Death Mask Comparison of the Larsen Daguerreotype with Joseph and Hyrum Smith

 

Decoding the Alleged Connection: Exploring the RLDS Painting of Joseph Smith Jr. and its Relationship with the Marshall Photo

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. (I stand corrected regarding the duration of this controversy. In 1962, a thesis titled "The Visual Image of Joseph Smith" was presented to the Department of Art at Brigham Young University by the author William B. McCarl.)  Web link- https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5922&context=etd

 

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. 

We have copies of the RLDS painting pre 1879, so we know that this occurred, as well as there are accounts of a Daguerreotypist named William A. Smith who advertised in 1852, stating, "Daguerrean Pictures Of JOSEPH AND HYRUM SMITH, AND THE NAUVOO TEMPLE, May be seen at the Smith's Gallery. Pictures of all kinds copied."

 

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.

To enhance visualization and gain a better perspective, I applied an overlay of colors to accentuate the embedded reflection within the dark tone of the coat in both the painting and the photo.

This reflection could very well be wood planks on the interior walls or a nearby object. The painting clearly has more vertical lines on the right shoulder (green circle) compared to the actual photo of Joseph, and it seems that more details of the photography studio can be seen in the actual photo. The green lines are meant to illustrate some key markers in the reflection. By utilizing the jacket button as a reference point, as well as the blue line, it can be observed that the green marker line is in a different position. Therefore, the conclusion is that despite similar lighting and reflection, the two objects are different. One represents a painting of Joseph, while the other is a copy of his daguerreotype. Both small daguerreotypes were most likely placed in a similar horizontal position and photographed in succession. This section alone provides additional evidence and provenance for the copy of the original daguerreotype. The embedded mirrored image serves as a timestamp in history, further validating its authenticity. (This section was updated on 7/4/23) Below is an inverted image as well for further examination.

 

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.

 

Unveiling the Enigma: Analyzing the new "Larsen Daguerreotype" and Exploring the Authenticity of Joseph Smith Jr.'s Photograph

 The discovery of a recently found daguerreotype purported to depict Joseph Smith Jr has ignited intrigue and hopeful anticipation among many individuals. As enthusiasts ardently endeavor to align the daguerreotype with the established image of Joseph, it becomes imperative to delve into crucial factors that shed light on this captivating subject.

Fact #1: Joseph Smith III only acknowledged one daguerreotype, and the newly found "Smith Photo" was not that image.

Shortly after Emma's death, Joseph Smith III penned a letter to John A. Robinson, husband of Mrs. Robinson, a reputable photographer, dated June 27, 1879.

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.

Joseph's statement, "It is the only picture (real) of father in existence," provides compelling evidence. This remark rules out the possibility of referring to a painted portrayal since Joseph was well aware of his father sitting for multiple paintings and drawings. Instead, it strongly suggests the existence of a unique and singular image. Furthermore, Joseph's mention of the challenges involved in copying the picture aligns with the difficulties inherent in reproducing the mirrored surface of a daguerreotype.

Less than a month later, Joseph Smith III submitted an edited albumen photograph print of his father to the Library of Congress, clearly labeled as "Joseph Smith (Mormon)." This act demonstrates Joseph's unwavering determination to preserve his father's image and legacy. With a deep understanding of his father's appearance, Joseph patiently waited until after his mother's passing to reveal the image to the world, underscoring the significance he placed on sharing his father's true likeness.

One significant reason to doubt the authenticity of the newly found "Larsen Daguerreotype" as Joseph Smith Jr. is that his own son, Joseph Smith III, never acknowledged it or had it reproduced. In a letter to The Salt Lake Tribune in 1910, Joseph III mentioned a painted portrait from 1843 that closely resembled his father's daguerreotype taken around the same time by Lucian Foster.

In 1885, photographer CW Carter announced that he possessed the "only correct photograph" of Joseph Smith. This photograph was a copy of the original daguerreotype taken in 1843 and was loaned to him by Joseph Smith Jr. This supports the notion that there was only one daguerreotype of Joseph Smith and confirms their knowledge of its appearance.

Fact #2: The newly found photo looks nothing like any of Joseph's images.

 

Allow me to present some of my observations regarding the "Smith Daguerreotype." Firstly, it is evident that the depicted man in the daguerreotype has dark brown hair, which contrasts with the consensus from various accounts and a hair sample indicating that Joseph Smith likely had dark blond hair. As an artist, I often work with values, and it is interesting to note that the value of a color is often easier to discern in black and white.

Upon closer examination of the daguerreotype, it becomes apparent that the subject appears thin and lean, lacking noticeable facial fat. This is in contrast to common depictions of Joseph Smith, who was often portrayed with additional weight, particularly in the chin area. Sutcliffe Maudsley's profile drawings serve as a valuable reference in this context. Furthermore, the man in the daguerreotype displays characteristics such as a wide mouth, wide nose bridge, small deep-set eyes, tan weathered skin, and strong creases (nasolabial folds) Again this is not consistent with any depiction of Joseph. Based on these observations, it is conceivable to entertain the possibility that the individual in the daguerreotype could be Hyrum Smith, Joseph's brother, as reports suggest the existence of an undiscovered daguerreotype of Hyrum and do fit his description closer.

Let AI (Artificial Intelligence) help us measure faces using the death masks of Joseph & Hyrum.

Thanks to the remarkable advancements in AI technology, we now have the ability to replicate images with remarkable accuracy. Using an AI face tool, I embarked on a fascinating comparison. I started with a semi-generic image as the host and uploaded three images for analysis: a copy of the original daguerreotype of Joseph, Joseph's death mask, and the "Larsen Daguerreotype." I arranged them in a side-by-side comparison.

It is important to note that while the death mask can be a useful tool for facial measurements, it was created posthumously, while Joseph lay on a table or the ground. When a person passes away, blood no longer circulates, and the muscles responsible for facial structure relax. As many of you may have witnessed with a deceased loved one, this can significantly alter their appearance. Additionally, reports indicate that both Joseph and Hyrum had cotton placed in their noses to maintain shape. I conducted a similar experiment on my (live) husband and observed that it can dramatically change the width and profile of the nose. Therefore, our focus lies in comparing the bone structure, particularly the bridge and top of the nose, where thin skin allows us a glimpse of the underlying skull.

In this comparison, I present three images: the first image is derived from my Joseph Smith photo, the second image is sourced from the death mask, and the third image showcases the Larsen Daguerreotype. It is crucial to note that when replicating the death mask, the AI must make assumptions about the appearance of the eyes since it lacks information about their natural openness, the thickness of the lid, or the size of the iris. However, the AI accurately positions the eyes by triangulating landmarks on Joseph Smith's face, allowing for a comprehensive analysis of the facial features.

For a more detailed examination, I conducted a comparison between the Larsen Daguerreotype and the Death Mask, focusing on the width of the bridge of the nose and the proximity of the eyes to the bridge. By closely observing these features, it becomes evident that they do not belong to the same individual. The Larsen Daguerreotype has a bridge that is almost the width of his deep-set eyes. The Death Mask Shows a more narrow bridge, with space for large more prominent eyes.

For comparison purposes, I uploaded my photo of Joseph, and to my delight, it aligns perfectly with the subject in question. The spacing and proportions are spot-on, providing strong evidence of a match. Upon closer examination, it is evident that Joseph had larger irises and a noticeable inward turn of the right eye due to esotropia. Although the AI's attempt at replicating these details is commendable, there are slight differences. Nonetheless, the overall result is impressive considering the AI's estimation.

If the Larsen Daguerreotype isn't Joseph, could it be Hyrum Smith?

Although I remain cautious in drawing definitive conclusions, it is worth noting that the Larsen Daguerreotype bears a stronger resemblance to Hyrum Smith compared to Joseph Smith. To explore this further, I employed the death mask of Hyrum to generate an AI image, following the same process as before.

It is crucial to consider that Hyrum's face may have been affected by the gunshot wound next to his nose, potentially leading to adjustments made during the creation of the death mask.

Despite lingering uncertainties, the Larsen Daguerreotype demonstrates a remarkable resemblance to Hyrum Smith rather than Joseph. The shared characteristics of eye shape, size, placement deep under the brow, and overall spacing provide a stronger alignment with Hyrum. However, it is important to continue scrutinizing the bridge of the nose for any potential inconsistencies that may warrant further investigation and analysis.

My final thoughts.

After conducting a thorough analysis using AI comparison and examining various factors, I am personally convinced that the photograph I received from my grandmother many years ago is indeed a contact print from the original daguerreotype of Joseph Smith Jr. The alignment and precision in measurements when compared to his death mask provide compelling evidence. On the other hand, the Larsen Daguerreotype bears striking dissimilarities and lacks the resemblance necessary to identify it as Joseph Smith Jr. I honestly believe it wouldn't pass a police lineup. Given these findings, it is imperative to pursue further research and investigation to unveil the true identity of the person captured in the Larsen Daguerreotype. The quest for historical accuracy continues, and it is through rigorous examination and analysis that we can separate fact from speculation.

Check back soon, I'll be back with more. Also, check my previous posts to catch up!

 

1. How it all started

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, and 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, 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-visite photo and what I believed it to be. Hesitant to send the entire image digitally, I sent a sliced version made in Photoshop. A couple of days later, I received an email .

They believed what I had was a carte de visite of a sketch by the Utah artist Danquart Weggeland. As an artist myself, this did not sit well with me. I found the picture I believed they were referring to and did a digital comparison in Photoshop. I found that the lines of the drawing did not match at all, and the style of hair did not either.


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 that, 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 mostly 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 overexaggerated iris, and the pupil appears 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 shows that the entire jacket outline has been changed and lowered. This is again 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.