history of photography

Home Page

About this site

Acknowledgements

Bibliography

Museums of Interest

Other sites

R P S

About the Author

How Photography Began

Significant People: A-D

Significant People: E-H

Significant People: I-M

Significant People: N-S

Significant People: T-Z

Significant Processes

Awards/recommendationsE-mails to the author

A History of Photography from its beginnings till the 1920s

by Dr. Robert Leggat MA M.Ed Ph.D. FRPS FRSA

Robert Leggat, 1995

Visits since 1st December '95

A History of Photography From its beginnings till the 1920s

Introductory remarks

This is not designed to be a course on the history of photography such as a resource to dip into. In addition to pen-portraits of many of the most important photographers of the period, it contains information on some of the most significant processes used during the early days of photography.

The project was confined to the first eighty years or so, as this is often a convenient cut-off point in books and when dividing courses into a syllabus. To some extent this has been a frustration, in that there have been many important developments and many interesting photographers who practised during and subsequent to that date. It is hoped that a sequel will be forthcoming in due course.

This work is intended to be of general interest, but it may also be a useful starting-off point for students preparing for courses which include brief study of the history of photography.

The site will be revised regularly in the light of feedback and further study.

Back to the top page

Robert Leggat, 1997. Last updated undefined

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many people have freely given of their advice in the making of this resource. In particular I would wish to thank the following:

* Kenneth Warr, Hon.FRPS, former Secretary of the Royal Photographic Society. No single person within the Society has ever provided me with the same measure of support and encouragement as he has, over very many years. It was he who first gave me the opportunity to come on to the Society's Council and ultimately become its Education Officer, and I owe him a deep debt of gratitude for his help in so many areas.

* Professor Margaret Harker, Hon.FRPS, and the late Arthur Gill Hon.FRPS, both experts in this area, whose enthusiasm and expertise made the history of photography come alive to the author.

Other people to whom I am indebted include Pam Roberts, Curator of the Royal Photographic Society, Tirath Bhavra, Colin Harding, Michael Harvey, Richard Morris FRPS, Dr. Amanda Nevill, FRPS, Colin Osman, Hon.FRPS, Valerie Lloyd, FRPS, Michael Langford, Hon. FRPS, Frank Hawkins, HMI, FRPS, Michael Pritchard, FRPS and Dr. Larry Schaaf. Matt Skipp also deserves a mention; I used to work in his photographic shop in the holidays, learned a great deal, and developed a fascination for the art.

Much of the detail about the early history of the Society comes from the painstaking work of the late J. Dudley Johnston Hon. FRPS.

All inaccuracies and omissions, of course, are solely mine! Readers are invited to write to me in relation to any amendments and/or additions to be taken into consideration in future revisions.

Robert Leggat can be contacted at [email protected]


Robert Leggat, 1999.

Last updated undefined

JOHNSTON, J. Dudley

b. 1868; d. 1955

Dudley Johnston was a man of many parts. A student of music, at one point he became director of the Liverpool Philharmonic Society. He became a member of the Linked Ring in 1907. Twice President of the Royal Photographic Society, he was instrumental in creating the Permanent Collection of photographs and equipment, and he later became Curator of the Royal Photographic Society's print collection. He was later awarded the OBE for his services to photography.

He was a pictorialist, specialising in landscapes, and originally worked on gum-bichromate, and platinum prints.



Emails to the author

Since I placed this work on the Internet back in December 1995 I responded to all requests for additional help. However, earlier this year I began to realise that I was receiving, at times, as many as thirty emails a day, and the pressure has begun to take its toll!

There are several reasons why I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I would be unable to continue. First, though I had made it clear that I was not qualified to value or comment upon collections others may have, these queries kept on coming relentlessly. Secondly, it was becoming all too easy for school students to expect me to do their research for them, or to complete sometimes quite meaningless questionnaires, and when a particularly abusive e-mail was received from a pupil in California I decided that this was enough! Finally, it seems to make sense for me to spend what time I have revising and adding to the work.

Most questions, for what it is worth, are already answered in the body of the work, and of the remainder, most answers are readily obtainable from standard books or from libraries. I say this because I have received several emails saying something like this: "I'm 14 years old and am very interested in photography. I have not yet read anything about it, and would be very grateful for any info. anyone may have that will help me." This work can most certainly be used as a reference, but not as a substitute for work!

The guestbook remains open for general comments but for the time being I regret that I am unable to attend to any requests for additional information. I do hope that readers will understand!

[email protected]



BIBLIOGRAPHY, A select

Bibliographies can often be daunting! This is a very brief selection of books which may be useful for those studying the history of photography.

Further advice could be sought from The Royal Photographic Society, The Octagon, BATH, Avon, England.

This Society also has a thriving Historical Group to which most of the leading photographic historians belong; one does not need to be an expert to belong to this group, and will find that there are many who are only too willing to share their knowledge and expertise.

1. To get one started:

For those studying photography for GCSE, GCE "A" levels or the City & Guilds 9231 examination, the following are particularly recommended:

Beaton, Cecil, and Buckland, Gay. The Magic Image: The genius of Photography from 1839 to the Present Day. London: Pavilion Books, 1989

Gernsheim, Helmut. The Concise History of Photography: Thames & Hudson, 1986

Langford, Michael. The Story of Photography. Focal Press, 1980. A concise and interestingly written book.

Newhall, Beaumont. The History of Photography from 1839 to the Present. Secker and Warburg, 1986

2. For more detailed study:

Brewster, David. The Stereoscope, its history, theory and construction: John Murray, 1856, facsimile published by Morgan and Morgan

Buckland, Gail. Reality Recorded: Early Documentary Photography. New York Graphic Society

Coe, Brian. Cameras: From Daguerreotypes to Instant Pictures. Crown Publishers 1978

Coe, Brian. The Birth of Photography. London: Ash and Grant

Coke, Van Deren. The Painter and the Photographer, From Delacroix to Warhol. University of New Mexico Press

Daval, Jean-Luc. Photography: History of an Art. New York: Rizzoli International Publications

Eder, Josf Maria. History of Photography. Dover Publications, 1945.Long out of print, this is a fascinating and comprehensive account of the technical

developments of photography up to 1900.

Emerson, Peter Henry: Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art (1899) Reprinted Arno Press

Fabian, Ranier et al. Masters of Early Travel Photography. Vendome Press

Ford, Colin (ed) An Early Victorian Album: The Photographic Masterpieces (1843-47) of David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson. New York: Alfred Knopf

Gernsheim, Helmut and Alison. The History of Photography. New York: McGraw Hill

Gernsheim, Helmut. Julia Margaret Cameron: Pioneer of Photography. Aperture

Goodridge, L et al. The Face of China as Seen by Photographers and Travellers, 1860-1912. Millerton, N.Y.: Aperture

Hannavy, John. Roger Fenton of Crimble Hall. Boston: David Godine

Hannavy, John : Fox Talbot. Shire Publications

Harker, Margaret. The Linked Ring: The Secession Movement in Photography in Britain. Heineman

Hercock, R, and Jones, G: Silver by the Ton: A History of Ilford Limited 1879-1979. McGraw-Hill

Hirsch, Robert: Seizing the Light - a History of photography. McGraw-Hill, 2000, ISBN 0-697-14361-9

Hopkinson, Tom. Treasures of the Royal Photographic Society, 1839-1919. Focal Press

Jay, Bill. Robert Demachy; 1859-1936: Photographs and Essays. Academy Edition.

Jay, Bill. Bernard Shaw on Photography: Equation, Wellingborough

Jay, Bill. Victorian Cameraman: Francis Frith's views of rural England, 1850-1898. David & Charles

Jones, Edgar. Father of Art Photography, O.G.Rejlander 1813- 1875. New York Graphic Society

Lloyd, Valerie. Photography: the first eighty years: Colnaghi, London

Martin, Elizabeth. Collecting and Preserving old photographs. Collins

Newhall, Beaumont. Latent Image: The Discovery of Photography. Doubleday

Newhall, Beaumont (ed). Photography: Essays and Images. Museum of Modern Art, USA

Pollack, Peter. Picture History of Photography. New York: Harry Abrams

Riis, Jacob. How the Other Half Lives: Studies Among the Tenements of New York

(1890). Reprinted New York: Dover Publications

Rosenblum, Naomi. A World History of Photography (1997) Third Edition. Aberville Press

Sharf, Aaron. Art and Photography. Allen Lane

Sharf, Aaron. Pioneers of Photography. Harry Abrams

Thomas, David B. The First Negatives. London: HMSO, 1964




MUSEUMS of photographic interest

There is nothing quite like seeing the real thing! The following are a few of the major museums which display equipment and/or images relating to the history of photography;

Bath, Avon: The Royal Photographic Society Museum

Since writing this work, the Royal Photographic Society has passed on the contents of its vast treasure to the National Museum of Photography, Film and Television in Bradford. In the hands of an organisation better equipped to display and store the equipment and works of art, it will at long last mean that the many items donated to the Society over many years will become unlocked, and more generally available to people who are interested in the history of photography.

Birmingham: The Reference Library

Bradford, Yorkshire: National Museum of Photography, Film and Television

This Museum also incoprporates the vast collection of the Royal Photographic Society.

Edinburgh: Scottish National Portrait Gallery

Edinburgh: Public Library

Guildford, Surrey: The Guildford Museum (pictures by Lewis Carroll)

London: The Victoria and Albert Museum

London: The Science Museum

London: MOMI (The Museum of the Moving Image)

London: The Imperial War Museum

London: Kingston-on-Thames Public Library

Manchester: The Northwest Museum of Science and Technology

Oxford: Museum of the History of Science

Lacock, Avon: The Fox Talbot Museum

Edinburgh: The Royal Scottish Museum

Robert Leggat, 2001


Other sites

Since this site came on to the Net there have been many excellent sites put up - too many to list! The best search engine at the moment, in my view, is "Google", hence it is the first item listed here. Others are cited either because they came up during surfing, or because they have been recommended.

Search for History of Photography on "Google"

Photography in Edinburgh American Museum of Photography Magic lanterns Stereo views of 19c.

Fodors Hints on various aspects of photography



The Royal Photographic Society today

The Photographic Society was founded very soon after photography was discovered, and amongst its membership can boast the names of several of the pioneers in the craft. (See The Photographic Society) Its patron is HM The Queen.

The RPS currently has over ten thousand members all over the world, and continues to enjoy prestige as the world's leading photographic Society.

With such a diverse membership controversy and hotly argued opposing opinions remain a sign of a healthy, democratic body, and meetings of Council can still have the heated debate that was characteristic a hundred years ago. Indeed, just occasionally even the same issues and party fragmentation can rear their ugly heads!

But it is a very different Society even from from what it was even as recently as the early seventies, when members of Council attended meetings in "proper dress". In the mid seventies the author was invited, along with some others, to join the membership of Council, and remembers being advised by the then President that it was not quite the done thing to speak at Council meetings until one had been there some time! Now, Council meetings are a very different matter!

The Society occupied premises in various parts of London until 1980, when it moved to its new headquarters in Bath. Since then its activities have expanded enormously, as has its influence. It has regular exhibitions at Bath, and a full programme of events all over the United Kingdom. The Society's Photographic Journal has been published regularly since the earliest days of photography.

Though the Society owns many priceless treasures relating to the history of photography, this aspect has always been a drain on its resources. The entire collection in in the process of being moved to the National Museum of Photography Film and Television in Bradford. This positive move will enable the Museum to do what it does best, and also allow the Society to concentrate upon its educational activities.

As part of its strategy to encourage high standards, the Society awards distinctions to members who are able to produce evidence of outstanding ability in any major branch of photography. These distinctions are the Licentiateship (LRPS), Associateship (ARPS) and Fellow (FRPS), the latter being the highest. These distinctions are much valued throughout the world, and though members are encouraged to work towards these distinctions, they are not awarded lightly.

The Society (or RPS as it is more generally known) has fifteen groups catering for specialised interests, which any member may join. Of particular interest to users of these pages may be the Society's Historical Group, which has amongst its membership distinguished photographic historians.

For anyone who has an interest in photography, membership is highly recommended. One does not have to be an expert; in fact, we have a large number for whom photography is still very much a new avenue to explore. Nor does one need to be resident in England - a great number of members are overseas.

The RPS is on the web. See The RPS page or e-mail the Secretary General: RPS Centre for further details.


The origins of the Royal Photographic Society

Though there had been previous attempts to form a society bringing photographers together, it was not until the Great Exhibition of 1851 that the idea began to catch on. The following year, on 22 December, a souree was held at the Royal Society of Arts, London, at which some seven hundred or so photographs were displayed, including pictures by Roger Fenton (Highgate Cemetery), Delamotte(The Great Exhibition), Du Camp (View, Nubia), and Fox Talbot (The Haystack). It was on this occasion that Fenton proposed the foundation of a photographic Society.

One of the obstacles to the development of photography had been Fox Talbot's patent enforcements. Negotiations had been taking place behind the scenes, and by this time Fox Talbot had agreed to give a free licence to every member of the Society to practise, on the clear condition that they did not trade in the art. (See Talbot and patents.)

The following month, on 20 January, a public meeting was held at the Royal Society of Arts, and it was agreed to form a "Photographic Society." Fox Talbot had been asked to become its first President, but when he declined, Sir Charles Eastlake, then President of the Royal Academy, accepted the invitation, and the Society's first secretary was Roger Fenton. The Society's aims were spelled out in the first edition of its Journal, published 3 March 1853:

The object of the Photographic Society is the promotion of the Art and Science of Photography, by the interchange of thought and experience among Photographers, and it is hoped that this object may, to some considerable extent, be effected by the periodical meetings of the Society."

Six months later Sir Charles Eastlake announced that Queen Victoria and her husband Prince Albert had graciously consented to be the Society's first patrons. Both had a keen interest in photography from the start, and The Times for 22 March 1842 describes a visit paid by Prince Albert to Beard's institution, commenting that "he ... expressed himself much gratified with what he saw."

By the end of the first year, the Society's membership totaled 370, and the Journal was proving an outstanding success, four thousand copies being printed each month.

In 1894 the Queen granted the title of "Royal" to the Society. The Society has ever since been encouraged by the Royal Family, and the Queen is the current patron.

A major development occurred during the presidency of J. Dudley Johnston, who created and developed the Society's Permanent Collection of equipment and photographs. This, one of the largest in the world, includes many of the original prints, negatives, transparencies and equipment - a collection which is priceless.

The RPS over its long history has had to adapt to changing times. Some of its earliest concerns (for example, the "Fading Committee", chaired by Fenton, and later its "Collodion Committee") may seem quaint, but were very real issues at the time.

The RPS has always been the butt of criticism, as indeed does any organisation whose membership is so diverse, and which straddles both the scientific and the artistic dimensions of its sphere of activities. Striking a balance is almost impossible. Strictly speaking, as the first edition of the Journal shows, the aim of the Society was to be "the promotion of the Art and Science of Photography." However, one of the first Presidents, Sir Frederick Pollock, clearly had other priorities; at the AGM in 1856 he questioned whether it ought to be an art:

"...the real name of photography is that it is a practical science."

He was succeeded by a photographic chemist and the next President Sir William Abney who at his inaugural address had said quite unequivocally:

"One of the main objects, I should say the main object of the Society, must be to encourage the scientific aspect of photography..... stick to science though the art critics denounce.."

One needs to take into account the fact that photography was very much at its infancy; the process was by no means easy, the chemicals used were often dangerous, and if photography was to flourish in the future, it was inevitable that the scientific aspects would be very much in the forefront of one's thinking. Herein lay the tension - one that has never been totally resolved, for even now an innocent question as to whether photography is an art or a science can almost be guaranteed to evoke some very heated and passionate debate!

However, in the 1880s the feeling was growing that it had become too much centred round scientific

aspects, and out of this grew the Linked Ring. Only a few years later, George Bernard Shaw, in a playful mood, was suggesting that the Society was now becoming slightly paranoiac:

"the Royal Photographic Society mixes up optics and fine art, trade and science, in a way that occasionally upsets the critical indigestion.....

To add to the muddle, the R.P.S. has been so effectually laughed out of its old notion that photographs are to be esteemed according to certain technical conditions in the negative, that it has now arrived at the conclusion that a pictorial photograph is one in which the focusing and the exposure are put wrong on purpose. Consequently.... it is afraid to give a medal to any picture that does not look more or less mildewed, lest it be ridiculed for Philistinism. And whenever it gets a photograph which in its secret soul it thinks very good, it is ashamed to say so, and puts it in the "professional" section. As it happens, the object of this guilty admiration sometimes is very good. And sometimes the fuzzygraph which the Society puts in the pictorial section because it privately thinks it very bad is very bad. Thus, whenever the poor Society happens to be right, it makes the judicious laugh - exactly what it outrages its conscience to avoid..."

(Article in Amateur Photographer, October 16, 1902)

During this period there was a (sometimes not so friendly) rivalry between the Linked Ring and the Society, both groups proclaiming their own virtues and making side-swipes at the "opposition". But attitudes were beginning to change, and perhaps the RPS was beginning to have second thoughts. In its exhibition of 1903 the RPS included an "Invitation Loan Section". The Amateur Photographer for September 17, 1903, in an article entitled "The Photographic Salon of 1903" suggested that this "was calculated to injure the Salon and rob it os its distinguishing characteristics.."

In the somewhat verbose style of the day it continued:

"One point appears to have been generally overlooked, and my not be appreciated by those of our readers who do not remember the beginning of the Salon and the early years of its existence, when it struggled against the antagonism and contempt ...which were openly offered by those who rightly or wrongly posed as the responsible representatives of the opinions of the Royal Photographic Society members: these same "representatives," or some of them and their friends, seeing that the tide of public opinion is largely with the newer movement for which the Salon stands, now conceive the not very sportsmanlike idea of profiting by all that they before repudiated, and would gather the public shillings at the turnstile by exhibiting the pick of the very work which before they ridiculed and condemned, a course which we venture to think is not quite fair play."

The Society's deliberations are faithfully reported in the Journal of the Photographic Society, a Journal that has been printed continuously up to the present day and copies of which are in the Society's Library. Those seen by the author reflect the preoccupation with the scientific processes in the early days, and in some cases the jockeying for position within the Society, and fierce argument, that still exists today! There is, for example, a record of a fairly long meeting in December 1858, when a Mr. Pouncey was earnestly arguing in favour of his carbon process. The meeting is reported in over four columns of very small type, describing a heated exchange between Mr. Pouncey and a Mr. Maloney, at the end of which it reads

"Mr. Pouncey was about to proceed when Mr. Bedford said - As this is an interesting discussion and it is getting late, I propose that it be adjourned to another evening.

Mr. Thurston Thompson, just newly elected to the Council, immediately seconded the proposition and a doubtless exhausted audience were allowed to return to their homes!

The Royal Photographic Society today.



A History of PhotographyFrom its beginnings till the 1920s

by

Robert Leggat MA, M.Ed., Ph.D., FRPS, FRSA

Robert Leggat first began photography at the age of eight. He still remembers the excitement when his first pictures emerged - only two out of twelve - and still finds it exciting when a print begins to appear in the developing dish!

He trained as a teacher at Westminster College, Oxford, and it was there that he became increasingly interested in the potential of photography in education, both as a subject in its own right, and as a tool for teachers and pupils. In 1969 he moved into higher education, training and providing in-service provision for teachers. In 1992 he left his post as Head of Educational Technology to become involved in CD-ROMs and in work connected with the Internet.

His book "Photography in school: a guide for teachers", published by Argus Press, was well received in the teaching profession, and inspired him to become involved in examinations in photography. He was an examiner for "O" and "A" level photography for a number of years, and served on the moderating committees of the Associated Examining Board (AEB), then the only organisation offering examinations in photography for school pupils. More recently he was intimately involved in setting up the City & Guilds "9231" photography scheme, intended specifically for non-professional photographers who wish to improve their technique.

He joined the Royal Photographic Society in the early seventies, where he received much encouragement and support from the then Secretary of the Society, Kenneth Warr, Hon. FRPS. He admits that at first he had little interest in the history of photography. "Loads of boring equipment and faded pictures" he concluded. That was, until 1975, when he attended a lecture given by Professor Margaret Harker. This kindled his enthusiasm, and he has since spent many hours browsing through the extensive collection held by the Royal Photographic Society.

Dr. Leggat has always had a commitment to encouraging photography amongst young people. He was Hon. Education Officer of the Royal Photographic Society for ten years, served on the Society's Council for some fifteen, and on its Executive for four. He was also former Chairman of the Society's Committee which receives and evaluates applications for Associateship and Fellowship in the Photography in Education category.

A long-serving supporter of the Royal Photographic Society, he would encourage anyone with an interest in photography to become a member.

T.B. 1999


Robert Leggat, 2000


BEGINNINGS OF PHOTOGRAPHY, The

First, the name. We owe the name "Photography" to Sir John Herschel , who first used the term in 1839, the year the photographic process became public. (*1) The word is derived from the Greek words for light and writing.

Before mentioning the stages that led to the development of photography, there is one amazing, quite uncanny prediction made by a man called de la Roche (1729- 1774) in a work called Giphantie. In this imaginary tale, it was possible to capture images from nature, on a canvas which had been coated with a sticky substance. This surface, so the tale goes, would not only provide a mirror image on the sticky canvas, but would remain on it. After it had been dried in the dark the image would remain permanent. The author would not have known how prophetic this tale would be, only a few decades after his death.

There are two distinct scientific processes that combine to make photography possible. It is somewhat surprising that photography was not invented earlier than the 1830s, because these processes had been known for quite some time. It was not until the two distinct scientific processes had been put together that photography came into being.

The first of these processes was optical. The Camera Obscura (dark room) had been in existence for at least four hundred years. There is a drawing, dated 1519, of a Camera Obscura by Leonardo da Vinci; about this same period its use as an aid to drawing was being advocated.

The second process was chemical. For hundreds of years before photography was invented, people had been aware, for example, that some colours are bleached in the sun, but they had made little distinction between heat, air and light.

l In the sixteen hundreds Robert Boyle, a founder of the Royal Society, had reported that silver chloride turned dark under exposure, but he appeared to believe that it was caused by exposure to the air, rather than to light.

l Angelo Sala, in the early seventeenth century, noticed that powdered nitrate of silver is blackened by the sun.

l In 1727 Johann Heinrich Schulze discovered that certain liquids change colour when exposed to light.

l At the beginning of the nineteenth century Thomas Wedgwood was conducting experiments; he had successfully captured images, but his silhouettes could not survive, as there was no known method of making the image permanent.

The first successful picture was produced in June/July 1827 by Nipce, using material that hardened on exposure to light. This picture required an exposure of eight hours.

On 4 January 1829 Nipce agreed to go into partnership with Louis Daguerre . Nipce died only four years later, but Daguerre continued to experiment. Soon he had discovered a way of developing photographic plates, a process which greatly reduced the exposure time from eight hours down to half an hour. He also discovered that an image could be made permanent by immersing it in salt.

Following a report on this invention by Paul Delaroche , a leading scholar of the day, the French government bought the rights to it in July 1839. Details of the process were made public on 19 August 1839, and Daguerre named it the Daguerreotype.

The announcement that the Daguerreotype "requires no knowledge of drawing...." and that "anyone

may succeed.... and perform as well as the author of the invention" was greeted with enormous interest, and "Daguerreomania" became a craze overnight. An interesting account of these days is given by a writer called Gaudin , who was present the day that the announcement was made.

However, not all people welcomed this exciting invention; some pundits viewed in quite sinister terms. A newspaper report in the Leipzig City Advertiser stated:

"The wish to capture evanescent reflections is not only impossible... but the mere desire alone, the will to do so, is blasphemy. God created man in His own image, and no man- made machine may fix the image of God. Is it possible that God should have abandoned His eternal principles, and allowed a Frenchman... to give to the world an invention of the Devil?"

At that time some artists saw in photography a threat to their livelihood (see Artists and Photography ), and some even prophesied that painting would cease to exist.

The Daguerreotype process, though good, was expensive, and each picture was a once-only affair. That, to many, would not have been regarded as a disadvantage; it meant that the owner of the portrait could be certain that he had a piece of art that could not be duplicated. If however two copies were required, the only way of coping with this was to use two cameras side by side. There was, therefore, a growing need for a means of copying pictures which daguerreotypes could never satisfy.

Different, and in a sense a rival to the Daguerreotype, was the Calotype invented by William Henry Fox Talbot , which was to provide the answer to that problem. His paper to the Royal Society of London, dated 31 January 1839, actually precedes the paper by Daguerre; it was entitled "Some account of the Art of Photogenic drawing, or the process by which natural objects may be made to delineate themselves without the aid of the artist's pencil." He wrote:

"How charming it would be if it were possible to cause these natural images to imprint themselves durably and remain fixed on the paper!"

The earliest paper negative we know of was produced in August 1835; it depicts the now famous window at Lacock Abbey, his home. The negative is small (1" square), and poor in quality, compared with the striking images produced by the Daguerreotype process. By 1840, however, Talbot had made some significant improvements, and by 1844 he was able to bring out a photographically illustrated book entitled "The Pencil of nature." (See note HERE).

Compared with Daguerreotypes the quality of the early Calotypes was somewhat inferior. (See comments on Claudet). However, the great advantage of Talbot's method was that an unlimited number of positive prints could be made (see also Brewster ). In fact, today's photography is based on the same principle, whereas by comparison the Daguerreotype, for all its quality, was a blind alley.

The mushrooming of photographic establishments reflects photography's growing popularity; from a mere handful in the mid 1840s the number had grown to 66 in 1855, and to 147 two years later. In London, a favourite venue was Regent Street where, in the peak in the mid 'sixties there were no less than forty-two photographic establishments! In America the growth was just as dramatic: in 1850 there were 77 photographic galleries in New York alone. The demand for photographs was such that Charles Baudelaire (1826-1867), a well known poet of the period and a critic of the medium, commented:

"our squalid society has rushed, Narcissus to a man, to gloat at its trivial image on a scrap of metal."

Talbot's photography was on paper, and inevitably the imperfections of the paper were printed alongside with the image, when a positive was made. Several experimented with glass as a basis for negatives, but the problem was to make the silver solution stick to the shiny surface of the glass. In 1848 a cousin of Nicephore Nipce, Abel Nipce de Saint-Victor, perfected a process of coating a glass plate with white of egg sensitised with potassium iodide, and washed with an acid solution of silver nitrate. This new ( albumen ) process made for very fine detail and much higher quality. However, it was very slow, hence the fact that photographs produced on this substance were architecture and landscapes; portraiture was simply not possible.

Progress in this new art was slow in England, compared with other countries. Both Daguerre and Fox Talbot were partly responsible, the former for having rather slyly placed a patent on his invention whilst the French government had made it freely available to the world, the latter for his law-suits in connection with his patents.

In 1851 a new era in photography was introduced by Frederick Scott Archer , who introduced the Collodion process. This process was much faster than conventional methods, reducing exposure times to two or three seconds, thus opening up new horizons in photography.

Prices for daguerreotypes varied, but in general would cost about a guinea (1.05), which would be the weekly wage for many workers. The collodion process, however, was much cheaper; prints could be made for as little as one shilling (5p).

A further impetus was given to photography for the masses by the introduction of carte-de-visite photographs by Andre Disdri . This developed into a mania, though it was relatively short-lived.

The collodion process required that the coating, exposure and development of the image should be done whilst the plate was still wet. Another process developed by Archer was named the Ambrotype , which was a direct positive.

The wet collodion process, though in its time a great step forward, required a considerable amount of equipment on location. There were various attempts to preserve exposed plates in wet collodion, for development at a more convenient time and place, but these preservatives lessened the sensitivity of the material. It was clear, then, that a dry method was required. It is likely that the difficulties of the process hastened the search for instantaneous photography. Skaife, in a pamphlet, aptly commented (1860):

"Speaking in general, instantaneous photography is as elastic a term as the expression 'long and short.'"

The next major step forward came in 1871, when Dr. Richard Maddox discovered a way of using Gelatin (which had been discovered only a few years before) instead of glass as a basis for the photographic plate. This led to the development of the dry plate process. Dry plates could be developed much more quickly than with any previous technique. Initially it was very insensitive compared with existing processes, but it was refined to the extent that the idea of factory-made photographic material was now becoming possible.

The introduction of the dry-plate process marked a turning point. No longer did one need the cumbersome wet-plates, no longer was a darkroom tent needed. One was very near the day that

pictures could be taken without the photographer needing any specialised knowledge.

Celluloid had been invented in the early eighteen-sixties, and John Carbutt persuaded a manufacturer to produce very thin celluloid as a backing for sensitive material. George Eastman is particularly remembered for introducing flexible film in 1884. Four years later he introduced the box camera, and photography could now reach a much greater number of people.

Other names of significance include Herman Vogel , who developed a means whereby film could become sensitive to green light, and Eadweard Muybridge who paved the way for motion picture photography.

Popular in the Victorian times was stereoscopic photography , which reproduced images in three dimensions. It is a process whose popularity waxed and waned - as it does now - reaching its heights in the mid-Victorian era.

Other topics:

l Architectural photography l The Linked Ring l Lighting l Photo Secessionist movement l Social record l Travel photography l Unusual ventures l War photography

(*1) Well, actually, not quite. Whilst Herschel used the term first in a lecture before the Royal Society on March 14, 1839, he was in fact beaten to the post by an anonymous writer with the initials "J.M." a few weeks earlier, on February 25. Eventually a scholar was able to determine that this anonymous writer was in fact Johann von Maedler (1794-1874), who was an astronomer in Berlin. However, Hershel was undoubtedly the person who, with his fame and position, made the word "photography" known to the world.

Robert Leggat, 2000

HERSCHEL, Sir John Frederick William

b. 7 March 1792; d. 11 May 1871

The only son of the

distinguished British astronomer William Herschel, Sir John himself also became a well-known astronomer, and published an influential

book on the subject.

He became interested in capturing and retaining images, and in 1839 had managed to fix pictures using hyposulphite of soda. In fact it was he who had discovered twenty years previously that hypo could dissolve silver salts.

Herschel, of course, had the fortune to be around just at the time both Daguerre and Fox Talbot were announcing their discoveries. He was evidently very smitten by the Daguerreotype, and conveyed the following news to Fox Talbot:

"It is hardly too much to call them miraculous. Certainly they surpass anything I could have conceived as within the bounds of reasonable expectation.... Every gradation of light and shade is given with a softness and fidelity which sets all painting at an immeasurable distance.... If you have a few days at your disposition....come and see!"

Fox Talbot, for his part, would not have been very happy about this news, as he was already upset that Daguerre had pipped him to the post in announcing his discovery!

It is also to Herschel that we also owe the word "photography", a term which he used in a paper entitled "Note on the art of Photography, or The Application of the Chemical Rays of Light to the Purpose of Pictorial Representation," presented to the Royal Society on 14 March 1839. He also coined the terms "negative" and positive" in this context, and also the "snap-shot".

The picture of Heschel, on the left, was taken by J M Cameron, and on the right is the very first photograph to be taken on glass. It was taken by Sir John Herschel in 1839, and shows his father's telescope in Slough, near London. (Science Museum, London).

Robert Leggat, 2000


CAMERA OBSCURA

The Camera Obscura (Latin for Dark room) was a dark box or room with a hole in one end. If the hole was small enough, an inverted image would be seen on the opposite wall. Such a principle was known by thinkers as early as Aristotle (c. 300 BC). It is said that Roger Bacon invented the camera obscura just before the year 1300, but this has never been accepted by scholars; more plausible is the claim that he used one to observe solar eclipses. In fact, the Arabian scholar Hassan ibn Hassan (also known as Ibn al Haitam), in the 10th century, described what can be called a camera obscura in his writings; manuscripts of his observations are to be found in the India Office Library in London.

In his essay "On the form of the Eclipse" he wrote:

"The image of the sun at the time of the eclipse, unless it is total, demonstrates that when its light passes through a narrow, round hole and is cast on a plane opposite to the hole it takes on the form of a moon-sickle.

The image of the sun shows this peculiarity only when the hole is very small. When the hole is enlarged, the picture changes... ."

The earliest record of the uses of a camera obscura can be found in the writings of Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). At about the same period Daniel Barbaro, a Venetian, recommended the camera as an aid to drawing and perspective. He wrote:

"Close all shutters and doors until no light enters the camera except through the lens, and opposite hold a piece of paper, which you move forward and backward until the scene appears in the sharpest detail. There on the paper you will see the whole view as it really is, with its distances, its colours and shadows and motion, the clouds, the water twinkling, the birds flying. By holding the paper steady you can trace the whole perspective with a pen, shade it and delicately colour it from nature."

In the mid sixteenth century Giovanni Battista della Porta (1538-1615) published what is believed to be the first account of the possibilities as an aid to drawing. It is said that he made a huge "camera" in which he seated his guests, having arranged for a group of actors to perform outside so that the visitors could observe the images on the wall. The story goes, however, that the sight of up-side down performing images was too much for the visitors; they panicked and fled, and Battista was later brought to court on a charge of sorcery!

Though Battista's account is wrapped up in a study of the occult, it is likely that from that time onwards many artists will have used a camera obscura to aid them in drawing, though either because of the association with the occult, or because they felt that in some way their artistry was lessened, few would admit to using one. Several are said to have used them; these include Giovanni Canale - better known as Canaletto (1697- 1768), Vermeer (1632-1675), Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792), and Paul Sandby (1725-1809), a founding member of the Royal Academy.

Though some, including Joshua Reynolds, warned against the indiscriminate use of the camera obscura, others, notably Algarotti, a writer on art and science and a highly influential man amongst artists, strongly advocated its use in his Essays on Painting (1764):

"the best modern painters among the Italians have availed themselves of this contrivance; nor is it possible that they should have otherwise represented things so much to the life... Let the young painter, therefore, begin as early as possible to study these divine pictures...

Painters should make the same use of the Camera Obscura, which Naturalists and Astronomers make of the microscope and telescope; for all these instruments equally contribute to make known, and represent Nature."

About the same time, the lens was being developed. Once again Roger Bacon's name is associated with this; some have claimed that it was he who invented spectacles. Gerolomo Cardano (1501- 1576), an Italian mathematician, introduced a glass disc in place of a pinhole in his camera, and Barbaro also used a convex lens. Why the name lens? It is claimed that because Italian lenses were by-convex, they seemed to resemble the brown lentils they used to make soup - so the lens came from the Latin for lentil.

The first cameras were enormous. Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680) in a book written in 1646, described one which consisted of an outer shell with lenses in the centre of each wall, and an inner shell containing transparent paper for drawing; the artist needed to enter by a trapdoor.

Other versions also appeared. Sedan chairs were converted, and tent-type cameras were also in use - even up the beginning of the nineteen hundreds. Then smaller, portable ones were made. Thus the camera obscura, as it came to be known, became a popular aid to sketching.

Another aid to drawing, but which worked in a different way, was the Camera Lucida, designed in 1807.

To give some idea of costs in the earliest days of photography, it is known that in 1839 Fox Talbot bought several instruments including a camera obscura for seven pounds fifteen shillings (7.75). At that time the typical servant's wage would have averaged between ten and twenty pounds per year.

Camera obscuras still have a fascination for many, and there are several in this country. For an account of a visit to some of them, see HERE.



SCHULZE, Johann Heinrich

b. 1684; d.1744

Schulze was a German Professor at the University of Altdorf, whose experiments paved the way towards photography. Though it was known that certain chemicals darken when exposed to the sun, it was not clear whether it was the action of light or heat which had this effect. In 1727 Schulze heated some silver nitrate in an oven, and discovering that it did not darken was able to eliminate heat as the darkening agent. Having noticed that a glass jar containing a particular chemical mixture changed colour on one side - that facing the window, he applied paper stencils to a bottle containing silver nitrate and chalk, discovering that where the substance was not exposed to light it remained white. He published details of his investigations, but these did not become popular until after he had died. He described his experiments thus:

I covered the glass with dark material, exposing a little part for the free entry of light. Thus I often wrote names and whole sentences on paper and carefully cut away the inked parts with a sharp knife. I struck the paper thus perforated on the glass wikth wax. It was not long before the sun's rays, where they hit the glass through the cut-out parts of the paper, wrote each word or sentence on the chalk precipitate so exactly and distinctly that many who were curious about the experiment but ignorant of its nature took occasion to attribute the thing to some sort of trick."



WEDGWOOD, Thomas

b. 14 May 1771; d. 11 July 1805

In 1802 Thomas Wedgwood (son of the famous potter Josiah Wedgwood) together with Sir Humphrey Davy presented a paper entitled "An account of a method of copying paintings upon glass and of making profiles by the agency of light upon nitrate of silver." He had worked closely with Davey, and their work was very nearly a breakthrough, for they had made what one can best describe as photograms. However, they were unable to fix the images, and the story is told that Wedgwood was reduced to examining his pictures furtively by the light of a candle. They also tried using a camera obscura, but the chemicals being used at the time were not sufficiently sensitive.

In the report to the Royal Society, June 1802, Davy wrote:

"The copy of a painting, or the profile, immediately after being taken, must be kept in an obscure place. It way indeed be examined in the shade, but, in this case, the exposure should be only for a few minutes; by the light of candles or lamps, as commonly employed, it is not sensibly affected."

Wedgwood died three years later, aged 34. What neither he nor Davey could find was discovered in 1819 by Sir John Herschel.



NIPCE, Joseph Nicephore

b. 7 March 1765; d. 5 July 1833

Nipce (pronounced Nee-ps) is universally credited with producing the first successful photograph in June/July 1827. He was fascinated with lithography, and worked on this process. Unable to draw, he needed the help of his artist son to make the images. However, when in 1814 his son was drafted into the army to fight at Waterloo, he was left having to look for another way of obtaining images. Eventually he succeeded, calling his product Heliographs (after the Greek "of the sun"). Lady Elizabeth Eastlake, writing in 1857, informs us that he was a man of private means, who had began his researches in 1814. When he eventually succeeded, he came over to England later that year and sought to promote his invention via the Royal Society (then as now regarded as the leading learned body concerned with science). However, the Royal Society had a rule that it

would not publicise a discovery that contained an undivulged secret, so Nipce met with total failure. Returning to France, he teamed up with Louis Daguerre in 1829, a partnership which lasted until his death only four years later, at the age of 69. He left behind him some examples of his heliographs, which are now in the Royal Photographic Society's collection.

This is the first known photograph.** There is little merit in this picture other than that fact. It is difficult to decipher: the building is on the left, a tree a third in from the left, and a barn immediately in front. The exposure lasted eight hours, so the sun had time to move from east to west, appearing to shine on both sides of the building.

For further information on Niepce, see here.

Though Nipce's contribution is interesting, for the purposes of photography as we know it today, it is irrelevant.

** I have been taken to task by some who point to the picture in the Turin Shroud as being the first photograph. Whether the shroud dates back to the time of Jesus Christ, which most scholars discount, or whether it dates from around 1000AD, it does certainly show an image of a dead person. Whether this was produced intentionally though is more unlikely. The picture shown here is generally acknowledged to be the first image produced intentionally.



DAGUERRE, Louis Jacques Mande

b. 18 November 1787; d. 10 July 1851

Daguerre (pronounced Dagair) was perhaps the most famous of several people who invented photography.

He began work as an apprentice architect, and at the age of sixteen was an assistant stage designer in a Paris theatre, his elaborate stage designs winning him considerable acclaim. He had an astonishing ingenuity in the handling of light and lighting effects, and he supplied the scenic and lighting effects for a number of operas in theatres in Paris. He developed an impressive illusions theatre, which he termed Diorama; it was a picture show with changing light effects and huge paintings measuring 22 by 14 metres, of famous places. This became the rage in the early twenties.

He regularly used a camera obscura as an aid to painting in perspective, and this had led him to seek to freeze the image. In 1826 he learned of the work of Nicephore Nipce, and on 4 January 1829 signed up a partnership with him.

The partnership was a short one, Nipce dying in 1833, but Daguerre continued to experiment. He made an important discovery by accident. In 1835, so the story goes, he put an exposed plate in his chemical cupboard, and some days later found, to his surprise, that the latent image had developed. Daguerre eventually concluded that this was due to the presence of mercury vapour from a broken thermometer. This important discovery that a latent image could be developed made it possible to reduce the exposure time from some eight hours to thirty minutes.

Though he now knew how to produce an image, it was not until 1837 that he was able to fix them. This new process he called a Daguerreotype.

Daguerre advertised his process and sought sponsorship, but few seemed interested. He then turned to Francois Arago, a politician, who immediately saw the implications of this process, took his case up, and the French government commissioned a report on the process, to be chaired by Paul Delaroche. On 7 January 1839 an announcement was made of the discovery, but details were not divulged until 19 August when the process was announced publicly, the French government having bought the rights to the process from him, and given it free to the world. However, this process had also been patented in England and Wales on 14 August - only five days previously. As Lady Eastlake pointed out:

"...by some chicanery a patent for the daguerreotype was actually taken out in England, which for a time rendered this the only country which did not profit by the liberality of the French government. The early history of photography is not so generous in character as that of its maturity."

From the day the announcement was made of this new discovery, the process came to be used widely. The claim was made that the daguerreotype "requires no knowledge of drawing...." and that "anyone may succeed... and perform as well as the author of the invention."

The Literary Gazette for 7 January 1839 read:

"Paris, 6th January 1839.

We have much pleasure in announcing an important discovery made by M. Daguerre, the celebrated painter of the Diorama. This discovery seems like a prodigy. It disconcerts all the theories of science in light and optics and, if borne out, promises to make a revolution in the arts of design.

M. Daguerre has discovered a method to fix the images which are represented at the back of a camera obscura; so that these images are not the temporary reflection of the object, but their fixed and durable impress, which may be removed from the presence of those objects like a picture or an engraving."

An article in La Gazette de France, of the same date, also showed one of the limitations of the process:

"Nature in motion cannot reproduce itself, or at least can do so only with great difficulty, by the technique in question. In one of the boulevard views.... it happened that all which moved or walked did not appear in the drawing...."

The early daguerreotypes had several drawbacks.

l the length of the exposure necessary all but ruled out portraiture.

l the image was laterally reversed (as one sees oneself in a mirror). Many of the portraits reveal this from the way the coat was buttoned; if one required a picture the right way round, the camera would be pointed at a mirror reflecting the sitter's image. Initially this will not have bothered people, who were used only to seeing their mirror image in any case. (However, see Wolcott).

l it was very fragile.

l perhaps most limiting of all, it was a "once only" system; what was needed was a means whereby copies of a photograph might easily be made.

Taken in 1839, this picture of a boulevard gives the impression of empty streets, because with long exposures moving objects would not register.

However, there was an exception when a man stopped to have his shoes shined, (see bottom left of the larger picture) and though he and the person shining the shoes remain anonymous, they may have the distinction of being the first people ever to have been photographed.

In 1851 Daguerre died. In a sense this symbolically ended an era, for that very same year a new technique was invented, which was another milestone in photography - the wet collodion process by Frederick Scott Archer.

There is considerable material to be found in the Daguerrian Society's web-site. Do have a look.

A postscript

Robert Leggat, 2000


DELAROCHE, Paul

b. 1797; d. 1859

Paul Delaroche, one of the foremost history painters of his time, was not, as far as it is known, a photographer, but he was influential in promoting the Daguerreotype. In June 1839 he was asked to head a committee to present a report on Daguerre's invention to the French government.

At a time when photography is taken totally for granted, one needs to appreciate the sensation caused by the announcement of the Daguerreotype. The idea that a picture could be captured without the need for an artist was mind-blowing at the time, and many artists who made a living out of miniature portraits saw their means of livelihood coming to an end. Time has proved this to be wrong, for whilst photography had taken over as a means of recording objectively, it forced artists into a new form of expression.

Delaroche is particularly remembered for his much-quoted remark, on seeing the Daguerreotype, that "from today, painting is dead!" Though it makes an interesting story, the author has yet to find any evidence that Delaroche actually said this! He was, in fact, a leading advocate of photography, as the following observations, some of which come from his report to the French government, show:

"Daguerre's process completely satisfies all the demands of art, carrying essential principles of art to such perfection that it must become a subject of observation and study even to the most accomplished painters."

"The painter will discover in this process an easy means of collecting studies which he could otherwise only have obtained over a long period of time, laboriously and in a much less perfect way, no matter how talented he might be."

"To sum up, the admirable discovery of M. Daguerre has rendered an immense service to the arts."

Like many good artists of the day, he had students at his studio, amongst whom were Roger Fenton, the first Secretary of the Royal Photographic Society, and Gustave Le Gray. His most well-known work

is "Children of Edward" (1830) depicting Edward IVth sons imprisoned in the Tower of London.



The DAGUERREOTYPE

This was a positive image on a metal support.

The Daguerreotype was the first successful photographic process, the discovery being announced on 7 January 1839. The process consisted of

l exposing copper plates to iodine, the fumes forming light-sensitive silver iodide. The plate would have to be used within an hour.

l exposing to light - between 10 and 20 minutes, depending upon the light available. l developing the plate over mercury heated to 75 degrees Centigrade. This caused the mercury

to amalgamate with the silver. l fixing the image in a warm solution of common salt (later sodium sulphite was used.) l rinsing the plate in hot distilled water.

Daguerre's choice of chemicals was such that the action of light left a milky white image or mercury amalgam.

His first plates were 8 1/2" by 6 1/2"; it is interestting to note that this still remains the standard "whole-plate" today.

The quality of the photographs was stunning. However, the process had its weaknesses:

l the pictures could not be reproduced and were therefore unique; l the surfaces were extremely delicate, which is why they are often found housed under glass in

a case; l the image was reversed laterally, the sitter seeing himself as he did when looking at a mirror.

(Sometimes the camera lens was equipped with a mirror to correct this); l the chemicals used (bromine and chlorine fumes and hot mercury) were highly toxic; l the images were difficult to view from certain angles.

Many of the daguerreotypes that remain are noticeable for their detail, and this caused quite a sensation at the time. Indeed, the Spectator (2 February 1839) called daguerreotypes the "self operating process of Fine Art." The reaction in America was also one of amazement. The Journal "The Knickerbocker" for December that year quoted:

We have seen the views taken in Paris by the 'Daguerreotype,' and have no hesitation in avowing, that they are the most remarkable objects of curiosity and admiration, in the arts, that we ever beheld. Their exquisite perfection almost transcends the bounds of sober belief.

Carl Dauthendey, a photographer who became the first professional daguerreotype photographer in St. Petersburg, makes an interesting comment on the way Daguerreotypes were viewed:

"People were afraid at first to look for any length of time at the pictures he produced. They were embarrassed by the clarity of these figures and believed that the little, tiny faces of the people in the pictures could see out at them, so amazing did the unaccustomed detail and the unaccustomed truth to nature of the first daguerreotypes appear to everyone"

Sometimes the details might reveal something that the photographer had not intended. Fox Talbot, Daguerre's rival, observed:

"It frequently happens, moreover - and this is one of the charms of photography - that the operator himself discovers on examination, perhaps long afterwards, that he has depicted many things that he had no notion of at the time. Sometimes inscriptions and dates are found upon the buildings, or printed placards most irrelevant, are discovered upon their walls: sometimes a distant dial-plate is seen, and upon it - unconsciously recorded - the hour of the day at which the view was taken."

This capacity to record minute detail was put to good use by Jean Baptiste Louis Gros, an amateur who made the first images of the Parthenon whilst on a mission in Greece. On his return to Paris he discovered that on close inspection details which he had not observed could be examined, including the minutest sculptural elements.

In the museum at the Royal Photographic Society one of Daguerre's cameras is displayed. It was used by Talbot for his own process. However, there is an interesting omission: Daguerre's cameras always had a label on the side, bearing his signature, but Fox Talbot appears to have removed this!

One problem with early daguerreotypes was the length of exposure required - 10 to 15 minutes in bright sunlight. In fact, a daguerreotype in the International Museum in Rochester, depicting a chapel, states that the picture was taken between 4:40pm and 5:30pm on 19 April 1840. Such lengths were hardly suitable for portraiture. Fox Talbot noted in a letter dated 21 May 1852:

"Ld Brougham assured me once that he sat for his Dabguerreotype portrait half an hour in the sun and never suffered so much in his life."

To make photography possible, rests were used to keep the head still, and sitters had often to cope with brilliant sunlight. One photographer even used to run flour on the sitter's face, in order to reduce exposure time!

There was clearly a need to find some more effective ways of reducing the exposure time:

l On the chemistry side, J.G. Goddard started using bromide as well as iodine to sensitise plates, while Antoine Claudet experimented using chlorine.

l On the optical side, J. M. Petzval invented a portrait lens with an aperture of f3.6 (as opposed to f14, which was currently being used.) Petzval's lens was still being widely used almost a century later.

Taken together, these improvements enabled photographers to use exposures of between ten and thirty seconds, thus making portraiture more of a practical proposition. By March 1841 Beard had opened a studio at the Royal Polytechnic Institution, while Claudet opened one three months later, behind St. Martin's church, Trafalgar Square. In 1853 Daguerre's patent expired, and many daguerreotypists began to open for business. At that time, of course, all photographs were monochrome (it was not until after the time of Maxwell that colour photography became a possibility), so many artists turned to hand-colouring the photographs, which were almost invariably presented in ornate cases.

Colouring was a skilled and delicate affair. Typical of the kits was the Newman kit, dated 1850, with thirty-six colours. The colours would be applied very carefully with a fine brush, and then fixed simply by breathing on the plate itself.

The daguerreotype, aptly called a "mirror with a memory", was an amazing development, and one cannot but marvel at the intricacy of the detail. However, it was a blind alley as far as photography was concerned.

Typical prices of a Daguerreotype would be:

2.5" x 2" (1840) - 21/- (1.05)2.5" x 2" (1850) - 10/6 (0.55)

To see a short video clip showing how a daguerreotype is made, see HERE.

Some additional trivia

Do have a look at the site dedicated exclusively to Daguerre. The address is http://www.daguerre.org

Robert Leggat, 2000


GAUDIN, Marc Antoine

In a book written in 1844 Marc Gaudin gives us an eyewitness account of the excitement with which the announcement of the Daguerreotype process five years earlier had been greeted:

"The Palace...was stormed by a swarm of the curious at the memorable sitting on 19 August, 1839, where the process was at long last divulged.

Although I came two hours beforehand, like many others I was barred from the hall (and) was...with the crowd for everything that happened outside.

At one moment an excited man comes out; he is surrounded, he is questioned, and he answers with a know-it-all air, that bitumen of Judea and lavender oil is the secret. Questions are multiplied but as he knows nothing more, we are reduced to talking about bitumen of Judea and lavender oil.

Soon a crowd surrounds a newcomer, more startled than the last. He tells us with no further comment that it is iodine and mercury...

Finally, the sitting is over, the secret divulged...

A few days later, opticians' shops were crowded with amateurs panting for daguerreotype apparatus, and everywhere cameras were trained on buildings. Everyone wanted to record the view from his window, and he was lucky who at first trial formed a silhouette of roof tops against the sky. He went into ecstasies over chimneys, counted over and over roof tiles and chimney bricks - in a word, the technique was so new that even the poorest plate gave him unspeakable joy....."



ARTISTS and Photography

The invention of the Daguerreotype caused considerable concern to many artists, who saw their means of livelihood coming to an end. Delaroche is credited with claiming that painting was now dead, whilst it is said that Sir William Ross, on his death-bed in 1860, commented sadly that "it was all up with future miniature painting." It is also claimed, but with scanty evidence, that Turner, looking at an early daguerreotype, commented that he was glad he had had his day!

Charles Baudelaire despised photography as being a product of industry. He felt it provided an impression of reality that did not have the 'spiritual momentum' which came from the imagination. Whilst reviewing a photographic exhibition in 1859, clearly saw the need to put photography firmly in its place:

"If photography is allowed to supplement art in some of its functions, it will soon have supplanted or corrupted it altogether....its true duty..is to be the servant of the sciences and arts - but the very humble servant, like printing or shorthand, which have neither created nor supplemented literature....

"Let it rescue from oblivion those tumbling ruins, those books, prints and manuscripts which time is devouring, precious things whose form is dissolving and which demand a place in the archives of our memory - it will be thanked and applauded.

But if it is allowed to encroach upon the domain of the... imaginary, upon anything whose value depends solely upon the addition of something of a man's soul, then it will be so much the worse for us."

Some painters dubbed the new invention "the foe-to-graphic art." Certainly those artists who specialised in miniature portraits suffered; in 1810 over 200 miniatures were exhibited at the Royal Academy; this rose to 300 in 1830, but thirty years later only sixty-four were exhibited, and in 1870 only thirty-three.

On the other hand, the painter, Gustave Courbet, recognised photography as a useful aid in depicting motifs. However, his paintings seem to illustrate, by the thickness of colour, that he saw photography as consisting merely of a copy of reality, and that painting went much further.

A number of artists, seeing the writing on the wall, turned to photography for their livelihood, whilst others cashed in on the fact that the images were in monochrome, and began colouring them in. Baudelaire's assertion that photography had become "the refuge of failed painters with too little talent" was rather unfair, but it is true that a number turned to this new medium for their livelihood. By 1860 Claudet was able to claim that miniature portraits were no longer painted without the assistance of photography.

In any case, absolute likeness was not always what the sitter wanted. Alfred Chalon, one of the last miniaturists, when asked by Queen Victoria whether photography was a threat to miniature painting, replied "No Madam - photography can't flatter!" Lady Eastlake, wife of the Director of the National Gallery (who also was the first President of the Photographic Society) also had her reservations, claiming that whilst photography was more exact, it had also become less true, and that in portraiture the broad suggestion of form had been replaced by a fussy accumulation of irrelevant detail:

"Every button is seen - piles of stratified flounces in most accurate drawing are there - but the likeness to Rembrandt and Reynolds is gone!"

Clearly she did not share the dread that painting was an art of the past.

However, a further blow to miniature portraiture was to come when the Carte-de-Visite craze began to develop. By 1857 an Art Journal was reporting that portrait photography was becoming a public nuisance, with photographers touting for custom (much as artists do today at the Montmartre, in Paris). "It has really now become a matter for Police interference both on the grounds of propriety and public comfort!" the writer thundered. In that same journal Francis Frith claimed that photography "has already almost entirely superseded the craft of the miniature painter, and is on the point of touching, with an irresistible hand, several other branches of skilled art."

In 1865 Claudet, by then a respected photographer, came to the defence of photography, following a blistering article in a French journal:

"One cannot but acknowledge that there are arts which are on their way out and that it is photography which has given them the death-blow! Why are there no longer any miniaturists? For the very simple reason that those who want miniatures find that photography does the job better and instead of portraits more or less accurate where form and expression are concerned, it gives perfectly exact resemblances that at least please the heart and satisfy the memory."

Miniature painting, in fact, made a comeback at the turn of the century.

Though photography was seen by some as the invention that was killing art, this is a one-sided view, because it also proved to be an aid to their work. Portrait photographers found that by employing photography the number of sittings required could be reduced or even eliminated. Joshua Reynolds sometimes needed up to fifty sittings for portraits; it is said that his painting of Sir George Beaumont had required twelve sittings for the painting of the cravat alone!

A problem is that few painters would readily admit to using photography as an aid, almost as though this were a form of cheating! David Octavius Hill used photography to make a record of people to be painted, whilst in the 1860s Robert Howlett was employed to take photographs of groups of people attending the Derby from the top of a cab, these photographs later being used as group studies in William Powell Frith's painting "Derby Day." This however did not stop William Powell Frith from observing, thirty years later, that in his opinion photography had not benefited art at all. Others who used photography to assist them in painting included Negre, Tissot, Gaugin, Czanne, Lautrec, Delacroix and Degas.

An example of photography being used for this purpose can be seen in a portrait of Sir William Allen, by Sir John Watson Gordon (1837), Royal Academy; this clearly comes from an 1843 Calotype. See also Muybridge, whose work led to a change in the way artists painted horses on the move.

Man Ray, born later than this period, made an interesting observation on this apparent controversy. (See here).



CALOTYPE process, The

The Calotype was a positive/negative process introduced in 1841 by Fox Talbot, and popular for the next ten years or so. Strictly speaking the term refers only to the negative image, but it is commonly taken to mean both.

A piece of paper was brushed with weak salt solution, dried, then brushed with a weak silver nitrate solution, dried, making silver chloride in the paper. This made it sensitive to light, and the paper was now ready for exposure. This might take half an hour, giving a print-out image. It was fixed in strong salt solution - potassium iodide of hypo.

Fox Talbot, who devised the process, showed his results at the Royal Institution on 25 January 1839, delivering a paper on the last day of that month.

The following year Fox Talbot succeeded in improving the "photogenic drawing" process, renaming it the calotype. He discovered that if he added gallic acid, the paper became more sensitive to light, and it was no longer necessary to expose until the image became visible. With further treatment of gallic acid and silver nitrate, the latent image would be developed.

In 1844 Fox Talbot opened a photography establishment in Reading in order to mass produce prints.

To make a print, the negative was placed on top of more photo paper, laid flat in a glass frame, and allowed to develop in sunlight.

The Calotype process was not as popular as its rival one, the Daguerreotype. There were various reasons for this:

l its popularity was to a great extent arrested by patent restrictions; l the materials were less sensitive to light, therefore requiring longer exposures; l the imperfections of the paper reduced the quality of the final print; Calotypes did not have the

sharp definition of daguerreotypes. l the process itself took longer, as it required two stages (making the negative and then the

positive); l the prints tended to fade.

One might also suggest that the fact paper was used as a negative lessened the detail of the picture, though from an artistic point of view some would regard this as a desirable feature.

However, the calotype also had its advantages compared with the daguerreotype:

l it provided the means of making an unlimited number of prints from one negative; l retouching could be done on either negative or print; l prints on paper were easier to examine, and far less delicate; l the calotype had warmer tones.

When the Collodion process was introduced in 1851, the calotype became obsolete. However, the negative-positive process was one day to become the standard photographic one, which is still used today.



TALBOT, William Henry Fox

b. 11 February 1800; d. 17 September 1877

His signature is Henry Talbot, and though he is said to have disliked being called Fox Talbot, that name has stuck.

Though Fox Talbot was not the first to produce photographs, he made a major contribution to the photographic process as we know it today.

Talbot studied the classics and mathematics at Cambridge, was elected a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1822, and a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1832. He was also an MP, Biblical scholar, a Botanist and Assyriologist, making a contribution to the deciphering of cuneiform inscriptions brought to England from Nineveh.

Though some of his pictures show a measure of artistic taste, it was his inability to draw which caused him to experiment with a mechanical method of capturing and retaining an image. Talbot attempted to draw with the aid of both a camera obscura and a camera lucida when producing his sketches, one of which was Villa Melzi. Later he wrote:

"(In) October, 1833, I was amusing myself on the lovely shores of the Lake of Como in Italy, taking sketches with a Camera Lucida, or rather, I should say, attempting to make them; but with the smallest possible amount of success...

After various fruitless attempts I laid aside the instrument and came to the conclusion that its use required a previous knowledge of drawing which unfortunately I did not possess.

I then thought of trying again a method which I had tried many years before. This method was to take a Camera Obscura and to throw the image of the objects on a piece of paper in its focus - fairy pictures, creations of a moment, and destined as rapidly to fade away...

It was during these thoughts that the idea occurred to me... how charming it would be if it were possible to cause these natural images to imprint themselves durably and remain fixed on the paper!"

The earliest surviving paper negative is of the now famous Oriel window in the South Gallery at Lacock Abbey, Wiltshire, where he lived. It is dated August 1835. Talbot's comments read "When first made, the squares of glass about 200 in number could be counted, with help of a lens."

Talbot described how he took his pictures:

"Not having with me... a camera obscura of any considerable size, I constructed one out of a large box, the image being thrown upon one end of it by a good object-glass fixed at the opposite end. The apparatus being armed with a sensitive paper, was taken out in a summar afternoon, and placed about one hundred yards from a building favourably illuminated by the sun. An or so afterwards I opened the box and I found depicted upon the paper a very distinct representation of the building, with the exception of those parts of it which lay in the shade. A little experience in this branch of the art showed me that with a smaller camera obscura the effect would be produced in a smaller time. Accordingly I had

several small boxes made, in which I fixed lenses of shorter focus, and with these I obtained very perfect, but extremely small pictures..."

These "little boxes", measuring two or three inches, were named "mousetraps" by the family at Lacock, because of the various places they were to be found.

January 1839 was a busy month as far as announcements of discoveries were concerned. On 7 January Daguerre announced the development of his process. A few days later Talbot wrote to Arago, who had promoted Daguerre's invention, suggesting that it was he, not Daguerre, who had invented the photographic process. (At that time he was unaware that the process was entirely different). One of Arago's fellow-scientists replied that Daguerre had, in fact, devised a number of processes over fourteen years.

Doubtless annoyed that Daguerre had been put in the lime-light he felt he himself deserved, Talbot began to publicise his own process. On 25 January 1839 he announced the discovery at the Royal Institution of a method of "photogenic drawing."

At the time the sensitivity of the process was extremely poor. Then, in September 1840 Fox Talbot discovered the phenomenon of the latent image. It is said that this was a chance discovery, when he attempted to re-sensitise some paper which had failed to work in previous experiments; as the chemical was applied, an image, previously invisible, began to appear. This was a major breakthrough which led to drastically lowered exposure times - from one hour or so to 1-3 minutes. Talbot he called the improved version the calotype (from the Greek "Kalos", meaning beautiful) and on 31 January he gave a paper to the Royal Society of London. The paper was entitled "Some account of the Art of Photogenic drawing, or the process by which natural objects may be made to delineate themselves without the aid of the artist's pencil."

Talbot patented his invention on 8 February 1841, an act which considerably arrested the development of photography at the time. The patent (a separate one being taken out for France) applied to England and Wales. Talbot chose not to extend his patent to Scotland, and this paved the way for some outstanding photographs to be produced in Edinburgh by Hill and Adamson.

In 1844 Talbot began issuing a book entitled "The Pencil of Nature", the first commercial book to be illustrated with actual photographs.* In order to produce these prints, he helped his former valet, Nicolaas Henneman to set up the Reading Establishment, a photographic processing studio within relatively easy reach of both London and Lacock. This however lasted only four years, as it was not a financial success.

Talbot's process in general never reached the popularity of the daguerreotype process, partly because the latter produced such amazing detail, but partly because Talbot asked so much for the rights to use his process. A writer of the time, Henry Snelling, commented:

"He is a man of some wealth, I believe, but he demands so high a price for a single

right.... that none can be found who have the temerity to purchase."

Consequently calotypes never flourished as they might have, and the fault must lie largely with him.

The newly formed Calotype club sought unsuccessfully to persuade Talbot to relax his restrictions in order to encourage the growth of photography. It is claimed that Talbot, somewhat put out by the fact that Daguerre had received many honours whilst he had been given none, was reacting accordingly.

Sadly Talbot's name was somewhat tarnished by his series of attempts to enforce his patent. A claim in 1854 that the Collodion process was also covered by his calotype patent. was lost in court, and from then onwards, knowing that the faster and better collodion process was free for all to use, there were no further restrictions and photography began to take off in a big way.

Having said this, there exists some evidence that there had been a concerted attempt to discredit Talbot in order to overturn the patent. Talbot increasingly viewed the defence of his calotype patent as a defence of Henneman, who had invested heavily in setting up the Reading Establishment . Talbot was enormously loyal to Henneman, and concerned about profit being made at his expense It is possible, therefore, that history has been a little too harsh on Fox Talbot. He too had spent a considerable amount of money developing his invention, and it has been suggested that his enforcement of patents was more due to his careful upbringing as far as finances were concerned than his desire to make a fortune. Other documents, particularly relating to the early days of the Photographic Society, reveal him to be far more magnanimous and generous than is commonly supposed. (See Talbot and patents.)

Talbot summarised his achievement thus:

"I do not profess to have perfected an art but to have commenced one, the limits of which it is not possible at present exactly to ascertain. I only claim to have based this art on a secure foundation."

The Royal Photographic Society has two complete sets of the limited edition of "Pencil of Nature", together with many of Fox Talbot's letters, books and documents.

August 1999: A new web-site led by Professor Larry J. Schaaf is the definitive site on this remarkable inventor. It is part of a three year project, and is a must for any student of Talbot. It is located at http://www.foxtalbot.arts.gla.ac.uk/

PS On a lighter note, in a discussion on Talbots' name, someone came up with what must be the definitive answer: "He was called Fox because he was a particularly cunning animal, and finally outran the Dag-hare!"

* However, see also Atkins.

Robert Leggat, 2006


BEGINNINGS OF PHOTOGRAPHY, The: Note on The Pencil of Nature

Few original copies of "The Pencil of Nature" remain, but the book is significant inasmuch as it was the first ever to be published with photographs. Well, almost the first; that distinction is owned by Anna Atkins, except that her pictures were photograms rather than photographs.

Looking at Talbot's book, one cannot help but feel that it is an odd collection of pictures, because there does not seem to be a theme running though the book. It is a somewhat motley collection. We see a picture of the boulevards in Paris, a shot of Queens College, Oxford, and several pictures of Lacock Abbey, where Fox Talbot worked. There's a copy of a drawing, a picture of Westminster Abbey, and one of a part of Queens College, Oxford. No clear theme, just a collection of pictures, with a strange justification for them in the script! The book is a mix of technical information, guide book, a facinating collection of irrelevant details, a personal family record - probably a nightmare for librarians whose task it is to catalogue books according to subject!

Perhaps this highlights a problem that the earliest photographers had. Atkin's book had a clear purpose. But pictures taken at this time seem to show that one is playing around with the medium to find out what its possibilities are (and that's a perfectly legitimate act) without being quite sure where they were going. Whereas one "made" art, photographs were a form of record. Indeed, they were "impressed by nature's hand", or "sun pictures". Photographs were "taken" or "obtained" as if they were natural specimens. It was regarded as a superb mechanical process, yes, but purely mechanical.

Back to the section in "Beginnings of photography"

Robert Leggat, 2000

CLAUDET, Jean Francois Antoine

b. 12 August 1797; d. 27 December 1867

Claudet was one of the first commercial photographers. A French glass merchant living in High Holborn, he learned details of the daguerreotype process from its inventor, and bought from him a licence to operate in England. In 1841 he set up a studio on the roof of the Adelaide Gallery (now the Nuffield Centre), behind St. Martins in the Fields church, London, and later on in two other sites in London.

Another daguerreotype practitioner at the time was Richard Beard, and there was considerable competition between the two. Beard even took out a court injunction against Claudet in an effort to close his business, but the court found in Claudet's favour.

Exposures, at this time, were still long, and sitters were often instructed to "sit there, as still as death." One disgruntled sitter, Thomas Sutton, described his ordeal:

"I was seated... in the full blazing sunshine and after about an exposure of a minute the plate was developed..... My eyes were made to stare until the tears streamed from them and the portrait was of course a caricature.... I paid a guinea for it. It has

history of photography

Documents

history of photography

frps frsa robert leggat

richard morris frps

d significant people

ns significant people

early history

eh significant people

early days of photography