While doing a search on carrots I came across the mention of Woolton Pie. This was a pie made of vegetables during WWII and named after the Minister of Food. Part of the description reads,
“When Woolton pie was being forced on somewhat reluctant tables, Lord Woolton performed a valuable service by submitting to the flashlight camera at public luncheons while eating, with every sign of enjoyment, the dish named after him.”
I assume it is just a different way of talking about flash photography but I have never heard it. Googling turns up nothing.
We’d obviously call it flash photography rather than flashlight photography today. Perhaps the latter is an archaic term, or perhaps it was just an error. Bear in mind that in the U.K. flashlight does not mean an American flashlight, our word for that is torch. The absence of that ambiguity might explain why (if it’s simply a mistake) it was not corrected.
It also strikes me that while flash photography is standard, “the flash camera” sounds a bit odd. If both terms were then in use for photgraphy, “the flashlight camera” sounds better to my ear.
In the early days, photographs used separate flash lighting. Then along came cameras with built in flashes. We called them flash cameras, but they could have first been called flashlight cameras, but that would clash with flashlights.
There was still quite an aloofness between politicians and the media, outside quite formal occasions, until well into the 50s. Woolton, as a former retail tycoon, was adept at marketing, and as Minister for Food needed to be, to keep people not too disgruntled with the food situation. So, unlike many of his colleagues, he was quite happy to showboat a bit like that - and Churchill used him after the war to revitalise Tory Party organisation and marketing accordingly.
It’s probably also worth mentioning that indoor photography of anything but a completely still subject would pretty much require flash in those days. It’s still often used today, but technology would allow a photographer the option to do without a flash if they wanted to be unobtrusive.
It might. My father born in Bristol, England in 1920 (and never lived anywhere else) referred to a “torch” as a “flashlight” until his death at the age of 91.
I feel compelled to mention that tinned “bully beef” that was served to Royal Navy sailors in the late 19th century was referred to as “Fanny Adams”, after a young woman who was murdered and dismembered, supposedly near a canning plant. Not all of the body parts were found, so…
And a completely still camera operator – or tripod (or similar method of completely steadying the camera.) It’s not too hard for a subject to remain stationary for 1/8 of a second – at least not enough for it to be very noticeable on the exposure. On the camera side, though, a very minor movement will result in an obvious smudge of motion blur. (It should be reasonably easy to understand why if you’ve ever hand held binoculars or a telescope or tried to site a gun.)
Back in the daguerreotype and ambrotype days even under full sunlight exposures were several seconds. Photographers in their studios had head clamps to help people stay still long enough and the reason for the grim expressions is because most folks had a hard time maintaining a natural-looking smile that long.