|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Camera technology in the 1800's
Here, lens technology is far more important than camera technology. The camera is just a light tight box. The lens is the all important factor in quality. Cameras were just boxes well into the 20th century. Feb 08 12 10:06 am Link Late 1800's photographic technology is still widely used to this day. While the cameras and films have change, I would venture to guess that at least the majority of film photographers still currently use or have used Rodinal. It was developed somewhere prior to 1891 (when it was patented). I find it amazing that even today it remains one of the best developers available for a wide variety of films. Feb 08 12 10:11 am Link curiosa des yeux wrote: That's what I use. I'm saddened it isnt being made anymore. Feb 08 12 10:26 am Link Model Sarah wrote: Sarah, photography of the 1870s till the invention of film was very demanding... exacting and difficult. But do not mistake difficult for poor quality. Go look at the work that Matthew Brady and his associates did during the Civil War. There were many practitioners using wet plate collodion, and later the dry plates who did technically extraordinary work. At the same time many sought to expand on the artistic merit. Go look up Julia Margaret Cameron. She was criticized by peers for not being such a great technician but ultimately did more to elevate photography as an art than anyone else of her era. She worked in the 1860s. The photography of that era was damn hard to do well ... and poisonous but capable of exquisite beauty. I own a photograph from the 1880s of my great great great grandfather that is amazing. Feb 08 12 10:28 am Link Yep, I've used Rodinal, it's my favourite developer by a long chalk. Spent a lot of time playing with reticulation, temperature control and dilutions to find different effects. I also spent a couple of days doing gum bichromate, which was quite difficult. Cameron could be considered the first fashion portrait photographer. The technical errors are the entire charm. MMDesign wrote: Thanks for that, it is a great article. I have to agree with the MOMA curator, The "on" came first, then most likely troops removed the balls from the road in order to allow horses and gun-carriages to pass. I can't see Fenton, in 30 minutes under fire, managing to place so many balls, even with the help of troops. Feb 08 12 10:29 am Link Errol Morris tried to determine if Fenton staged the photo by adding canon balls. Not uncommon at the time. Feb 08 12 10:35 am Link Model Sarah wrote: I was wrong, never mind. Feb 08 12 10:37 am Link Carlos Occidental wrote: No yeah, you're right. I do know that. I suppose the thread title is a bit misleading. What I meant to type was Photography Technology not Camera. I guess I got a little excited. Feb 08 12 10:40 am Link Model Sarah wrote: Pick some up next time you hit NYC Feb 08 12 10:41 am Link I don't think silver bromide crystals and resulting silver crystals have shrunk much over last 100 years, and lenses were good, so no surprise images are good. In late 1800's technology was sufficient to make an achromatic refracting telescope of 3 feet aperture! I don't think there is a reason why an 8x10 done in 1880 would have significantly lower quality than one taken now. Large format photographers..How old is your oldest lens that you would still use today? Feb 08 12 10:43 am Link curiosa des yeux wrote: Lenses from that period could be quite sharp and capable, especially at smaller apertures. I have an F8 Rapid Rectilinear lens from the 1880's or so that can deliver an excellent image on 4x5. Feb 08 12 10:49 am Link Christopher Hartman wrote: They were fired. If you look closely, you can see impact indentations in the dirt on the left hill. It's not surprising that the cannonballs would collect in a natural depression in this fashion. Artillery of the day would have been parked and not moved all that much (so the down-range limit, I'm guessing, would be about the same for all ordinance fired.) Feb 08 12 10:50 am Link Model Sarah wrote: It's still being made, just under other brand names. I've been using the Adox "Adonal" version and it is indistinguishable from the original. It says "made to the original Rodinal formula" on the label, so I believe it to be a reproduction of the older formula. Either way, it is a perfect substitute and you will not know the difference (I don't believe there is any anyways). Feb 08 12 10:55 am Link Anyway, back on topic, the first "modern" lens was developed by Zeiss in 1890, so this level of quality isn't really surprising. Very cool, still... but not surprising. Feb 08 12 10:57 am Link NewBoldPhoto wrote: I'm going to quote this if it is OK. Feb 08 12 10:57 am Link During my freshman year in art school, we had to study the history of film and photography. Yes, there are images from that era where the condition is still intact. Daguerreotype are some examples. Look at Abe Lincoln's Daguerreotype print. The Talbotype changed things. It was the first technology to print the image from the same source more than once hence the birth of the negative. That pushed the Daguerreotype out of the picture. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype Feb 08 12 10:59 am Link Model Sarah wrote: You might like this then http://youtu.be/zTz9MgPsanY Feb 08 12 11:52 am Link I love threads like this: nobody argues much, everyone has something to share and I get to sit back and learn  Feb 08 12 11:53 am Link MKPhoto wrote: 10 x 8 lenses at our university were pre-war, dated to 1930's. Feb 08 12 11:58 am Link Model Sarah wrote:
Feb 08 12 12:10 pm Link "I am Providence!" -- H P Lovecraft  Feb 08 12 12:17 pm Link I may be guilty of poor judgment about women (OK, I have terrible judgment about women), but in looking those two, it seemed to me that, especially, the one on the left is not much over 20 something. Or am I wrong? We know who family lore says she is, and she was born in 1848. My aunt, who had kept this photo in her collection of family photos, (she was born in about 1907 and died about ten years ago) told her daughter, who now has the original, who the two women were. She was pretty accurate about that sort of thing. But, my cousin agrees with the comment that the women's clothes were from around 1890, which would make the lady on the left over 40. I just cannot see that woman as being over 40. But, others may have different views. I am eager to hear them. Either she is over 40, or the fashion dates back further. Feb 08 12 01:05 pm Link Rollo David Snook wrote: Good point..the double bridle isn't really seen anymore unless your at a horse-show in Europe. Feb 08 12 06:00 pm Link Google Mathew Brady one of the most famous photographers of the mid 1800's. He's famous for his Civil War photographs. Feb 08 12 06:13 pm Link As has been said, the camera was basically a 'light tight box', most of the characteristics of the photo in those days have to do with the lenses of the period. It's true that these vintage lenses are pretty good, but when I say 'pretty good', I mean good for the period. Don't try to compare them to modern lenses, even $100 plastic kit lenses. There is actually a photographer out there who modifies vintage lenses (over 100 years old) to work on a 5D MKII and posts photos and videos from the combination. They do look pretty good, if somewhat 'dreamy'. Looking at his photos, it's clear that most of 'the look' associated with vintage photos can be attributed to the lens. If you could somehow travel back in time with a modern lens, the photos would instantly look tack sharp (or more modern, to put it another way). 5D MKII and 110 year old lens: http://blog.planet5d.com/2012/02/vintag … d-mark-ii/ 5D MKII and 102 year old lens: http://www.petapixel.com/2010/09/17/102 … ge-photos/ You can see the improvement from the 110 year old to the 102 year old lens. Today even a kit lens is ultra sharp, if you know what you are doing. Feb 08 12 07:05 pm Link Sarah, for lots of great viewing here's a fantastic webpage: http://www.shorpy.com/ When I visit any antique shop I look for old contact printed photos and I buy glass plates if the photography is good. I never get over the intense sharpness of the old techniques. Kudos for your interest! Dan Feb 08 12 09:40 pm Link If you find yourself in Austin Texas, look into the Humanity Reserch Center of The University of Texas, there you will discover the first 75 years of photography. Yes, the first photography is there also. Feb 08 12 10:20 pm Link Model Sarah wrote: Finally got the location of that hitching post. Mar 01 13 05:58 pm Link Model Sarah wrote: There was and is still more than one such hitching post in Providence but it does seem to be the one on 5 Cooke St. The white wall on the right matches. Mar 01 13 06:08 pm Link There is a link to some amazing 1872 photography in Australia in this thread https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=881728 The glass plates sat in a garden shed in Sydney for something like 80 years before being recovered and protected waiting til digital era when they could be scanned at a quality that did them justice. Mar 01 13 06:32 pm Link Model Sarah wrote: Google Darius Kinsey, or better yet, see if there is a book at local library. He was an itenerant photog working in Seattle/Pacific Northwest area. A little later than your reference, but is some interesting info and examples on his techniques, gear an business practices. Mar 02 13 09:45 am Link |
