Re: [pinhole-discussion] Viability of pinhole photographs with early processes
> > I don't see why pinhole photographs wouldn't be viable from the start. If > Talbot (after the invention of the Calotype) and Daguerre could get > exposures in bright daylight in less than a minute, I don't see any reason > why you couldn't get pinhole photographs with exposures in under an > hour. They both certainly made exposures that long earlier in their > experiments. > I use photographic paper as negative for my pinhole pictures, with exposures of one or two minutes. My F/d ratio is about 300. The sensibity of the paper for visible light is roughly 5 ISO. I can't take pictures in very low light, the reason beeing the law of reciprocity. For long exposures, the sensibilty falls to near zero. When measuring light, I find for instance a time of 30 minutes, but a two hours exposure shows nothing. The sensibilty of these old processes was far below, and the law of reciprocity far more hard. JMB
Re: [pinhole-discussion] first image of a photograph?
As I understand the article, Anna Atkins used Talbots photogenic (shadowgraph) process, this really only gives a outline of the article placed on sensitive paper. This still leaves Talbots book to be the first to provide photographs as recognisable images. Ellis > Regarding John Ptak's post - I don't know the answer but my first impulse > was to access Robert Leggat's 'History of Photography' > http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/ > a fantastic resource - there may be additional clues there. > I too was under the misapprehension that Fox Talbots 'Pencil of Nature' was > the first photographically illustrated publication - not so it seems, go see > significant people: ATKINS, Anna > Ray
Re: [pinhole-discussion] first image of a photograph?
Regarding John Ptak's post - I don't know the answer but my first impulse was to access Robert Leggat's 'History of Photography' http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/ a fantastic resource - there may be additional clues there. I too was under the misapprehension that Fox Talbots 'Pencil of Nature' was the first photographically illustrated publication - not so it seems, go see significant people: ATKINS, Anna Ray Ray Beckett P O Box 577 Coolangatta QLD 4225 Australia URL: www.pinholephotography.com.au
[pinhole-discussion] RE: first image of a photograph?
John, This article is mentioned in a letter to Talbot from his mother on 30 Apr 1839. A note by the editors of the correspondence project states, This was not a photomechanical reproduction, but rather a wood engravers skillful interpretation Talbot's correspondence is at http://www.foxtalbot.arts.gla.ac.uk/letters/ correspondents.asp . You can search it by text, correspondent or date. Whether this is the first representation of a photographic image in publication or not I'm not sure, but only three months after Daguerre and Talbot's announcements, it's got to be pretty early. You sure have some cool publications down there. Nick >= Original Message From John Ptak = >Hello all. >This may be slightly off target but someone may have >the answer to this funny little history of photography >query. >My question is in regards to an article by Golding >Bird in "The Mirrour" (London) beginning April 20, >1839 and continued in 5 more parts through June 1839. >It is a very early discussion of Daguerre's >process--the quirky bit is that on the front cover of >the first article there is an image of a "photo-genic >drawing" (a botanical negative)made by Bird. Two >questions: does anyone know of the first time a >photograph is "illustrated" (not photographically)in a >mass/trade publication? (It is an odd question in >itself because it *is* an engraving/litho of a photo >which may mean nothing in itself...) This has not been >an easy matter to settle. Secondly, I wonder if it is >possible if the "photo-genic" image is *not* a >lithograph as I believe but some sort of photographic >process? This image is larger than any other image >that appears in this journal for 20 years (I have 45 >years worth), and the ink is not only (unique to this >publication) brown but rather thick, easily osmosed to >the rear of the paper. >There are all sorts of refs to the first image of a >human face, the first of the moon, etc, in a long line >of photographic firsts, but none refer to a simple >first illustration of a photographic image. > >Any help? > >Thanks to all for your indulgence. > >John Ptak > >= >JF Ptak >255 Cumberland Ave >Asheville, NC 28801 >USA > Nick Dvoracek Director of Media Services University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Voice: 920-424-7363 Fax:920-424-7324 http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm
[pinhole-discussion] Viability of pinhole photographs with early processes
>From Ellis Cory's post: http://idea.uwosh.edu/ nick/oldarticles.htm ) I don't see why pinhole photographs wouldn't be viable from the start. If Talbot (after the invention of the Calotype) and Daguerre could get exposures in bright daylight in less than a minute, I don't see any reason why you couldn't get pinhole photographs with exposures in under an hour. They both certainly made exposures that long earlier in their experiments. Nick Nick Dvoracek Director of Media Services University of Wisconsin Oshkosh Voice: 920-424-7363 Fax:920-424-7324 http://idea.uwosh.edu/media_services/home.html http://idea.uwosh.edu/nick/handouts.htm
Re: [pinhole-discussion] first image of a photograph?
Ellis, is correct regard Fox Talbot work and dates. Eric - Original Message - From: "ellis CORY" To: Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 6:45 PM Subject: Re: [pinhole-discussion] first image of a photograph? > I am not sure I understand your question, but the information I have is that > the Photogenic process was invented by Talbot in 1835, it was basically a > sensitive paper with an object placed on top, exposed to the sun, developed > and fixed. The idea had been tried before, but fixing the image was not > possible, Talbot solved this problem. He read a scientific paper on this in > 1839. He than went on to use an improved process in a camera obscura, > announcing this in 1840 as the Calotype process. At the same time, the > Daguerreotype was being used, but could not make copies easily. Talbot > showed that his process could, being a negative and a positive could be made > from them, the rest is history. > The first book published with photographic plates was The Pencil of Nature > in 1844, by Talbot. > Two further points, pinhole photos were not viable until 1879, when > photographic paper was sensitive enough and some of the earliest photos of > Talbot were Daguerreotypes ! > Ellis > > > ___ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???/discussion/ >
Re: [pinhole-discussion] first image of a photograph?
I am not sure I understand your question, but the information I have is that the Photogenic process was invented by Talbot in 1835, it was basically a sensitive paper with an object placed on top, exposed to the sun, developed and fixed. The idea had been tried before, but fixing the image was not possible, Talbot solved this problem. He read a scientific paper on this in 1839. He than went on to use an improved process in a camera obscura, announcing this in 1840 as the Calotype process. At the same time, the Daguerreotype was being used, but could not make copies easily. Talbot showed that his process could, being a negative and a positive could be made from them, the rest is history. The first book published with photographic plates was The Pencil of Nature in 1844, by Talbot. Two further points, pinhole photos were not viable until 1879, when photographic paper was sensitive enough and some of the earliest photos of Talbot were Daguerreotypes ! Ellis
