Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
Well, that seems to be an issue that is not unique to him. Some others of the same era were equally inattentive to surrounds. I speculate (my personally owned opinion) that the "sloppiness" was a function of two things: the complexity of photography in those days, and the complexity of orchestrating the allegorical scenes. There was a lot to think about and it is not clear that these images were produced in a manner to be "picture perfect"... meaning publication or award-winning quality. Ohter Victorian photographers were definitely interested in sales. I'm not sure that Carrol/Dodgson was so motivated.
I've got a number of images in my collection that support this logic. I have a photo from the Tom Thumb wedding, taken by Mathew Brady, where Tom Thumb is squished off to the left side of the image. It's a very odd composition until you think that the goal must have been to show Lavinia Warren's dress in its entirety.


Another odd one is an Alexander Gardner image - WHY did he leave the head clamp sitting in the corner, instead of pulling in a little closer?



It's not like these two gentlemen were random itinerant photographers who learned their craft from a 99 cent correspondence course. They were some of the pre-eminent photographers of the Victorian era.