a blog on the history of photography

[lukaswerth]

by yours truly:

http://lums.edu.pk/mgshss/blog/


Lukas

[Shadowman]

Nice essay, covers a lot of information and brings to the table a lot of conversation about how photography is used, should be used, shouldn't be used.

[Pippan]

Wow Lukas, that is a really fascinating read. Lots of food for thought. Thank you so much.

[Mike Buckley]

I remember seeing a presentation at National Geographic Headquarters about people I think in rural Africa who had never seen a reflection of themselves in a mirror or a mirror-like material when a pair of National Geographic photographers showed these people photos made of them. I think they were given photos made on a Polaroid camera so they could have the instant gratification of a print. It was really fascinating.

You mentioned the three inventors of photography. I recently read an interpretation of the invention of photography that included the three people you mentioned and two others. I think they were Joseph Nicephore Niepce for his photo, View from His Window at Le Gras made in 1827 (more than a decade before the more widely recognized invention of photography in 1839) and John F. W. Herschel for using hypo to stabilize images and for telling Talbot about the process. Sorry that I don't remember who wrote it but it might have been John Szarkowski or Beaumont Newhall, as I have recently read and re-read some stuff written by them.

[lukaswerth]

John, Greg, Mike,
thank you for the comments.
And Mike, you are entirely right, I omitted Niepce more or less for simplicity's sake, and because his bitumen picture which took an eight hours' exposure remained a unique experiment which did not lead to any further photographic expressions. And Herschel, he didn't only suggest hypo but also invented cyanotypes. But this piece is intended for a general readership, and I doubt many people know any more about the use of hypo in photography, let alone cyanotypes, even though the word "blueprint" survives.
My excuse is that my emphasis was on making a point about the social context of the invention(s) of photography rather than on a detailed recording.

Lukas

[Mike Buckley]

[Niepce's] bitumen picture which took an eight hours' exposure remained a unique experiment which did not lead to any further photographic expressions.

I'm not sure what you mean by "other photographic expressions." Letters he wrote to his brother indicate that he produced negatives as early as 1816 even though none have been found so far. There is also a copy of another image he made in 1827 of a set table though the glass negative was lost about 1890.

It has also always been interesting to me that Niepce's procedure produced only a negative and that Daguerre's procedure produced only a positive.

And Herschel...also invented cyanotypes.

As far as I can tell, nobody really knows who invented the process, only that Herschel was the first known so far to have described it. That process is a variation of previously established processes in the sense that the light-sensitive material was iron salts as opposed to other kinds of salts other such as Talbot used earlier. That explains why I wouldn't consider it to be as important as those other inventions, though I concede that I'm not a scientist and don't really understand at which point a new process is justifiably considered an invention rather than a variation of a pre-existing process.

though the word "blueprint" survives

Cyanotypes might actually have been the longest surviving commercial form of photography. Herschel described the process in 1842 and blueprints stopped being used for design documents by architects and engineers about 2002.

I actually think Herschel should be recognized as much for coining the words, photography, negative and positive as for his other contributions to photography.

Interesting stuff at least to nerds of photo history! But I agree with you that a lot of these details digress from the primary thrust of the piece you posted at your blog.

[William W]

I found it a really interesting read. The writing and the content occurred to me as a 'fun project' which gave you great joy just putting it together.

WW

[TonyW]

Thanks for pointing us to that. To me it is an impressive document, fascinating and well written. It presents a wider view of things than most that I see.

I also found the other entries in the blog interesting.

[lukaswerth]

...The writing and the content occurred to me as a 'fun project' which gave you great joy just putting it together.

WW

To some extend, yes. But I am dead serious about the main point that photography is not about reality as such, but about how we perceive it. A point I might have developed more is that pictures often rather take the active side, not only influence us, but really strike at us.

And Mike, I wasn't aware that Niepce apparently had made more pictures, though now you mention it, it's not that surprising. But with "other expressions" I meant that photographic pictures are really put to some expressive use.

Lukas

[William W]

To some extend, yes. But I am dead serious about the main point that photography is not about reality as such, but about how we perceive it. A point I might have developed more is that pictures often rather take the active side, not only influence us, but really strike at us. . .

Thanks.

That's interesting.

I shall re-read the paper, tomorrow, with a bias toward receiving that message.

WW