Osterman Romer History of Photography Ex PDF

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION
OF PHOTOGRAPHY
MARK OSTERMAN
George Eastman House International Museum
of Photography and Film
GRANT B. ROMER
George Eastman House International Museum
of Photography and Film
SECTION-Ia.indd 23 1/16/07 12:55:20 PM

The Technical Evolution of Photography in the 19th Century 27
projecting the images using a solar microscope, they had no

The Technical Evolution of Photography way to preserve the image once it was formed.
in the 19th Century Many of the observations of Wedgwood and Davy
were actually ideas already covered years earlier by Johann
MARK OSTERMAN Heinrich Schulze (1725), Carl Wilhelm Scheele (1777), and
George Eastman House and International Museum of Jean Senebier (1782), though without the same sense of
Photography purpose. Schulze discovered the sensitivity of silver nitrate to
light rather than to heat. Scheele, in addition, observed and
published that ammonia would dissolve unexposed silver chlo-
Concept and First Attempts ride, the means to permanently x silver chloride images. It is
Whereas the observation of numerous light-sensitive still difcult to understand why Scheeles published observa-
substances and the formative evolution of the camera obscura tion escaped Davy. The experiments of Wedgwood and Davy
predate 1800, the invention of photography, as we know it, are important because their work combined photochemical
was essentially a 19th-century phenomenon. Who actually technology with the sole intent to make images with light. Few
invented photography has been disputed from the very begin- doubt that success would have come to Wedgwood had he
ning, though the task would have been easier had there been a applied ammonia to his images, but he died a few years after
universally accepted denition of photograph. publishing his ndings. Davy did not continue the research.
Taken literally, the Greek words photos and graphos
together mean light drawing. Even today the term photog- Joseph Nicephore Nipce
raphy is being manipulated to t digital imaging, but in its Several years later Joseph Nicephore Nipce (Figure 110),
most elegant form, a photograph may best be described as a living in the village of Saint-Loup-de-Varennes near the town
reasonably stable image made by the eect of light on a chem- Chalon-sur-Sane in France, began his own experiments using
ical substance. Light is energy in the form of the visible spec- paper sensitized with silver chloride. Some time around 1816,
trum. If light or some other invisible wavelength of energy Nipce made printed-out negative images on paper by using
is not used to make the nal picture by chemical means, it a camera obscura and partially xed them with nitric acid.
cannot, by this denition, be a photograph. Not satised with the process, he moved on to another light-
The stability of an image made by light is also important. sensitive material, asphaltum.
Without stability, the term photograph could apply to the most Nipce had been involved with etching and lithography
fragile and fugitive examples of images such as frost shadows and was looking for a means to make etched plates without
of buildings on a sunny November morning. The word photog- having to depend on skilled handwork. It is probable that he
raphy was not the product of just one man. Its introduction and others would have noticed that the asphalt etching ground
was a logical choice by those with knowledge of Greek who was harder to remove with solvents when printing plates were
contemplated the concept. The term may have been rst used exposed to the sun. He coated lithographic stones and plates of
by Antoine Hercules Romuald Florence in 1833. Florence copper, pewter, zinc, and glass with asphaltum dissolved in oil
was living in Brazil, working in relative isolation, and had no of lavender. When the asphalt dried, the plates were covered
apparent inuence on the European scientic community. Sir with an object and exposed to light. The unexposed areas were
John Herschel (Figure 30), in England, also used the terms then dissolved with a solvent such as Dippels oil, lavender
photography and photograph in 1839, but his contacts were oil, or turpentine while the hardened exposed areas remained
many. Because of this Herschel has traditionally been credited intact, creating a negative image. Why Nipce did not use his
with the use of the terms by those seeking words to describe asphalt images on glass as negatives to make positive prints
both the process and product. on silver chloride paper remains a mystery to photographic
Some of the rst images to be recorded with light-sensitive historians and scholars.
materials were made by Thomas Wedgwood, son of Josiah Nipce eventually placed waxed engravings in contact with
Wedgwood, the well-known potter. His associate, the scientist these sensitive plates. After the unexposed areas were removed
Sir Humphrey Davy, published the results and observations in with a solvent, the plate negative image of the engraving
the Journal of the Royal Institution in 1802. Wedgwood and was visible. The plate was then etched with acid and subse-
Davy made images on paper and white leather coated with quently used as a conventional etching plate for printing in a
silver nitrate. They laid leaves and paintings on glass upon the press. Nipce called these plates heliographs, from the Greek
sensitive materials and exposed them to sunlight, which dark- words helios and graphos, meaning sun drawing. The process
ened the silver. In an attempt to keep the image, they washed eventually became the conceptual cornerstone of the photo-
the exposed materials without success. They found that engraving industry.
combining the silver solution with sodium chloride produced Of all the heliographic plates made by Nipce, the only
the more sensitive whitish paste of silver chloride. Even with known surviving example made in a camera has become an
this improvement, Wedgwood felt the process was too slow icon of photographic history. In 1826 Nipce prepared a helio-
to make images in a camera, and though they did make the graph with a thinner asphalt coating upon polished pewter.
rst photographic enlargements of microscopic specimens by This plate was exposed in a camera facing out the window of

28 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY
his estate, known as Le Gras (Figures 3840). The View from frosty white color in the highlights and black in the polished
the Window at Le Gras, now in the Gernsheim collection at the silver shadows, provided the plate was tilted toward a dark-
Harry Ransom Center in Austin, Texas, probably took two days ened room. By the time he demonstrated the daguerreotype
of exposure to record the outline of the horizon and the most process to Francois Arago, the director of the Paris Observa-
primitive architectural elements of several buildings outside and tory, Daguerre had a completely practical photographic system
below the window. Nipces image is both negative and positive that included xing the image permanently with sodium thio-
depending on how it is illuminated, and it is permanent. sulfate, a process that was discovered by Sir John Herschel in
1819. Sodium thiosulfate was known at this time as hyposulte
of soda or as hypo. In 1839 the French government awarded
Louis Jacques Mand Daguerre Daguerre and Isidore Nipce a pension for the technology of
It was 1826 when Louis Jacques Mand Daguerre contacted the daguerreotype and oered the discovery to the world.
Nipce though the rm of Vincent and Charles Chevalier Every daguerreotype was unique. The nal image was the
(Figure 26), opticians in Paris from whom they were both very same plate that was in the camera during exposure. The
purchasing lenses for their experiments. Daguerre, inventor latent image and use of silver combined with iodine (silver
of the popular Diorama in Paris, was also seeking a means to iodide) that were introduced by Daguerre became the basis
secure images by light in a camera. At the time of their meeting, of every major camera process of the 19th century until the
Nipce was discouraged because of an unsuccessful trip to introduction of gelatin bromide emulsions used in the manu-
London where he had tried to generate interest in his helio- facture of dry plates and developing-out papers.
graph process. Daguerre had nothing more to oer than some
experiments with phosphorescent powder and a technique
called dessin fumeedrawings made with smoke (Figure 41). Photography on Paper
Nevertheless, Nipce entered into partnership with Daguerre William Henry Fox Talbot (Figure 36), an English scholar in the
in 1829 for the purpose of working toward a common goal. area of hieroglyphics, began his own experiments with silver
It is assumed that he felt that Daguerres energy and popular chloride in 1834. Talbot, however, came to understand how
success would be of some benet. the percentages of silver nitrate to sodium chloride aected
By the early 1830s, both Daguerre and Nipce observed sensitivity. Nevertheless, images made in the camera could
that light would darken polished silver that had been previ- take hours. Why he did not use hypo to x his images remains
ously exposed to iodine fumes. Nipce used that same tech- a mystery since he was in communication with Herschel.
nique to darken the exposed portions of heliographs made on Hypo was an expensive chemical, and it is possible that Talbot
polished silver plates. Nipce and Daguerre had also devel- sought another compound for the sake of economy.
oped the physautotype, a variant of the heliograph that used His observations, however, led him to discover a way of
rosin instead of asphalt on silver plates. The process was making the unexposed areas of his images less sensitive. Talbot
equally slow, but the images were superior to the heliograph, treated his images in a strong solution of sodium chloride
looking more like the daguerreotype that was soon to be and a dilute potassium iodide or potassium bromide, which
invented. It is assumed that around this time Daguerre came resulted in the colors brown, orange, yellow, red, green, and
upon the process that would make him famous. His experi- lilac, depending on the chemical and degree of exposure. This
ments began by exposing silver plates fumed with iodine in process did not actually remove the unexposed silver chloride,
the back of a camera obscura. Given sufcient exposure, a fully so these images were simply considered stabilized. Provided
formed violet-colored negative image against a yellow ground the image was not exposed to strong light, it could be preserved
was made on the plate within the camera. These images were for years or even used to make a positive image by contact
beautiful, capable of innite detail, but not permanent. printing in the sun on a second piece of sensitized paper.
The process for both the stabilized negative and the subse-
quent positive print was called photogenic drawing. Like
Daguerreotype all silver chloride papers, the exposures required for a fully
In 1833 Nipce died, leaving his heliograph process unpub- formed print were minutes for a contact image of a leaf printed
lished and his son Isadore to assume partnership with in the sun and up to several hours for a negative made within
Daguerre. Two years after Nipces death, Daguerre discov- a camera, depending on the size of the negative. Typically the
ered that the silver iodide plate required only a fraction of the procedure of using the original negative to make a positive
exposure time and that an invisible, or latent, image that could print often darkened the former so much that it was useless for
be revealed by exposing the plate to mercury fumes. Instead of printing a second time. By 1839 Talbots positive photogenic
requiring an exposure of hours, the new process required only drawings were colorful, soft in focus, and still relatively sensi-
minutes, and the image could be stabilized by treating it in a tive. Compared to the speed, permanence, and innitesimal
bath of sodium chloride. resolution attainable by the daguerreotype, the photogenic
The resulting image, called a daguerreotype, was both drawing was very primitive, very slow, and impossible to
positive and negative depending on the lighting and angle in exhibit in daylight without a visible change. Sir John Herschel
which it was viewed. The image was established by a delicate, is said to have remarked to Arago after seeing a daguerreotype

in May of 1839, This is a miracle. Talbots [photogenic] draw- the hardening eects of gelatin treated with chromium
ings are childish compared with these. compounds. This characteristic of dichromated colloids
became the basis of both carbon and gum printing and several
photomechanical printing processes.
1839 The Race for Acknowledgment
In the same year, Sir John Herschel made hypo-xed silver
Talbot was caught o guard when Daguerres work was
carbonate negatives on paper. He also produced the rst silver
announced by Arago to the Academy of Sciences in Paris
halide image on glass by precipitating silver chloride onto the
on January 7, 1839. Aware but not knowing the details of
surface of a plate and printing out a visible image within a
Daguerres technique, Talbot rushed to publish his own photo-
camera. The process was similar and as slow as the photogenic
genic drawing process in a report titled, Some Account of
drawing, however in this case the image was permanently
the Art of Photogenic Drawing. The report was read to the
xed with hypo. When this glass negative was backed with
Royal Society on January 31 and subsequently published in
dark cloth, it could be seen as a positive image. Herschel, who
the English journal The Athenaeum on February 9. Talbots
could have invented photography, seems to have been satised
account made a strong point of the utility of his process but
with helping others to do so. He held back on publicizing his
contained no specic formulas or details of the actual tech-
processes as a courtesy to Talbot.
nique of making photogenic drawings.
Daguerre and Isidore Nipce had accepted a government
pension in exchange for the details of both the daguerreo- Improvements to Daguerres and Talbots
type and heliograph processes. On August 19, 1839, Arago Processes
explained the daguerreotype process in detail to a joint The improved daguerreotype
meeting of the Academy of Science and the Academy of Fine Daguerres original process of 1839 was too slow to be used
Arts at the Palace of the Institute in Paris. A daguerreotype comfortably for portraiture. Exposures were typically no less
camera and complete set of processing equipment was manu- than 20 minutes. Because of the slow lens and optics of the
factured by Giroux, Daguerres brother-in-law, and oered time, the early daguerreotype process was limited to still-life
for sale at this time. Daguerre also produced a manual, which and landscape imagery. Two improvements that were to change
was the rst of its kind and remains one of the most compre- all this were the introduction of bromine fumes in the sensi-
hensive photographic treatises ever written. Within its pages tizing step of the process and the formulation of a faster lens.
are historical accounts, complete formulas, descriptions of In 1840 several experimenters working independently
Nipces heliograph process with variations, and Daguerres discovered that dierent combinations of chlorine, bromine,
latent image process, and line illustrations of all the equipment and iodine fumes could be used to produce daguerreotype
needed to make a daguerreotype. plates that were many times more sensitive than plates that
were simply iodized. Because of these experimenters research,
daguerreotypists eventually settled on fuming their plates
Bayard, Ponton, and Herschel
with iodine, then bromine, and once again with iodine. The
Hippolyte Bayard, an ofcial at the Ministry of Finance in
bromine fuming procedure eventually became standard prac-
Paris, invented a direct positive process on paper in 1839.
tice throughout the daguerreotype era, allowing daguerreo-
His process was based on the light bleaching of exposed
typists to make exposures measured in seconds.
silver chloride paper with a solution of potassium iodide. The
The design of a faster lens, formulated in 1840 by Max
prints were then permanently xed with hypo. Bayard sought
Petzval, also allowed for shorter exposures. In combina-
the attention of the French government to claim the inven-
tion with the more sensitive plate, this faster lens ushered in
tion of photography. His direct positive process was perma-
the rst practical application of the daguerreotype process
nent but very slow and was rejected in favor of Daguerres.
for portraiture. The Petzval lens was designed specically for
In 1840 Bayard submitted his process a second time and was
portraiture and became the basis for all portrait and projec-
rejected again. In response he produced a self-portrait as a
tion lenses for the next 70 years. By the early 1840s, commer-
drowned man and sent it to the Academy accompanied with
cial daguerreotype portraits were being made in studios under
prose expressing his disappointment. Had this image been of a
a skylight (Figure 45).
leaf or piece of lace, like so many of Talbots photogenic draw-
Another important improvement in 1840 was gold toning,
ings, Bayard and his process would probably never have been
introduced by Hippolyte Fizeau. A solution of sel dor, made by
remembered with such pathos. In comparison, Bayards direct
adding gold chloride to hypo, was applied to the xed plate.
positive self-portrait was technically superior to what Talbot
The process became known as gilding. Gilding extended
was making at the same time.
the range of tones and made the fragile image highlight less
In 1839 Mungo Ponton, in Scotland, observed that paper
susceptible to abrasion.
soaked in a saturated solution of potassium bichromate was
sensitive to light. The delicate printed-out image was washed
in water and had reasonable permanence. The process was The calotype
not strong enough for a positive print and not fast enough Talbots photogenic drawing process, as introduced, was also
for camera images, but Pontons work led Talbot to discover impractical for portraiture even when improved lenses became

available. In 1841, however, Talbot changed his formula to use painting that Hill was planning of the General Assembly of the
silver iodide, which was more sensitive than silver chloride. It Free Church of Scotland. The portraits for this project give a
was the very same silver halide as used by Daguerre, though fair idea of the quantity of light required for an exposure. In
applied to paper. The iodized paper was sensitized with a many examples the subjects face sunlight as if it were a strong
solution of silver nitrate, acetic acid, and a small amount of wind. Hill and Adamson produced several bodies of work
gallic acid. from 1843 to 1847, including genre portraits and architectural
This new paper was exposed damp and required only a frac- views. Their work stands alone as the most comprehensive use
tion of the time needed to print a visible image with the photo- of calotypy for portraiture.
genic drawing process. It bore either a feeble or no visible Although the calotype process was licensed by Talbot
image when removed from the camera. The latent image was to Frederick and William Langenheim of Philadelphia, the
developed to its nal form in a solution of gallic acid and calotype would never become popular in the United States.
then stabilized in potassium bromide or permanently xed in Shortly after the process was perfected by the Langenheims,
sodium thiosulfate. The new process was called the calotype, the daguerreotype was well established and not to be toppled
from the Greek kalos, meaning beautiful. Despite the use of until the invention of collodion photography in 1851.
silver iodide, the calotype process usually required at least a Calotypes were made by a small number of photographers
minute of exposure in full sunlight using a portrait lens. in the 1840s and early 1850s (Figures 58 and 60), the most
Calotype negatives could be retouched with graphite or inks famous examples being documentary images of architecture by
to prevent transmission of light or could be made translucent French and English photographers. In 1851 Maxime du Camp
locally with wax or oil. Talbot made positive prints from these produced major albums of views from Egypt, Palestine, and
as he did with photogenic drawings, by printing them in the sun Syria, which were documented by the calotype process in 1849
onto plain silver chloride paper. Even after Talbot adopted the (Figure 62). Documentary work by Edouard Baldus and Henri
use of hypo for xing his negatives, he occasionally stabilized le Secq (Figure 59) were also made with an improved variant
these prints in salt or iodide solutions, presumably because he of the calotype called the waxed-paper process, introduced by
preferred the nal image colors. Eventually Talbot and other Gustave Le Gray in 1851.
calotypists chose to permanently x their positive images in The waxed-paper process evolved because French papers
hypo, resulting in an image of colors ranging from deep orange were not ideally suited for calotype as they were sized with
to cool brown. These were called salt (or salted) paper prints starch rather than gelatin. Le Gray saturated the paper with
(Figures 51 and 52). Another improvement was made by not hot beeswax prior to treating with iodine and sensitizing with
adding the gallic acid in the sensitizing step of the process. silver. The development was identical to the calotype. Waxing
Those wishing to use the patented calotype process were the paper prior to iodizing resulted in better resolution, and
required to pay Talbot for the privilege. This license was the process could be done with the paper completely dry,
expensive, and the commercial potential of the calotype making it perfect for the traveler.
process was not particularly attractive to the average working
person. The calotype seemed to appeal to the educated upper The Business of Photography
classes that had an appreciation for the arts, scientic curi- By the late 1840s, the daguerreotype process was being used
osity, and plenty of leisure time. Variants of preparing calotype commercially in every industrialized nation of the world.
paper began to emerge as more people used the process. An Although the total number of calotypes made in the 19th
early improvement to the process omitted the gallic acid in the century might be counted in the thousands, this was still less
sensitizer, allowing the paper to be used hours after prepara- than the yearly production of daguerreotypes in most major
tion without browning spontaneously. cities in the United States in the 1850s. The business of the
In 1844 Talbot published the rst installment of a book daguerreotype was protable for many daguerreotypists, the
titled Pencil of Nature, which was illustrated with salt prints plate manufacturers, and the frame and case makers.
from calotype negatives. The publication was sold by subscrip- The American daguerreotypists in particular produced
tion, and subsequent issues were sent to the subscriber as they superior portraits (Figure 69). A technique perfected in
were produced. Because of technical difculties, Part II was America called galvanizing involved giving the silver plate an
not sent until seven months after the rst. Part VI was not additional coating of electroplated silver. Galvanizing contrib-
available until 1846. The venture was not successful, but it uted to greater sensitivity, which was important for portraits,
oered a vision of what might be possible in the future. If there and it provided a better polish, resulting in a wider range
was ever a commercial use for the calotype, it was to be for the of tonality. The works of Thomas Easterly and of the cele-
illustration of written material and particularly for documen- brated team of Albert Southworth and Josiah Hawes (Figure
tation of architecture. Although not technically conducive to 56) remain as both technical and artistic masterworks. The
portraiture, particularly in a studio, the calotype process was daguerreotype was well established in the early 1850s as a
used on occasion for this purpose. commercial and artistic success, though it also had drawbacks.
The most ambitious and celebrated uses of the calotype The images were generally small, laterally reversed direct posi-
process for portraits were made by the team of David Octavius tives that required copying or a second sitting if an additional
Hill and Robert Adamson (Figure 50) as reference images for a image was desired.

Although not impossible, landscape work was a technical still wet, by placing the plate in a solution of silver nitrate. After
commitment and not commercially protable considering the exposure in a camera, the latent image was developed with
eort required to make a single plate. When properly illuminated, either gallic or pyrogallic acid. The image was then xed with
daguerreotypes were (and still are) awe inspiring; however, hypo and washed. The fragile collodion lm retained the alcohol
they were seldom viewed at the best advantage. This failure and ether solvents throughout sensitizing, exposure, and
resulted in a confusion of negative and positive images juxta- processing, which is why it was known as the wet plate process.
posed with the reection of the viewer. Contested unsuccessfully by Talbot as an infringement on
his calotype process, Archers wet plate technique came at a
time when the calotype, the waxed-paper, the daguerreotype,
Negatives on Glass
and the albumen processes were all being used. Originally the
In 1847 a new negative process, producing the nipceotype,
process was conceived by Archer to include coating the xed
was published in France by Abel Nipce de Saint Victor (Figure
image with a rubber solution and stripping the lm from the
33). After initial experiments with starch, Nipce de Saint
glass plate. The thin rubber-coated collodion lm was then to
Victor came upon the use of egg albumen as a binder for silver
be transferred onto a secondary paper support for printing.
iodide on glass plates. Variants of the same albumen process
The stripping and transfer method was quickly abandoned as
were simultaneously invented by John Whipple, in Boston, and
unnecessary, though it eventually became an important tech-
the Langenheim brothers, in Philadelphia. Development of
nique used in the graphic arts industry until the 1960s.
these dry plates was identical to the calotype, but they required
Exposure times were reduced by half with the wet plate
much more time. Exposures too were much longer than those
technique, making portraiture in the studio possible when
required for the calotype, but the results were worth the eort.
ferrous sulfate was used for development. Although more
Even by todays standards, the resolution of these plates was
sensitive than the calotype, the wet collodion negative process
nearly grainless. The Langenheims took advantage of this char-
as generally practiced in the studio was not faster than the
acteristic and in 1848 invented the hyalotype (Figures 53 and
daguerreotype of the 1850s.
54). This was a positive transparency on glass that was contact-
Collodion negatives were used to make salted paper prints,
printed from albumen negatives.
originally called crystalotypes by Whipple (Figure 63), but
The Nipceotype process was never to be used for studio
were perfectly matched to the albumen printing process intro-
portraiture, but for landscape and architectural subjects it
duced by Louis Deserie Blanquart-Evrard in 1850. The synergy
was technically without equal even after the collodion process
of the collodion negative (Figure 91) and albumen print was
was invented. It was, however, still a tedious process, and after
to become the basis of the most commercially successful and
1851 the only reasonable applications of the albumen process
universally practiced photographic process in the 19th century
were for when a dry process was advantageous or for the
until it was eventually replaced by the gelatin emulsion plate
production of lantern slides and stereo transparencies where
in the 1880s.
resolution was important.
By 1855 the collodion process had eclipsed the daguerreo-
A major essay made during the latter part of the Crimean
type for commercial portraiture and was quickly being adopted
War in the mid-1850s was documented with large albumen
by the amateur as well. The great photographic journals such as
plates by James Robertson (Figure 71), and Felice Beato. After
the Photographic News, The British Journal of Photography, La
the war Robertson and Beato made images in the Middle East,
Lumiere, Humphreys Journal, and the Photographic and Fine
continuing a series started before the war, and in war-torn India.
Art Journal were all introduced in the early 1850s. Such publi-
The pictures of the Siege of Lucknow and the Kashmir Gate at
cations fueled the steady advancement of photography and
Delhi feature the rst true glimpses of the horrors of war.
were the chat rooms of the era, featuring well-documented
research by chemists, empirical discoveries by the working
The Wet Plate Process class, and petty arguments between strong personalities.
In 1848 Frederick Scott Archer (Figures 25 and 57), an English
sculptor and amateur calotypist, experimented with collodion
as a binder for silver halides as a means to improve the calotype. The Art of Photography
The term collodion, from the Greek word meaning to stick, was From the 1860s onward, the photographic journals occasion-
used to describe a colorless uid made by dissolving nitrated ally touched on the subject of art and photography, though like
cotton in ether and alcohol. When poured onto glass, collodion many art forms, there was little consensus. Photographic soci-
dried to a thin, clear plastic lm. In their calotype manuals of eties and photo-exchange clubs were formed in many cities,
1850, both Robert Bingham, in England, and Gustave Le Gray and exhibitions based on the salon style were held and judged.
(Figure 67), in France, published the possible benets of using It is customary to mention in histories of photography the cele-
collodion, but the rst complete working formula of the wet brated artists of the wet plate process such as Julia Margaret
collodion process was published by Archer in 1851 in The Cameron (Figures 30 and 84), Oscar Gustave Rejlander (Figure
Chemist. 84), and Gaspar Felix Tournachon, also known as Nadar. At the
Archers formula began with coating a glass plate with time, however, much of their work was not generally recog-
iodized collodion. The collodion lm was then sensitized, while nized by the public or the greater photographic community.

Critics also failed to take photography seriously as an art form, bleaching. Exposures of these plates in the studio were faster
an attitude that continued for many years to come. than exposures for the daguerreotype. The plates were also
Camerons genius was not recognized until late in the a cheaper and easier-to-view alternative. These plates were
century when the pictorialists were deconstructing the conven- generally known as collodion positives, verreotypes, daguerre-
tion of photography. Nadar on the other hand came to own a otypes without reection, or daguerreotypes on glass. Though
very successful Parisian Photo Gallery. His operators posed the actual image-making technique was usually the same, there
the subjects, processed the plates, and delivered the prints, were many variants, and those who introduced them were
producing commercial portraiture that was technically envi- quick to apply a new name to each type.
able though generally without the soul of his own early work. A patent was awarded to James Anson Cutting in 1854 for a
The great landscapes documented with collodion such as method of sealing these positive images on glass with balsam,
those of Gustave Le Gray (Figure 67), Francis Frith (Figure 75), using the same technique as that used for covering a micro-
Leopoldo and Giuseppe Alinari, and John Thomson (Figure 90) scope slide. Cutting called his variant of the collodion positive
were pictorial achievements by any standards and were made process ambrotype, from the Greek word meaning imperish-
under very difcult conditions. The wet plate process was chal- able. Cutting eventually changed his middle name to Ambrose
lenging enough in a studio, but to pour plates within a portable to commemorate the process. Though the name ambrotype was
darkroom was an enormous task made more taxing when the specic to Cuttings patented sealing technique, the word quickly
plates were large. In Western America, Carleton Watkins, evolved to be the generic term for all such images (Figure 70).
Eadweard Muybridge, William Henry Jackson (Figure 94), Direct positive collodion images on japanned iron plates
and Timothy OSullivan (Figure 88) also produced work under were invented simultaneously by photographers working
equally difcult conditions. In most cases the works of these in England, France, and the United States. In 1853 Adolphe
landscape photographers were the rst recorded images of a Alexandre Martin rst published the process in France. Hamilton
region. The nal product, however, was most often seen by the Smith, in the United States, and William Kloen, in England,
general public not as an albumen print but as a wood engraving both patented the process in 1856. Smith, who called his
from the print. plates melainotypes, sold the rights to Peter Ne, who manu-
Heavily retouched solar enlargements printed on salted and factured them. Victor Griswold, a competitor, also manufac-
albumen paper were oered by progressive photographers in tured japanned plates, calling them ferrotypes, a name that
larger towns and cities throughout the 1860s and 1870s, but would eventually be adopted by the general public along with
at great expense. The process of enlarging did not become the less-formal tintype (Figures 99 and 103).
commonplace until the acceptance of silver bromide devel- It is important to understand that those who made
oping papers, beginning in the late 1880s. commercial ambrotype or ferrotype images were not consid-
The most common connection of the public with photog- ered photographers. Although the term photography is often
raphy in the 1860s was the commercial albumen print in the applied indiscriminately to any photosensitive process used in
form of the small carte de visite (Figure 78) (calling card) the mid-19th century, it is technically specic to the making
portrait or a stereograph two albumen prints on a card of negatives used to produce prints. Those whose work cannot
designed to be seen in three dimensions with a special viewer. be strictly classied as photography were known as daguerreo-
By the late 1860s, the larger cabinet card photograph was typists, ambrotypists, and ferrotypists or tintypists.
also introduced. Cabinet cards (Figure 96) and cartes de visite Positive collodion transfers onto patent leather (Figure 68),
ushered in an industry of mounts and album manufacturing. oilcloth, and painted paper were called pannotypes and were also
Larger framed prints were available at the portrait studios, but born in this era, along with the milk-glass positive (Figure 86),
the two smaller portrait formats were the bread and butter of printed from a negative onto a sheet of white glass. But neither
the working photographer until the end of the century. Stereo- of these would approach the popularity of the tintype, which
graphs remained popular until after the turn of the century eventually replaced the ambrotype in the 1860s and continued
and were usually a specialty item made by landscape photog- to be made in various sizes throughout the 19th century.
raphers and sold by subscription or in stores.
Collodion Variants and the Negative Processes

Collodion Variants and the Positive Processes In an attempt to make the collodion process possible without
The mid-1850s proved to be a fertile era for both new erecting a darkroom on location, some amateurs began exper-
processes and variants of the collodion process. Soon after its imenting with making preserved or dry collodion plates in
introduction, collodion was used for stereo transparencies, the 1850s. Humectant-based processes relying on oxymel,
microphotographic transparencies, and lantern slides. Direct a medical compound of honey and acetic acid, and various
collodion positives, called alabasterines by Archer, were origi- syrups to keep the sensitive plate damp were very successful.
nally made by bleaching an underexposed plate with bichloride These plates, however, were up to ve times slower than the
of mercury. When ferrous sulfate was adopted as the devel- conventional wet plate. The dry tannin and Taupenot plates
oper and cyanide as the xer for collodion positives, the plates were also very slow. These techniques, although an inter-
were more sensitive and the positive images did not require esting footnote in the evolution of the collodion process, were

never sensitive enough to be useful for anything but landscape Company, established in 1879, produced sensitized platinum
work and were seldom used. Most landscape photographers papers that were favored by a growing movement of artists
preferred to see the plate develop on site should they need to using photography. The matte nish and neutral tones of the
make a second exposure. platinum print were ideally suited to the soft masses of tonality
In the late 1870s, collodion emulsions were being used by favored by the pictorialist and fashionable portrait galleries late
curious amateurs. Based on the technique that used initial in the century.
silver chloride emulsions for collodion printing-out papers, The cyanotype, a process invented by Herschel in 1841, was
collodion emulsions were made by mixing halide and silver reasonably permanent, but the image was blue and not partic-
together in the collodion rather than sensitizing an iodized ularly suited to most imagery. With the exception of docu-
plate in a separate silver bath. Although the collodion emul- menting botanical samples by contact and occasional printing
sion process for negatives did not come into general use, it was from calotype or collodion negatives, the cyanotype process
the basis for the gelatin emulsion process and the production was not popular until the end of the century (Figure 106),
of collodion chloride printing-out papers used well into the when amateurs used it as an easy and economical way to proof
next century. their gelatin negatives.
Concerns of Permanency Gelatin Emulsions and the Modern Era

The correct processing of paper prints from collodion nega- It may seem out of place to call the last quarter of the 19th
tives was not fully understood during the 1840s and early century the modern era of photography. However, the intro-
1850s, and the consequence of fading prompted committees in duction and eventual acceptance of gelatin emulsion plates,
both England and France to investigate the problem and search papers, and exible lms in this period became a technology
for alternatives. Despite the gold-toning procedure applied to that was not challenged until digital imaging appeared at the
all albumen prints, most of these prints were prone to fading. end of the 20th century. Looking back from a 21st-century
This was usually caused by incomplete xing or washing. perspective, we might more appropriately call the late 1800s
From this climate of questioning came the carbon printing the last era of photography.
process introduced by Alphonse Louis Poitevin and the devel- The complicated evolution of research, development, and
oped-out salt printing processes of Thomas Sutton and Louis manufacturing of silver gelatin photographic materials in the
Deserie Blanquart-Evrard. The cool tones of developed-out latter quarter of the 19th century is lled with simultaneous
salt prints were not embraced by photographers or the public, invention, lawsuits, and countersuits. Chronicling the history
though the process was much more stable than any other is beyond the scope of this essay, but what follows presents the
printed-out technique. The process eventually found its niche essential progression.
with the technique of solar enlarging, which was introduced in The invention of emulsion plates was primarily English
the late 1850s. The typical printed-out solar enlargement from and began with collodion emulsions of the 1850s. In 1865
a collodion negative required more than an hour of exposure. G. Wharton Simpson made printed images on paper coated with
Exposures on developed-out salted papers were counted in a collodion chloride emulsion. Soon after this, leptographic
minutes. paper coated with a collodion chloride emulsion was manu-
The carbon process, based on the light sensitivity of factured by Laurent and Jose Martinez-Sanchez in Madrid.
pigmented gelatin treated with potassium bichromate, did An innovation introduced specically for collodion emulsions
not achieve its technical potential until the single-transfer was the use of a baryta coating applied to the paper support
variant patented by Sir Joseph Wilson Swan was universally as a smooth, white barrier layer. Leptographic paper was made
adopted in 1864. Despite the superiority of the carbon process until 1870 with limited success, but baryta papers reappeared
to albumen prints in both tonality and permanence, they were several years later and were eventually used throughout the
tedious to make, particularly for a single print. Carbon prints 20th century for all photographic papers.
were better suited to making large runs of a single image but In England W. B. Bolton and B. J. Sayce introduced a collo-
not for the typical studio portrait (Figure 89). Photographers dion emulsion for negative plates in 1864 that was based on
preferred to make albumen prints over carbon prints until bromides rather than iodides. These were nearly as sensitive
albumen printing was replaced with the collodio-chloride as wet collodion plates and were processed with an alkaline
and gelatin-chloride aristotype printing-out papers late in the developer. The use of bromides and of alkaline development
century. Carbon and gum prints based on the same principle was to become the key to making fast plates with gelatin emul-
continued to be available but in very limited numbers. sions. Collodion emulsion plates remained the territory of
In 1873 one of the most beautiful printing processes of the advanced amateurs for the next 20 years.
19th century was patented by William Willis (Figure 97), of Based on the earlier experimental work of W. H. Harrison,
London. Although platinum had been used on occasion for Dr. Richard Leach Maddox added silver nitrate to a warm
toning prints, Williss process, perfected by 1879, was based on gelatin solution bearing some cadmium bromide and then
a faint image, formed with iron compounds, that was developed coated some glass plates with the emulsion. After exposing the
to completion into a pure platinum deposit. The Platinotype plates in the camera, Maddox developed them with pyrogallic

acid and some silver. The process used with these plates was the new plates with mixed results, and they published their
slower than the wet collodion process but was the rst serious ndings.
attempt at making a gelatin emulsion. Maddoxs silver bromide In 1880 the Photographers Association of America
gelatin emulsion process was published in the British Journal appointed a committee to investigate the new technology of
of Photography in 1871. gelatin plates. The quality of commercial plates varied consid-
Additional experiments in the early 1870s were continued erably, but the plates had great potential in skilled hands. Many
by John Burgess, who used pyro developer in an alkaline state. of the problems photographers had with these plates were
The problem with the Burgess emulsion was that although it due to increased sensitivity. Fogging, more often than not,
contained the necessary silver bromide, it was also aected was caused by overexposure in the camera or poor darkroom
adversely with potassium nitrate, a by-product of the tech- conditions that had little eect on the slower collodion plates.
nique. Removing the unwanted compound was rst accom- As interest grew, more plate manufacturers appeared on
plished by J. Johnson, who allowed his gelatin emulsion to dry the American horizon, and more professionals began taking
into thin sheets called pellicles. He then cut them into small the risk of changing their systems from wet to dry. The prices
pieces and washed them in cool water. After washing, the of plates were decreasing, and interest was growing. At the
sensitive gelatin was dried in darkness and packaged. These same time, all of the manufacturers of cameras and associated
pellicles could be stored and rehydrated for coating at a later equipment were targeting a new generation of amateurs who
time. Richard Kennett patented a similar product of washed could make images at any time without the skills that were
sensitive pellicles in 1873 and was selling both the pellicle and previously necessary.
the precoated gelatin plates by 1876. The English market for Gelatin plates could be relied upon at any time and devel-
gelatin plates was growing steadily but did not fully topple oped later at a more convenient location. When plate-coating
collodion technology until the mid-1880s. machines became a reality, the price of plates was reduced
Gelatin emulsion plates were a hard sell to professional enough for the commercial photographer to adopt plates for
photographers who were used to getting excellent results their work as well. It can be assumed that most commercial
with the wet collodion process. The early gelatin plates were photographers in America were using gelatin plates for both
met with limited interest and limited commercial success. The exterior and studio portraiture by 1885.
discovery that changed everything was observed when the The popular developers for these early plates were alkaline
gelatin pellicle was rehydrated and the emulsion was melted. solutions of pyrogallic acid or ferrous oxalate. Within a few
The longer the emulsion was heated, the more sensitive it years, hydroquinone was also used, followed by metol and a
became. The cause, called ripening, was rst identied by combination of the two chemicals, commonly called MQ devel-
Sir Joseph Wilson Swan in 1877 and was a trade secret until oper. Developing powders were available in boxes of premea-
revealed in 1878 by Charles Bennett, who also observed the sured glass tubes.
phenomenon. Bennett continued his experiments by keeping
the emulsion hot for days.
A year later George Manseld suggested ripening the Flexible Films
emulsion at a higher temperature over a period of minutes, a The concept of exible lm dates back to the calotype and
method generally adopted by all those who continued research Archers initial idea of stripping collodion lm from glass
in this area. By 1879 gelatin emulsions were ripened by heat plates. Attempts to market paper roll lm and sheets of
and then allowed to set to a rm jelly. The emulsion was celluloid-based lm on a large scale did not succeed until the
squeezed through a mesh to produce noodles that were washed products were introduced by the Eastman Dry Plate Company
in cool water to remove the unwanted nitrate. The washed in the mid-1880s. This stripping lm was made by applying a
noodles were then drained and remelted with some addi- standard silver bromide gelatin emulsion on a paper support
tional gelatin and applied, while hot, onto glass plates by hand previously coated with a thin layer of soluble gelatin. The
under dim, red light. Coated plates were then placed on marble machine that produced stripping lm was also used to manu-
leveling tables until the gelatin set to a sti jelly, at which point facture silver bromide developing-out paper for printing.
they were taken to a dark drying room and packed in boxes. Marketed as American Film, rolls of paper-support stripping
This was the way all commercial plates were made until the lm were designed to be used in a special holder that could be
development of automated equipment in the mid-1880s. tted to the back of any size of camera. The lm, the machine
Gelatin plates, also called dry plates, were being manu- that was used to coat the paper, and the system to transport
factured by hand on a much larger scale by 1880. Interest the lm in the camera were all patented at the same time.
and acceptance by both amateur and professional was much The exposed lm was cut into separate sheets in the dark-
slower in the United States than in England and the rest of room with the aid of indexing notches and was processed as
Europe. The English photographic journals at this time were usual. The washed lm was then squeegeed onto a sheet of
beginning to include more articles on the gelatin process glass coated with a wet collodion lm and was allowed to set
than collodion, and these, in turn, were being reprinted in the for about 15 minutes. The plate was then placed in hot water
American journals. Some American professionals began using that softened the soluble layer of gelatin, which allowed the

paper support to be removed. The plate could then be dried from three magic lanterns through the same lters. The virtual
and used like any other gelatin glass negative, or the lm could image on the screen was convincing enough for the era.
be stripped from the glass by applying a second layer of clear In 1869 Ducos Du Hauron patented a procedure in France
gelatin, followed by a second layer of collodion, and then cut that relied on red, blue, and green additive dots applied to a
from the plate with a sharp knife. sensitized plate. However, this type of additive screen process
American Film was supplied in the rst Kodak introduced was not a reality until John Joly introduced the rst commer-
in 1888. The Kodak was a small detective camera that spawned cially successful additive ruled plates in the mid-1890s. Du
several generations of hand-held box cameras used by millions Hauron did, however, suggest the subtractive-color process with
of amateur photographers. While not a commercial success, which he made assembly prints from yellow, cyan, and magenta
American Film bought enough time for the Eastman Dry Plate carbon tissues exposed from additive color-separation negatives
and Film Company to introduce Eastman Transparent Film in as early as 1877 (Figure 93). The subtractive-assembly concept
rolls and sheets of clear, exible nitrocellulose in 1889. evolved to be the basis for how all color photographs are made.
Adolph Braun, Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, and Frederic Ives
Sensitometry (Figure 104) conducted promising experiments in the 1870s
The concept of measuring the actinic eect of light or the using dye-sensitizing emulsions with eosin and chlorophyll.
sensitivity of photosensitive materials dates to the earliest Braun, Vogel, and Ives were sensitizing collodion bromide
days of photography, but the rst reliable sensitometer was emulsions at the time. These so-called orthochromatic emul-
invented by Russian-born Leon Warnerke in 1880. With this sions were still highly sensitive to the blue areas of the spec-
tool a reliable rating number could be applied to an emul- trum but also to green and some yellow.
sion calculated against the average sensitivity of a collodion By the 1890s other dye sensitizers helped to extend the
plate. Some companies in the 1880s used the Warnerke rating range of gelatin emulsions to deep orange. Such plates were
system while others simply addressed the matter by stating known as isochromatic. True panchromatic plates that were
that a specic plate was fast, slow, or extra quick. sensitive to the entire visible spectrum were not available until
A unied standard for emulsion speeds did not come until 1906, and even after they became available, few photographers
much later, and even then there were dierent scales requiring embraced the technology. The fact was that panchromatic
conversion tables. Two major innovations that came from sensi- plates were seen as a disadvantage by photographers accus-
tometry were the evolution of the instantaneous lens shutter and tomed to developing negatives by inspection under safe light.
an attempt to set a numerical standard to the apertures placed The important experiments with isochromatic emulsions,
in lenses. Two systems of aperture standards evolved during the however, were a great help to those in the printing industry and
dry plate period: the f-numbering system and the US (Uniform individuals interested in making color-assembly prints from
System) introduced by the Royal Photographic Society. The US separation negatives or experimental additive color plates.
featured the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, and 128. The f-system
as introduced used 4, 5.6, 8, 11.3, 16, 22.6, 32, and 45.2. The only Floodgate to the 20th Century
rating that was common to both systems was 16. By the end of the century, more individuals, both amateur and
professional, owned cameras than in the daguerreotype and
Glimpses of Color wet plate eras combined. There was no need to go to a profes-
Throughout the 1880s gelatin-emulsion makers were engaged sional studio photographer anymore, even though studios
with increasing the sensitivity of their product. Though the could generally achieve better results. The photonishing busi-
speed of gelatin emulsions was gradually increased, the emul- ness was evolving to accommodate the amateur market, and
sions were still mostly sensitive only to the ultraviolet, violet, manufacturers were introducing photographic equipment and
and blue wavelengths, a defect they shared with all of the materials at a dizzying rate. Enlargements on silver-bromide
previous photographic processes of the 19th century. paper were being made by projection, using gas or electrically
Increasing the spectral sensitivity of photographic materials illuminated magic lanterns.
was important for many reasons but essential to the evolu- The photographic image, itself a copy of nature, was being
tion of color photography. Color daguerreotypes invented reproduced in magazines and books by several dierent ink
by Levi Hill in the 1850s and a similar product, the helio- processes, making anything that was originally the product of
chrome, rst exhibited in 1877 by Nipce de St. Victor, stood a camera known as a picture. In the 1890s photographs were
alone and were not inuential in the evolution of modern color common and available in a wide range of sizes on a variety
photography. However, in 1861 James Clerk-Maxwell made a of photographic papers, including platinum-toned collodio-
celebrated demonstration of additive color synthesis, gener- chloride and gelatin-chloride printing-out papers, developed-
ating interest in nding a way to extend sensitivity of collodion out silver-bromide paper, silver chloride gaslight papers,
plates for full-color photography. Thomas Sutton made three cyanotypes, carbon and gum prints, and, if money was no
negatives of a colorful ribbon through red, blue, and green object, pure platinum prints.
lters for Maxwells demonstration. These separation nega- The inuence of the impressionists, members of an artistic
tives were used to make lantern slides that were projected movement who rethought the role of painting in a world of

photography, in turn released a 50-year grip on photographic

convention. This allowed the pictorialist movement to redene
what a photograph needed to be. Photography, long appreci-
ated for how it could copy nature in innite resolution, was
being used in a way that was, in a word, antiphotographic.
The romantic photographic departures of P. H. Emerson in
the 1880s had paved the way for the likes of Clarence White,
Gertrude Kasebier, and F. Holland Day in the next decade. As
a result, the pictorialists soft imagery and romantic approach
to photography inuenced a new direction in commercial
portraiture that remained popular for 30 years after the turn of
the century.
Introduction to Photographic
Equipment, Processes, and Definitions
of the 19th Century
MARK OSTERMAN
George Eastman House and International Museum of Photography
This edition of the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography has

been written at a time when the industrial production of silver
halide materials is rapidly declining as a result of digital photo-
graphic technologies and practices. At this same time, the
movement to preserve the technology of handmade processes FIG. 2 A skylight studio including portrait cameras, cloth back-
from the 19th century is becoming stronger. The greatest chal- ground, posing chair and table, head stand, and diffuser. The
lenge for future photohistorians will not be the understanding Scully and Osterman Studio, Rochester, New York.
of photographic processes of the 1800s but rather the photo-
graphic industry of the 20th century that is being dismantled
at this time. page, anyone can post information on the Internet with
The concept of photography was conceived two centuries implied authority and with much less eort. Primary research
and many technologies ago. Since 1802, when Wedgwood rst should always be considered as the best way to gain insight in
made images with silver on paper and leather, every genera- the history and practices of photography.
tion of photographer has seen the natural progression of tech- The following pages contain entries written by this editor,
nological changes, followed by their obsolescence. Deciding Mark Osterman, and entries that were published in this
what information to preserve and publish from previous tech- encyclopedias Revised Desk Edition (1969) or Third Edition
nologies is a difcult task when space is limited, and the deci- (1993) by the following authors: Ira Current, John Fergus-Jean,
sion will certainly create unavoidable disappointment for some Michael Flecky, Roger Hailstone, Grant Haist, Mike Leary,
readers. Limits, of course, are necessary within constraints Judy Natal, Michael Teres, Paul Schranz, Martin Scott, Leslie
of a physical book. We have made choices to anticipate what Stroebel, Sabine Susstrunk, Hollis Todd, Howard Wallach,
will be useful, instructive, and possibly inuential. Unlike and Richard Zakia.
most references on the technological history of photography,
including the previous edition of the Focal Encyclopedia,
much of the information written for this new edition comes Photographic Equipment, Processes, and
from observation of historic texts and experience with nine- Definitions of the 19th Century
teenth century photographic processes. A
Many of the following entries have been the topic of exten- Abrading medium
sive research by scholars and practitioners over the years. An abrasive powder often made of emory used to reduce the
Additional information for any of the subjects can be found density of a gelatin-emulsion negative. The powder is gently
in other publications and on the Internet. Unlike the printed rubbed onto the surface of the emulsion to gradually remove the

Selected Photographs from the 19th Century 135
Wratten, Frederick Charles Luther (18401926)

Frederick Wratten was an English inventor and manufacturer. Selected Photographs from the 19th
In 1878 he founded one of the earliest photographic supply Century
businesses, Wratten and Wainwright, which produced and
sold collodion glass plates and gelatin dry plates. He invented, MARK OSTERMAN
in 1878, the noodling of silver-bromide gelatin emulsions George Eastman House and International Museum of Photography
before washing. With the assistance of Mees, he produced the and Film
rst panchromatic plates in England in 1906 and became a
famous manufacturer of photographic lters. Eastman Kodak Joseph Nicphore Nipce has been credited with creating the
purchased the company in 1912 as a condition of hiring Mees. rst photograph, titled View from the Window at Le Gras. It
was taken in 1826 in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, France. This
FURTHER READING picture, a heliograph on pewter, was made using a camera
Mees, E. C. K. (1961). From Dry Plates to Ektachrome Film. obscura. After an exposure of at least 8 hours, the camera
New York: Zi-Davis. obscura created a single, one-of-a-kind image. Reproduced here
are three versions of that image. The rst version was made at
the Kodak Research Laboratory in Harrow, England. The repho-
Zeiss, Carl (18161888) tographing process produced a gelatin silver print in March
Carl Zeiss was a German lens manufacturer who founded the 1952. The second version was created by Helmut Gernsheim and
Zeiss optical rm in 1846. With collaborators Ernst Abbe and the Kodak Research Laboratory in Harrow, England. The second
Otto Schott, he devised the manufacture of Jena glass, the version, a gelatin silver print with applied watercolor reproduc-
nest optical quality glass. Zeiss became famous for its excel- tion was created March 2021, 1952. It is interesting to note
lently designed microscopes, binoculars, optical instruments, that Gernsheim, a well-know photographic collector, historian,
and cameras. Zeiss photographic lenses became the standard and author had written several essays and consulted this ency-
in the eld. Chief lens designer, Paul Rudolph, produced the clopedias rst edition before creating the print. The most recent
rst anastigmat (1890) and the still-popular Tessar (1902). version of Nipces piece, produced in June 2002, was completed
by the Harry Ransom Center and J. Paul Getty Museum.
The images on the following pages were selected by the
editor to represent the pictorial evolution of the photograph
and to include pictures that have not been published before.
They have been arranged chronologically, starting at 1830 and
concluding at the turn of the century. All images, except where
FIG. 38 First version of View from the Window at Le Gras,

made at the Kodak Research Laboratory in Harrow, England, 1952.
Gelatin silver print, 20.3 25.4 cm. (Reproduced with permission
FIG. 37 Portrait of Carl Zeiss, ca. mid-1800s. (Courtesy of Carl of the Gernsheim Collection, Harry Ransom Humanities Research
Zeiss MicroImaging, Thornwood, New York.) Center, University of Texas at Austin.)
SECTION-Ic.indd 135 1/13/07 10:36:50 AM

13 6 HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF PHOTOGRAPHY
noted, are courtesy of the Image Collection at the George

Eastman House International Museum of Photography and
Film in Rochester, New York.
The photography collection at the George Eastman House
International Museum includes more than 400,000 photographs
FIG. 39 Second version of View from the Window at Le Gras,

made by Helmut Gernsheim at the Kodak Research Laboratory
in Harrow, England. March 2021, 1952. Gelatin silver print and
watercolor, 20.3 25.4 cm. (Reproduced with permission of the
Gernsheim Collection, Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center, FIG. 41 Louis Jacques Mand Daguerre, French (17871851).
University of Texas at Austin.) Gothic Ruins, ca. 1830. Dessin fume, 7.7 6cm. Gift of
Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.
FIG. 40 Digital print reproduction of View from the Window at Le

Gras, made by Harry Ransom Center and J. Paul Getty Museum, FIG. 42 Samuel A. Bemis, American (ca. 17931881). Abel
June 2002. Color digital print reproduction, 20.3 25.4cm. Crawfords Inn at the Notch of the White Hills, White Mountains,
(Reproduced with permission of the Gernsheim Collection, Harry New Hampshire, ca. 1840. Daguerreotype, 16.5 21.6cm, full
Ransom Humanities Research Center, University of Texas at Austin.) plate. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company.

and negatives dating from the invention of photography to expression in the modern era. More than 14,000 photogra-
the present day. The collection embraces numerous land- phers are represented in the collection, including virtually all
mark processes, rare objects, and monuments of art history the major gures in the history of the medium. The collec-
that trace the evolution of photography as a technology, tion includes original vintage works produced by nearly every
as a means of scientic and historical documentation, and process and printing medium employed. (For more informa-
as one of the most potent and accessible means of personal tion, go to http://www.eastmanhouse.org.)
FIG. 43 Antoine-Francois Jean Claudet, English (17971867). Portrait of Claudet Family, ca. 1855.
Stereo daguerreotype with applied color. Gift by exchange of Mrs. Norman Gilchrist.
FIG. 45 Louis Jacques Mand Daguerre, French (17871851).

FIG. 44 Unidentified photographer. Portrait of a Man at a Table, Portrait of an Artist, ca. 1843. Daguerreotype, quarter plate,
taken with a gaudin camera, 1840. Daguerreotype, 8.2 7.4 cm (1/6 9.1 6.9 cm (visible) on 15.6 13.0cm plate. Gift of Eastman
plate). Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection. Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.

FIG. 46 Robert Cornelius. Self-Portrait with Laboratory Instru-

ments, 1843. Daguerreotype. Gift of 3M Company, ex-collection
FIG. 48 Cromers Amateur, French. Still Life, Bouquet of Flowers,
Louis Walton Sipley.
ca. 1845. Daguerreotype, 8.2 7.0 cm, 1/6 plate. Gift of Eastman
Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.
FIG. 49 Hill and Adamson, Scottish. The Gowan, ca. 1845.

FIG. 47 Unidentified photographer. Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Portrait of Mary and Margaret McCandlish. Salted paper print,
ca. 1844. Daguerreotype, 8.2 7.0 cm, 1/6 plate. 15.3 20.4 cm.

FIG. 52 William Henry Fox Talbot, English (18001877). The

Woodcutters, ca. 1845. Salted paper print, 15.2 21.2cm. Gift
of Alden Scott Boyer.
FIG. 50 Hill and Adamson, Scottish. D. O. Hill and W. B.

Johnstone, ca. 1845. Salted paper print, 18.8 14.5cm. Gift of
Alden Scott Boyer.
FIG. 53 W. and F. Langenheim, American. Anna Langenheim

FIG. 51 William Henry Fox Talbot, English (18001877). Lace, Voightlander, 1848. Hyalotype transparency from albumen nega-
ca. 1845. Salted paper print, 23.0 18.8 cm (irregular). Gift of tive; image: 13.3 10 cm; frame: 17.6 14.5cm. Gift of 3M
Dr. Walter Clark. Company, ex-collection Louis Walton Sipley.

FIG. 56 Southworth and Hawes, American (active ca. 18451861).

Unidentified Bride, ca. 1850. Daguerreotype, whole plate, 21.5
FIG. 54 W. and F. Langenheim, American. Portrait of Anna
16.5 cm. Gift of Alden Scott Boyer.
Langenheim Voightlander, 1848. Albumen negative, 18.9 14.4cm.
Gift of 3M Company, ex-collection Louis Walton Sipley.
FIG. 55 Baron Jean-Baptiste Louis Gros, French (17931870).

Monument de Lysicrates, Vulgairement Appel Lanterne de
Demosthenes; Athenes, May, 1850. Daguerreotype, half plate, FIG. 57 Frederick Scott Archer, Kenilworth Castle, 1851.
10.8 14.7 cm (visible). Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Sel dortoned albumen print from whole-plate wet collodion nega-
Cromer collection. tive. Scully & Osterman Archive, Rochester, New York.

FIG. 58 Unidentified photographer. Chevet de lEglise de Saint-

Pierre de Caen, ca. 18501855. Calotype negative, 20.5 26.8cm.
Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Vincennes, via the French Society
of Photography, ex-collection Henri Fontan.
FIG. 59 Henri Le Sec, Chartes. Portal with Wood Supports,

1851. Cyanotype from paper negative, 32.2 21.5cm.
A B
FIG. 60 John Shaw Smith, Irish (18111873). (A) Tomb and Mosque of Sultan Eshraf, November
1851. Calotype negative, 16.8 22.0 cm (irregular). (B) Reverse, showing selective waxing on lower
areas. Gift of Alden Scott Boyer.

FIG. 61 Adolphe Braun, French (18121877). Still Life of Flowers,

ca. 18541856. Albumen print, 43.8 46.5 cm. Gift of Eastman
Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.
FIG. 63 Hesler. Driving a Bargin, 1854. Crystalotype print by

John A. Whipple from original daguerreotype. Reproduced from
Photographic and Fine Art Journal.
FIG. 62 Maxime du Camp. Faade Septentrionale du Gynecee de FIG. 64 douard Baldus, French (18131889). Pavillon de
Ramses Meiamoun, 1854. Developed-out salted paper print from Rohan, Louvre, Paris, ca. 1855. Salted paper print, 44 34.5cm.
a paper negative from Egypt and Syrie. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.

FIG. 65 Unidentified photographer. Facade of Mexico City Cathedral and El Parian, ca. 1840. (The
two-story structure to the right was the enclosed marketplace known as the Parian. It was torn down on
June 24, 1843.) Daguerreotype, 16.4 21.5cm, full plate. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel
Cromer collection.
FIG. 67 Gustave Le Gray, French (18201884). Mediterranean Sea

with Mount Agde, ca. 1855. Albumen print from collodion negative,
31.9 40.7cm. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer
collection.
FIG. 66 Roger Fenton, English (18191869). Hardships in the

Camp, 1855. Salted paper print, 18.3 16.6cm. Gift of Alden
Scott Boyer.

FIG. 68 Unidentified photographer. Unidentified Woman, Head

and Shoulders Portrait, ca. 1855. Pannotype (collodion on leather),
image: 6.5 5.5cm. Gift of Reverend H. Hathaway.
FIG. 70 Unidentified photographer. Woman Seated, Holding Young

Girl on Lap; Young Boy Seated on Posing Table beside Them, ca.
1855. Ambrotype; image: 10.5 13.9cm, 1/2 plate. Gift of
Eastman Kodak Company.
FIG. 69 Unidentified photographer. Two Men Eating Watermelon, FIG. 71 James Robertson, British (18131888). The Barracks
ca. 1855. Daguerreotype with applied color, 5.8 4.5cm., Battery, 1855. Salted paper print, 23.8 30.2cm. Gift of Eastman
1/9 plate. Museum purchase, ex-collection Zelda P. Mackay. Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection.

FIG. 72 Adrien Tournachon, French (18251903). Ratter-Filly,

ca. 1855. Salted paper print; image: 16.8 23 cm; mount: 31
47 cm. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel Cromer collection. FIG. 74 Unidentified photographer. Seated Man, ca. 1855.
Collodion positive on slate, 10.5 8 cm.
FIG. 75 Francis Frith, English (18221898). The Great Pillars and

FIG. 73 Nadar et Cie. The Marquis du lau DAllemans, ca. 1855. Smaller Temple, ca. 1863. Albumen print, 23.4 16.3cm. Gift of
Vitrified photograph on enamel, 9 7.3cm. Alden Scott Boyer.

FIG. 76 Unidentified photographer. Portrait of a Woman, Portrait of a Man (Husband and Wife?),
in double case, ca. 1857. Daguerreotype with applied color, 5.0 3.7 cm (each); 1/9 plate. Museum
purchase, ex-collection Zelda P. Mackay.
FIG. 77 Henry Peach Robinson, English (18301901). She Never

Told Her Love, ca. 1858. Albumen print, 18.6 24.3 cm.
FIG. 78 Matthew B. Brady, American (18231896). Prof. Dunn,

Reading Book and Posed with Stoppered Bottles and Beaker,
ca. 1860. Albumen Carte de viste print, 8.5 5.7cm (image),
10.1 6 cm (mount). Gift of Graflex Corp.

FIG. 80 Oscar Rejlander, English (18131875). Hard Times,

ca. 1860. Albumen print, 13.9 19.9 cm.
FIG. 79 Franz Hanfstaengl, German (18041877). Portrait of

Count Johann von. Yrsch (17971862), ca. 1860. Albumen print
or treated salted paper print, 22.0 16.8 cm.
FIG. 81 Andr-Adolphe-Eugene Disdri, French (18191889). Madame Petipa, JuneAugust 1862.

Albumen print (uncut carte-de-visite sheet); image: 20.1 24 cm. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company,
Gabriel Cromer Collection.

FIG. 82 Alexander Gardner, Scottish (18211882). Completely Silenced! (Dead Confederate Soldiers
at Antietam), 1862. Albumen print stereograph, 7.6 15.0 cm, ensemble. Gift of 3M Company,
ex-collection Louis Walton Sipley.
FIG. 83 Alexander Gardner, Scottish (18211882). Ruins of FIG. 84 Julia Margaret Cameron, English (18151879). Wist Ye
Arsenal, Richmond, Virginia. April, 1863. Albumen print, 17.4 Not That Your Father and I Sought Thee Sorrowing? 1865. Albumen
22.5cm. Gift of Alden Scott Boyer. print, 25.2 28.8 cm. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company, Gabriel
Cromer collection.

A B
FIG. 85 Unidentified photographer, American. (A) Unidentified Man, Seated; (B) Unidentified Man,
Seated, Wearing Coat, Vest, Hat; Holding Chain of Pocket Watch, ca. 1865. Tintype, 8.5 7.5 cm
(each image), 1/6 plate. Gift of Donald Weber.
FIG. 87 Unidentified photographer. Mr. Sutherland, Mr. W.

Cochrane, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Machonachie, Mrs. B. Cochrane,
Mr. W. Machonachie, Lady M. Hervey, Mr. Powlett, Mr. J. Cochrane,
Lady Dunlo, Miss H. Farqhuarson, 1867. Albumen print photomon-
FIG. 86 Unidentified photographer. Unidentified Man, ca. 1860. tage with watercolor embellishment, 28.9 23.1 cm. Constance
Albumen positive on white glass plate, 11 8.4 cm. Sackville West album, London.

FIG. 88 Timothy H. OSullivan, American (18401882). Pyramid

Lake, Nevada, April, 1868. Albumen print, 19.8 27.0 cm. Gift of
Harvard University. FIG. 90 John Thomson, Scottish (18371921). Wah Lum Chu,
Canton, ca. 1868. Albumen print, 23.0 27.9 cm. Gift of Alden
Scott Boyer.
FIG. 89 Thomas Annan, Scottish (18291887). Close, No. 148,

High Street, 18681877. Carbon print, 27.3 23 cm.
FIG. 91 Unknown photographer. Studio Portrait of Woman, ca.
1870. Quarter-plate wet collodion negative. Scully & Osterman
Archive, Rochester, New York.

FIG. 94 William Henry Jackson, American (18431942). Hot

FIG. 92 Eadweard J. Muybridge, English (18301904). Loya Spring, 18711872. Albumen print, 10.4 18.4 cm.
Valley of the Yosemite. (The Sentinel, 3,043 Feet High), ca. 1868.
Albumen print, 42.3 53 cm. Gift of Virginia Adams.
FIG. 93 Louis Ducos du Hauron, French (18371920). Still Life

with Rooster, ca. 18691879. Transparency, three-color carbon,
20.5 22.2 cm.
FIG. 95 Lewis Carroll (Rev. Charles Ludwidge Dogson), English

(18321898). Xie Kitchin as a Chinaman, 1873. Gum plat-
inum print. Print ca. 1915, by Alvin Langdon Coburn. Gift of Alvin
Langdon Coburn.

FIG. 98 Samuel M. Fox. An Old Saw Mill, ca. 1880. Albumen

print from (dry) collodion emulsion negative, 16.5 21 cm. From a
Philadelphia Exchange Club album, ca. 1880.
FIG. 96 Richter and Company. Unidentified Child at Fence,

ca. 1880. Albumen print, cabinet card; image: 14.6 10.1 cm;
mount: 16.2 10.5 cm.
FIG. 97 Pach Bros./William Willis, Jr. Group of Four Military

Cadets Under a Tent Opening, ca. 1865. First platinum print
made in America (1877) by William Willis, Jr. From ca. 1865 nega- FIG. 99 Unknown photographer, page from a gem album with
tive, made by Pach Bros. Studio. Image 18.1 23.7 cm., mount ferrotypes; each image is 2 1.5 cm; each page is 8.5 8.1 cm.
20.4 25.5 cm. Personal album.

FIG. 100 Peter Henry Emerson, English (18561936). The Clay-

Mill, ca. 1886, Photogravure print (ca. 1888), 20.1 29cm. Gift
of Alden Scott Boyer.
FIG. 101 Raymond K. Albright, American (d. 1954). Ascending

Vesuvius, Naples, ca. 1888. Albumen print, 6.8 cm (diameter). Gift
of Mrs. Raymond Albright.
FIG. 102 George Davison, English (18541930). The Homestead in the Marsh, ca. 1890. Platinum
print, 22.5 18.0 cm. Gift of 3 M Company, ex-collection, Louis Walton Sipley.

FIG. 103 Unknown photographer. Group of Three Men and Three

Women, ca. 1890. Tintype, 9.3 6.3 cm. FIG. 105 Laura Adelaide Johnson. Man Playing Banjo for a
Woman, ca. 1892. Platinum print, 19 12.1 cm. Family album.
FIG. 104 Frederic Ives. Transparency set for additive color projection, ca. 1890. Silver bromide gelatin
emulsion plates, each image is 5.5 cm in diameter; object is 7.5 23 cm.

FIG. 106 Unidentified photographer. Varnishing Day, Wassonier Salon, 1892. Cyanotype, 11.5 19 cm.
FIG. 107 Unidentified photographer, Collection of Stuffed and

Mounted Birds, ca. 1895. Color plate screen, Joly (natural color)
process, 10.2 8.2 cm.
FIG. 108 Gertrude Ksebier, American (18521934). Adoration,

ca. 1897. Brown platinum print. Gift of Hermine Turner.

FIG. 110 F. Holland Day, American (18641933). Into Thy Hands

I Commend My Spirit, from The Seven Last Words, 1898. Platinum
print, 20.2 15.1 cm.
FIG. 109 Clarence H. White, American (18711925). The

Readers, 1897. Platinum print, 19.4 10.7 cm.
FIG. 111 Dr. J. Murray Jordan. Mar Saba, from Travel Views FIG. 112 A. Bartlett. Display of Talbots Cameras, ca. 1900
of the Holy Land, etc., ca. 1900. Platinum print, 13.5 18.5cm. 1907. Gelatin silver print, 10.3 14.6 cm. Gift of the Eastman
Personal album. Kodak Patent Museum.

Evolution of the Photographic Lens in the 19th Century 157
FIG. 113 Gabriel Lippmann, French (18451921). Garden at Versailles, 1900. Direct color (interfer-
ence process); Lippmann plate. Gift of Eastman Kodak Company.
Cameras of the 19th century Evolution of the Photographic Lens in

All images on the following pages are courtesy of the Technology the 19th Century
Collection, George Eastman House International Museum of
Photography and Film, Rochester, New York. Comprising more MILAN ZAHORCAK
than 16,000 objects, the George Eastman House technology Private Collector
collection is one of the worlds largest collections of photo-
graphic and cinematographic equipment. It contains 19th- and Working constraints in lens design
20th-century objects of photographic technology, including From the very beginning, lens makers were constrained by the
cameras, processing equipment, motion-picture devices, and a properties of light and its behaviors in glass, the availability
broad range of early historical accessories. Many of the objects of suitable glass, and the practicalities and limitations of the
are unique, representing distinguished historical ownership manufacturing process.
and signicant scientic achievement. The physical properties of glass cause it to bend or refract
This collection is the most comprehensive held by any light as it passes through a lens, but in the process, it will also
institution in North America and is equaled in overall quality separate or diract light into its component colors. A perfect
by only three other holdings worldwide. From devices that photographic lens would bring all light, of all colors, from all
predate the formal invention of photography in 1839 to the portions of the lens into focus on a at plane without distortion.
most modern state-of-the-art instruments used by both Aberrations are problems of focus caused by the inability
amateurs and professionals, the collection oers visitors an of a lens to bring light from all portions of a lens into focus at
unparalleled opportunity to examine and learn about photo- the same point, or the inability to bring light of all colors to
graphic technology. focus at the same point. Distortions are a problem of geometry

Osterman Romer History of Photography Ex PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osterman Romer History of Photography Ex PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Osterman Romer History of Photography Ex PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION

SECTION-Ia.indd 23 1/16/07 12:55:20 PM

projecting the images using a solar microscope, they had no

SECTION-Ia.indd 27 1/16/07 12:55:25 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 28 1/16/07 12:55:26 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 29 1/16/07 12:55:27 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 30 1/16/07 12:55:27 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 31 1/16/07 12:55:28 PM

Collodion Variants and the Negative Processes

SECTION-Ia.indd 32 1/16/07 12:55:29 PM

Concerns of Permanency Gelatin Emulsions and the Modern Era

SECTION-Ia.indd 33 1/16/07 12:55:30 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 34 1/16/07 12:55:30 PM

SECTION-Ia.indd 35 1/16/07 12:55:31 PM

photography, in turn released a 50-year grip on photographic

This edition of the Focal Encyclopedia of Photography has

SECTION-Ia.indd 36 1/16/07 12:55:32 PM

Wratten, Frederick Charles Luther (18401926)

FIG. 38 First version of View from the Window at Le Gras,

SECTION-Ic.indd 135 1/13/07 10:36:50 AM

noted, are courtesy of the Image Collection at the George

FIG. 39 Second version of View from the Window at Le Gras,

FIG. 40 Digital print reproduction of View from the Window at Le

SECTION-Ic.indd 136 1/13/07 10:36:52 AM

FIG. 45 Louis Jacques Mand Daguerre, French (17871851).

SECTION-Ic.indd 137 1/13/07 10:36:53 AM

FIG. 46 Robert Cornelius. Self-Portrait with Laboratory Instru-

FIG. 49 Hill and Adamson, Scottish. The Gowan, ca. 1845.

SECTION-Ic.indd 138 1/13/07 10:36:54 AM

FIG. 52 William Henry Fox Talbot, English (18001877). The

FIG. 50 Hill and Adamson, Scottish. D. O. Hill and W. B.

FIG. 53 W. and F. Langenheim, American. Anna Langenheim

SECTION-Ic.indd 139 1/13/07 10:36:58 AM

FIG. 56 Southworth and Hawes, American (active ca. 18451861).

FIG. 55 Baron Jean-Baptiste Louis Gros, French (17931870).

SECTION-Ic.indd 140 1/13/07 10:37:00 AM

FIG. 58 Unidentified photographer. Chevet de lEglise de Saint-

FIG. 59 Henri Le Sec, Chartes. Portal with Wood Supports,

SECTION-Ic.indd 141 1/13/07 10:37:03 AM

FIG. 61 Adolphe Braun, French (18121877). Still Life of Flowers,

FIG. 63 Hesler. Driving a Bargin, 1854. Crystalotype print by

SECTION-Ic.indd 142 1/13/07 10:37:04 AM

FIG. 67 Gustave Le Gray, French (18201884). Mediterranean Sea

FIG. 66 Roger Fenton, English (18191869). Hardships in the

SECTION-Ic.indd 143 1/13/07 10:37:07 AM

FIG. 68 Unidentified photographer. Unidentified Woman, Head

FIG. 70 Unidentified photographer. Woman Seated, Holding Young

SECTION-Ic.indd 144 1/13/07 10:37:09 AM

FIG. 72 Adrien Tournachon, French (18251903). Ratter-Filly,

FIG. 75 Francis Frith, English (18221898). The Great Pillars and

SECTION-Ic.indd 145 1/13/07 10:37:12 AM

FIG. 77 Henry Peach Robinson, English (18301901). She Never

FIG. 78 Matthew B. Brady, American (18231896). Prof. Dunn,

SECTION-Ic.indd 146 1/13/07 10:37:15 AM

FIG. 80 Oscar Rejlander, English (18131875). Hard Times,

FIG. 79 Franz Hanfstaengl, German (18041877). Portrait of

FIG. 81 Andr-Adolphe-Eugene Disdri, French (18191889). Madame Petipa, JuneAugust 1862.

SECTION-Ic.indd 147 1/13/07 10:37:18 AM

SECTION-Ic.indd 148 1/13/07 10:37:21 AM