April 12, 2007: Bathing girl revue 1922

What an awesome idea: Shorpy is a blog that features photos that are about 100 years old.
This particular entry is not quite 100, but it's fun nonetheless: swimsuit models of 1922.

Amongst other things, notice how only about 1 in 10 is smiling, and notice how footwear,
headgear, and umbrellas are part of the mandatory costume. But are they sexy? Not a
chance, this is a whole 'nother culture.

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row (from right): 2, 4, -8 and front row (from left): 7, 16, 17, 28.

true. 28 in the front row is not bad at all. She's actually smiling.

"Welcome and thanks for playing "Spot Your Grandma When She Was A Slut".

Dammit Sheldon, how did you know that was Grandma Dallas??? (4th from the left, front row)

cool picture. I'm wondering a bit about the "costumy" aspect of it--do you see the one with the dog? and the one with the dalmation print? and some of those . . . I can't even identify WHAT they were thinking of!

I get the feeling that these aren't examples of typical swimsuits from that era, but rather the fancy suits. I think typical suits were much more plain.

yet another example of the wanton strumpetism of the ladies of the 1920s. Why, you can even see their kneecaps! Scandalous. I would challenge he who framed this shot to a bout of fisticuffsmanship, but I imagine he is already dead. :)

I would challenge he who framed this shot to a bout of fisticuffsmanship, but I imagine he is already dead.

Bare knuckles it is, then! :reaper:

SteveDallas;333213 wrote:

Dammit Sheldon, how did you know that was Grandma Dallas??? (4th from the left, front row)

Pretty easy to figure out. 1. She's wearing the suit you use for your MySpace pic. 2. She's a slut.

hehehehe

Sheldonrs;333233 wrote:

Pretty easy to figure out. 1. She's wearing the suit you use for your MySpace pic. 2. She's a slut.

hehehehe

I thought it might be her Cellar tattoo.

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

grant;333200 wrote:

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row ... 8 ...

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

She's also smiling, not wearing headgear, and has her head tilted a little... downright modern of her! She knew what sexy was before anybody else!

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Just like putting your hand out with a fake gang sign. There was a time when that was not the convention.

Spexxvet;333237 wrote:

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

Good lord, I'm glad you mentioned that--I missed half the pic!

Undertoad;333243 wrote:

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

She's also smiling, not wearing headgear, and has her head tilted a little... downright modern of her! She knew what sexy was before anybody else!

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Just like putting your hand out with a fake gang sign. There was a time when that was not the convention.

I think part of the reason smiling was rare in photos back then was because taking a picture took a little longer than today's point and click. You had to hold the pose for a little while and it's easier to not smile.

And while you straight men are sitting there admiring the attributes of these ladies, remember this was taken before ladies felt they had to shave. Beneath those bathing suits, it's a jungle down there. lol!!!

Undertoad wrote:

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Someone told me once that this had to do with camera technology of the time--you had to hold perfectly still for up to a minute for the film to fully expose. If you tried to hold your smile that long and faltered, your face would be blurry(-ier).

On the other hand, there are apparently still places today where not-smiling is the custom. When we were looking at houses for sale recently, we went through one home that had family photos (the posed kind you take in a studio) covering every single wall, dozens and dozens of them, and not a single smile among any of them. It was really creepy.

Clodfobble;333267 wrote:

Someone told me once that this had to do with camera technology of the time--you had to hold perfectly still for up to a minute for the film to fully expose. If you tried to hold your smile that long and faltered, your face would be blurry(-ier).

On the other hand, there are apparently still places today where not-smiling is the custom. When we were looking at houses for sale recently, we went through one home that had family photos (the posed kind you take in a studio) covering every single wall, dozens and dozens of them, and not a single smile among any of them. It was really creepy.

In the 20's and in that kind of sunlight (note the squinting) the exposure would have been quick enough to allow smiling. I think the sun made for the grimmaces. Earlier film called for exposures of more than two minutes, thus the petrified faces.

no idea about the creepy ones tho. undead?

I think big cans have always been cool . . . fashion trends notwithstanding

What a smashing picture. No. 7 from the right on the back row looks a little like my gran.

Spexxvet;333237 wrote:

I thought it might be her Cellar tattoo.

I didn't know they had a "panorama" setting on the cameras of that era.

I've seen another old picture of a big group like that. I was told that they actually had to pan the camera (maybe that's where the name comes from: pan-o-rama), and in this picture the man who was at the left end of the group initially ran behind everyone and was at the right end when the camera got there, so he appears at both ends of the photo. (Either that or he had a twin brother wearing the same clothes and my father was kidding me.)

Opinions?

probably didn't pan the camera, but used a special camera like a noblex where the lens rotates as the film moves past the open shutter or a slit shutter passes across the film. I'll dig up some links later. I've got the inch here.

for starters

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/noblex_150ux.shtml

I got lucky and found this link: http://www.panoramicphoto.com/ which explains:

[INDENT]The panoramic camera is a unique invention in that it has the capability of "panning" both camera and film resulting in an image that can display up to a full 360 degree view.

The most popular camera, at that time, was the Circuit camera, a large, box-like machine that was mounted on a sturdy tripod and featured a clock-like mechanism that would transport the film in one direction while the camera panned in the opposite direction - exposing the film (quite slowly) as it traveled past the lens.
[/INDENT]

I noticed that some of the pictures from that site had the same two vertical lines - I first thought that bathing photo had been folded.

Maybe one of the older people on this site can explain what they mean by "film"?

A piece of dark paper on which a small imp paints something really fast

Sorry DanaC, I obviously didn't mean you. I said "one of the older people."

Maybe they're all napping.

*grins* I like you! I like you a lot!

grant;333200 wrote:

Some of them are pretty sexy. Namely in the back row (from right): 2, 4, -8 and front row (from left): 7, 16, 17, 28.

Are you sure you don't mean 8th from the left, the one dressed like little red riding hood? I agree about number 8 in the back. If you cropped her out of the rest of the image and just looked at her picture, you couldn't date it. Some styles really are timeless.

What is with all of the ropes or chains on the woman at the bottom left with the dog? That's an outfit you might see today - at a bondage convention.

Undertoad;333243 wrote:

She had big cans before big cans were cool.

Wait, there was a time when big cans weren't cool? When was this?

Undertoad;333243 wrote:

The whole thing makes me think: there was a time when smiling for a photograph was not the convention.

Absolutely--my paternal grandfather, who died in 1950, was remembered by many in the family as very funny and jovial. But you wouldn't know it to look at his photos; he's scowling like mad.

HungLikeJesus;333351 wrote:

Maybe one of the older people on this site can explain what they mean by "film"?

Film is what you use when you need real resolving power and pixels are just too chunky.

Here's a website of a guy I met during a "mammoth camera" workshop I took several years ago. Nice guy, a lot of info, he's in the right place at the right time.

http://www.bigshotz.co.nz/index.html

HungLikeJesus;333370 wrote:

Sorry DanaC, I obviously didn't mean you. I said "one of the older people."

Maybe they're all napping.

Not napping. We just couldn't hear you with your nose all the way up DanaC's rectum. :lol:

Sheldonrs;333390 wrote:

Not napping. We just couldn't hear you with your nose all the way up DanaC's rectum. :lol:

Sheldonrs - that is quite an image, especially considering that DanaC "Enjoys her own farts"

who doesn't?

Oop... yur gonna' need a towel.

I like the bathing suits now better...

Check those sh*t kickers on number LF 3!
Could bring a whole new meaning to kicking sand in someone's face.

HungLikeJesus;333397 wrote:

Sheldonrs - that is quite an image, especially considering that DanaC "Enjoys her own farts"

I think that was just a passing phase. :D

Oww. Puntastic.

You sure you want to envoke the "rath" of old people all you shall get is there ramblings of WW2 and how they did things in their day or they'll break out the pictures of you as a kid

Hi Nikolai. Welcomr to the cellar. Don't feed us oldies.

Cheers DanaC and dont worry I'll only bring out the oldies on special occasions

By bring, do you mean wheel?

All these new-fangled gizmos are gettin' my dander up.
And those wimmin in those swim costumes? Exposing their knees like that?
That'll get yer blood racing like nothin' else!
See what happens when you give them the right to vote?
In my day, we didn't have cameras!
We had to build a box just large enough to hold a baby pterodactyl who'd carve the image on a piece of rock with his beak.
And every time you look in at him, he'd say "Eh, it's a living."
Where's that orderly with my medication?
If I don't get my gas pill soon, this whole place'll wish we didn't have sausage and eggs for breakfast.
Who stole my dentures?
You little commie bastard!
You better gimme them back!
I'll show you how we beat the Kaiser with nothing more than 3 cocoanuts and the elastic from our skivvies...
Who's got the TVGuide?
What's on?
Put on "Matlock"!!
MMMAAATTTTLLLOOOOCCCCKKKK!!!!!!!
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........................

HungLikeJesus;333296 wrote:

I've seen another old picture of a big group like that. I was told that they actually had to pan the camera (maybe that's where the name comes from: pan-o-rama), and in this picture the man who was at the left end of the group initially ran behind everyone and was at the right end when the camera got there, so he appears at both ends of the photo. (Either that or he had a twin brother wearing the same clothes and my father was kidding me.)

Opinions?

Just how old are you chick?
When I was at school in the '80s it was still common to have school photographs taken in this way. I'm not sure about the exact method used, but it was certainly possible for someone to appear more than once in the photograph.

We had a montage style poster at my school because we had a better art department, but the slightly more staid boys school that some of my friends attended still had the formal rows of faces. The school discouraged running round the back to appear twice with a set penalty of a weeks suspension (which also applied to anyone assisting them). Funnily enough, it had the opposite effect and at least one boy a year attempted it.

The photographer of my Junior High School class photo picked a student to do it.

We were assigned our position in the rows by height, so it was unlikely that someone who wanted to do it would happen to be put right on the edge, unless they were really really lucky.

richlevy;333378 wrote:

Are you sure you don't mean 8th from the left, the one dressed like little red riding hood?

By -8 from the right, I meant 8th from the left. I just didn't want to change sides mid-row. It's kind of a pythonism I guess.