From: Phillip Murphy (pmurf@bellsouth.net)
Date: 09/27/02-08:20:14 AM Z
It is unfortunate that Daguerreotypes are exhibited in the same lighting
as photographs. Low lighting is not the issue (Daguerreotypes can look
extraordinary under candle light). The issue is the critical angle of
the light source/plate position and the level of ambient light within
the exhibition area. Unlike paper photographs, the Dagurreotype image
has a critical angle of viewing; not unlike Holograms with their narrow
viewing angle. Also, unlike photographs, the mirror surface of a
Daguerreotype requires the reflecting of blackness to achieve it's
"black point" or visual D-max.
Unless you wear black, or the gallery has provided black card stock to
hold in front of you while viewing or the plate is angled to reflect a
darkened room, the image quality will be compromised. The compromise is
usually in proportion to the level of ambient light in the room and the
reflective surfaces therein.
Another factor is the glass that is used to seal the Daguerreotype.
Clear glass such as the type used for microscope slides or Water White
Denglas is essential in my opinion for optimum viewing. Particularly for
the more delicate images.
My preference in lighting Daguerreotypes is Fiber Optic lighting. The
light can be positioned with exactness, the light intensity is easily
adjustable and there is very little to no heat transmitted. For a
gallery, many images can be lit from a single light source by utilizing
a fiber optic matrix.
The added shame of poor gallery exhibition of Daguerreotypes is that the
medium poorly translates into book pages or web images for that matter.
It's like looking at film stills compared to watching the movie in a
cinema. With the inflated prices of vintage Daguerreotypes these days,
it appears that the general public may only have a chance to view them
within gallery environments. All the more reason for those in
exhibition leadership to insist that their staff budget for improvements
on "old school" lighting solutions for their galleries.
ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> I saw this show in Paris in June, in its larger form. I found it
> extremely difficult to see the pictures, due mostly to their
> reflective surfaces, poor lighting in the exhibition rooms and rather
> faint images. Fortunately the accompanying book, now presumably
> available in an English version, shows the images to perfection.
> Arthur
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST