Are His Eyes Really Too Large? A Closer Look at the Unedited Marshall Photo of Joseph Smith Jr.

 When someone looks at the Unedited Photo and says the eyes seem too large or the face looks disproportionate, I want to ask a more basic question: how much of that impression comes from the man's features, and how much from the reproduction being viewed?

What I believe some viewers are responding to is a loss of apparent depth and a change in tonal relationships. A face can look flatter, and certain features more prominent, when the shading that helps us understand its form becomes harder to see.

To understand that difference, we need to look at how we perceive faces, how a daguerreotype is reproduced, and what happens when that reproduction reaches a lit screen.

We read shape through shading

A photograph is flat, but we do not experience every face in a photograph as flat. Changes in light and shade help us interpret the forehead, the bridge of the nose, the eye sockets, and the fullness of the cheeks.

V. S. Ramachandran's 1988 study, “Perception of shape from shading,” demonstrated that our interpretation of shaded forms incorporates assumptions about illumination.[1] Our visual system uses those tonal patterns to make sense of three-dimensional form.

Think about the shading around an eye. The transition from the brow into the socket, the contour of the eyelid, and the light falling across the cheek all contribute to how that eye sits within the face. When those transitions become faint, the eye can appear more isolated from the structures surrounding it. 

That is the distinction I am drawing when I question whether viewers are seeing disproportionate eyes or weakened depth cues.

Why contrast around the eyes matters

The arrangement of light and dark around the eyes plays an important role in facial perception.

In a 2012 study, Tapan Gandhi, Nina Suresh, and Pawan Sinha examined brain responses to faces with altered contrast. They compared normal faces, photographic negatives, and faces that were negative except for a normally contrasted eye region. Restoring normal contrast around the eyes produced certain neural responses resembling those elicited by normal positive faces.[2]

The experiment highlights how much information we draw from the tonal relationships in that particular region.

An eye's appearance depends on more than its outline. It also depends on how its surrounding shadows and highlights relate to the rest of the face. Those relationships deserve attention when someone judges facial proportions from an old photographic reproduction.

Below is an example of Joseph's son, Alexander Hale Smith; though the photo hasn't gone through the same copying process as the Unedited Photo, nor was it a daguerreotype,  I am using it as a reference for how we read light on a face.

White on a screen is not white on paper

A cell phone or computer screen produces the white areas of an image with emitted light. In an ordinary photographic print, the white areas come from light reflecting off the paper.

That difference matters to the viewing experience. On a screen, the display's brightness, tonal settings, and surrounding light affect what we see. With a print, the paper's surface and the light illuminating it contribute to the appearance of the image.

This is especially noticeable when I print the Unedited Photo. The facial shading and sense of depth come across much more naturally on paper than they do on my screen. People who have seen the prints have often been struck by the difference, especially the poster-sized one of Joseph.

The subtle transitions around the eyes become easier to appreciate, as they can see the features as part of a dimensional face rather than isolated areas of light and dark.

Research into matching screens and prints shows why these viewing conditions deserve attention. In a 2013 master's thesis at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Vickrant J. Zunjarrao found that matching a monitor's white point to the paper and optimizing its tonal response improved the visual agreement between display and print.[3]

Even the appearance of white needs to be considered when comparing the two.

A daguerreotype has a mirrored surface

A daguerreotype adds another layer to this discussion.

Its image rests on a highly polished silver surface, usually a thin coating of silver over copper. The Library of Congress describes the preparation of that surface as polishing it until it resembles a mirror.[4]

Anyone trying to reproduce such an object has to contend with its reflectivity. The lighting and viewing angle affect how the image appears. Photographing a daguerreotype involves capturing an image carried on a reflective metal surface, with all the complications that introduces.

A second-generation paper reproduction presents that image through a different material. The reflective qualities of the silver plate have been translated into tones on paper. Paper texture can become part of the viewing experience as well.

This is why the distinction between an original daguerreotype and a second-generation paper copy is so important to my discussion of the Unedited Photo.

What happened during copying?

The copying history I have traced places the creation of the glass plate negative in 1879. By that point, an original daguerreotype dating to 1844 would have been approximately thirty-five years old.

The condition of the plate and the conditions under which it was copied both matter. It may have had scratches, tarnish, or other surface deterioration. Those possibilities belong alongside lighting, exposure, and the limitations of the copying materials when considering the outcome. Homes did not have nice humidity-controlled air conditioners for preservation.

It is fair to say that, in 1879, photographers had considerable skill and their own methods of controlling photographic results. The George Eastman Museum documents techniques such as negative retouching and selective dodging.[5]

What they lacked were today's precise digital controls for examining and adjusting the surviving tonal information. They could not open a curves panel, make a small midtone adjustment, inspect the result immediately, and revise it while monitoring the highlights and shadows.

Modern tools allow us to explore those tonal relationships with much greater flexibility.

Bringing out the surviving detail

When the Unedited Photo was discovered in 2009, Al Thelon, a daguerreotype expert, explained to us what he believed had happened during reproduction. He also said we would be amazed by the level of detail that would become visible with the contrast enhanced.

And he was right.

Adjusting the contrast can make faint recorded detail easier to distinguish. The important work is in separating tones that are already present: allowing a shadow to become readable, a contour to emerge, or a transition around an eye to become more apparent.

The goal is to bring out that surviving information while preserving the highlights and shadows. Simply pushing the contrast too far can turn delicate shading into solid black or white.

The image also remains a reproduction on a different medium. Enhancing its tones does not turn textured photographic paper into a silver-plated copper plate.

What reaches viewers online?

There is another stage between the surviving photograph and the person looking at it: the digital file being shared.

An image may be reduced in pixel dimensions, compressed, saved again, or passed through multiple platforms before someone encounters it. Each version needs to be understood in relation to its source.

Resizing reduces the number of pixels available to describe fine structures. JPEG compression reduces file size by discarding image information. Adobe's documentation explains that this process can degrade fine detail.[6]

A high-resolution screen cannot restore information missing from the file it displays.

That is why a small online reproduction may give a different impression from a carefully prepared print on photographic paper made from a much larger source file. The viewer may be judging a version in which fine contours and subtle tonal distinctions are harder to see because it was downgraded by a platform for easy upload.

Look at the reproduction before judging the face

When someone tells me the eyes look disproportionate, I want to know which version they have seen.

Even files I uploaded at 2 MB came back as downloads of under 200 kilobytes. Mind you, I have never distributed the full-resolution file, nor did the Brother Joseph Again researchers ask for it. That scan was made using a special high-resolution scanner at Borg Anderson Photography in 2009.

Other than a couple of 8-by-10 prints I made on my own printer a long time ago, the copies available to viewers have been small.

These differences help explain why viewers may have such different impressions of the image. When judging an image and its authenticity, shouldn't its viewing conditions and limitations be addressed?

My argument begins with what I have observed in person, looking at the original and poster-sized prints, as well as the hundreds of hours I have spent studying it on a computer screen.

My next goal is to share more of these large prints so those on the fence can see the details with their own eyes.

Measuring the eyes rather than judging the impression

Beyond the differences in reproduction and viewing conditions, there is a more direct way to address the claim: compare the eye width with the height of the head.

In a discussion on the YouTube channel The Stick of Joseph, I watched Curtis Weber argue that the eyes in the Unedited Photo (Marshall Photo) were disproportionately large. I adamantly disagree, and I have prepared my own graphic to show why.

A familiar guideline in portrait drawing uses the width of an eye as a unit of measurement, placing the height of the head at approximately seven eye widths. Farhad B. Naini illustrates this artist’s grid in Facial Aesthetics: Concepts and Clinical Diagnosis, showing proportions of five eye widths across and seven eye widths in height.[7]

In my measurements of the Unedited Photo, the eyes fit that seven-eye-width guideline. That is why I challenge the claim that they are too large for the head. I even ran the image through AI, which appeared to agree with my seven-eye-width measurement. Curtis, however, presented what I consider a faulty measurement graphic, drawing a more than generous outline around the eye and including even the tear duct in that width.

Look at the graphic below and see for yourself. Compare the width of the eye with the full height of the head, from the top of the skull to the bottom of the chin.

A family resemblance worth looking at

I also see different features of Joseph Smith Jr. reflected in his children. One resemblance that stands out to me is the eyes of his son Alexander Hale Smith. Their size and shape look remarkably similar to the eyes in the Unedited Photo.

Family resemblance does not have to mean that one child looks exactly like a parent in every respect. One may share the eyes, another the mouth, and another the overall shape of the face.

Look at the image below and see for yourself. Pay particular attention to Alexander's eyes and how they sit within his face.

Why this research matters to me

I think it is also fair to explain that I'm no longer LDS and haven't been for years. I haven't been dragging the Unedited Photo along with me to General Conference and standing on a sidewalk with it.

Life moved on after the discovery. At the beginning of 2012, our grandson, whom my husband and I have raised, was diagnosed with a rare cancer. He was a young boy, and our family faced an uphill battle. For the next several years, helping him survive and recover became our sole focus.

He did, and we feel so blessed.

As life and work continued, my research slowed, though I still read about the subject from time to time. It wasn't until the Larsen daguerreotype came forward that my interest was renewed. It challenged what I had in my very hands.

I often wonder what people think motivates my research if I'm not trying to find a photograph of a spiritual leader. For me, it is something simpler. I love history. I'm obsessed with genealogy. This research is part of that.

My sixth-great-grandmother was the nineteenth member of the Church. Her daughter, Clarissa Hancock White, worked as a maid for Joseph. Some have even asked whether she was a spiritual wife of his.

My grandmother, who gave me this photo, was the great-granddaughter of Joel Hills Johnson and Orville Sutherland Cox. Their stories are fascinating, even if I don't agree with their beliefs.

Joseph Smith Jr. shaped American history, without a doubt. That history, and my family's connection to it, continues to interest me.

References

1. Ramachandran, V. S. (1988). “Perception of shape from shading.” Nature, 331, 163–166.

2. Gandhi, T., Suresh, N., & Sinha, P. (2012). “EEG responses to facial contrast-chimeras.” Journal of Integrative Neuroscience, 11(2), 201–211. Full text.

3. Zunjarrao, V. J. (2013). “An Investigation of Soft Proof to Print Agreement under Bright Surround.” Master's thesis, Rochester Institute of Technology.

4. Library of Congress. “The Daguerreotype Medium.”

5. George Eastman Museum. “Glass Negative Retouching.”

6. Adobe. “Optimizing images for the JPEG format.”

7. Naini, F. B. (2011). Facial Aesthetics: Concepts and Clinical Diagnosis. Wiley-Blackwell, p. 158, Figure 9.16.

Where Is the Evidence? Why the Researchers Behind Brother Joseph Again Must Dismiss the Unedited Photo to Sell Their Narrative

 For the Larsen Daguerreotype to gain acceptance as an image of Joseph Smith, its proponents must first address its strongest contender. The proposed contender is the Unedited Photo of Joseph Smith, also known as the Marshall Photo.

Why? Because if they can convince people that this image is not a likeness of Joseph derived from a daguerreotype, they open the field to the possibility that the Larsen daguerreotype is.

As I see it, their dismissal follows two steps:

1. They rely on the old, established narrative that the Library of Congress image of Joseph came from a painting, despite evidence presented by multiple groups of researchers challenging that conclusion.
2. In 2009, the game changed, but they stuck to the first belief. Although the Unedited Photo of Joseph introduced new insights to the discussion, their response seems to dismiss this evidence with a variety of theories, hoping it will take root.

But where is the evidence supporting these theories?

And by the way, rejecting a competing image doesn't prove the man in the Larsen daguerreotype is Joseph Smith. It does, however, lower the bar.

Their Arguments, as I Understand Them

1. The image is too similar to the painting; therefore, it must be a photographic copy of it.

My response: It is not as similar as one might think. There are numerous differences. Even the lines and contours differ, and the photograph includes small details not seen in Joseph's Mansion painting. There is a long list of variations that need to be addressed.

Resemblance alone does not establish that the painting came first.

2. The differences were introduced afterward by altering the photographic copy.

What evidence, beyond the differences themselves, supports this explanation? And what would such a process require?

I have broken down the work that I believe this theory asks us to accept.

First, the size and the fine details.

The artist would have needed to work at a size that allowed for minute additions, including what appears to be an “S” on the cravat and the fine diagonal weave of the jacket fabric, cut perfectly on the bias.

Would an 8-by-10-inch print have been sufficient? Or would the image have needed substantial enlargement before those details could be introduced and then reduced into the photograph we see today?

If the explanation depends on a solar enlargement, how much detail would that process have preserved, and how much would have required retouching, as the images are low quality? Could the proposed method account for the fine details visible in this image?

That needs to be demonstrated rather than assumed.

Second, the marks left by the artist.

A fine brush can leave variations in a stroke, deposits of pigment, or pooling. A pencil can leave lines and surface texture. This is how we know the Library of Congress Version was altered. If you magnify this image, you can see where the paintbrush slipped. See the soft shading on the nose, but then the harsh line under the lip. No one questions whether this was retouched.

What technique would account for these additions without leaving recognizable evidence of the artist’s work in the Unedited Photo?

I am not talking about a light wash of color blended over an existing feature. I am talking about introducing new elements so faint that they require an increase in contrast to make them more visible to the human eye.

If those elements were drawn or painted in, that explanation needs to account for their appearance.

Third, the changes from dark to light.

Areas that are dark in the painting appear lighter in the photograph, while other values appear much the same. How were those selective changes achieved?

If the proposed explanation is that an artist painted directly over a photographic print, how were the darker areas lightened while retaining or introducing fine detail? Look at the irises.

Painting over a dark surface is not the same as adding a dark line to a light one. Think of painting a black wall pale gray: the covering material must sufficiently obscure what lies beneath.

What evidence of that process can be identified here? If another photographic or retouching method is proposed, that method should be specified and demonstrated.

Fourth, the reflections in the eyes.

Consider the catchlights, the small reflections of light visible in the eyes. They appear smaller and more precise in the Unedited Photo than in the painting. This is indicative of a high noonday sun. And don't get started on how a skilled artist would never paint a portrait outdoors, since the sun is constantly shifting.

Their shape and the surrounding tonal transitions deserve close examination. 

Fifth, the blur.

Why would an artist alter a copy of the painting to introduce features that appear more photographic?

In the Unedited Photo, the blur around the shoulders, hair, and hand differs notably from the painting. If those effects were deliberately added, what evidence supports that conclusion?

Sixth, the proportions.

The artist would also have needed to alter the proportions, including apparently shortening Joseph’s neck and changing the ratios.

Taken together, these are substantial changes. Look at how the hairlines and the top of the cuff line up. Even with the Unedited Photo stretched, they still do not match. Look at the eyes, chin, and the bottom V of his shirt.

This would not simply be a small undertaking with a brush on photo paper. It would require an artist to almost entirely recreate the image. 

The explanation cannot stop at “someone altered it.” Which process was used? What physical or documentary evidence supports it? And can that process account for the specific details we see?

That is the question I keep returning to: Where is the evidence?

Someone made a lifelike model of Joseph and photographed it.

I have also heard it proposed that someone might have made a lifelike model of Joseph and photographed it. I admit, I laughed. To me, this seems like a considerable stretch. But let’s give it consideration nonetheless.

How convincing would that model have needed to be? The eyes would have needed to reproduce the appearance and reflections of human eyes. Not just polished glass marbles. The skin would have needed to respond to light in a way that resembled flesh, including its gradual tonal transitions as light softly bounces off it. The eyebrows and eyelashes would have required fine detail and applied tiny hairs, and any painted surface would have needed to avoid visible signs of brushwork in the resulting photograph.

Who supposedly made this model? With what materials, at what expense, and for what purpose? Where is the evidence that it ever existed?

Please provide a more reasonable and logical theory than a Madame Tussauds–like sculpture. Those figures involve molds, extensive measurements, and painstaking work to reproduce a person’s appearance. Who supposedly undertook that work for this image, and where is the evidence that such a figure ever existed? And why wouldn’t they put such a piece of work on display? Charge tickets to see it?

This seems like an elaborate and expensive explanation. Wouldn’t it have been easier to dress a real person as Joseph and photograph him? Of course, that person would also have needed to resemble the established artwork. Either suggestion requires evidence.

The Questions That Remain to Be Answered

Why does the Unedited Photo exhibit qualities consistent with light falling on a three-dimensional subject? Please provide an explanation supported by evidence, rather than asking us to imagine a large doll without documentation of its creation.

Consider the areas that appear to have “blown highlights.” This happens when a photograph records a bright area as plain white, losing the detail within it. Imagine photographing a white shirt in strong sunlight. You might see its folds, seams, and fabric texture with your eyes, but in the photograph, those details disappear into a blurry-edged patch of white. That is what I mean by a blown highlight.

Why do those areas appear as they do in the Unedited Photo?

An artist painting that same shirt would often use grays, creams, or other tinted whites to show its folds and texture, reserving pure white for the brightest highlights. Those details would be represented in paint.

If the Unedited Photo is a photographic copy of the Joseph Smith Mansion painting, how did those painted details disappear in these particular areas? In a painting, the folds and shadows are represented by different shades of paint on a flat surface. Show me a photograph of that painting with the same whites blown out in the same places, and explain how the effect was produced.

Then address the varying sharpness I described earlier. In the Unedited Photo, the shoulders, hair, and top of the hand appear blurred, while the face remains in sharper focus. The painting does not show that same pattern of blur. What accounts for this difference?

One possible explanation is depth of field: the face is in focus, while parts of the subject closer to or farther from the camera fall out of focus. If you propose instead that the blur resulted from retouching, copying, or another process, explain how that process blurred those particular areas while leaving the face sharp.

And please, don’t make people buy your book or pay for a ticket to find out how you answer these objections. Answer the questions directly, with comparisons and evidence that people can examine.

Joseph Smith III and the 1879 Image

Next, explain the history of the image Joseph Smith III had copied and placed in the Library of Congress in 1879.

If the Larsen daguerreotype was the likeness of his father that he possessed, why did he not use it as the source? Or, if you contend that he did, how do you account for the differences between that image and the Library of Congress likeness?

I will also reference Joseph Smith III’s 1910 statement about having that daguerreotype in his possession, as well as the photographer Carter and his confirmed reference to it.

Which image do those accounts describe, and what evidence connects it specifically to the Larsen daguerreotype and not the Library of Congress image of Joseph?

Perhaps the reason you do not want to address this is that those likenesses resemble the Unedited Photo rather than the man in the Larsen daguerreotype. You promote the Larsen image as resembling the death mask, yet when discrepancies are raised, the mask is supposedly too distorted to serve as a reliable comparison.

Where is the evidence for that explanation? You suggest that localized swelling altered particular features. Are you attributing those changes to general postmortem bloating or to specific injuries? Those are different explanations. Given how quickly Joseph died, I think it’s reasonable to question whether the injuries you are referring to occurred before or after his circulation stopped. If they occurred afterward, what process would have caused the localized swelling you propose? Simply invoking “swelling” is a weak argument unless you can demonstrate how it accounts for the differences in the same areas on both sides of the face.

And if the death mask was so distorted, how do you account for how closely it aligns with the Unedited Photo? You cannot reasonably treat the mask as reliable when it supports your identification, then dismiss its accuracy when it challenges it, without explaining the distinction.

Without evidence addressing those questions, these claims remain conjecture. A possible explanation is not the same as a demonstrated one supported by evidence and sound reasoning.

I ask you again, where is the evidence that the Unedited Photo is not Joseph Smith Jr.?

It has a solid link in provenance and measurable photographic qualities.

At the time of making this video, no request for a high-resolution scan of the image has been sent to the researchers at Brother Joseph Again. Nor have the researchers behind it asked to see the photo in person. All of their research was done with low-quality pictures at best.

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.

 

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.

 

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.