# What makes stuff look old? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [December 3, 2003, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731 "2003-12-03T16:38:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Colophon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f05b48/32.png) [@Colophon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colophon)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/21 "2013-11-13T18:44:00Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > I never noticed that, but if true, it’s not the lenses that are different. The depth of field of old lenses is exactly the same as modern ones of the same focal length, due to physics. The controlling factor is the _aperture_ – a large aperture (low F-stop) creates a shallow depth of field; a pinhole creates an almost infinite depth of field. > > The films/plates in use long ago were relatively _in_sensitive to light, requiring a small F-stop to properly be exposed, or a long exposure, which caused blurring if people couldn’t hold still long enough. It’s possible you observed this kind of motion blur, although I don’t see how the general’s ear could be moving if his glasses did not! I wonder if that’s what causes the effect I’ve often noticed in old portraits - the faces often look almost airbrushed - very smooth and flawless with no visible texture, when you might expect old-timey people to be more weather-beaten and gnarled than people today. Perhaps it’s a combination of slight motion blur and lack of depth of field. ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [November 13, 2013, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/22 "2013-11-13T20:35:54Z")
Computers can be trained mimic the human mind, by taking a snap shot of data, and making various _ad hoc_ connections, and then use the connections to identify patterns in similar data. Basically, we’ve all scene thousands of pictures of old cars. We know what a Model T looks like. We know what a 1950’s car looks like. When you see an unidentified car, your mind combines thousands of subtle clues subconsciously to estimate its age. Same goes with photos, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/23 "2013-11-15T20:19:38Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > This thread looks pretty old. Or is it just the rotting flesh that does that? I think it’s been photoshopped–you can see artifacts around the time stamps, and the user names are in the wrong font for the period. ---
**Author:** ![WordMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e8c25b/32.png) [@WordMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WordMan)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2013, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/24 "2013-11-15T21:01:24Z")
Old thread, but interesting topics. With photographs - I have heard that between: a) having to hold still for a long exposure (so adopting a pose and facial expression you can hold for a while); and b) the fact that the “language of photos” was new and therefore more formal, both led to the distinct look of Daguerreotypes, etc. Because I am a complete guitar geek, it is worth mentioning that there is HUGE market in “Relic’ing” new guitars to look old. Which of course speaks to the fact that old guitars have a certain worn-in something that is pretty obvious when you see one and then pick it up and play it. Idiots will often refer to old guitars as having “Mojo” - okay, whatever - but a great old guitar will often look played in. Anyway, relic’d guitars can command a premium, and the craftspeople that do the relic’ing get a reputation. There was a guy who did work for Gibson, Tom Murphy, who did stuff like put fake nitocellulose-finish crazing cracks on a guitar by taking a razor blade and cutting them in one by one. Art forgery has nothing on this guy… ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 16, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/25 "2013-11-16T22:13:04Z")
> [@rainy](#): > > Does anyone know if there are any photographic artists that try to ‘fake’ old photos. Not the amusement park gunslinger/saloon photos but something more serious. Had you turned this idea into a website ten years ago, you would have been a billionaire. For things like cars, aircraft and other vehicles, typically the materials, shapes and styles are what makes them look old or new. Plastics vs metal, streamlining, curved vs flat glass, greater precision with things like seams or welds, better ergonomics, better safety features. Typically, as mechanical things evolve over time, their workings become more complex as more features are added. But their shape and functionality becomes simpler as they are made easier to use and maintain and manufactures remove erroneous features in favor of improved performance (ie crazy fins and whatnot). ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2013, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/26 "2013-11-17T01:41:21Z")
Rust and corrosion! ---
**Author:** ![DataX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DataX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DataX)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2013, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/27 "2013-11-17T01:59:18Z")
Two things: 1. on physical objects like watches and leather they develop a film known as “patina” that some people really like. It is heard to replicate and often people are cautioned against cleaning for dear of ruining it. 2. this question reminds me of the Deep Space 9 episode: > **[Trials and Tribble-ations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trials_and_Tribble-ations)** > > "Trials and Tribble-ations" is the 104th episode of the American science fiction television series Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, the sixth episode of the fifth season. It was written as a tribute to the original series of Star Trek, in the year of that show's 30th anniversary; sister series Voyager also produced a tribute episode, "Flashback". > Set in the 24th century, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine follows the adventures of the crew of the space station Deep Space Nine, near the planet Bajor, as the... Where they digitally inserted the DS9 crew into one of the more famous TOS episodes. It is quite well done (IMHO) and I have often wondered what it is about that color scheme that just screams “original Star Trek”. I don’t think I could do it at all, and I don’t even know what it is called, but even when looking at a single frame you can sometimes say “looks like a Star Trek episode” (even without it being a scifi scene) or “hmmm looks like early 80s detective show”. I look through old year books and think - even if I cut my hair differently - and had these clothes - they just seem different. I doubt that is the case of course, but my brain feels that way. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2013, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/28 "2013-11-17T03:27:05Z")
> [@WordMan](#): > > Old thread, but interesting topics. > > With photographs - I have heard that between: a) having to hold still for a long exposure (so adopting a pose and facial expression you can hold for a while); and b) the fact that the “language of photos” was new and therefore more formal, both led to the distinct look of Daguerreotypes, etc. [Yep.](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Daguerreotype_tintype_photographer_model_studio_table_brady_stand_cast_iron_portrait_photos.jpg) [Even had special braces for it.](http://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/antique-portrait-studio-head-stand-94785879) ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Goob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c77e96/32.png) [@Mr.Goob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Goob)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/29 "2013-11-17T17:55:56Z")
This has me really thinking deep, I fix and restore some antiques as a part of my buisness. I just “know” how old most of the stuff is I work on by sight. Experience is a huge part, but styling, materials, and workmanship all show through to me. It all adds up. Think of how you can pretty much guess a persons age without seeing the face right away. Hair, clothes and posture are all subtle clues. Hard to articulate, I think we all do it instintually. ---
**Author:** ![rainy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@rainy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainy)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/30 "2013-11-19T15:49:12Z")
Okay, so the consensus seems to be that we are picking up on clues at a nearly subconcious level (patina, seam width, curves, styling, having vast exposure to similar items associated with a time period). And that all makes sense. I guess what tantalizes me about this question is the almost subconcious decision making that we are doing. So I wonder if all those cues could be fooled. Could someone construct a police style line up of objects, selecting several modern items that were designed to evoke that “old” feeling and just one actual antique and throw off our perceptions? Or are we such good ‘cold readers’ of age that people would test very well in identifying the antique even if they couldn’t quantify why they chose the one they did. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/31 "2013-11-19T18:18:02Z")
Antiques Roadshow has that covered. Interesting how many fakes are out there. ---
**Author:** ![minor7flat5](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minor7flat5/32/258_2.png) [@minor7flat5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minor7flat5)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2013, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/32 "2013-11-19T19:55:01Z")
Not all old photos have to look so tight-lipped. Here is one of my favorites (which I have linked to before): [The Jersey Shore circa 1905. “On the beach, Atlantic City.”](http://www.shorpy.com/node/8487?size=_original) Check out the expressions all throughout that photo. Except for the clothing, most of them could pass for modern folks just having a good time. ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2013, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/33 "2013-11-28T23:24:38Z")
> [@minor7flat5](#): > > Not all old photos have to look so tight-lipped. > > Here is one of my favorites (which I have linked to before): > > [The Jersey Shore circa 1905. “On the beach, Atlantic City.”](http://www.shorpy.com/node/8487?size=_original) > > Check out the expressions all throughout that photo. Except for the clothing, most of them could pass for modern folks just having a good time. Now that we have digital photography, I think it will be interesting to compare “today’s” photos to contemporary photos in a hundred years, knowing that the color won’t fade, etc. How will us “turn of the century” folks compare? ---
**Author:** ![InternetLegend](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/internetlegend/32/13154_2.png) [@InternetLegend](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/InternetLegend)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2013, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/34 "2013-11-29T03:21:18Z")
One thing I’ve noticed about hairstyles from the first half of the 20th century is that hair products have changed. A perm used to create much “harder” curls, and the hair gel of the forties and fifties was nothing like it is today. I’ve noticed the difference in shows that are set in earlier times - even when the stylists recreate the same hairdo, the texture of the hair looks softer. Old-time perms made hair look and feel almost crispy. Orthodontia and tooth whitening have also contributed to making modern actors look a lot different than the people they sometimes play. When I’m watching a movie set in the Old West, say, seeing a grizzled prospector open his mouth to reveal a set of perfectly straight, gleaming white teeth yanks me right out of the scene. ---
**Author:** ![rainy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@rainy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rainy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/35 "2015-04-17T13:29:32Z")
So it can be done, at least with photographs. Here is a great set of picts of actors taken with a tintype camera. Very impressive. If these were unknown/unfamous people I think these could be passed off as antique photographs. > **[Instead Of Photographing Hollywood Celebrities With A DSLR, This Photographer...](https://www.demilked.com/vintage-photography-sundance-celebrities-tintypes-2015-victoria-will/)** > > Shooting with old-timey cameras is all fine and dandy, but Victoria Will really merged the old with the new in her Sundance 2015 celebrity tintypes! ---
**Author:** ![minor7flat5](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minor7flat5/32/258_2.png) [@minor7flat5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minor7flat5)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/36 "2015-04-17T14:11:03Z")
> [@rainy](#): > > So it can be done, at least with photographs. Here is a great set of picts of actors taken with a tintype camera. Very impressive. If these were unknown/unfamous people I think these could be passed off as antique photographs. > > [http://www.demilked.com/vintage-photography-sundance-celebrities-tintypes-2015-victoria-will/](http://www.demilked.com/vintage-photography-sundance-celebrities-tintypes-2015-victoria-will/) That is so cool! I watched the behind-the-scenes video and it makes me want to go out and get a tintype setup… She said that the film has an ISO of between 0 and 1 :eek:. This means that in order to be able to take photographs with reasonable exposure times she must come up with an additional 7 stops of light above what would be sufficient for an ordinary DSLR operating at ISO100. She did this using flash, and it is clear that her flash setup is far more blinding than most in order to get those additional 7 stops of light–the models often visibly flinch when the light goes off. Somehow I doubt my little speedlites can produce anywhere near the required amount of light. But it looks like it would be great fun for the model as well as the photographer. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/37 "2015-04-17T19:50:53Z")
Get a neck clamp to hold them still and a longer exposure time is doable. ---
**Author:** ![AncientHumanoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ancienthumanoid/32/278_2.png) [@AncientHumanoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AncientHumanoid)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/38 "2015-04-17T19:53:38Z")
> [@AncientHumanoid](#): > > Get a neck clamp to hold them still and a longer exposure time is doable. Huh. I [already posted](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=16854193&postcount=28) about that. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/39 "2015-04-17T21:02:44Z")
Threads can look pretty antiquated after just 13 years. But only to folks who pay attention to the OP’s post date. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [April 17, 2015, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731/40 "2015-04-17T21:29:31Z")
> [@minor7flat5](#): > > She said that the film has an ISO of between 0 and 1 :eek:. This means that in order to be able to take photographs with reasonable exposure times she must come up with an additional 7 stops of light above what would be sufficient for an ordinary DSLR operating at ISO100. And yet she is hand-holding the camera. How fast were the lenses and how fast were the shutters in those antique cameras? Maybe the flash is so brief that it doesn’t matter what the shutter speed is. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-makes-stuff-look-old/216731.md?page=3)