Side photography comment: is it just me, or do some pics from that era (like the one you posted) seem to have more definition than our current digital “high definition” photos? I mean you can see every wrinkle on Lincoln’s face there. It seems way more definition than anything we have now.
Why is that? Am I wrong?
Probably because the Lincoln photo was most likely made on a glass plate negative eight or ten inches wide. That’s a lot more resolving power than 35mm film or consumer digitals.
Digital sucks period
I think you are right, but only in part because of the photography. Those plates were large and because of their size really did have much better resolution than digital. We are also seeing harsher lighting than today’s subjects are willing to tolerate and an absence of makeup, plus perhaps a rougher life than people today experience.
For a variety of reasons, Lincoln at age 56 had a whole lot more facial irregularities than the much older Hillary and Trump show.
I have family photos taken over one hundred years ago outside with Brownie type camera, and the photos are so sharp even the people in the distance can be recognized.
Digital may be OK, but the old Brownie was took far better photos, plus, when you tripped the shutter it caught the photo at that second, not two or three seconds later when everyone moves.
Most all formats earlier that 35mm used larger negatives. The Brady photo was probably taken with an 8x10 inch glass negative.
The camera my parents had when I was little (1960s) used 120 film, which is 60mm wide. This is the same size film used in the Kodak Box Brownie cameras from around the turn of the 20th Century.