Did a Photograph Come Before the Painting? A 1962 BYU Thesis Examines Joseph Smith’s Portrait
In 1962, William B. McCarl examined a question that remains central to the discussion of Joseph Smith’s likeness: was the familiar front-facing photograph copied from a painting, or was the painting created from a photograph?
His master’s thesis, The Visual Image of Joseph Smith, submitted to Brigham Young University’s Department of Art, supported the latter explanation. After examining portraits, historical accounts, photographic copyright records, and family testimony, McCarl concluded:
“It appears the front view oil painting was copied from a daguerreotype.”
Page 68
His research did not recover the original daguerreotype. It did, however, assemble evidence supporting a photographic source for the painting, including a direct statement from Joseph Smith’s son.
Joseph Smith III’s Letter: What He Actually Said
On March 10, 1910, Joseph Smith III wrote to the Salt Lake Tribune in response to a portrait of his father painted by a Utah artist. His letter appeared in the newspaper on March 20, 1910, and McCarl reproduced it on pages 29–30 of his thesis.
Joseph III objected to the suggestion that no authentic picture of his father existed. He described an oil painting in his son Frederick’s possession, then stated:
“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 relationship he describes is significant. The daguerreotype sustains, or corroborates, the painting’s likeness to his father.
Joseph III expressly calls the family’s photographic image a daguerreotype. His qualification, “I think,” accompanies the attribution to Lucian Foster. He does not describe the daguerreotype as a photograph of the oil painting.
At the end of the letter, he identifies a different photographic item:
“I am enclosing a photograph taken from the oil painting referred to.”
He therefore distinguishes the oil painting, the daguerreotype that corroborates its likeness, and the photograph of the painting enclosed with his letter.
A photograph made from a painting reproduces the artist’s work. By itself, it cannot independently establish that the painting accurately depicts its subject. Joseph III’s use of the daguerreotype as corroboration is therefore meaningful: he presents it as supporting evidence for the painting’s likeness.
That is evidence of how Joseph III understood the images. His letter does not explicitly describe the painter working from the daguerreotype, but it supports taking that possibility seriously.
Clarifying Joseph Smith III’s Testimony
On page 49, McCarl lists among his unresolved questions whether Joseph III possessed an original daguerreotype or merely a photograph of one.
The distinction concerns what Joseph III actually testified to. His letter explicitly identifies the family’s possession as a daguerreotype. The photographic copy he explicitly mentions is the enclosed photograph of the oil painting.
McCarl’s inability to inspect the family’s daguerreotype was a limitation of his investigation. It should not be confused with uncertainty expressed by Joseph III about whether the object was a daguerreotype. Joseph III’s own wording is direct.
The accurate distinction is this: Joseph III stated that the family possessed a daguerreotype; McCarl could not independently verify the object.
Source: Joseph Smith III to the Salt Lake Tribune, March 10, 1910, published March 20, 1910, p. 13; reproduced in McCarl’s thesis, pp. 29–30.
The Photographs and Their Copyright Records
McCarl also investigated photographs associated with Charles W. Carter and W. B. Carson through correspondence with the Library of Congress.
On pages 40–41, he describes Carter’s photograph copyrighted on September 25, 1885. Its caption stated:
“Copied from the original daguerreotype taken at the City of Nauvoo, 1843.”
Carter copyrighted another version on December 26 of the same year. McCarl reports that the second version omitted the caption and showed considerably more retouching.
An earlier photograph, deposited by W. B. Carson of Peoria, Illinois, on July 25, 1879, was copyrighted in Joseph Smith III’s name. McCarl’s sources included letters from Library of Congress reference librarian Virginia Daiker and Copyright Office official Richard S. MacCarteney.
For McCarl, the copyright in Joseph III’s name suggested a connection between Carson’s photograph and the photographic image held by the Smith family.
The Carson photograph was copyrighted in Joseph Smith III’s name decades before his 1910 letter. That documented connection further supports his identification of his father’s likeness and should be considered alongside his explicit statement that the family possessed a daguerreotype.
The source claim attached to Carter’s photograph also matters. The assertion that the image originated in a Nauvoo daguerreotype was already being made in the nineteenth century.
Retouching Complicates the Surviving Images
McCarl’s discussion also makes clear that the photographic versions were not all untouched or identical.
He reports increased retouching in Carter’s second version and extensive touching up of the hair and clothing in Carson’s version.
This matters when evaluating whether an image looks photographic or painted. McCarl was examining reproductions whose appearance had been altered. Those alterations complicated efforts to determine the nature of their original source.
The Unedited Photo of Joseph, which came to light in 2009, adds another piece of evidence. My research identifies it as an earlier version of the image, preserving details altered or obscured in the retouched copies. Comparing these versions allows those changes to be examined directly and helps explain why the later reproductions took on a more painted appearance.
McCarl consulted Beaumont Newhall, director of George Eastman House, who said the heavy retouching prevented a determination that Carter’s photograph came from a daguerreotype. Newhall nevertheless added:
“I can only say there is no reason for believing that the picture is not copied from the original Daguerreotype.”
Quoted on page 43
Newhall’s statement was qualified. It left the daguerreotype origin possible without claiming to have authenticated it.
I think it is fair to say that an opinion had formed before 2009 that many have since refused to reexamine, regardless of the new information The Unedited Photo brought to the table. Instead, they continue repeating the same tired line.
The Ring and the Reversed Image
McCarl also points out that Joseph III’s letter states that his father wore his ring on his left hand. He observes that the front-facing oil painting shows the ring on the right.
On pages 46–48, he proposes that the artist copied a laterally reversed daguerreotype, preserving the reversal in the painting.
The argument is an inference, but it connects a specific visual detail with Joseph III’s recollection of his father.
I personally don’t believe it was flipped. However, I think it is equally plausible that the artist added a ring to the incomplete hand that is visible in the Unedited Photo of Joseph.
Who Painted the Portrait?
McCarl also challenges the attribution of the front-facing painting to David Rogers.
Through historical descriptions and comparisons with published engravings, he argues that Rogers painted the profile portraits of Joseph and Hyrum. He then identifies differences between those profiles and the front-facing painting in brushwork, surface appearance, backgrounds, and the handling of light and shadow.
McCarl considers William Warner Major a possible artist for the front-facing portrait, although he does not establish its authorship.
According to the obituary he cites, Major arrived in Nauvoo in August 1844, after Joseph Smith’s death. If Major painted the portrait, he could not have painted Joseph from a living sitting. A daguerreotype would have provided a possible source.
This introduces another disagreement with Joseph III’s letter, which dates the painting to 1843 and attributes it to the artist who painted Hyrum. McCarl’s proposed attribution to Major would require revising that chronology. It remains McCarl’s hypothesis, not something Joseph III’s letter confirms.
Through my research, I believe it is more plausible that Selah Van Sickle was responsible for this unsigned work. My understanding is that he, too, arrived in Nauvoo after Joseph’s death. That proposed attribution would therefore raise the same question about the painting’s date.
What the Thesis Supports
McCarl brought together several reasons for believing a photograph preceded the front-facing painting: the early photographers’ source claims, the family connection in the copyright records, Joseph III’s testimony, the ring’s placement, and the visual relationship between the images.
His conclusion was that the painting appeared to have been copied from a daguerreotype. Although he acknowledged that he could not prove Carter or Carson had copied an original plate, he argued that buyers familiar with Joseph and Nauvoo would have challenged a deception. He reported finding no contemporary objection of that kind.
Joseph III’s letter supplies a particularly important piece of testimony. He identifies a daguerreotype in the family’s possession and presents it as corroborating the painting’s likeness to his father. He separately identifies the photograph of the painting that he enclosed.
The 1879 copyright adds a documented connection between Joseph III and the Carson image. My research into the Unedited Photo adds a visual comparison through which the alterations in later versions can be examined.
Those distinctions deserve to remain intact when the evidence is discussed. McCarl’s thesis documents an argument made as early as 1962 that a photograph preceded the painting, while Joseph III’s own words explain the corroborating role he assigned to the family’s daguerreotype.
Sources
William B. McCarl, The Visual Image of Joseph Smith (1962), master’s thesis, Brigham Young University. Relevant passages: pp. 29–30, 40–49, and 65–76.
Read McCarl’s thesis at BYU ScholarsArchive
Joseph Smith III, letter dated March 10, 1910, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, March 20, 1910, p. 13. Letter reproduced in McCarl’s thesis, pp. 29–30.
