Slumdogs

[Osensitive1]

The clean clothing may give it off the best, but your observations are flawed. The point about the boys haircuts vs.  the females unkempt hair is flaw number one and an huge one in your claim.  American history during the depression easily disproves your claim about that matter. Your claim about the basket "looking new"  and not torn up during the depression simply proves ignorance.

Maybe reading to much into what's seen as flaw, though to give the benfit of doubt looked more. The photos were produced for a fictional novel, A Child of the Jago. Though true to their time period, still have to go with the first instinct of staged.

I posted the pictures after reading the following in The Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2017054/Britains-Slumdogs-The-ragged-filthy-East-London-children-just-100-years-ago-living-life-grime.html

Thanks, Bodaccea. Though still posed, these have a different feel, no?

[bodie]

Hmmm.  I am not too sure what to make of them.  I am sure many
kids then or now would happily pose or gladly use props.  Which is
a shame.  It would have been better to snap the kids acting naturally,
or better still, for them to be unaware of being photographed.

I wonder if they were paid?  I have been trying to find out about the
photographer,  Horace Warner, but not having much luck

[ZEGH8578]

a photography doesnt have to be spontaneous, in order to be genuine

endless ammounts of genuine photos are still posed


"wait, what, theres a camera four inches from my face?"

[Osensitive1]

Of course many pictures are posed and still genuine; don't often assume posed pictures are fake, but these are. Not sure if was only the posing, that's the easy part to explain. The book was published in 1896 around the time of the destruction of the slum which is the setting for the story. 1912 is the correct date for the photos, though they depict a time and place around 15 years previous.
http://www.londonfictions.com/arthur-morrison-a-child-of-the-jago.html

[ZEGH8578]

ah, if your specifically familiar w the case, then thats different.
theyre still nice photos!

[bodie]

Of course many pictures are posed and still genuine; don't often assume posed pictures are fake, but these are. Not sure if was only the posing, that's the easy part to explain. The book was published in 1896 around the time of the destruction of the slum which is the setting for the story. 1912 is the correct date for the photos, though they depict a time and place around 15 years previous.
http://www.londonfictions.com/arthur-morrison-a-child-of-the-jago.html

I don't know why you associate these with this book?  I posted the pics as 1912.  That is the correct date.  I can't find any evidence that these pics were in the book 'child of the jago' ?

[bodie]

A 'child of the jago' can be viewed online http://www.archive.org/stream/childofjago00morrrich#page/n9/mode/2up

i can not find the pictures by horace warner.  ?

confused

[Osensitive1]

http://www.amazon.com/Illustrated-photographs-Horace-Warner-ebook/dp/B004XNOV5U

Charlie knew it.