Wisteria-L wrote:Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
I was wondering about this too, and I wondered if it was like in their mother country when they made Maria stand and wave to the trains because she looks plump and healthy, maybe this photograph is the same. The government saying to other immigrants look how prosperous this family has become since settling here.
I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
Sunltcloud wrote:I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
Wow, Sunltcloud, you've really opened up my eyes! In the past two years I've acquired photos from my grandmother and great-grandmother. Mixed in with many of the photos were pictures of family members in coffins. I had thought this very strange until I read your post. I'm wondering now if this is the only picture they have of this family member. I had never thought of it this way. Thanks for sharing this with us!
Sunltcloud wrote:I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
You and your stories are fascinating.
Thanks so much for sharing this story with us.
I always wondered the fascination with photographing those who had past and your memories of your father and his job put it all into perspective!
aprilh wrote:
Sunltcloud wrote:I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
Wow, Sunltcloud, you've really opened up my eyes! In the past two years I've acquired photos from my grandmother and great-grandmother. Mixed in with many of the photos were pictures of family members in coffins. I had thought this very strange until I read your post. I'm wondering now if this is the only picture they have of this family member. I had never thought of it this way. Thanks for sharing this with us!
Thanks so much for sharing your past times...i've always loved hearing stories of others (especially when someone grew up in a different time than myself. Lovely story!
Sunltcloud wrote:I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
Sunltcloud wrote:
I want to add something about photographs. My father was a small-town (300 inhabitants) photographer after WWII when most people in our town had little to no money and having their pictures taken was not something they put on a priority list. However, he took me on trips to even tinier hamlets, where I had to hold a light so he could take a photograph of somebody who had died. He used his large format Linhoff, the kind that requires glass plates, and a dark piece of material over the photographer's head. Often times people had no photographs of their loved ones and a headshot of the person in a coffin, eyes closed, "in peace," was the only picture they would ever have. It was rather spooky for me, as a ten, eleven, twelve year old.
Later, when times got better and people added entertainment to their list of expenses, we went to balls, dances, costume parties,and took pictures. My father used his Leica for action photos. It is a faster camera with smaller format and it used film.
Not only did I help in the darkroom, I was also UPS on foot, on the back of his motorcycle, on my bike, taking the finished prints to the customers. Often there was no pay, just an apple for me, and a promise to pay for the photographs on payday. Sometimes there was an exchange of goods - fresh ham, a loaf of bread eggs.
Gradually people became interested in wedding photographs, in the recording of baptisms, in first day of school pictures. And they would bring their babies to the studio and watch them giggle, sprawled on a white bear rug under the bright lights of photo lamps. Eventually they would come in on a Sunday, after church, to have a family photo taken.
My father would also travel the countryside, with me in the side-car, taking photographs of farm families who had very little, and who seldom repeated the luxury. One eight by ten (or similar) family photograph per family, a few five by sevens, depending on the number of children.
Oh, and yes, there was also the staple of small town photography - the official headshot for passports and local documents.
In those days I knew nobody in town who had cameras other than my father.
Wisteria-L wrote:
Something keeps bothering me about this photograph. Did anyone mention yet the fact that they were very poor farmers, and why would they have an occasion to have their picture taken? The baby is Ivan as he was conceived in Canada. The time had to be late winter, early spring since the snow was still on the ground. The lack of coats and short sleeves makes me think it is a early spring day with a late snowfall.
But, why would this family, as poor as they are, have their picture taken. What was the reason for the family gathering? Was someone getting married? Was it a special holiday? Photography was just not that prevalent or available, especially to those without money. Hmmmmmm......makes me think.
How about your thoughts?
Thanks for sharing!
