The face has more depth and an almost 3D quality to it. Era faces seem flat by comparison. Not sure, but I'm guessing the local photog in many a small town took up the trade when the process became readily available for anyone with enough money to buy a cheap camera. The Matthew Brady quality images are better, I'm guessing due to better equipment and the skills of the artist.
I agree. I'm no expert in photography, but the lack of irregularities over the face stands out to me as well. In addition of the appearance that the face of the man in Si's photo looks molded by modern nutrition, there are no scratches in the facial region of the photo. Also, notice all those white dots. None are present in the facial area of Si's photo. Now, compare those scratches and white dots to the photos posted by Aug and you will see they are ubiquitous- including in the facial area.
When I was a reenactor back in the 80's, I had a photograph done of me at the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg. I begged the photographer to make it look old. I wanted it blurred, scratched, etc. We worked on the blurred part while taking the photo. He was to add irregularities in his studio later. He did just that. However, when I got it back, he left the added irregularities off of my facial area but put them in other areas of the photo.
So, that element, too, stuck out at me when I looked at Si's photo, but was too lazy to mention it in my previous post.
If I had to wager, I'd bet that just off camera in Si's photo there is a cell phone and a bag of Cheetos nearby!!
People will go to great lengths to look authentic. That's what many hardcore reenactors strive for in living history. I see no reason why that passion would not be extended to photography.
But again, I'm no expert. It's just that for me, I would not pay much for it. Maybe what the frame is worth?
Bringing the