Pay attention to old enough photos? Often cities are represented on them like this - without people. One could assume that this is a night for example, but with night lighting such a photo would not have turned out. To take as a version such a situation that the photographer was waiting for all the people to leave the frame is also difficult - too much space is sometimes shown in the photo. And there are no people.
What are your versions? Let me first show you some more examples of photos, and then I will express my version:
The first photo in the post and these photos of Paris can be found in the archives of the French National Library.
Look, the streets and buildings look surprisingly familiar despite the photographs being over 150 years old. Where are the people? Why is everything so deserted?
Promotional video:
Okay, Parisian photos might be wrong with them. But there are plenty of examples.
Here's a look at Orenburg - 1 person:
But Penza - not a single person noticed:
Classic Peter again without people:
So, I have this version: the absence of people in the photographs is due to the very long exposure time of photography at the beginning of the 19th century. The first known photograph of Paris, taken in 1839, is also devoid of people and movement. In those days, it took about 10 minutes to create one photo.
The first and oldest photograph was taken in 1826:
Joseph Nicefort Niepce, a French photographer, took this picture using an eight hour exposure. It is called "View from the window of Le Gras" and has been shown in recent years at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin.
If you look closely at the photographs above, you will see the shadowy outlines of people standing or sitting long enough to be recorded in the photograph as ghostly figures on an empty street. But in reality, these streets were not empty and in a particularly crowded place, you will notice a foggy spot instead of a stream of people.
What do you think? What's your version?