Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site rdin.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!rdin!coop From: coop@rdin.UUCP (Robert Cooper) Newsgroups: net.rec.photo Subject: A lesson to be learned from early photo history? (a little long) Message-ID: <502@rdin.UUCP> Date: Fri, 4-Oct-85 11:36:23 EDT Article-I.D.: rdin.502 Posted: Fri Oct 4 11:36:23 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 6-Oct-85 09:08:44 EDT Organization: Resource Dynamics Inc., New York Lines: 80 I've always been fascinated by the development of different technologies. As I watch the current computer environment change (e.g., 8 bit to 32 bit, Unix and PC Dos, no res to low res to high res graphics, etc.) I like to study the changes that were made in early 19th century photographic technology to look for similarity between how the current computer technology is developing and how photographic technology developed. For example, what will be the future of new programming languages? Why and how will this new language become popular? Who can say? If we look at photography's development, we might have a better understanding of the process. The most popular photographic system in use today (for the most part) is a negative/positive process, yet for the first 20-25 years of photography, the most popular process was a direct positive system (i.e., no negative is created). Why that change happened is an interesting story and there just might be a lesson to be learned from it. In 1839, the world was amazed to learn that the age-old problem of capturing an image on a prepared surface was solved by not one but two different methods. The public was fascinated by the implications and possible uses of this new science. What were these two competing methods and why did one become so popular so quickly? The first method to be announced was in Paris, by Louis Daguerre. His method was to use a silver-coated metal plate, sensitized with iodine fumes. After exposing a prepared plate to light, he developed the plate with its latent image with fumes of mercury to reveal a unique positive image. In England, Henry Fox Talbot, upon hearing of Daguerre's discovery, rushed to announce the results of his work of the past couple of years. He had discovered that by soaking fine writing paper in sodium chloride and then silver nitrate, exposing the treated paper to light, and then processing the paper in pyrogallic acid, a negative image was created, which could then be used to print on a second sheet of similarly-treated paper to get a positive image. Both methods benefited from the intense public interest, especially with suggested improvement to their processes. The most important of these was the use of hyposulfite of soda to help fix the images. Like everything else, Daguerre's Daguerreotype and Talbot's Calotype had their strong points and weak points. The Daguerreotype's strongest feature was its almost unbelievably strong, sharp, detailed image. In fact, there aren't many films available today that have a finer grain structure. The Calotype's image was much softer, due to the light diffusing fibers in the paper negative. The Calotype's strongest feature was its separate negative which allowed for unlimited positive copies. A Daguerreotype is a unique image. If you wanted a second copy, you had to take another Daguerreotype of it. The Daguerreotype's image was very easily damaged, so it had to be protected by a glass cover in a miniature case or frame. The Daguerreotype also had a higher material cost, its silver-coated plate being expensive to manufacture. The Calotype, being a paper product, didn't have these limitations. Since it seems the two methods are fairly evenly matched, why was one method almost universally practiced from 1839 to 1860 while the other remained in the background till about 1860 when it finally developed into the major photographic product? If I were to pick any one reason, I would say it was 'marketing' that guaranteed the almost 20-year popularity of the Daguerreotype over the negative/positive processes. Fox Talbot believed he was entitled to earning from his invention, and he secured patent protection and started selling licenses in England, France and America. During the 1840's he and his licensees sought to popularize the basic process under the name Talbotype and fought to maintain patent control of the negative-positive with lengthy court proceedings. Daguerre, on the other hand, went a different route. After discussion with the French Academy of Science, he gave his process free to the world, after being assured of a life pension from the French government. Within weeks of the announcement, Daguerreotypes were being made in all the capitals in Europe and in America. A new industry and art form had been born. In another posting, I hope to explore the reasons the negative/positive process finally overtook the direct positive process. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Cooper Resource Dynamics Inc. {philabs|delftcc}!rdin!coop 150 East 58th Street New York, NY 10155 (212) 486-9150 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com