175 years

[AgX]

Today, 175 years ago, the Daguerre photographic process was made public (in any sense) at the French Academy of Sciences.

In hindsight this date is regarded as birth of photography.

 

[darkosaric]

Yep. And it changed the way the World functions. No more just written and spoken knowledge transfer from generation to generation. People were (are) able to see the history.

 

[Pat Erson]

Daguerre "borrowed" quite a lot from his friend Nicéphore Niépce who made the big mistake of dying in 1833. Had he lived till 1839 the daguerreotype might have been named niepcotype...

 

[removed account4]

Daguerre "borrowed" quite a lot from his friend Nicéphore Niépce who made the big mistake of dying in 1833. Had he lived till 1839 the daguerreotype might have been named niepcotype...

a agree though he invented photography and if he didn't die of a stroke things might have been much different.

 

[Simon R Galley]

A date worthy of remembering on so many levels.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[AgX]

It was the 19th of August in case you want to mark that day in your agenda for 2039.

 

[Regular Rod]

Today, 175 years ago, the Daguerre photographic process was made public (in any sense) at the French Academy of Sciences.

In hindsight this date is regarded as birth of photography.

Which of course is completely wrong!

William Henry Fox Talbot's work preceded him by 5 years. This famous image was made four years earlier than 1839...

RR

 

[aRolleiBrujo]

Yay either way, LONG LIVE FILM,LONG LIVE PHOTOGRAPHY!

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Which of course is completely wrong!

William Henry Fox Talbot's work preceded him by 5 years. This famous image was made four years earlier than 1839...

RR

From the other side...

[Edit: Click here for above photo reference.]

Ken

 

[Regular Rod]

View attachment 93272

From the other side...

Ken

Very nice!

RR

 

[cliveh]

Which of course is completely wrong!

William Henry Fox Talbot's work preceded him by 5 years. This famous image was made four years earlier than 1839...

RR

Dead on.

 

[AgX]

In hindsight this date is regarded as birth of photography.

Of course the preceeding work of others is known.
But still 1839 is regarded (or determind) by photo-historians as the crucial year.
Then rather obscure experiments by some were to change into a process known to many.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Which of course is completely wrong!

William Henry Fox Talbot's work preceded him by 5 years. This famous image was made four years earlier than 1839...

RR

toobad,he didn't apply for a patent in time;you snooze,you lose!

 

[Rhodes]

Bahhh, terrible photo, so underexposed! No shadow detail around the window. Talbot should have exposed for the shadows, extend the time for a more hours!
I do not think that the daguerreotype would be mention niepcotype, Niepce did "invented" the photography in the terms of getting a image and fixing it (rather "strange" for me is the process of fixing being already know but no one had join it to the process of getting the image by solar light).
Daguerre did create a good process of getting a stable image and did show the world the photography was possible and change the world!

 

[miha]

I was quite busy back then; even small nations like mine had photograpy pioneers recognized by the Académie Nationale Agricole, Manufacturière et Commerciale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janez_Puhar

 

[FoidPoosening]

Yep. And it changed the way the World functions. No more just written and spoken knowledge transfer from generation to generation. People were (are) able to see the history.

This is a really good point. I was thinking more that some language barriers can be bypassed, but what you said is more important!

 

[E. von Hoegh]

Bahhh, terrible photo, so underexposed! No shadow detail around the window. Talbot should have exposed for the shadows, extend the time for a more hours!
I do not think that the daguerreotype would be mention niepcotype, Niepce did "invented" the photography in the terms of getting a image and fixing it (rather "strange" for me is the process of fixing being already know but no one had join it to the process of getting the image by solar light).
Daguerre did create a good process of getting a stable image and did show the world the photography was possible and change the world!

Really. You'd think some of these guys had never used a camera before!

 

[Drew B.]

Daguerre "borrowed" quite a lot from his friend Nicéphore Niépce who made the big mistake of dying in 1833. Had he lived till 1839 the daguerreotype might have been named niepcotype...

Do you think his descendants are receiving any royalties ?

 

[AgX]

Nierpce's son and Daguerre both got a pension from the french government. In the numerical relation of 2/3.

It was agreed to end with the death of their widows.

 

[cliveh]

When you think about the superb quality of a Daguerreotype compared to Talbot’s early Calotypes, (disregarding the multiple print ability) it is amazing that the process of the latter was able to go through so much improvement to dominate the market. Is there a lesson to be learned here?

 

[miha]

I think so Clive. Talbot's system offered multiple photos from a single negative so more photos reach the masses (= money earned).

 

[pdeeh]

And the images become available at much lesser cost to many more people, allowing more to participate in picture making, opening the World up through dissemination of inexpensive prints and books, new printing processes allowing books to feature photographs rather than line drawings ... and so on ...

Rather like digital photography has with the advent of inexpensive cameras and other devices and the ability to disseminate images through the internet ...

food for thought then indeed

 

[miha]

Precisely.

 

[cliveh]

I think so Clive. Talbot's system offered multiple photos from a single negative so more photos reach the masses (= money earned).

No miha, you are missing my point, it may be that the multiple offered incentive to drive his process forward, but my point was about the level of improvement to an image that was originally so inferior in quality compared to a daguerreotype.

 

[miha]

Well a lot has been invested in the process in the passing years. Amazing how digital improved in the last 25 years.