LLMs and Daguerreotypes
More AI Fun With Photographs
I’m like a dog with a bone. This is why I can’t get any work done. Anyway, here’s an old photograph. It’s a personal favorite.
Isn’t she great? I’ve always thought so.
Let me give you a little informal provenance. There was an antique card table in my childhood home. It was in the “living room,” which in late twentieth century suburban America was for absolutely anything but “living.” It’s where the nice couch went, and we were forbidden to sit on it. My mother would be upset if I told you it was “musty” in there.1 It was not musty. But it was full of old stuff, and it smelled like a room smells when its full of old stuff.
This cased image was in the drawer of that card table, along with a few other daguerreotypes and ambrotypes. My mom was given them by her grandparents, because, when she was a kid visiting their house, she enjoyed peering at the curious, old-fashioned humans in the tiny, latched, gutta-percha boxes.
Say what you will about my eccentricities, I come by them honestly.
The little photographs are mostly—tragically—unlabeled. Or the labels fell off at some point in the last century and a half. But I know the little photographs came from my mom’s grandfather’s family, so the possibilities are narrowed significantly. I have some good guesses about the sitters, and for this one, I’m nearly certain. Still, its a guess.
I wanted to see how Claude would do. If I gave it nothing but the image above, and told Claude that it was a photography expert (with a side hustle in antique apparel), what would it say?
What’s your guess?
Don’t worry, I’m not going to paywall you after a cliffhanger question. Though it’s a time-honored technique and—I am told—very effective. No, instead, I’ll tell you exactly what Claude was good for, and why.
Claude nailed everything important (AFAIK) about this daguerreotype.
It understood what that it was a daguerreotype based on the reflective surface, the case, and the mat.
It guessed the sitter’s approximate age. If it’s who I think it is, Claude was right.
It guessed late 1840’s based on the clothing and hairstyle (exactly where I’d landed).
It guessed the woman was middle-class based on her clothing and the fact she could afford a daguerreotype.
It informed me that it was a very high quality daguerreotype, with expert lighting—something which never would have occurred to me.
After some slight prodding from me about the ribbon round her neck, Claude told me about the watch chains of the Victorian era. I did not know they wore them so long.
Aside from the last couple items, I’d divined all of this myself over the years. But I know a fair bit about early photography and nineteenth-century fashion. I learned all that stuff while—you guessed it—trying to identify old family photographs.
Let’s be systematic here, because the pros and cons of LLM use are going to vary depending on the expertise of the user.
If you are a total novice, that is, if you were me at sixteen discovering this daguerreotype in a drawer:
Pro: Claude will tell you all the basics and more. You don’t need to know sweet Fanny Adams about photography.
Pro: Claude will point out things you probably did not notice.
Pro: You don’t have to hire an expert. Or talk to another human being, if that’s not your thing.
Con: You won’t have to talk to another human being, if that’s your thing.
Con: You will have no idea if Claude is wrong, blatantly or subtly.
Con: You won’t “learn” this stuff yourself.
Hold on for a second. Stop the system. Is that last “con” really true? Is this really any different than searching for the information on various websites and then applying what you learned to your old heirlooms? What about reading a book? I certainly understand that you’re no longer “applying” the knowledge yourself, but there’s fair recompense for that. Now you can apply it together: “Claude, use this photograph to teach me about daguerreotypes.” Done.
If you are a dilettante with some working knowledge, that is, if you are me right now:
Pro: Claude will confirm or question your understanding
Pro: Claude will note things that overfamiliarity has caused you to ignore, and even when it misses things, it will help you see the photograph with new eyes and ask new questions.
Pro: Claude will nearly bring you to tears as you are made to reckon with the irretrievable humanity of your ancestor for the very first time. Ahem. More on that after the paywall.
Con: You will have no idea if Claude is wrong, subtly.
If you are an expert on early photography and/or women’s fashion:
Pro: It can be fun talking to another expert
Pro: Claude can introduce ideas from different disciplines—areas in which you have no expertise at all. For example, my conversation veered into dressmaking and the history of the pocket watch.
Con: You will know when Claude is wrong, and it will make you very annoyed that people are talking to Claude instead of you.
Con: You are obsolete.
OK, now we’ll get to what Claude actually said.
Paywall ahead, in keeping with the “my family tree gets paywalled” rule.