A true photographic image of Joseph Smith Jr.

 I want to emphasize that the photo of Joseph Smith Jr. in my possession (Marshall Photo) did not originate from a painting; it's actually the other way around. The painting was created based on the daguerreotype. This is why you can find certain details in the photo that are not present in the painting. Thanks to modern technology, we have been able to extract and enhance these small details, making them more visible and easily discernible.

The painting was created from the daguerreotype. That is why there are details in the photo, that aren't in the painting. With the aid of modern technology, these little details were pulled from the tiny photo and enhanced so we can see them easily. If the photo in my possession came from the famous RLDS Joseph painting, the painting would match the photo.  Details such as a filagree "S" on the cravat would be present in the photo, which it is not. This is just one detail out of a hundred differences. Artists are human and cannot copy everything perfectly, unlike the reproduction quality of a photo.

Question 1. Then how did the artist get the painting to match as close as it does?

Might I introduce the Camera Lucida. Patented in 1806. Obscura.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lucida

Or the artist may have used a Camera Obscura, which dates back to the 1500s.  https://mymodernmet.com/camera-obscura/ 

As a professional artist myself, I am very aware of the tricks of the trade. Many people are surprised or disappointed to find out that artists use these aids, but they help save a lot of time and frustration. A professional painter with a high skill level would definitely have this in his arsenal. 

Question 2- Could your photo have had those tiny details painted or drawn on after it was taken?

 

No. How do we know this? Because of the clarity and level of detail of the photograph. Each time a photograph is copied, it loses precious details. Imagine using a old Xerox machine and making copies of copies, before you know it, you have black streaks and letters are missing. As per Al Thelon, a daguerreotype expert and professional photographer, The level of detail in the small photo is consistent with a "contact print" that would have been taken from an original photo. We know that the Library of Congress photo was blown up and crudely painted on. It was again photographed and then presented to the Library of Congress as Joseph's image. That is why it isn't as detailed as my image and it has lost much of the nuances of the original photo. 

 

                Question 3- How do we really know it was Joseph Smith Jr? 

                Because his son, Joseph Smith III said it was him. He copyrighted his father's image so he could resale copies of it to generate an income. He stated this in his letter to John A Robinson in 1879.

Question 4- What about the newly reported daguerreotype? Do you think it is him?

        Logic tells me no. Why? Because Joseph Smith III didn't use it or reproduce it. Nor did he ever validate it or let artists make renditions of it. Though his father died when he was a child, he knew what keepsakes his mother cherished and would definitely know the difference between a large painting and a daguerreotype of his father.  I might add, that in 1879, many people were still alive that had known Joseph and what he looked like. 

Question 5- Why isn't there a personal account of Joseph Smith Jr sitting for a daguerreotype?

There is no way he accounted for every single happening in his life. We have to look at the information that we do have.  In 1910 Joseph Smith III refers to his father's daguerreotype in a published article.  It reads -

 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.

Joseph Smith III is saying his father's painting looks like his father's daguerreotype. And how about in 1885, Artist Danquart Weggeland drew a drawing of Joseph where he sites "Copied from the Original Daguerreotype of Nauvoo in 1843".  He isn't referring to the painting, he refers to the photo. (photographed by CW Carter)

I hope this information was helpful and answered some of your questions. Please feel free to comment, as I am open to discussing this issue.