Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The first photograph of people and the Daguerreotype process

editor

hiraethified


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

Nicephore Niepce is now widely credited with taking the first still photograph in July of 1827, using a material that hardened when exposed to light to capture the image. But it took a full eight hours of exposure, and the image was temporary. Louis Daguerre built on Niepce's work, figuring out how to reduce exposure times and fix the images by immersing the photographic plates in a salt solution. Introduced in 1839, his "daguerreotypes" were all the rage for several decades—Abraham Lincoln and Emily Dickinson were among the luminaries whose portraits were captured this way, along with the transit of Venus and the horrors of the American Civil War
Tech chat about the process here Scientists found these old photographs contain metallic nanoparticles
 

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).
 

farmerbarleymow

Seagull + Chips = Happy Seagull
Must have been mind blowing at the time.
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.
 

maomao

四月她爹
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.
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.
 

editor

hiraethified
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.
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.
 

farmerbarleymow

Seagull + Chips = Happy Seagull
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.
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.
 

weltweit

Well-Known Member
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.
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.
 

UnderAnOpenSky

baseline neural therapy
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.
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?
 

sim667

Licking windows on the 303 bus.
It's a pretty good picture considering its age. :cool:
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.
 

sim667

Licking windows on the 303 bus.
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).
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.
 
Top