In this blog post, we will explore the connection between
the famous RLDS (CCofC) Painting of Joseph Smith Jr and its alleged association
with the Marshall photo. We will delve into the origins of this theory, its
development over time, and the visual disparities between the Marshall photo
and the RLDS painting. By examining these aspects, our aim is to shed light on
the validity of the claim that the Marshall photo is a photographic copy of the
painting, ultimately debunking numerous unproven theories.
1. The Emergence of the RLDS Painting Theory:
The idea that the Marshall photo is a photographic copy of a
renowned RLDS painting actually gained momentum prior to its discovery and release in 2009. This theory first emerged in the mid-1990s when a
copy of The Library of Congress photo of Joseph Smith Jr. surfaced, coinciding
with the publication of the book "Photograph Found." by researchers Reed Simonsen and Chad Fugate. The images
appeared similar, leading some to speculate about the photo and whether it was a copy of the painting.
However, conflicting opinions arose regarding which came first, yet the "copy of the painting" theory
gained popularity. (
2. Visual Differences: Face and Key Features:
While the face and certain key features in the Marshall
photo and the RLDS painting share similarities, there are distinct differences
upon closer examination. The Marshall photo shows a crooked nose, lighter eyes
that reflect light following the principles of light theory for
semi-transparent eyes, and apparent scars or dark marks on the eyelid. In
contrast, the RLDS painting depicts a straight nose and dark, flatly painted
eyes.
3. Clothing and Background Discrepancies:
When scrutinizing the attire depicted in both the Marshall
photo and the RLDS painting, notable differences become apparent. The painting
presents a simplified cravat, while the Marshall photo displays a lacy cravat
adorned with an embroidered "S" in the center. The jacket in the
photo features buttons and an embroidered mourning bow appliqué, whereas the
painting lacks the woven fabric texture seen in the Marshall photo and The
Library of Congress version. Additionally, the painting showcases a scenic
background, while the photo features a simpler, textured backdrop.
4. Misalignment in
Cuffs:
Another visual difference emerges in the alignment of
Joseph's cuff between the RLDS painting and the Marshall photograph. The cuff
in the photograph appears naturally positioned in proportion to the body size,
whereas the painting depicts a lowered and unnatural placement of the cuff.
5. Vertical Striations Similarities:
First of all, I believe that both the vertical lines in this "specific" copy of the RLDS painting and in the copy of the daguerreotype photo (Marshall Photo) occurred at the same photo shoot in 1879 and are a result of the reflection from the ambient light in the photographer's studio. When being photographed, the mirrored surface of a daguerreotype easily reflects light details. Although I have yet to fully decipher what that reflection is precisely, there are strange nonorganic reflections embedded in both the painting and the daguerreotype. I believe that the image on the left is a copy of a daguerreotype taken from the RLDS painting of Joseph, which means it has a mirrored surface. Initially, I mistakenly identified all the vertical lines as brush strokes from gloss, as is commonly assumed. However, upon further analysis, it seems that these vertical lines are actually embedded within the painting and or daguerreotype and are not present in other contemporary photographs.
The only rational explanation is that these lines are the result of light reflecting from an external source, as the mirrored surface of the original daguerreotype was photographed. Essentially, there is a mirrored reflection trapped in both images. However, the reflection appears in different spots on the images. The only logical theory is that Joseph Smith III fulfilled his intention of sending multiple images, as mentioned in his letter to the Robinsons. It is likely that at least one of these images was a daguerreotype of the painting, while the other image would be the actual daguerreotype of his father.
6. Photographic Qualities:
Let's delve into the photographic qualities of the Marshall
photo compared to the RLDS Painting. The painting, being a flat 2D object,
retains its crisp lines, the painting is in focus in its entirety, while the Marshall photo exhibits variations in focus
evident through the blurring of the cuff, hair, and shoulders of Joseph. This
difference can be attributed to the inherent characteristics of daguerreotype
photography. Daguerreotype photos were known for their shallow depth of field,
a result of the limitations of the lenses used. It was crucial to prioritize
focus on key features such as the eyes, even if it meant sacrificing other
details.
Another notable photographic detail in the Marshall photo is
what is commonly referred to as "blown whites." This feature manifests
as a halo around lighter objects, caused by overexposure during the long
exposure time required for daguerreotypes. It also leads to a reduction in
information in the light or white areas of the image. It's important to note
that the version of the photo you see on my blog has had the contrast adjusted
to compensate for this.
7. Exploring
Theories:
Now, let's revisit the question of whether the Marshall
photo is a copy of the RLDS painting and examine how these differences between
them arose. There have been various theories put forward, and it's important to
consider their plausibility. One theory suggests the use of Indian ink on a
negative, but this would require much more than a few strokes to create the
notable differences seen in the Marshall photo. Additionally, Indian ink
appears as white in a photo because the negative is in reverse, making this
theory less likely.
Another theory proposes that a photo of the painting was
taken, printed, edited, and then re-photographed. However, each time something
is re-photographed, information is lost, as can be observed in the Library of
Congress photo. In contrast, the Marshall photo contains a remarkable amount of
detail considering its small size. Furthermore, some of the hidden details in
the overexposed whites of the Marshall photo have been brought to light with
the help of modern technology. It seems unlikely that an artist in 1879 would
intentionally give Joseph a crooked nose and try to imitate the imperfections of
daguerreotype photography. Artists typically aimed to portray their subjects in
a more idealized manner, and I haven't come across any other paintings or
drawings of Joseph showing his crooked nose.
Moreover, the fact that the crooked nose in the Marshall
photo matches Joseph Smith Jr.'s death mask raises questions. All these
theories suggesting that the Marshall photo originated from the RLDS painting
can be easily debunked with common sense. So, what is an alternative theory
that offers a simple and logical explanation? It is, I would suggest, the most probable that the RLDS
painting was created with the assistance of a daguerreotype photo, perhaps
using a Camera Lucida. This explanation accounts for the differences between
the two and allows for artistic liberties taken during the process.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, a thorough examination of the unproven
factors surrounding the Marshall photo and its supposed connection to the RLDS
painting strongly suggests that they are not direct copies of each other. The
significant visual differences observed in facial features, clothing, background,
cuff alignment, and striations discredit the theory of a simple replication.
Moreover, the distinct photographic qualities exhibited by the Marshall photo,
such as variations in focus and "blown whites," align with the known
characteristics of daguerreotype photography.
In contrast, the theory proposing that the RLDS painting was
created with the assistance of a daguerreotype photo, potentially utilizing
tools like a Camera Lucida, offers a more plausible and logical explanation.
This theory accounts for both the similarities and the artistic liberties taken
in the creation of the painting, providing a coherent narrative that aligns
with the evidence at hand.