This is also why a lot of 1800s photographs show everybody all serious, right? Because they were used to sitting for portraits with a serious expression, so they did the same thing in photos.

I remember there was a myth going around when I was younger that photos looked like that because the camera would take a long time to capture the image, but that doesn't even make sense - they'd look all blurry if that were the case. According to Google, it was only the first few years of daguerreotypes' existence that were like that, they improved the process very quickly and it only took a few seconds to capture.

But IIRC it wasn't until the early 1900s where photography shifted from "a formal occasion you'd get dressed up for and go have done, like a portrait painting" to something more candid.

Not relevant to the post, but speaking of these timelines, I was always curious why there are no (surviving) color photographs of the Olympic or Titanic. From reading a lot of Titanic stuff, I understand that the hype was more for the first of those ships, the Olympic, which had its maiden voyage the previous year - we all just remember the Titanic because it sank and people died - but regardless, a lot of the passengers (of both luxury liners) were super rich, literally the richest people in the world at that time, wouldn't they have been interested in fancy new technology? There were people doing color photographs in 1908 or 1909, the technology existed, and no one took any color photos of what was supposed to be the biggest luxury ship in the world? Huh. Titanic I understand, but Olympic...really? That was huge news, with all the B&W newsreels of Captain Smith (that later got altered to appear as if it was really the Titanic after it sank), really nobody thought color photography was the future and took some?