History of photography
Tintypes
Tintype of two girls in front of a painted background of the Cliff House and Seal Rocks in San Francisco, circa 1900
This inexpensive photo process was similar to the Ambrotype, but instead of using a glass plate, the tintype image was processed on a thin sheet of blackened iron – not tin. The name might come from the fact that tin shears were used to cut the iron plate.
- Time period: Introduced in 1856 and popular until about 1867. But tintype photo studios were still around into the early 1900s as a novelty.
- Identifying characteristics: Tintypes will attract a small magnet, but this method of identification isn’t foolproof as some ambrotypes have a metal backing behind the glass plate. The tintype is usually cut out quite roughly and is thinner than a ambrotype. Early tintypes were put under glass, but later were placed in cardboard sleeves. Most common size is 2½ x 3½ inches.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintype
Daguerreotype
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype
http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/dagprocess.htm
first successful form of photography, named for Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre of France, who invented the technique in collaboration with Nicéphore Niépce in the 1830s. Daguerre and Niépce found that if a copper plate coated with silver iodide was exposed to light in a camera, then fumed with mercury vapour and fixed (made permanent) by a solution of common salt, a permanent image would be formed. A great number of daguerreotypes, especially portraits, were made in the mid-19th century; the technique was supplanted by the wet collodion process.
Daguerreotype images are very delicate and easily damaged. Daguerreotypes always come in protective cases, often made of leather and lined with silk or velvet.
Color photography
Color photography was attempted beginning in the 1840s. Early experiments were directed at finding a «chameleon substance» which would assume the color of the light falling on it. Some encouraging early results, typically obtained by projecting a solar spectrum directly onto the sensitive surface, seemed to promise eventual success, but the comparatively dim image formed in a camera required exposures lasting for hours or even days.
When photography was invented in 1839, it was a black-and-white medium, and it remained that way for almost one hundred years. Photography then was a fragile, cumbersome, and expensive process. In order to practice, photographers needed a lot of extra money and time, or a sponsor.
In that early period, the people advancing photographic technology tended to focus not on achieving color photographs but on making improvements in the optical, chemical, and practical aspects of photography. For many, the goal was to make photography more suitable for portraiture—its most desired application. For that, photographic technology needed to be more stable, portable, and affordable, not more colorful.
have always wondered why the people in old photographs do not smile. I have now found the answer, and it is everything from long exposure time to bad dental hygiene or that the person (s) are dead. First, I think this is scary and mormid thought to do. At that time, it was so expensive for someone to take a family picture or have a funeral for the deceased relative that taking this picture was a kind of funeral and one last memory of the person who died. More I think about it, so I understand that family pictures were taken with the dead relative. It was painted on the eyes to look more alive, and a kind of stick / gnag was made which kept the dead in a standing or sitting position. The pictures taken on the 18th and 1900s are relatively poor in relation to the quality today, but with the quality that was, it’s hard to see the difference between who is alive or dead on a picture when almost no one smiled at the pictures. But I would like to know what the photographer thought while taking a picture of a dead person.
Since that person was often placed in a position where he was locked, I think it was important to find an angle where the person who dies is becoming more natural. when the dead is being photographed they often had what was there´s dearest belongings like family members, animals and jewelry.
Another common explanation for the lack of smiles in 19th century photographs is that, because it took so long to capture a photograph back then, people in pictures couldn’t hold a smile for long enough. “Some of that is true,” says Todd Gustavson, technology curator at the George Eastman Museum. “If you look at the early processes where you did have a long exposure time, you’re going to pick a pose that’s comfortable.” But he says that technology has been overplayed as the limiting factor. By the 1850s and ’60s it was possible in the right conditions to take photographs with only a few seconds of exposure time, and in the decades that followed shorter exposures became even more widely available. That means the technology needed to capture fleeting expressions like a genuine smile was available long before such a look became common.
Long exposures when taking photographs meant that the dead were often seen more sharply than the slightly-blurred living, because of their lack of movement
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-36389581
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_photography_technology
I thought it was a bit fascinating that they took pictures of the deceased. Seems it shows a story even if the person is dead, it shows a lot behind this picture, a story. One life is lost, but still human remains to be photographed. It must be challenging to take such a picture, everything from respect to getting the person in the right position. Since they are kept up with help, the photographer often needs to take a picture from the front, not to bring the stick into the picture. Need to be in right hight, not too high or low since the person is stuck, so it is important that the face makes it looks natural.
https://petapixel.com/2015/05/23/20-first-photos-from-the-history-of-photography/
Silje Nielsen 
Legg igjen en kommentar