| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
 Posted - Nov 18 2011 : 5:00:11 PM
|
Today we remember the 224th anniversary of Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre.The inventor of the photography!
http://www.ussrphoto.com/UserContent/18112011_louis daguerre.JPG
without him we could not love Russian cameras.
Regards LP |
|
Fred_L
France
226 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2011 : 5:27:26 PM
|
Thank you Luis!!!
On sunday there is a fair in Cormeilles en Parisis , close to Paris.
It is not Bievres, but a nice fair..
Cormeilles en Parisis is the town Daguerre is born...
I will be there and try to buy some......Russian cameras....
Fred |
 |
|
Colin
urban-wombat
Australia
71 Posts |
Posted - Nov 18 2011 : 6:17:30 PM
|
| I wonder how many of the photographers on this forum still use primitive photographic methods? As for myself never used the Daguerreotype but have used Cyanotype and Collodion. |
|
|
Jacques M.
France
2604 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2011 : 06:32:36 AM
|
I had been living for more than 30 years near Cormeilles, and I did not know that Daguerre was born there...
Unforgivable...
Good luck, Fred. Tell us what you have found! 
|
|
|
Alexander K.
AlexanderK
Germany
590 Posts |
Posted - Nov 20 2011 : 2:48:57 PM
|
Thank you Luis for remembering this.
It must be really the great day for all of us.
Unfortunately the German Club Daguerre don't think so, no events announced  (http://www.club-daguerre.de).
Regards, Alexander |
|
|
Fred_L
France
226 Posts |
Posted - Nov 21 2011 : 12:40:28 PM
|
Hello all...
I have been in Cormeilles yesterday...
It is not a fair as big as Bievres or Chelles in France, but it is not a small one too...
Really and only a few soviet cameras...Just 2 fotosnaipers in average shape and high price.It seems we are not a lot to consider Soviet cameras as collectibles in France....
I just met one of my friends who is also repairman, an gave him one of my Zenit 7 to fix a problem of shutter....
More choice in March in Chelles....
Fred
|
|
|
Michel
France
217 Posts |
Posted - Nov 22 2011 : 03:31:36 AM
|
@Luiz,
L.J.M. Daguerre, the inventor of photography…
OK…
What about Nicéphore Niépce  |
|
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 22 2011 : 6:31:59 PM
|
Nicephore Nièpce
Inventor of the graphic method through the light.
the Heliographic process.
The same way we can't say that digital process is a photography but a graphic method .
The same way eys do ot photograph but see!
and so on.
Regards.
LP
What is PHOTOGRAPHY in the pure sence of the word?
Definition: A direct method where one can fix images in an instant directly in a surface in a permanent way.
So digital process is NOT PHOTOGRAPHY because the graphic method is not direct although the light is the incurrent principle but also the vision and several other things we alread know. |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2011 : 10:30:25 AM
|
Dear Luiz,
Here is a broader and more modern definition of photography:
Photography is the art, science and practice of creating durable images by recording light or other electromagnetic radiation, either electronically by means of an image sensor or chemically by means of a light-sensitive material such as photographic film.[1] Typically, a lens is used to focus the light reflected or emitted from objects into a real image on the light-sensitive surface inside a camera during a timed exposure. The result in an electronic image sensor is an electrical charge at each pixel, which is electronically processed and stored in a digital image file for subsequent display or processing. The result in a photographic emulsion is an invisible latent image, which is later chemically developed into a visible image, either negative or positive depending on the purpose of the photographic material and the method of processing. A negative image on film is traditionally used to photographically create a positive image on a paper base, known as a print, either by using an enlarger or by contact printing.
1.Spencer, D A (1973). The Focal Dictionary of Photographic Technologies. Focal Press. p. 454. ISBN 240 50747 9.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2011 : 10:34:59 AM
|
Invention of Photography
"The first permanent photograph (later accidentally destroyed) was an image produced in 1826[ by the French inventor Joseph Nicéphore Niépce. His photographs were produced on a polished pewter plate covered with a petroleum derivative called bitumen of Judea, which he then dissolved in white petroleum. Bitumen hardens with exposure to light. The unhardened material may then be washed away and the metal plate polished, rendering a positive image with light regions of hardened bitumen and dark regions of bare pewter. Niépce then began experimenting with silver compounds based on a Johann Heinrich Schultz discovery in 1727 that silver nitrate (AgNO3) darkens when exposed to light.
In partnership, Niépce (in Chalon-sur-Saône) and Louis Daguerre (in Paris) refined the existing silver process. In 1833 Niépce died of a stroke, leaving his notes to Daguerre. While he had no scientific background, Daguerre made two pivotal contributions to the process. He discovered that exposing the silver first to iodine vapour before exposure to light, and then to mercury fumes after the photograph was taken, could form a latent image. Bathing the plate in a salt bath then fixes the image. On January 7, 1839 Daguerre announced that he had invented a process using silver on a copper plate called the daguerreotype, and displayed the first plate. The French government bought the patent and almost immediately (on August 19 of that year) made it public domain."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Luiz Paracampo
Luiz Paracampo
Brazil
2002 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2011 : 11:37:28 AM
|
Dear Bill
No polemics Please!
It is a matter of definition and name things is amatter of prudence.
Pehaps the famous French Phylosopher Rene Descartes has once said- "If I was Owner of the World I would give one sense to each of the words".
Modern technology often cause confusion to generaL people. These are new experiences _Obbserve I do not say "advances"_ once some new techniques really are old ones under a new custom., requires new names.
That way I completely mantain my point of view previously exposed.We can not broaden our definition on "photography". that way we would call "photography" to pictures in newspapers and magazines -These are now made through digital processes... If one knows the Renascentist way of doing large pictures in the cathedral walls one would say these were primitive digital processes and so one.
An automobile has four wheels and is not a charriot....etc.
Regards |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 26 2011 : 5:50:36 PM
|
Dear Luiz,
Of course I don't argue for the sake of argument or to be right! However with the word and meaning of photography it is too narrow to define it as you have. There are many kinds of photography and they all fall under the definition of the word.
Definitions must be broadened as technology and new forms are invented over time. For example would you say the definition of "media" is limited to drawing with a stick in the sand? Most definitions have been broadened to include new varieties of a basic concept.
And yes, I would say when a photograph is printed in a newspaper or magazine it is a photograph still, and is definitely "photography. If not, then you can say that most people have never seen a photograph of, let's say, Marilyn Monroe!
Photography is a very important thing and has been since its invention. Too important to become exclusive of all its different varieties.
And there are many arguments to be had even with your own definition (or the one you are embracing), such as ...What is "permanent" ... What is "in an instant? ... What is "in a surface"?".
Definitions are always open to interpretation and hopefully they do not become so narrow as to exclude very valid issues and have some room for innovation. It is too easy to fix a definition in a narrow place just so it is easy to understand.
My opinion only, please think about it, and please don't take offense.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
Michel
France
217 Posts |
Posted - Nov 27 2011 : 4:46:22 PM
|
Bill,
I absolutely agree with you,as the invention of photography by Niépce is concerned.
Daguerre was considered as "the" inventor" in many anglo-american books and reviews where Niépce was not even quoted…
Nevetheless, many less or more contemporary historians are re-considering the anteriority of Daguerre.
And what about Talbot?
And what about Bayard ?
As it is known, Bayard shown "photographic images" some time (feb. 1839 or sooner) before Arago's declaration in France.
And, in my opinion, this not a matter of defining what is a "photography", but a matter of chronology.
Sincerly,
Michel. |
|
|
Bill Parkinson
nightphoto
USA
1027 Posts
My Collection
|
Posted - Nov 28 2011 : 10:10:45 AM
|
Hi Michel,
I agree .. a matter of chronology and as well, variety or exact methodology. Perhaps defining 'photography' or 'photograph' is not so important once the different methods and results are understood.
Many inventions and new technologies are thought of and actualized at roughly the same time, as in the case of photography. I also think Henry Fox Talbot is one of the original inventors, with Hippolyte Bayard to follow soon after, possibly even before Daguerre.
Regards, Bill
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
224th birth date Louis Daguerre
