A Brief History of Photography | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Introduction (What's it all about?) Before the Beginning (Making images) The Camera Obscura The Beginning (Tom Wedgewood creates Shadowgrams) Fixing It (Nicépore Niépce takes the first Heliographs) Improving It ( Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre introduces the Daguerrotype) Crossing the Channel (Fox Talbot and tales of self interest) Calotypes (The beginning of the - types) Albumen Prints (An avian diversion) The Wet Collodion Process (Intoducing an English hero) Interlude (Some Victorian Photographers) The Dry Collodion Process (Seek and you won't find) The The Ambrotype (A variation) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INTRODUCTION | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
If you were to ask
who invented photography and when, you would not receive a simple answer:
not the simple answer you would be given, for example, to the question, 'Who
invented the jet engine?' But it is not impossible to answer either, as
would be a query on the inventor of the wheel. There were a number of
'inventors' and 'pioneers' - not always quite the same thing: one,
already a wealthy man of leisure, saw it as a way of making even more
money, while another, saw his aim being to make photography available to
everybody. The latter, a man of clearly very different values to the former,
indeed became a very wealthy man - but also a major philanthropist, one
from whom I and many others, have benefitted both directly and
indirectly. Asking what photography actually is would seem a rather
naive question, although it is one which is not unrelated to the history
and development of the subject. First of all, you have to project an
image of what you actually see onto a surface; that is relatively simple
with a pin hole but even better with a lens; lenses have an
entirely different history and development being used well before
photography in optical instruments, such as telescopes. Then you have to make the image remain when you remove the
lens. That is going to be difficult! And then you have to develop a way
of reproducing that image over and over again: that is yet another
problem to surmount. However all this is what we see as photography now.
On another level, eleven year old Amelia would think it very strange that
we had to take our films to the chemist to be 'developed' and could not
see them immediately. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
BEFORE THE BEGINNING | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
It all began, as you might have expected, with the Chinese
of long ago: in the fifth century B.C. A writer describes passing
sunlight through a pin hole in one wall of the box and being able to see
an image of the outside world projected onto the opposite wall of the
box. That was approximately when it was first described,
although it may well have been discovered long before that.
Think of the model of 'rays' of light bouncing from an object, and
passing through the pin hole, then a 'single ray' from a single point of
the object will pass though the pin hole and land on a single point on a
surface behind the pin hole. All the other 'rays' will land somewhere
else. However all the 'single rays' from every single point on
the object will also pass through the pin hole and land on the surface
as a single point as the first, but in a different place. All the other
rays from the object will again travel elsewhere. You will then see an
upside down image on the surface of the box behind the screen. Perhaps not the best of images as a bright day is required and the image will be rather dark but it's start. A lens will solve this problems by making many 'rays' of light coming from a single point on an object bend and so be focused onto a single point on the screen producing a much brighter image...and so on with all the multiple rays coming from single points on the subject all bending onto single points on the screen image. As long as they actually pass through the lens, of course. Lenses also date back to antiquity, the first ones being made from materials such as naturally occurring crystals. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE CAMERA OBSCURA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All this can be put this to a practical use and so solve the
first stage in the problem of producing photographs. Enter the
camera obscura ('dark chamber') as early as the 13th century; this was a
darkened room with a pin hole in a wall which produced an inverted
image of the outside world on the opposite wall of the room. This could
be used for observing, for example, solar eclipses quite safely as
well as simple entertainment. By the 16th century such devices had
developed into a portable box with a lens at one end and a ground glass
screen on the other. These devices could then be set up
anywhere, aiding artists, for example, to record a scene on paper with the correct
proportions and perspective; this could then be built up further in the studio
at a
later time. Leonardo da Vinci was an early user of the camera obscura in this
way. By the 18th century it began to be wondered if this very temporary image produced by the camera obscura could be preserved in some way and so rendered permanent. Preserving the image and then rendering it permanent will be found to be two separate processes. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE BEGINNING | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
One of the first experimenters in this
process was Tom Wedgewood, youngest son of the famous potter Josiah, in
the 1790's. He applied silver nitrate solution to paper and produced
what he called shadowgrams by laying objects with
varying degrees of opacity, such as
leaves or insect wings, on the paper and exposing them to the light.
What occured was that the light passed readily through the more
transparent parts of the objects and turned the paper black, while the
light passed through more opaque areas less readily so these areas were
turned into shades of gray on the paper. So what was obtained was a
negative of the image, with the light areas dark and the dark light
areas light. Tom found that applying silver nitrate to white chamois
leather produced a better result, possibly because this material
absorbed more of the solution. However when taken into anything brighter than candle light, the impregnated paper simply turned black all over causing the image to dissappear: the light had simply blackened the paper all over the treated surface. The image could be preserved - at least for a time - by its being kept in the dark and only viewed by dim candle light. The bit of chemistry in the box below shows what is actually happening at an atomic level and points the way to how the process needs to move forward: light turns silver salts black, by releasing metallic silver, but this process needs to be improved, and then the silver salts need to be removed while retaining the silver image. We will meet silver salts and the terms developing and fixing as the story unfolds. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
FIXING IT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The property of bitumen that M.Niépce was to use is that when exposed to light it becomes less soluble than unexposed bitumen. The first experiments were similar to those which had been performed by Tom Wedgewood with his shadowgrams; however M. Niépce used, as mentioned, bitumen as a light sensitive material and engravings on thin paper instead of the leaves or insect wings. The dark lines of the engraving block the sunlight, while the lighter areas between the lines allows the sunlight to pass through. So the bitumen below the dark lines remains as before - relatively soluble - whereas the light areas between the lines, which have been affected by the sunlight, become more insoluble. There were two important difference: these heliographs could be rendered permanent and could be reproduced. Now we move from the realm of early photography to that of etching, lithography and printing. The plate is now treated with the solvent which selectively removes the bitumen below the lines which have not been affected by light whereas the bitumen between the lines which have been subject to sunlight light remains. There are now two possible ways to produce a plate from which prints can be made: the remaining bitumen could act as a water repellant surface and printing could be done by lithography; alternatively, the plate could be etched by an acid which would bite the plate (if metal) only where the bitumen had been removed, below the lines of the engraved print, while not biting the areas still covered in bitumen. The bitumen could then be totally removed and the plate printed by the intaglio process (described in Drawing the Line). In other words, with the latter process, an engraving has been turned into an etching! But this is not yet actual photography, being more akin to early photocopying. The results were, however, remarkably good as the copy of an 17th century engraving (top right) shows and these copies could be reproduced. This heliograph was produced around 1825, the very first actually being produced in 1822 on a lithographic stone but was accidentally destroyed. Around 1824 M. Niépce began to combine his heliograph technique with the camera obscura in an attempt to produced what we would consider actual photographs. The first of these were lost, not successful or accidentally destroyed but the earliest one to survive was produced between 1826 and 1827 and is a view through a window of M.Niépce's house at St-Loup deVarennes.. This is shown on the right. It was once thought that the exposure time would have been between eight and nine hours, but a modern attempt to reproduced this photograph using exactly the same technique and materials that M.Niépce himself used shows that it probably took several days. Hardly photography as we know it today but this was the very first still existing example of 'light drawing' (that is, photo-graphy) . Rumours of the work on the heliographs began to reach Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre (see immediately below), who for many years had himself dreamed of a process that would fix the images produced by the camera obscura. M. Niépce and M. Daguerre met in Paris in 1827 while the former was on his way to London to visit his now sick brother, Claude, who had squandered the family fortunes pursuing their inventions. The two photographic pioneers formed a partnership in 1829. The result of this partnership was the development of the physautotype; we will be hearing about many types of '-type' later in this short history. This process directly produced a photographic image without having to use a following process of etching or lithography. The photographic agent in this process is lavender oil residue, produced by heating lavender oil until it forms a dry residue. A small amount of this material is then dissolved in alcohol and this solution poured over a silver or glass plate or mirror; the alcohol is then allowed to evaporate, leaving a white deposit on the plate. This plate in then exposed in a camera obscura for about eight hours: a vast reduction from several days. The plate is then turn upside down over a bath of oil of white petroleum, the fumes of which develop the image; this process takes between five and ten minutes. Take note that the chemicals used up to now are relatively benign and this is the first time we have mentioned developing. Developing the image with these fumes causes the areas exposed to the light to remain white, in other words light renders the lavender oil residue progressively less soluble in the vapour while those areas less exposed to the light remain progressively more soluble. When viewed against a dark background these images will appear as positive or negative depending on the angle from which they are viewed. To the left is a later printed reproduction of a physautotype originally taken about 1832, but subsequently accidentally destroyed. The vast improvements may be seen. Nicépore Niépce died suddenly in 1833, financially ruined by the inventions he and his brother had developed but had been unable to capitalize upon. So much so that the commune paid for his grave in Saint-Loup de Vienne. which is near to the house where he had performed his experiments. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ENTER THE DAGUERREOTYPE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After the death of his partner, Nicépore Niépce, Louis Daguerre continued to experiment with image production but once more using silver salts, whose light sensitivity had been first demonstrated by German scientist Johann Heinrich Schultz (1687-1744) among others. M. Daguerre eventually perfected the Daguerreotype which he named, as can be seen, after himself. M. Daguerre was unsuccessful at finding interested investors in his process so he took other steps to raise capital. Early in 1839 at a joint meeting of the French Academy of Sciences and the French Academy of Fine Arts his photographic invention was announced in outline although the actual details of the processes where not described. Under assurances of strict confidentiality Louis Daguerre explained these details to François Arago, the permanent secretary of the Academy of Science. The latter was impressed by M. Daguerre's invention so members of the Academy of Science and selected others were invited to examine the inventor's work in his studio. Arrangements were made for M. Daguerre's rights to be acquired by the French Government in exchange for a stipend of 6,000 Francs yearly for life. The Government, recognizing Nicépore Niépce's contribution to the development of this work also awarded a stipend of 4,000 Francs to the latter's estate. The French Government had acquired these rights 'on behalf of the People of France' and later the same year full details and working instructions were published as a gift from France 'free to the world'. To the right is the first reliably dated (1837) Daguerreotype. How these photographs were actually produced is given in the box below.
The process now somewhat resembles that of processing (developing and fixing) of black and white films but with considerably more technical skill, lengthy and painstaking work and the use of toxic, irritant, and corrosive chemicals. However the image cannot be reproduced by photographic 'printing' in the way these films may be reproduced. It also resembles the early work of Tom Wedgewood and Nicépore Niépce in that the process again uses silver salts. It is certainly not for the happy snapper! Various improvements were made to the initial process to shorten the still rather long exposure times of ten minutes or longer, even in good light: addition of sensitizing chemicals to the processing and the introduction of lenses that could transmit more light reduced the time to seconds rather than minutes The plates themselves are easily damaged so must be protected against scratches or corrosion and for this reason they are sealed behind glass; however, this itself may cause other problems. The image is actually laterally reversed because they are viewed from the side that faced the camera; this may be corrected by placing a mirror or prism in front of the lens when taking the Daguerreotype. This 'add on' must be of high optical quality or the image may become distorted and, in any case, will reduce the amount of light passing through the lens so making a longer exposure time necessary. Daguerreotypes cannot be copied, in the sense that a negative may be reproduced (printed); that will come. At the time they were reproduced by making a lithograph or etching of the original; now they may be scanned as can be seen opposite. Daguerreotypes have a particularly beautiful appearance when seen as an original: the image does not appear to sit on the surface of the plate but, as the viewing angle changes in order to see a positive to negative image, it appears to float above the plate; this is similar to the small holograms that now appear on credit and debit cards. They also capture remarkable detail, the best examples being superior to modern digital images in this respect. The Daguerreotype was the first widely used method of creating photographic images. It was succeeded around 1860 by less expensive processes which produced more easily viewed images such as the ambrotype. The Daguerreotype was in many ways the 'Polariod' of its time in that it was a one off and could not be printed, although it was very far from being quick and easy. The Daguerreotype was revived in late 20th century by a small number of artists and photographers, such as the American Chuck Close, who produced this beautiful image of model Kate Moss. It must, of course, be seen as the original, not as a scanned and printed copy, to produce the visual effect of the original. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CROSSING THE CHANNEL | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
When the Academy of Science's
first report of the Daguerreotype reached England, but before
the Academy had published the details, William Henry Fox Talbot (see
below),
assuming (quite wrongly and without any justification) that the photographic techniques used by M. Daguerre were the same as he
himself had been researching, promptly wrote to that body claiming
priority for the discovery. When he discovered that the methods were not
at all similar, he restarted experimenting again in the field of
photography, which he
had temporarily discontinued. Fox Talbot's work will be described below. Days before the French Government declared, after they had purchased the rights from the inventor, that the Daguerreotype was a gift to the world from the People of France, Louis Daguerre' s patent agent, Miles Berry, visited London in an attempt to sell the Daguerreotype to the British Government. He visited the Treasury to ask if the Government would purchase the rights as had the French, and they would then give the process as a gift to the British people, so 'preventing the invention being fettered and limited by individual interest' And, of course, presumably similarly awarding M. Daguerre a stipend. The response of the Treasury was that the Government had placed no funds at its disposal for which a purchase of this manner could be made. This sounds all too familiar to me. But why England? Perhaps M. Daguerre had believed that there was a relationship between the Royal Society and the British Government similar to that in France between their Government and the Academy; if so, he had been mistaken. Miles Berry sold a licence - but not the patent - to Antoine Claudet (left), a French photographer working in London, for £200. M. Claudet himself introduced several innovations into photography, including the red safe light and what appears to have been an early light meter and range finder. He was one of only two photographers to buy such a licence. Mike Berry applied for an English patent; note that Scotland was not yet included in this patent law, which applied only to England, Wales, Berwick-on- Tweed, as well as all colonies and plantations abroad. This patent he then sold to Richard Beard, who sounds like a hard nosed entrepreneur of the worst type and who also took out a patent for Scotland. Richard Beard was a vigorous defender of his commercial interests, engaging in many legal actions. However he lost the case against Antoine Claude, who already held a licence. So England, Wales (and the colonies) were the only countries in the world denied the French gift, which is why the Daguerreotype process did not develop in these places. This story is not only rather curious, inconsistent but rather vague: for example some references refer to Britain or the United Kingdom when England and Wales should be used. The best article I have been able to find may be read here I will continue to research this topic. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CALOTYPES | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
William Henry Fox Talbot (1800-77) was a wealthy
Englishman of
independent means, who lived at Laycock Abbey in Wiltshire. He was not
only an early photographic pioneer but also an inventor and polymath who
Initially, around 1834, he began to research the salted paper technique to produce photographic images. This had, as explained above, been used before but in Fox Talbot's process the image was stabilized - 'fixed' - which had not been done in the earlier experiments with silver salts but was introduced in the Daguerreotype process. He appears to have perfected this process by the following year, although he did not reveal it until 1839, when he announced: '...the new process which I offer to the lovers of science and nature...' . Initially he created pictograms, which he called photogenic drawings; these are the same as Tom Wedgewood's shadowgrams, which he had produced late in the previous century. He then used the same process in a camera.
Note that this is a printing out process, that is the latent image is actually viewed as the final result; this image is not subjected to development. The exposure time was a long one, being one to two hours. The result, as before, was a negative of the subject photographed; however, as the writing paper was thin, it was translucent so a positive image (where black is black and white is white, rather than the reverse) could now be produced by using the negative to produce this positive as a pictogram. This was a major leap forward. Late in 1840 Fox Talbot worked out a developing-out process, in which the latent image on the exposed sanitized paper is removed from the camera and then developed and fixed, rather then waiting quite a long time for it to appear on the sensitized paper. By using this process - which Louis Daguerre had employed with different but more toxic and corrosive chemicals - the exposure time can be reduced from hours to minutes. This was introduced to the public in 1841. It was called a Calotype (from the Greek meaning, beautiful impression) although it is sometimes called a Talbotype.
This is now beginning to look like the modern process for producing black and white photographs, although it has quite a long way to go yet. But the next improvements will be essentially refinement - although major ones - of the Calotype. With this latter process you had to 'make' your own 'film' and used it immediately and then print it yourself, both processes using solutions which again you had to make yourself. It will be a while yet before you can buy a film from a photographer's, chemist, or anywhere where you saw the Kodak girl, take your snaps, take the film along to be developed, and then return to collect your photographs a few days later. Or do it all yourself in the cupboard under the stairs. However the Calotype, even though simpler to produce than the Daguerreotype, did not replace the latter. This was partly because Fox Talbot patented his Calotype process as Louis Daguerre had not (but see above). His generous offer to' lovers of science and nature' quoted above was misleading to say the least, as Fox Talbot through many lawsuits and bitter correspondence did all he could to preserve a monopoly of his invention. Calotypes also produced a less clear image than Daguerretypes since producing a print was made by passing light through a paper negative resulting in the texture and fibre of the paper being visible in the final prints; they thus had less clarity than had the Daguerreotypes . Fox Talbot initially sold licences for his patent for £20 but this was later lowered for amateurs to £4, although professionals had to pay £300 annually. Wealthy people like Fox Talbot clearly had no conception of the means of less privileged people: a labourer in 1850 - although admittingly the earning the lowest wage - earned £20 per annum! £4 in 1850 is equivalennt to £500 today, and you can buy a very sophisticated digital camera for £500 today. Thank goodness that times have changed. Fox Talbot was widely criticized for his patenting the Calotype process. In his time patent holders were attacked for enforcing their rights and the academic world regarded patenting new discoveries as a hindrance to scientific freedom and further development. On the other hand many scientists approved of this patent, although, it must be added, the Calotype process was free for scientific usage. This did not mean that people did not take calotypes without a licence as the materials were easily obtained and it was a much easier process to use than that of Daguerreotypes However English patent law did not run to Scotland where a number of Calotype studios opened. The first, and possibly the most famous of these, was Hill and Adamson opened by the painter David Octavious Hill and engineer Robert Adamson in 1843. Their work is of great interest as they took their camera out of the studios taking photographs of working people in the vicinity, of fisherfolk, soldiers from the local garrison and other working people; this is in contrast to many of the early photographs of middle and upper class people dressed in their finery. Fox Talbot, the owner of the patent took many photographs himself of course but the general opinion is that these are of little artistic merit. Right is a Calotype of the Scottish painter Thomas Duncan from the early studio and to the right is a composite of Mr Hill and Mr Adamson themselves. In 1853 - 12 years after the Calotype was first introduced - this patent was finally lifted. But by then another process - the wet colloiden process - had been introduced in 1854 (see below) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ALBUMEN PRINTS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This section is a diversion in that it describes
another method for making prints from a photographic negative. This is
the Albumen print which was first published in 1847 by French inventor,
photographer, and cloth merchant
Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard (1802-1872).
Note that there is no chemical development of the latent image in this process: the image forms in contact with the negative; the print is thus referred to as a printed rather than a developed photograph. Albumen printing was the first exploitable method of producing a prints on paper from a negatives from 1855 until the beginning of the 20th century. In 1851 at his home town of Lille, Nord, Northern France, on the border with Belgium, M. Blanquart-Evrard, with one Hippolyte Fockeday, started the first large scale printing organization and introduced many talented photographers to the public. However the prints were still produced from Calotypes which produced blank white skies and darkened foreground to overcome which artist would take the photographs of clouds in the morning and the foregrounds in the afternoon combining them to produce composites. The photographs were found to fade after a name and the business closed in 1855 giving way to the competition of lithographs. On the right an albumen print of Louis Désiré Blanquart-Evrard, produced by the inventor, looks into the text while on the left is such a print of Alice Liddell (the original Alice) taken by Lewis Carroll himself. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE WET COLLODION PROCESS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
After a villain of the
story, about whom many people have heard and whose house you may
even pay to visit, I should like to introduce another Englishman,
Frederick
Scott Archer (1813-1857), about whom few people have
actually heard. He could
not be more of a contrast to the villain: he was the son of a butcher
from Hertfordshire, who begin his working life as an apprentice to a
silver/goldsmith but later trained at the Royal Academy as a sculptor. He
would use the Calotype process to record his work but he found the poor
definition and contrast, as well as the still rather long exposure time
of the process unsatisfactory. So he developed his own process - the Wet
Collodion Process - in 1848 and published this process in The
Chemist -1 in 1854. Mr Archer deliberately did not
patent his invention but rather wished it to be 'a gift to the
world'. This process was a major
breakthrough which combined the sharp images of the Daguerreotype with
the ability to be reproduced of the Calotype. Soon the Calotype was gone
and eventually the Daguerreotype too, the Wet Collodion Process being the
photographic technique used by the Victorians. As Mr Archer had
deliberately not patented the process, its use proliferated and it was
possible for others to make variations of it. Unfortunately Mr Archer
died impoverished at the early age of forty-four, having made no money from his invention. The Wet Collodion Process would itself be superseded by others at the beginning of the twentieth century but like the Daguerreotype (but not the Calotype) it would also experience a later revival. -1 This was presumably a professional journal of the time but I have been unable to find any reference to it. The only journal of that title I have found was first published in 1923 and is still around.
The Wet Collodion Process - as all previous processes - only sensitive to blue and ultra-violet light: this means that reproduction in black and whites does not produce the same tones as the eye (and brain) do if you look darkly through a glass. Warm colours appear dark while cool colours appear uniformly light. We will come later to films which overcome this: orthochromatic (ordinary colours, presumably for the time) films which are insensitive to red light, and panchromatic ( all colours, on a black and white film) films which are sensitive to all colours and so produce an accurate black and white image. The former can be developed under a red safe light while the latter requires complete darkness. Despite the disadvantages of the Wet Collodion Process, especially that of having to work quickly, it became enormously popular in its time, being used by both professional and amateur photographers, alike. In was one thing working in a studio with an adjoining darkroom but taking the equipment outside was certainly another. Nevertheless that is just what these Victorian photographers did using a variety of portable darkroome, even taking photographs in the Middle East and on battlefields. Perhaps it should not be despite the difficulties but because of the difficulties as the Victorians appear to enjoy a challenge, even a major one. The process is shown in action very well on YouTube here. If you are interested take a look.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
INTERLUDE: SOME VICTORIAN PHOTOGRAPHERS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE DRY COLLODION PROCESS | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because of the inconvenience - having to prepare, expose, and develop the plate within ten minutes - many - including scientists of the day - attempted to develop a Dry Collodion Process. The methods involved coating or mixing the collodiom with a substance the prevented it drying quickly, for, as long the collodion remained partially wet it retained at least some of its sensitivity. Many materials were tried: glycerin, magnesium nitrate, tannic acid, and albumen. Other, more unlikely substances were also tried: beer, (and for the teetotal) tea, coffee, and honey. However although dry collodion did allow the plate to be exposed hours or even a day after costing, they all rendered the plate slow so the three to ten times the exposure time of the wet plate was required. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE AMBROTYPE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ambrotype is from the Greek, meaning
immortal impression. It is effectively a positive taken on
glass, made by a variation of the wet collodion process, which is
outlined below. The plate is deliberately underexposed as
this produces the most satisfacory effect in the final result. The
finished negative is mounted on black velvet or painted with a black
varnish. When viewed in reflective light against this black
background, the negative appears to be a positive: this is because the
clear areas (unexposed) will appear black againt the black background
and the dark (exposed) area will appear relatively light.-1 Like the Deagurreotype it cannot be printed but it is a considerably cheaper process. It was realtively short lived process being introduced in the 1850's and replaced by the Tintype a decade later. Right is an ambrotype of Private James House, an American Confederate soldier of the 16th Georgia Cavalry of the Army of Tennessee. A young man proudly showing his weapons.
-1 I've never actually seen this effect as perhaps my old 35mm negatives are too small and correctly exposed to produce it. I presume that 'relatively light' means an illusion rather like that which is seen when your gray television screen appears black where is should when a programme is being received; there is no black light! |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
THE TINTYPE | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
To be continued......... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note: the series of
photographs of girls with camera are the once famous Kodak Girls,
over the years used by George Eastman - the Kodak founder - to advertise
his films. Not only would the pretty girls catch men's eyes but
they were also planned to show that, in those very sexist times - women
were quite capable of taking photographs as well as (and often
better) than men. Yes, Mr Eastman did sell many a Kodak film but he was
also, one of that now rare breed, a philanthropist. The interesting tale of Georgia, the bikini clad cut out Kodak girl many of us remember, will be told in due course. Below is my own Kodak girl wearing the to become famous Kodak dress; I did seek a suitable model but was unsucessful so I am afraid she is a girl from a virtual world. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<Gazetteer> <Top of Page> | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||