| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/27/2006 11:14:10 PM · #1 |
Photo History Trivia #03:
Daguerre vs Talbot
Daguerre (France) and Talbot (England) both announced their discoveries to the world within two weeks of each other in January of 1839. As we discussed earlier, Daguerre's process produced a one-off photograph and Talbot's process produced a 'negative' that could be used to make multiple prints. This being the case, why was Daguerre's process more popular than Talbot's?
|
|
|
|
10/27/2006 11:41:40 PM · #2 |
After some peripheral reading, though I knew about daguerrotype before, I think the daguerreotype was popular for portrait photography, enabling traveling photographers to take your picture and quickly give you back a print.
There were also some mentions of the Talbot process (calotype) bing done on a rough paper negative, which would show through on the final print and give some un-desireable effects. This was fixed by the Albumen Print process, which is probably the first of what is more recognizable as film today. edit - even though it used a glass negative, yes.
Message edited by author 2006-10-27 23:43:46.
|
|
|
|
10/28/2006 11:45:59 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
After some peripheral reading, though I knew about daguerrotype before, I think the daguerreotype was popular for portrait photography, enabling traveling photographers to take your picture and quickly give you back a print.
There were also some mentions of the Talbot process (calotype) bing done on a rough paper negative, which would show through on the final print and give some un-desireable effects. This was fixed by the Albumen Print process, which is probably the first of what is more recognizable as film today. edit - even though it used a glass negative, yes. |
I don't know that the daguerreotype process was any 'quicker' than Talbot's process, but...
The daguerreotype was much SHARPER and MORE DETAILED than the talbot images. Talbot's process didn't get refined much until the wet-plate 'glass negatives' came into play.
The next 'heavy hitter' in this game of photography was George Eastman... The next question will be about him :)
|
|
|
|
10/29/2006 12:02:22 AM · #4 |
Yes, that's basically correct, as I understand it. While Talbot's process was theoretically more versatile, more open-ended, the RESULTS (in the form of a Daguerrotype) of Daguerres's process were technically far superior. Also, the Talbot process was a 2-stage process, paper negative and then positive print, and this was more cumbersome to use.
R. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 03:56:43 PM EDT.
