(07-07-2015 06:53 AM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  My humble opinion - to me it wouldn't make sense to assume such photos were taken. I have never heard of a hospital or doctor's office where this happens nowadays although a snapshot is taken at no expenses within a second. Back then taking a photo was quite an endeavor, and expensive. And from all I read Dr. Patterson had to calculate and economically compete with other institutions. And why should he have taken photos of all his patients? (If he did someone sure would long have dug out.) Also I believe Robert would have objected.

Photos actually were quite cheap at the time, and the exposure time had been shortened to seconds. A professional photographer would have been required, though, and I doubt that Dr. Patterson would have summoned one each time a new patient arrived, especially given the private nature of the asylum.

Susan, do you know how much a photo cost then? I once asked this about Lincoln's days (can't find it right now) and I seem to recall the amount someone stated in a reply was not little. Also I didn't just think of the exposure time but AFAIK getting the camera ready still needed a while and, as you said, a professional.

(07-07-2015 01:06 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Susan, do you know how much a photo cost then? I once asked this about Lincoln's days (can't find it right now) and I seem to recall the amount someone stated in a reply was not little. Also I didn't just think of the exposure time but AFAIK getting the camera ready still needed a while and, as you said, a professional.

Looking quickly through a newspaper database, I see that a photographer in New Haven, CT, in 1875 was charging $2 for a dozen photographs, as was one in Cleveland. A photographer in Quincy, Illinois charged $1 for a dozen photographs (probably CDVs as opposed to the larger cabinet photographs which were in vogue), with the fancy new "oil photographs" going up to $6 depending on the size.

Thanks, Susan. 1$ in 1875 would equal 21.25$ in 2014. I guess the prices for a dozen refer to a dozen copies of the same photography?!

Yes, I believe so.

There are some public insane asylums from this period that photographed their patients, but I just don't see Dr. Patterson, catering to women from the upper classes, doing that. And I don't see Mary, who IIRC was very particular about her photographs in the best of circumstances, tolerating being put before a camera in her unhappy condition.

Re. public insane asylums in that period photographing their patients - I wonder who paid for that (and I can't help it but finding 21$ or more expensive for one photo just for the files, even if you get a dozen of copies to file). Poor patients sure couldn't themselves.

(07-07-2015 09:10 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Re. public insane asylums in that period photographing their patients - I wonder who paid for that (and I can't help it but finding 21$ or more expensive for one photo just for the files, even if you get a dozen of copies to file). Poor patients sure couldn't themselves.

I imagine the photographer was working on a contract basis or was employed by the government. Some photographs were taken by persons studying mental illness. The photographs are harrowing, but it's important to remember that for the most part, they were taken for scientific reasons (inclusion in textbooks, before and after studies, etc.) or for reports filed with the government.

(07-06-2015 08:41 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  Thanks Sally, that is fascinating. If it was ever possible for you, could you snap a photo of the apartment building and post? That would be great!

Many thanks to Blaine for sending this current photo of the building!

Whoa...now that is a NICE looking building!

Many thanks to Dr. Houmes for sharing and to Roger for posting!