Mixing us up...

[Frank]

...this is one not so great thing that always makes the indetifying damn hard... when photographer has made the Indians wear the same clothes... I know you all knew this before but I just thought I post this with these pictures because they all give such a great example about it, notice the shirt on pics:

[clw]

Besides making it difficult to identify photographs, it also creates a false picture of the culture itself. If these people were wearing their own clothing, the designs and decorations would give us more accurate insights to the person's life.

Were there certain photographers that were less likely to 'dress' their subjects?

[Frank]

For this particular reason I have made on to my own website a small section named Non studio pictures. It aint big section but it has some good photos that show Indians as they were with out any extra decorations or such. If you got some good ones, please do post them if it is ok for me to add them.
www.franksrealm.com/sivu-indians-nonstudiopics.html

...and ofcourse...if you spot some mistakes Ive written, dont hesitate to correct me ;D...

[Dietmar]

The decoration of the war-shirt in the Huffman photos... is it really Lakota style... or Assiniboine... or Blackfeet?

[clw]

Also seems a good point to ask.... I've tried to find some information on F. A. Reinhart but haven't had much luck. I'd like to know something of his story and how he came to take the photos he did.

[BrokenSword]

clw-

Sadly, its not likely.

Photographic studios in the 1850s were almost exclusively in the eastern cities - New York, Boston, etc. In the 1860s the nation was completely pre-occupied with the Civil War and the photographers flocked to the armies and the subjects that they offered.

The 1840s-50s Daguerreotype was the first successful photographic process and, it was very complicated, cumbersome and expensive. It delivered a single copy that could not be reproduced and at a cost equal to about one week's pay for the 'sitter’.

Exposure time was long (10-20 minutes on average) and required bright sunlight and some degree of control over the subject's appearance. Portraits were almost impossible. One early photographer even dusted the 'sitters' faces with flour to shorten the sitting time.

Then as now, marketing was all important. A photographer had examples about his studio as sales tools. Hopefully, he had a subject or two that stood out from the offerings of the competition. And so, photographers weren’t interested in authentic portrayals of their studio subjects as historical records.

Let’s not forget - the stereotype of the Native American that easterners held then. You just didn’t get the chance to photograph a Sioux, or Crow warrior or any other such individual everyday. It was as if a famous general walked in wearing ‘civies’ rather than his full dress uniform. The photo wouldn’t match the image that the public expected to see, much less excite anyone into paying for a sitting.

There is one case of a notorious photo of a rather famous Sioux chief pictured wearing a Crow war bonnet! Maybe it was the other way around. I can’t remember the details. But, you get the idea.

Lord! The Indians must have been saints when it came to patience. Just trying to get along with the whiteman and his nutty ways must have left their heads spinning, certainly it had their eyes rolling. Crazy Horse wasn’t camera shy because of superstition, he just didn’t want to be bothered by all that non-sense.

Michael

[clw]

Good photography lesson, Michael. I didn't know it took 20 minutes! Good grief.

Regarding the design on the shirt....... no it doesn't look classically Lakota, but it resembles their kapemni motif and the points (smaller triangles) on the edges of the central design could be the 6 directions so often used in conjunction with the kapemni. Don't know for sure.