Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

World's First Photo

Posted by michael on Thu Jun 27, 2002 08:04 AM
from the say-cheese dept.
angkor cut-and-pastes "'The image acknowledged as the world's first photograph - taken by a French inventor in 1826 - has passed its first full-scale analysis with flying colors and is now awaiting an airtight case that will keep it safe for centuries to come, scientists said Wednesday.'" See also the first color photography.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by Anixamander (448308) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:08AM (#3778259) Journal
    that the world's second photo was of a naked woman.

    I've lost track of the humber of technologies that were initially driven by porn. BBS's, Video CD's, e-commerce, and of course, the amazing X10 camera.
  • Here's one . . . (Score:2, Funny)

    by JJ (29711) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:09AM (#3778267) Homepage Journal
    where saying "First." really does mean something.
  • World's second photo (Score:1, Redundant)

    by delphi125 (544730) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:09AM (#3778268)
    The image, taken by French inventor Joseph Nicephore Niepce in 1826, depicts a farm building with pear and poplar trees.

    The second photo was taken 15 minutes later when his mistress finally finished taking off her many layers of undergarments.

  • inventor info (Score:3, Informative)

    by larry bagina (561269) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:13AM (#3778282) Journal
    A little more info on the inventor here [rleggat.com] and here [ucsb.edu]
  • Too bad that... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by qurob (543434) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:13AM (#3778283) Homepage
    The first picture I ever took with my digital camera faded away, due to the ink in my canon inkjet

    Do you think in 5 years I'll be able to pull these pictures off my CDR's? Much less to show my grandchildren...
  • airtight case? (Score:2, Funny)

    by NASAKnight (588155) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:15AM (#3778297) Homepage Journal
    interesting ... the photo gets the same fate as the inventor, or were coffins airtight back then?
  • by 2names (531755) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:17AM (#3778318)
    I wish all the damn Time Travellers from the future would quit planting crap like this so we can stop wasting scientific effort. "We found the oldest photograph!!" Big Deal. Work on something new and ADD to science fro Chrissake.
  • Short on facts (Score:1)

    by GeckoX (259575) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:18AM (#3778322)
    Unfortunately this article is very short on the facts surrounding the actual technology involved in taking the picture.

    I have read about this before, but most of the details aren't coming to me so I won't even try to pass them on and I don't seem to be able to find an article on this at the moment, but I do know that it took a very, _very_ long time to expose it. Can't remember the exact number but it was at least a full day.
  • I wonder... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Static242 (124804) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:18AM (#3778324)
    ... what kind of developer or fixer a pewter plate used?! To bad PhotoFlow is a more recent invention, because that plate REALLY looks like it could have used it!

  • by WeeLad (588414) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:18AM (#3778330) Journal
    The first one was destroyed after the photographer realized his thumb was over the aperture.
  • by DanThe1Man (46872) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:19AM (#3778335)
    Am I the only one that thought the first photo would be of Pr0n? I mean, what the hell is the point of spending years constructing an idea to just take a picture of some roof tops?
  • Ultimately (Score:1)

    by Dilbert_ (17488) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:24AM (#3778369) Homepage
    All advancement seems to be driven by people's need for prOn... Or do you really believe people use broadband, huge monitors and whopping big hard drives to download and look at Word documents all day?
    • Re:Ultimately by tomkarlo (Score:1) Thursday June 27 2002, @09:28AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • I Wonder (Score:1)

    by idfrsr (560314) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:24AM (#3778372)
    if this is copyrighted....

    ...off to the lawyers!

    "If you think of all the history of photographs, the development of film and television, they all come from this first image," said senior Getty scientist Dusan Stulik.

    Excellent, *tenting fingers*, soon the MPAA will be infringing on my copyright.

    "Oh no Mr. Smithers, the MPAA is coming, help me Smithers!"

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • A thing to note... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Qbertino (265505) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:26AM (#3778384)
    As you see, both walls, the one showing left and the right one, are lit by the sun. Also the sky seems somewhat blurry and apears to have something one might call an 'intense twighlight'.
    That's because he exposed the "Film" over the entire day in order to actually make a picture, thus tracking every daylight condition and them changing with the path of the sun.
    This is indeed an amazing inovative feat. I would have liked to meet this guy.
  • actually... (Score:1, Funny)

    by jhampson (580482) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:28AM (#3778404)
    Actually, the photo had been taken 40 years earlier, but Joe had to wait for the first Fotomat to be invented.
    • Re:actually... by BigCharles (Score:1) Saturday June 29 2002, @08:16AM
  • The second link (Score:2, Interesting)

    by rfreynol (169522) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:28AM (#3778406)
    The second link is entirely more interesting than the initial story. The process that this Russian developed for color photographs back in the early 1900's and the fact that we can now view them is increditable.

    Beat's the hell out of Ted Turner's colorization of old movies.
  • outrageous... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lfourrier (209630) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:29AM (#3778415)
    ...to have a Reuters sig under a photo obviously in the public domain for a long time.

    Capitalism is no excuse for the privatisation of the commons. Signing this photo reuters instead of Niepce is clearly stealing.
  • by mccalli (323026) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:30AM (#3778428) Homepage
    OK. I'd like to demolish my credibility before starting on this, so...
    • I don't know any references to back up what I'm saying
    • I'm basing the information on a Fortean Time's [forteantimes.com] article I read a few years ago

    Given the above, I remember reading that one possibility for the Turin Shroud was that it was an early, and I mean early, photograph. Apparently, the Turks had developed a method of photography involving canvas and I -think- silver nitrate (maybe mercury?). This was in use during the 1500s, as far as I recally the article saying.

    Now, the photography they were talking about wouldn't bear much resemblence to a camera as we would recognise it. I believe the subject had to be very still, covered in this impregnated cloth and then the light would do the rest.

    I realise this is a very sketchy post, but I'm at work right now and really am not able to spend ages chasing down the relevant information. Just chucking this one out for a bit of interest really...

    Cheers,
    Ian

  • rumors of earlier photographs (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alien54 (180860) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:40AM (#3778491) Journal
    for a while there has been the theory that the Shroud of Turin is in fact a primitive photograph created by Renaissance Uber Geek Leonardo Da Vinci, via Camera Obscura and natural chemicals. There are other candidates as well.

    See the various links one [shroud.com], two [petech.ac.za], three [pixelworks.com.ph].

    Grain of salt not provided. This quickly wanders off into the land of wierdos, as there is also a lot of political infighting in the land of psuedo science. The Idea of the Shroud being a hoax is politically loaded.

  • Dangers of early photography (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Randatola (527856) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:44AM (#3778521) Homepage
    Many early photographers died of horrible nervous conditions, a result of exposure to toxic chemicals used in Daguerrotype and other early photographic processes. Ambrotype and tintype, introduced in the 1850's, were faster and the chemicals involved were both cheaper and safer.
  • error and more info about the photo (Score:2, Informative)

    by Ristretto (79399) <emery&cs,umass,edu> on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:47AM (#3778536) Homepage
    The article at least implies that the photograph has not been on display, which is inaccurate. Until the renovation work, anyone could go into the Harry Ransom Center, on the main campus at the University of Texas, and see the photo. The photograph was kept in a darkened little anteroom which you walked into to see the photo. I've seen it several times and taken visitors to see it as well.

    You can get more information [utexas.edu] about the Ransom Center's photographic collections.

  • Hidden Photos (Score:4, Informative)

    by boa13 (548222) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:49AM (#3778546) Homepage Journal
    There are quite a few more photos available at the Prokudin-Gorskii Exhibition [loc.gov] than officially linked from the pages of the exhibition. If I'm not mistaken, 111 photos are available, but only 61 are linked. How to reach them is quite trivial and left as an execise for the reader. Hey, you'll even get the chance to have a beautiful picture of Alix Chevallier!
  • Should be seen in person (Score:5, Informative)

    by glenmark (446320) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:49AM (#3778548) Homepage

    I saw the real thing several years ago in a lobby to one of the upper floors of the Harry Ransom Center here at UT. The picture is tiny, and the image faint, looking for all the world like a scrap of tinfoil with the image only visible from certain angles, manifested as a slight difference in the gloss of the surface. I can't help but wonder what it looked like when it was new.

    There were many wonders to behold in that building. On that particular visit, I was "behind the ropes" to do some maintenance work on a database server sitting in the corner of one of the center's conservation rooms. Sitting near me were a remarkable array of items, ranging from a model sailboat used in the making of an old John Huston film, to a collection of original Edgar Allen Poe manuscripts. And these were items that weren't even on display. I would've love to have just spent months rummaging around in that one room...

    Sadly, much of the collection of the Harry Ransom Center is accessible on to scholars on a by-reservation basis. Fortunately, plans are in place to make the collects more accessible to the public.

  • An Idea (Score:2)

    by colmore (56499) on Thursday June 27 2002, @09:03AM (#3778679) Journal
    The article states that they're trying to recreate the process by which the original picture was taken.

    Once they've done that, they should figgure out where the window from which the picture was taken was and take a new (8 hour) exposure with the old technology, as a comparason.
  • by dpbsmith (263124) on Thursday June 27 2002, @09:06AM (#3778700) Homepage
    ...That is, the last photograph taken on film-as-we-know-it, by a photochemical process involving silver halides?

    I know that won't be a very well-defined event, since undoubtedly researchers, historians, and dedicate hobbyists will periodically rediscover and revive it... there's never any point at which you can say "the last daguerrotype has been taken."

    Let's put it this way. At the end, there will still be photo stores that carry film--but only specialty, boutique stores, and only in large cities, and the film they carry will be from the last manufacturer that will continue to make it for aficionados. Then that last manufacturer will pull the plug and you won't be able to make a "photo" unless you're prepared to make the emulsion and film yourself.

    How long until that happens? My guess: fifteen years.
  • Is this fake? (Score:2)

    by CProgrammer98 (240351) on Thursday June 27 2002, @09:11AM (#3778762) Homepage
    I think it's fake! Theer's no tourist [touristofdeath.com] in the picture!

    It's funny, laugh!

  • Why? (Score:1)

    by FreeLinux (555387) on Thursday June 27 2002, @09:32AM (#3778927)
    "But the scientists have still to try to recreate that process."

    Why? Is there some need for antiquated photo processing? While the photograph is of significant historical value, I can see no value in re-creating the process. We have no shortage of poor quality photographs today. Even todays poorest quality is FAR superior to this. Why would anyone waste research dollars trying to reproduce the process.
    • Re:Why? by Binary Boy (Score:1) Thursday June 27 2002, @10:13AM
    • Re:Why? by AJWM (Score:2) Thursday June 27 2002, @11:39AM
  • by fruey (563914) on Thursday June 27 2002, @09:37AM (#3778976) Homepage Journal
    I lived in the town of birth of Niecephore Niepce for a year. The photo was taken, I believe, in a nearby village. I find it incredible that this historic piece of French, and by extension European invention, is in America. Many others are too, no doubt. Some great Daguerrotypes are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, for example. They are fascinating to look at, as they change a little based on your angle of viewing. Not quite like a holograph but a truly mind-bending experience. They are far more elegant IRL than looked at on a web page in 2D. The silver tones are fantastic compared to white and black photo paper or 72dpi greyscale.

    In fact the town (Chalon sur Saone, in Burgundy) is a quiet place with very little tourism. Should that photo be there, however, perhaps it would be taken more often for what it is - the birthplace of modern photography. There is a little Museum there (The Niepce Museum [museeniepce.com]) which is fantastically interesting. Sadly its piece de resistance is in Texas.

    Chalon sur Saone still has a big Kodak factory though. A lot of you who may have toured in Paris etc may have bought film manufactured there.

  • Moments ago, I posted a story on my website [mmdc.net] to the Sergei Mikhailovich Prokudin-Gorskii exhibit on LOC.gov. I clicked submit and then jumped to Slashdot to check the headlines - Imagine my surprise when I see this link.
    I feel like monkey #100 right now...

    Cheers,
    Jim in Tokyo
  • by DeadBugs (546475) on Thursday June 27 2002, @10:39AM (#3779451) Homepage
    For fans of the Prokudin-Gorskii Collection pictures. By searching the catalog [loc.gov] it came up with 2608 pictures that you can view. Most of these are in black and white. Just click the link and start viewing. Be warned that it is a bit slow, and slahdotting may make it worse.
  • This guy [lincolnportrait.com] claims to have found a very early Daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln as young man. He's been trying to sell it for a lot of money, so he's been in the news. Hard to say absolutely, but I have to admit he makes an interesting case.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Shoot... (Score:1)

    by g_bit (253703) on Thursday June 27 2002, @11:28AM (#3779823) Journal
    I blocked all content coming from akamai.net. Man, why can't they just use ad*.akamai.net instead of a bunch of numbers!!??
  • Nikon or Canon? (Score:2)

    by MongooseCN (139203) on Thursday June 27 2002, @11:32AM (#3779863) Homepage
    Did he use a Nikon or Canon pinhole to take the picture?
  • Lipmann Plates (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TwobyTwo (588727) on Thursday June 27 2002, @12:06PM (#3780107)

    In my opinion, the RGB separation is not nearly as cool as the roughly contemporary work of Gabriel Lipmann. His 1891 system achieved full accurate color using no dyed materials in either the film or the viewing system (I.e. no color filters etc.)

    Lipmann turned a clear glass B&W film plate so the emulsion faced away from the lens (I.e. the light had to travel through the thickness of the light to reach the emulsion). He placed the emulsion in contact with a reflecting mercury bath. Light from the lens traveled through the emulsion twice, once on its way from the lens, and again bouncing back from the mercury mirror thus forming....standing waves through the thickness of the emulsion.

    In other words, color was recorded according in the third plane...through the thickness of the exposed material. Blue light = tightly spaced waves, red = less tight. The plate is viewed by again sandwiching against the mercury reflector, and viewing in white lite. The interference causes the colors to reappear.

    Note that these colors are 100% accurate as long as the dimensions of the emulsion are stable. Of course, the balance can change if the viewing light isn't white.

    I read about this in a Pop Photo in the 1960's, I think. One of the most beautiful pieces of scientific/photographic work I've heard of. He won a Nobel prize for this in 1908.

  • Coincidence (Score:1)

    by dmanny (573844) on Thursday June 27 2002, @07:34PM (#3783526)
    I had never heard of the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center prior to this week. There was a contestant on Jeopardy from there earlier this week who mentioned the photo on air.
  • by yatest5 (455123) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:12AM (#3778278) Homepage
    Flying black and white, shurely? Color, nor 'flying' existed in the 1800s.

    Birds must have had a real tough time of it.
    [ Parent ]
  • by Lev13than (581686) on Thursday June 27 2002, @08:41AM (#3778502) Homepage
    Yawn?

    Put this in perspective, man. In 170 years, do you think anyone will be discussing your work?
    [ Parent ]
  • Re:Old News (Score:2)

    by colmore (56499) on Friday June 28 2002, @12:32PM (#3787568) Journal
    100% of Slashdot is available elsewhere, perhaps you're just reading more news than you used to.
    [ Parent ]
  • 14 replies beneath your current threshold.