The first photograph of people and the Daguerreotype process

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by editor, Jun 12, 2019.

  1. editor

    editor hiraethified

    [​IMG]

    Above: The earliest reliably dated photograph of people, taken by Louis Daguerre one spring morning in 1838.

    Tech chat about the process here Scientists found these old photographs contain metallic nanoparticles
     
  2. farmerbarleymow

    farmerbarleymow Seagull + Chips = Happy Seagull

    It's a pretty good picture considering its age. :cool:
     
    Ponyutd likes this.
  3. editor

    editor hiraethified

    Must have been mind blowing at the time.
     
    a_chap and farmerbarleymow like this.
  4. StoneRoad

    StoneRoad heckling from the back!

    remarkably sharp for a photograph of that age and process.
     
  5. 8ball

    8ball Bar Bore Silver Medallist

    Thought you's said "wind blowing" for a sec.
    Def looks windy.
     
  6. alsoknownas

    alsoknownas some bloke

    How many people are there in that picture? I think I can pick out 3, but even then I'm not sure (still a remarkable pic in any case).
     
  7. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    You say the first photo of people, but there ain't many folk in it :)
     
  8. sunnysidedown

    sunnysidedown caput mortuum

    Amongst the nerds, maybe.
     
  9. farmerbarleymow

    farmerbarleymow Seagull + Chips = Happy Seagull

    It makes you think about just how ubiquitous photography is nowadays, even compared to thirty years ago when you had to be careful because film was quite expensive. Thinking about it, I don't think my gran had very many, if any, photos of her or her relatives from when she was young (born in 1904), but it is just taken for granted now.
     
  10. maomao

    maomao 四月她爹

    There are probably a couple of hundred photos of me as a kid. There are several thousand of my daughter and she's only four.
     
    weltweit and farmerbarleymow like this.
  11. editor

    editor hiraethified

    It's ubiquitous but it's quite likely that a far greater proportion of modern photos won't be around in 100 years time. People rarely back up their phone photos (a huge chunk of which are worse quality than what someone may have taken 50 years ago), and with file formats changing, hard drives failing, people losing phones and constantly changing standards, it's much easier to permanently lose photos.
     
  12. editor

    editor hiraethified

    The Victorian public was amazed by photography.
     
    gawkrodger likes this.
  13. farmerbarleymow

    farmerbarleymow Seagull + Chips = Happy Seagull

    Very true. Things can be seen as much more ephemeral nowadays, and people don't think about the ability to access files in the future. I've got huge numbers of photos stored and haven't ever thought about but probably should.
     
  14. friedaweed

    friedaweed Sitting down for a wee

    It would make a nice large print for any wall that :cool:
     
    clicker likes this.
  15. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Indeed. I used to shoot jpeg all the time, one advantage of which is that they are likely to be viewable for longer, but for how long? Now I shoot Nikon Raw NEF files, which are less likely to be readable in 200 years time.
     
    editor likes this.
  16. UnderAnOpenSky

    UnderAnOpenSky baseline neural therapy

    Do you think they are worse for most people ? Obviously you are a proper photographer, but Iugged a pretty large Canon around India in 2000/2001. Was only a point and shoot but cost quite a lot of money. Was looking back at some of them the other day and reflecting how even phone photos from 5 years ago seem so much better by comparison.

    Also havnt JPEGs been around for ever?
     
    weltweit likes this.
  17. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Since 1992
     
    weltweit likes this.
  18. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    This style of photography doesn't have grain or pixelation in quite the same with film cameras or digital. Because its a pinhole photograph (the in camera exposure is the end result, rather than a film exposure where you make a small image to reverse and upscale into the end result), you don't get grain or the equivalent (digital pixellation) in the same way.
     
  19. sim667

    sim667 Licking windows on the 303 bus.

    There's loads, but because its such a long exposure, they don't get captured..... So that is probably bustling street, but the people moving through aren't captured. The ones that are were probably standing still for a looooong time, think street vendors.

    Infact I think the one you can see in the foreground is actually someone having their shoes shined.
     
    neonwilderness likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice