From: Richard Morris (Richard.Morris@brunel.ac.uk)
Date: 02/25/02-02:59:53 AM Z
The first image ever taken, from life, in a specially constructed camera,
was 1823-7 (I believe there may be some doubt as to the exact date) by
Nicephore Niepce using bitumen of Judea. The camera is in the museum at
Chalon sur Soane, France, and the image in the Harry Ransom research centre
at Texas University. They have a web age about this image -
www.hrc.utexas.edu/photography/wfp/wfpmain.html
The image of Cardinal D'Amboise, by Niepce, in the Sotheby's catalogue is a
reproduction but in an early publication.
Richard Morris
Sat, 23
Feb 2002 12:45:07 +0100 Alejandro Lopez de Haro <alhr@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Hi to all:
>
> Again on the topic of the first photograph. Reading the thread on the
> forthcoming Sotheby's auction of the famous Collection Marie-Thérèse et
> André Jammes, where the first "photographic document ever" will be auction,
> it made me to hit some books which I have read a long time ago.
>
> First, it seems that what it is at auction in Sotheby's is the "first
> photographic document", since this claim is back up by a letter sign by
> Nicéphor Niépce where he send this "document", actually a gravure made by a
> photographic image, héliographie was Niépce term, to his cousin.
>
> Now the question I raise is that this claim seems at the very least
> something to be discuss. I say this because at the Niépce Museum in France,
> there are several pewter plates done before 1825. They are from 1820. There
> seems that no print has been found from these plates, and so it is claim by
> Niépce curators that no prints were made by Niépce, so in theory, Sotheby's
> claim appears to be right, but not exact ("juste") since there is no way in
> knowing that they were not.
>
> Now, rereading the book by Roland Barth "La chambre claire", "Camera Lucida"
> in English, he mentions that the first photograph was by Niépce, and that it
> was a "dinner table". So the claim that the photograph, "Le point de vue de
> la fenêtre" was the first photograph ever, which is in Harry Ramson Center
> in Austin, seems in doubt. It seems then, that what is presume to be the
> first photograph, is in reality "the first preserved photograph from
> nature*" (*According to Helmut Gernsheim-photo-historian) , not the first
> photograph.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alejandro López de Haro
>
> P.S. I still have many doubts about Sotheby's claim. How did Niépce made a
> héliographie from a horse and a boy without showing any movements on both
> the boy and the horse? (We were talking what, a sensitivity of ISO 1?)
>
> *http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~photohst/mta303/niepce.html
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Grafist@aol.com>
> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> Sent: Friday, February 22, 2002 11:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Gum or what?
>
>
> > In a message dated 20/02/02 06:25:25 GMT Standard Time, jseigel@panix.com
> > writes:
> >
> > > Well, by my calculations, if the volume of "dichro" was so much greater
> > > than the paint (a few "squirts"), say about 10 times as much (?), that
> > > means in effect you had a 20% solution -- wouldn't you say????
> > >
> > > And if so, it doesn't count as 2%...
> > >
> > > However, you don't say how far from the light source that 15 minutes
> > > exposure was... Also a factor in actual exposure...
> >
> ............................................................................
> ..
> >
> > .........
> > Judy, You may well be accurate in your calculations. Would anyone like to
> > comment? The UV radiation exposure source was several million miles away
> > (?). The Sun. We have not agreed on the volume of a " squirt ". One finds
> it
> > difficult to be accurate about these things.
> > I'll get my coat........... Regards. John
>
>
Richard Morris
Brunel University, UK
dtsrrlm@brunel.ac.uk
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST