would Joseph Smith III continually reproduce this image with this defect? Unless perhaps it was the best one they came up with. I have seen the negative of the RLDS painting from the late 1800's, and it did not have this brick-like pattern weaved across it. Nevertheless, truly this argument ended for me a while back when I realized my image had many hidden details that painting did not possess. (Read about it a couple of pages back :D)

I must revise what I stated earlier about the Carter image being different from the Library of Congress image. Two images were, in fact, submitted to the Library of Congress by Joseph Smith III in 1879. It is my belief that William Carson was the re-photographer of all three images because of the uniqueness of the reflection. It is possible that more than one negative was used at the time but if my theory is correct, Carson's negative would have been the source for all three images. The Carter image and the Library of Congress image being edited and rephotographed then submitted for copyright.

Update... well kind of.

2010-08-02T18:21:00.000-07:00

I have recently been having inquires about the size of the photo and any more information regarding it's origin. I have been super busy with my family and have been meaning to give a few updates but will have to postpone that part for a later blog. I am however posting a higher resolution picture for my blog. Enjoy!

Photo and Death Mask

2010-04-03T18:08:00.000-07:00

Joseph Smith photo superimposed over death mask.

Original photo of death mask.

Grandma's journals.

2010-03-18T16:05:00.000-07:00

I spent a good part of last fall and winter reading through my maternal grandmother’s journals. She loved to write and keeping a journal was perhaps one of the great passions of her life. I enjoyed getting to see an inside perspective of her time on this earth, and I definitely feel like I know her better, but ultimately my agenda was to find more information about the Joseph Smith photo she passed onto me. I must say that in regard to the photograph she spoke only a few times, and her references were the same. She spoke of it being copied off the original tintype of the Joseph. In all fairness, she would have not known the difference between a tintype and a daguerreotype photo so the meaning is the same to me. At one point in the early 1990’s she wrote of her new husband, an amateur artist, working on a painting from the photo. They were serving a couple’s mission in California at the time and during that time she passed out photocopied images of his artwork, as well as photocopies of her scrapbook page that included news clippings and the small unedited Joseph Smith photo. As for the painting done by her husband, it was passed onto his family after his death and while I remember seeing the painting, I can only find a picture of it in the background of a photo of them from around 2002.
I was really hoping that I would find information in her journals from her first mission in Texas in the late 1960’s, but there are blocks of time missing, and I know that some of her precious journals were unfortunately damaged and disposed of due to extensive moisture and mold a couple of years ago. I have found a couple leads to investigate, and I still need to follow them through as well as developing a couple possible theories but nothing has been resolved in that regards.
So what’s happening now? We are hoping to do sort of a round-table with various experts in the field as well as representatives from the LDS Church. This has been in the making for the last eight months but schedules have been busy and who really wants to head to Salt Lake in the winter time. LOL There has been talk about possible doing it in a couple of weeks, but we will see if things can be lined up. I’ll let you know.

9. Did the original Joseph Smith daguerreotype have damage even in 1879?

2009-09-02T17:43:00.000-07:00

I thought I would do a photo comparison of these three Joseph Smith images. I believe all three came from the original source (Joseph Smith Dag). Why? Minus the photo editing and artistic retouching that occurred on both the Carter photo and the Library of Congress photo, they have the same exact photo imperfections which are a standard characteristic of the very sensitive daguerreotype photo surface. Even the horizontal damage lines appear in all three pictures (look at the faint impression lines on the bottom of all three photos). Could they have came from the same damaged negative? Ron Romig, former archivist for the Community Church of Christ told me that the photo masking which occurred on the Library of Congress image and Carter image was done directly onto the surface of the glass negative with Indian ink. My photo was printed after this time period with apparently a third unedited negative. My conclusion, the original daguerreotype photo must have had damage even in 1879. I might also add that not one of the photographic prints of the RLDS (Community Church of Christ) painting show this exact horizontal imperfection. Why? Because the painting was never damaged in this way.

8. Case of the missing button and much more...

2009-07-17T17:55:00.000-07:00

In my last blog, I baited the blog audience with a written line about a missing button. I might add that where it is missing, is from the painting of Joseph Smith owned by the Community Church of Christ (RLDS Church). The button is located on the vest, possible to hold a pocket watch is my guess. I searched my saved images to see if I could see any button on the painting finally giving way to call Ron Romig, archivist for the Community Church of Christ. He graciously the next day went to check out the painted image himself and there was indeed no button. He gave me some possible ways it could have been removed such as a repaint due to damage or something, but when I looked at a photo of the painting taken in late 1800's, there is no button as well. My question is, why would you paint a button out of a painting? If you were restoring an image you would not edit things out of it, you would restore the painting to the previous state as to appear unaltered.

The funny thing is when I painted a painting from my picture a couple of months ago I missed the button too. The micro-scan we did in SLC at Borg Anderson Photography yielded much more information about the picture such as a button we had not seen before. Here is the interesting part; the Library of Congress image shows the suggestion of the button or buttons. As I have always contended it is an edited version of my Joseph Smith photo and not an edited version of the painting.

Another neat finding came about a couple of days ago as I was looking at the image in Photoshop. I had this feeling that I was just missing something, that there was more, more I could use to prove this was a real photograph. I was playing with the contrast and multiplying the image over its self to enhance what information was already present but not visual to the human eye. Suddenly, it was a WOW moment! What I noted was an "S" over the knot of his cravat. I multiplied it further to enhance the image, and there it was. What I think it could be is a monogrammed locket with an "S", or it could possibly be a tie pin, but it seems a bit large for that. I also see suggestions of a chain possible. Furthermore, I might add that the Community Church of Christ's painting does not have anything like this on it. I did read that Emma had a locket of Joseph's hair she wore, which was passed onto her daughter Julia. Is it possible Emma originally gave Joseph the locket, and he was photographed with it?
Note: In the photo, I superimposed a monogrammed gold "S" below it as an example, it doesn't appear to be the exact font but is similar in design.

7. New ABC4 update July 6,2009 at 10:00 P.M. MST.

2009-07-04T15:43:00.000-07:00

I know that my blog has been quite neglected for the past couple of months, due in part to the intense research work I have been doing. I guess an absence could be construed as a good thing in this case. About a month ago we went to Salt Lake and met with a LDS Church history rep as well as having our image micro-scanned by Borg Anderson Photography. The micro-scan was incredible! Many details that lay hidden in a small photo and are not apparent to the human eye are brought to life via an enlarged image. Borg's printed us a 12" x 48" center slice of the image to carry around as well as full 8" x 10". Working with this highly detailed image has brought some definitive conclusions which support our effort to authenticate this particular photo of Joseph.

After the brief visit with the LDS Church last month we were invited back for a meeting sometime after their new building opened on June 22,2009. This new meeting occurred last Wednesday and we (my husband and I) felt it went very well. We gave them an update to what we had learned and listened to what their feelings and intentions were as far as this effort. I feel it is their desire to be supportive in my research efforts but are cautious to attach the LDS name and image to the project just yet. I understand that they have been burnt on more then one occasion and are guarded because of this. I also understand that in order for them to be comfortable with this image they must somehow attach a paper trail and create provenance.

While I hope to find this information and have a couple possible directions to head in I hope that they don't get stuck exclusively on this concept. Not everything is documented via the written word, somethings are documented via a visual material such as a photo. Don't get me wrong, I did not feel in the least bit discouraged about what they told us, more or less we were told what role the LDS Church would like to play in this research work. Overall I felt they were in agreement that my theories were quite plausible but making a statement of certainty is too premature for them at this time. So we wait... with much more research to come. If anything I felt excited at the level of honesty we shared.

My feelings have always been "it is what it is". It's either is a true photograph of Joseph Smith Jr. or it isn't, personally the physical evidence of this image makes me believe it is. The more I research it the more I am convinced. How it all came about is a great mystery and who doesn't love a great mystery.

I will blog later about the evidence that proves once and for all that my image and the Library of Congress image DO NOT come from the RLDS painting. Call it the case of the missing button.

6. Carter photograph vs. my photo.

2009-04-28T17:37:00.000-07:00

There has been some question as to whether my Joseph Smith photo is from a "Carter Glass Print Negative". I wanted to point out some of the subtle differences to the blog readers. The Carter print show Joseph with a distance between his ear on the left side and his collar. My photo shows an intersection between the ear and collar. How could you paint this onto a negative? It is very apparent that the Carter print is from the RLDS painting, I believe most would agree with this concept. The RLDS painting is a beautiful work and is quite accurate to the photo but still there are many differences.

The Carter print shows Joseph with a very straight tapered nose, an enhanced version of my photo shows that his nose was crooked and had possibly been broken.

The eyes....I think they tell everything. Carter's photograph shows Joseph's eyes even in size and the one on the right side is upturned slightly. My photo shows a lower eye top lid on the right side.

(You can click on the photos to enlarge them in another screen.)

While meeting with Bill Slaughter from the LDS Church History Library, I asked him if he had ever seen Joseph with a crooked nose, he said that he had not but wanted to go back and review more information.

A point that was brought up during the photo examination was that if the photograph had been derived from a one dimensional painting negative the entire image of Joseph would have been in focus. Instead the focus is primarily on his face and eyes, just a daguerreotype photo would have been taken in the 1840's.

REPEAT OF ABC4 NEWS STORY TOMORROW AT 5:00 PM

2009-04-27T23:19:00.001-07:00

ABC4 News in Utah is airing a repeat of the "Joseph Smith Photo Mystery" today (April 28,2009) at 5:00 P.M..

Thanks to the wonderful and talented Barb Smith and ABC4 News for all your help with this ongoing research project. To the Blogger World, more intriguing behind the scenes updates to come as we unravel this mystery.

http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/The-Joseph-Smith-Photo-Mystery/DLhihVCyc0uV3A8rCTojuA.cspx

5. Don't miss ABC4 in Utah at 10:00 P.M.

2009-04-24T11:50:00.001-07:00

I really wish I had more time to write but I am super busy. We just got back from SLC yesterday and WOW what a great trip! I am not going to give the full details because ABC4 is airing a special on it April 27, 2009 at 10:00 P.M. MST. I will say, while in SLC we met with the LDS Church as well as some leading experts in the field of Antique and Vintage Photography. Incredible stuff!!!!

READ MORE ABOUT THE STORY AT ABC4 News' Website: Joseph Smith Photo Mystery

4. Exciting News Update

2009-04-15T00:00:00.000-07:00

Sorry I haven't written on my blog for quite some time now, I have been very busy. Today, Utah's ABC4 News came out to start doing a story on my Joseph Smith Jr. photo. They will be airing it sometime in May during sweeps week, and the always gracious and beautiful Barb Smith is working on the story. It was great meeting her today and getting to tell her my story. What's next? I need to get up to SLC sometime in the near future to work on having the photo further authenticated.

On a side note: The image above is a digitally enhanced and cropped version of the photo. I know people have been dying to see a better view of it. I think it really shows some of the character of his face.

3. What’s happening now…

2009-03-28T19:10:00.001-07:00

I have to start off by explaining a few things that I left out from the two previous blogs. I wanted to explain why I haven’t released the entire image and what direction I am taking it right now. A couple of days ago I was able to meet with Richard E. Turley who is the LDS Assistant Church Historian and Recorder and is Managing Director of the Family and Church History Department. I showed him my photo of Joseph and we discussed various theories of how it and other images could have come into play. While I cannot speak for the LDS Church or their representative, I can say at the time he could not disprove my theories or the photo. I enjoyed talking with him and being able to show him what work I have done as of yet and getting his feedback. With his invitation, our next step is to take it to Salt Lake and allow the Church History Department to examine it further. So for the time being my plan is to not release a full digital image of my photo.

I also wanted to share a few more things I noticed with the Death Mask Comparison. I had a few questions as to why I didn’t take the mask to the bottom of his face in the picture. I also had a realization as to why many others could not get the death mask to fit the image from the Library of Congress photo. Unfortunately when I was visiting Gracia Jones, I only had my cell phone camera with me. I knew that when I photographed images at close range it always gave them a barrel distortion. Luckily Photoshop has a lens correction applet and I used it correct the death mask photo I had taken. I noticed that any kind of distortion could offset the features and how easily the mask and photo would not match. Another thing that I noticed was that in my image there was a distinctive chin line that appeared to be shadowed.

I read accounts of Joseph Smith Jr. having gained some weight in his face and body and then referred to various profile paintings done of him, one of which is a painting done by the artist Sutcliffe Maudsley. This artist would shine a light in front of his subject and trace an outline, thus creating a true to life profile. I noted that Maudsley’s work showed Joseph with a rather full chin; it looks as though it was almost at a forty-five degree angle. In my photograph, Joseph’s high white collar almost hides the full spectrum of his chin and jaw bone. (I wish these collars were in style now, I sure could use one.) The shadow in my photo is almost a perfect and identical shape of the death mask. Anyone who has played with a camera and taken pictures of themselves lying down knows that it is almost like an instant face lift because of gravity.

My conclusion: previous attempts of death mask comparisons were off because of photo distortion and an over enlarged photo to fit his full chin/neck.

Please feel free to leave comments on the comment link below.

2. Death Mask Comparison

2009-03-26T02:22:00.000-07:00

I thought that it would be interesting to do a side by side comparison of my Joseph Smith photo with his death mask.
The only difference that stands out in this image is his nose, which I believe they stuffed with cotton prior to casting the mold.

A personal thank you to Gracia Jones for allowing me to examine and photograph her mask. To those who don't know, Gracia Jones is a well known author, historian, and direct decedent of Joseph and Emma Smith.

1. How it all started

2009-03-21T17:19:00.000-07:00

I must admit that up until a few weeks ago I never knew that there was even a controversy over the photo of Joseph Smith Jr. which is owned by the Library of Congress. Maybe I should first start by explaining where this crazy journey began for me. About twelve years ago while visiting my grandmother, the conversation of genealogy came up. She handed me a book of various copied journal accounts of some of our pioneer ancestors. I found looking through it very fascinating and intriguing, then I turned to a rather odd page. There were yellow newspaper images and a few small stories about the LDS Prophet Joseph Smith Jr. In the corner on the page sealed under a small plastic cover sat a photo. The thin silver gray photo was matted on a slightly larger piece of card stock and had been well preserved. Written underneath this photo were the words "Copy of the Original Tintype". I asked my grandmother about the curious photo. She explained that it was a photo of Joseph Smith Jr. and that she had received it many years prior. It was her belief that during a photo session possibly by Lucien Foster that two photos were taken. I believe that she said the LDS Church had one of them and that the other belonged to a non-LDS man.

Looking back now I realize that my dear grandmother may have been mistaken. Not about the image in the photo but about whether anyone else was in possession of this or any other actual unedited image copied from a daguerreotype picture of the Prophet. Attempting to learn the truth I contacted the LDS Historical Library a couple of weeks ago. I told them of the carte-de-viste photo and what I believed it to be. Being hesitant to send the entire image digitally, I sent a sliced version done in Photoshop. A couple days later I received an email .

It was their belief that what I had was a carte de viste of a sketch done by the Utah artist Danquart Weggeland. Being an artist myself this did not sit well with me. I found what picture I believed they were talking about and did a digital comparison in Photoshop. I found that the lines of the drawing did not match at all or the style of hair for that matter.

For further comparison I used the image from the Library of Congress. I noticed that indeed the two images matched except for some artistic editing and enhancement work that had clearly been done. I noted that the artist had done some painted work on Joseph's eyes especially his left eye (pictured on the right side of the photo). Perhaps it was done to balance his face and make it appear not so uneven. The artist also cleaned the lines of his jacket for a more tailored look and touched up areas of the photo that appeared to be overexposed. I believe in doing this, they changed the true nature of his face and overall appearance. Having done portrait work for many years I know that it is the most of minor details that create the true likeness.

Now again the true nature of the Library of Congress photo comes into play. Some believe it is just a reproduction of the painting owned by the RLDS Church and possibly painted by the artist named Majors. I thought in that instance I would do some comparisons. First I compared one of just the left eye from my photo, the Library of Congress photo and a picture of the RLDS painting (in that order from the bottom up). Notice the middle picture has an over exaggerated iris and the pupil appears to be slightly off center. I believe this is the work of a photo editing artist. The lower lid has an unnatural plunge to compensate for the exaggeration. The lines of the upper lid remain the same although darkened. The top eye is from the RLDS painting and the iris appears to be more in proportion as well as the lower lid. The upper lid however, has been given a different square-like appearance, especially on the outside corner.

The second comparison of the RLDS painting and my photo show that the entire jacket outline has been changed and lowered. This again is the work of an artist to create more symmetry and elongate the painting. It appears that the original daguerreotype may have been used as a reference for the RLDS painting. The Library of Congress photo appears to be a post edited version of the photo I was given. I am again waiting to hear back from the LDS Church History Library as far as the information they have acquired. I will post more later when information becomes available.

Please note: The image header on my blog is copyrighted by me, the artist.