|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 09, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: General Discussion: General Topics:
Developement of Photography:
Archive through June 09, 2001
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:15 pm |        | The DAGUERREOTYPE
This was a positive image on a metal support.
The Daguerreotype was the first successful photographic process, the discovery being announced on 7 January 1839. The process consisted of
exposing copper plates to iodine, the fumes forming light-sensitive silver iodide. The plate would have to be used within an hour.
exposing to light - between 10 and 20 minutes, depending upon the light available.
developing the plate over mercury heated to 75 degrees Centigrade. This caused the mercury to amalgamate with the silver.
fixing the image in a warm solution of common salt (later sodium sulphite was used.)
rinsing the plate in hot distilled water.
Daguerre's choice of chemicals was such that the action of light left a milky white image or mercury amalgam.
His first plates were 8 1/2" by 6 1/2"; this still remains the standard "whole-plate" today.
The quality of the photographs was stunning. However, the process had its weaknesses:
the pictures could not be reproduced and were therefore unique;
the surfaces were extremely delicate, which is why they are often found housed under glass in a case;
the image was reversed laterally, the sitter seeing himself as he did when looking at a mirror. (Sometimes the camera lens was equipped with a mirror to correct this);
the chemicals used (bromine and chlorine fumes and hot mercury) were highly toxic;
the images were difficult to view from certain angles.
Many of the daguerreotypes that remain are noticeable for their detail, and this caused quite a sensation at the time. Indeed, the Spectator (2 February 1839) called daguerreotypes the "self operating process of Fine Art." The reaction in America was also one of amazement. The Journal "The Knickerbocker" for December that year quoted: We have seen the views taken in Paris by the 'Daguerreotype,' and have no hesitation in avowing, that they are the most remarkable objects of curiosity and admiration, in the arts, that we ever beheld. Their exquisite perfection almost transcends the bounds of sober belief.
Carl Dauthendey, a photographer who became the first professional daguerreotype photographer in St. Petersburg, makes an interesting comment on the way Daguerreotypes were viewed: "People were afraid at first to look for any length of time at the pictures he produced. They were embarrassed by the clarity of these figures and believed that the little, tiny faces of the people in the pictures could see out at them, so amazing did the unaccustomed detail and the unaccustomed truth to nature of the first daguerreotypes appear to everyone"
Sometimes the details might reveal something that the photographer had not intended. Fox Talbot, Daguerre's rival, observed: "It frequently happens, moreover - and this is one of the charms of photography - that the operator himself discovers on examination, perhaps long afterwards, that he has depicted many things that he had no notion of at the time. Sometimes inscriptions and dates are found upon the buildings, or printed placards most irrelevant, are discovered upon their walls: sometimes a distant dial-plate is seen, and upon it - unconsciously recorded - the hour of the day at which the view was taken."
This capacity to record minute detail was put to good use by Jean Baptiste Louis Gros, an amateur who made the first images of the Parthenon whilst on a mission in Greece. On his return to Paris he discovered that on close inspection details which he had not observed could be examined, including the minutest sculptural elements.
In the museum at the Royal Photographic Society one of Daguerre's cameras is displayed. It was used by Talbot for his own process. However, there is an interesting omission: Daguerre's cameras always had a label on the side, bearing his signature, but Fox Talbot appears to have removed this!
One problem with early daguerreotypes was the length of exposure required - 10 to 15 minutes in bright sunlight. In fact, a daguerreotype in the International Museum in Rochester, depicting a chapel, states that the picture was taken between 4:40pm and 5:30pm on 19 April 1840. Such lengths were obviously not suitable for portraiture. To make photography possible, rests were used to keep the head still, and sitters had often to cope with brilliant sunlight. One photographer even used to run flour on the sitter's face, in order to reduce exposure time! There was clearly a need to find some more effective ways of reducing the exposure time:
On the chemistry side, J.G. Goddard started using bromide as well as iodine to sensitise plates, while Antoine Claudet experimented using chlorine.
On the optical side, J. M. Petzval invented a portrait lens with an aperture of f3.7 (as opposed to f14, which was currently being used.) Petzval's lens was still being widely used almost a century later.
Taken together, these improvements enabled photographers to use exposures of between ten and thirty seconds, thus making portraiture more of a practical proposition. By March 1841 Beard had opened a studio at the Royal Polytechnic Institution, while Claudet opened one three months later, behind St. Martin's church, Trafalgar Square. In 1853 Daguerre's patent expired, and many daguerreotypists began to open for business. At that time, of course, all photographs were monochrome (it was not until after the time of Maxwell that colour photography became a possibility), so many artists turned to hand-colouring the photographs, which were almost invariably presented in ornate cases.
Colouring was a skilled and delicate affair. Typical of the kits was the Newman kit, dated 1850, with thirty-six colours. The colours would be applied very carefully with a fine brush, and then fixed simply by breathing on the plate itself.
The daguerreotype, aptly called a "mirror with a memory", was an amazing development, and one cannot but marvel at the intricacy of the detail. However, it was a blind alley as far as photography was concerned.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 09/10/1999 11:42:17
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:17 pm | | CALOTYPE process, The
The Calotype was a positive/negative process introduced in 1841 by Fox Talbot, and popular for the next ten years or so. Strictly speaking the term refers only to the negative image, but it is commonly taken to mean both.
A piece of paper was brushed with weak salt solution, dried, then brushed with a weak silver nitrate solution, dried, making silver chloride in the paper. This made it sensitive to light, and the paper was now ready for exposure. This might take half an hour, giving a print-out image. It was fixed in strong salt solution - potassium iodide of hypo.
Fox Talbot, who devised the process, showed his results at the Royal Institution on 25 January 1839, delivering a paper on the last day of that month.
The following year Fox Talbot succeeded in improving the "photogenic drawing" process, renaming it the calotype. He discovered that if he added gallic acid, the paper became more sensitive to light, and it was no longer necessary to expose until the image became visible. With further treatment of gallic acid and silver nitrate, the latent image would be developed.
In 1844 Fox Talbot opened a photography establishment in Reading in order to mass produce prints.
To make a print, the negative was placed on top of more photo paper, laid flat in a glass frame, and allowed to develop in sunlight.
The Calotype process was not as popular as its rival one, the Daguerreotype. There were various reasons for this:
its popularity was to a great extent arrested by patent restrictions;
the materials were less sensitive to light, therefore requiring longer exposures;
the imperfections of the paper reduced the quality of the final print;
the process itself took longer, as it required two stages (making the negative and then the positive);
the prints tended to fade.
One might also suggest that the fact paper was used as a negative lessened the detail of the picture, though from an artistic point of view some would regard this as a desirable feature.
However, the calotype also has its advantages compared with the daguerreotype:
it provided the means of making an unlimited number of prints from one negative;
retouching could be done on either negative or print;
prints on paper were easier to examine, and far less delicate;
the calotype had warmer tones.
When the Collodion process was introduced in 1851, the calotype became obsolete. However, the negative-positive process was one day to become the standard photographic one, which is still used today.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:10:46
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:21 pm | | COLLODION process, The
This process was introduced in 1851 and marks a watershed in photography.
Up till then the two processes in use were the daguerreotype and the calotype. Daguerreotypes were better than calotypes in terms of detail and quality, but could not be reproduced; calotypes were reproducible, but suffered from the fact that any print would also show the imperfections of the paper.
The search began, then, for a process which would combine the best of both processes - the ability to reproduce fine detail and the capacity to make multiple prints. The ideal would have been to coat light sensitive material on to glass, but the chemicals would not adhere without a suitable binder which obviously had to be clear. At first, Albumen (the white of an egg) was used. Then in 1851 Frederick Scott Archer came across collodion.
Collodion was a viscous liquid - guncotton dissolved in ether and alcohol - which had only been invented in 1846, but which quickly found a use during the Crimean war; when it dried it formed a very thin clear film, which was ideal for dressing and protecting wounds. Collodion was just the answer as far as photography was concerned, for it would provide the binding which was so badly needed. Lewis Carroll, himself a photographer who used collodion, described the process in a poem he called "Hiawatha's Photography."
"First a piece of glass he coated
With Collodion, and plunged it
In a bath of Lunar Caustic
Carefully dissolved in water;
There he left it certain minutes.
Secondly my Hiawatha
Made with cunning hand a mixture
Of the acid Pyro-gallic,
And the Glacial Acetic,
And of alcohol and water:
This developed all the picture.
Finally he fixed each picture
With a saturate solution
Of a certain salt of Soda...."
This "soda" was, of course, hypo. Sometimes potassium cyanide was used, the advantage of this being that the solutions could be washed out by rinsing under a tap for a minute or so, whereas hypo would need much more washing time.
The collodion process had several advantages.
being more sensitive to light than the calotype process, it reduced the exposure times drastically - to as little as two or three seconds. This opened up a new dimension for photographers, who up till then had generally to portray very still scenes or people.
because a glass base was used, the images were sharper than with a calotype.
because the process was never patented, photography became far more widely used.
the price of a paper print was about a tenth of that of a daguerreotype.
There was however one main disadvantage: the process was by no means an easy one. First the collodion had to be spread carefully over the entire plate. The plate then had to be sensitised, exposed and developed whilst the plate was still wet; the sensitivity dropped once the collodion had dried. It is often known as the wet plate collodion process for this reason.
The process was labour-intensive enough in a studio's darkroom, but quite a feat if one wanted to do some photography on location. Some took complete darkroom tents, Fenton took a caravan, and it is no mere coincidence that many photographs taken in this period happened to be near rivers or streams! Moreover, at this time there were no enlargements, so if one wanted large prints, there was no alternative but to carry very large cameras. (It is such limitations of the process that make the work of people like the Bisson brothers, Fenton, and others so remarkable).
One might also mention the safety factor. The collodion mixture was not only inflammable but highly explosive. It is reported that several photographers demolished their darkrooms and homes, some even losing their lives, as a result of careless handling of the photographic chemicals.
Despite the advantages the collodion process offered, there were still many who stoutly defended the calotype. A writer in the Journal of the Photographic Society (December 1856) wrote:
"for subjects where texture, gradations of tint and distance are required, there is nothing.... to compare with a good picture from calotype or waxed paper negative."
Moreover, the calotype process was less of an ordeal, especially for travel photographers; paper negatives could be prepared at home, exposed on location, and then developed upon one's return. Hence Diamond used the calotype process for some of his travel photographs, though he used collodion for portraiture and for his medical photography.
Nevertheless the invention of this process turned out to be a watershed as far as photography was concerned:
cheaper alternatives, such as Ambrotypes and Tintypes were developed. The former was a positive on glass, the latter a positive on metal;
stereoscopic photography began to flourish;
the carte-de-visite craze started;
because of the faster speed of the process, the analysis of movement (see Muybridge) became possible.
The use of collodion caught on very quickly indeed, and within a few years few people used either the Daguerreotype or Calotype process.
The records of the Photographic Society give an interesting account of the efforts to ensure even sensitivity of the Collodion plates. As mentioned above, these plates had to be dipped into a nitrate of silver bath and exposed whilst still wet. Exposure would have to be almost immediate as otherwise the top of the plate would lose its moisture and the sensitivity would become uneven. All sorts of liquids were tried, including honey, beer, and even rasperry syrup!
A variation on this was the Oxymel process.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:10:51
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:22 pm | | GELATIN, The introduction of
The development of the Collodion process marked a watershed in the development of photography. However, this wet-plate process had limitations, one being that it was necessary to keep the collodion moist.
For a number of years several attempts were made to discover ways of keeping the collodion moist for long periods. The materials tried included unusual ones like licorice, beer and raspberry syrup! Some success was achieved by using a mixture of bromide in collodion. The ideal binder would be one which enabled the plates to be used only when dry. It was not until 1871 that the next breakthrough was achieved by Dr Richard Leach Maddox, when he began using gelatin.
In fact, as far back as 1850 Robert Bingham had suggested the use of gelatin, but this idea had not been taken up at the time, presumably because of the announcement of the collodion process the following year.
Gelatin is a protein obtained from animals, which is transparent and odourless, and used in a number of food processes. The first account of its use in photography is in the British Journal of Photography for 8 September 1871, when Maddox suggested that the sensitising chemicals could be coated on to a glass plate in a gelatin rather than a collodion emulsion.
Maddox's process, though revolutionary, was far slower than collodion. Several manufacturers experimented with it, the most successful being Charles Bennett, who in 1878 announced a new gelatin dry plate process. This was a major breakthrough, particularly since Bennett's process also considerably enhanced the sensitivity of the emulsion, reducing the exposure time to one tenth of that required for the collodion one.
This dry process
relieved photographers of the need to carry about their own darkroom and chemicals;
exposure could now be made on location, development being left until much later;
it also let to a greater degree of standardisation, and a more scientific approach to photography;
the science of sensitometry was introduced at around this period, and exposure calculators now began to appear.
By the end of that decade the dry plate had superseded the Wet Plate entirely, and within a further ten years the emulsion could be coated on celluloid roll film.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:11:04
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:25 pm | | MADDOX, Richard Leach
b. 4 August 1816; d. 11 May 1902
Dr. Richard Maddox, an English physician, worked on photo-micrography and wrote on various photographic topics, but it was not until 1871 that his greatest contribution to the science of photography was made. Up to his time, wet collodion plates were being used. These required that coating, exposure and development be done whilst the solution was still wet, and soon the need for pre-prepared plates became evident.
Maddox, a photography enthusiast, first started looking around for a substitute to collodion when he found his health being affected by the ether vapour of the collodion process. In an article in the British Journal of Photography for 8 September 1871 he suggested a process whereby the sensitising chemicals could be coated on a glass plate in a Gelatin emulsion, instead of wet collodion. Probably he had no idea at the time of the significance his discovery would have on the future of photography.
Some years later Charles Bennett and others made the first gelatin dry plates for sale on the open market, a revolutionary advance in the science of photography. By the end of that decade the dry plate process had superseded the wet plate one entirely, and within a further ten years the emulsion would be coated on celluloid roll film.
In 1901 Maddox received the Royal Photographic Society's Progress Medal for inventions that led to the foundation of the dry plate and film industry. He had freely made his ideas known, and never patented the process; sadly he ended his days in poverty.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:11:13
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 03:42 pm | | I stopped as the developement reached the 1880's as this is where our interest is focused.
As reported by Don Rumbelow the photo taken at Millers Court was a glass plate, I have to wonder if we have any 'experts' who can determine by looking at recent prints of this photo, which process might have been used to produce it.
Plus, as Bob mentioned we've been down this road before, its a shame we never caught the previous input in a specific location, for later reference.
Regards, Jon |
Author: NickDanger
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 08:12 pm | | Hi Jon,
I, for one, would like to thank you for the photography information. It answers a number of questions that I had.
Best wishes,
Nick |
Author: Karoline
Tuesday, 28 December 1999 - 09:44 pm | | Through my work on Lewis Carroll I've become very friendly with a leading authority on Victorian photography. I asked him about this 'Kelly crime scene photo' some time ago and have already quoted his views here once, but since the post has probably been lost by now, I'll do it again.
But this is the last time - so pay attention!
In brief - the photo is almost certainly a dry-collodion print, taken without flash.
The reasons being:
1. film was only just becoming available in 1888, and almost certainly would not have been in use by the police at this time.
2. the early prints from film were generally circular, and since the Kelly print is rectangular it cannot have been film.
3. the flash gun did not come into use until the early years of this century. The exposure time needed for collodion (30 seconds plus) would have made a flash gun useless anyway.
Hope this helps
But does anyone mind me asking what difference it actually makes HOW the photo was taken. Am I being stupid and missing something?
Karoline |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 06:36 am | | Hi Karoline,
The whole thing hangs together with the question of eyeball-photography and if Kelly were so photographed. Some say yes, some say... no. I say I don't know, but it would be of some interest if we knew that some long-lost photo of such could exist or not.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: Edana
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 08:45 am | | Thanks, Jon for the great photography information. Anything that helps us get in touch with what things were like back then is quite welcome, I think. Each little snippet of information is important..who knows..it might help spark something. Is it important to know HOW the photo of Kelly was taken?..of course it is. Knowing about the process and the equipment might help bring some light to the mystery.
Edana |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 09:38 am | | I am dismayed by all these suggestions about photographers not having a strong light source.
Being a civil war buff I am well familiar with the photo's made in the 1860's, and how a flash-in-the-pan or burning artificial light source was extensively used in studios.
Why the reluctance to admit it was avaliable in 1888 ?
The shadows under the bed are a dead giveaway.
I would like this thread of the casebook to contain all the photographic answers so we dont need to go down this road again.
Happy Holidays, Edana
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob_C
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 11:33 am | | Hi Jon,
Why the reluctance to admit that Kelly may not have been photographed with artificial light? Unfortunantly the shadows under the bed are no give-away IMHO, the same effect is incurred by long-time exposure in natural daylight, where shadowed areas naturally appear darker. It is obvious that where light levels are extremely low, the sensitive medium will hardly react. That is true for under the bed, behind the bed against the wall, everywhere where light is screened out for some reason. While this reaction is not linear with levels at the low energy end of the scale, dark appears 'darker'.
Of course artificial light was available years before Kelly was killed, and used in photography as well. There is no chronological technical reason why Kelly should not have been so photographed, but was she? Was it necessary? Did the photographer have the means of transporting such equipment? The plate type used was not suitable for flash photography, which I submit would be clear to see on the photograph were the film suitable and had flash been used.
I admit to the details on the photos, but such details are possible when white (non-absorbing) and black (absorbing) are well available in the field of camera view. In this case, of course, we refer to the gray-scale white/black, as the plate used was sensitive only to intensity (black/white) in mid-visable range, not colour.
Absence of glitter in the intestinal area of the body plus absence of direct shadow under the body leads me to suspect that the photo was taken in natural light. I do not, of course, claim it proved, or repudiate the claims of others supporting other theories.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 02:11 pm | | :-)
On the contrary Bob, for the longest time I never gave a thought to artificial light being used until I recieved a 8 x 11 print, courtesy of Stewart Evans.
What was apparent was the very dark shadows to the right of the wood supports under the bed.
And the 'white' appearance of everything light at the bottom left corner of the bed, by her ankle.
The room was small as we all know, so one natural light source was immediatly over the right shoulder of the photographer, and the other natural source was behind him. Equal sources of natural light, when face on to a subject, do not create strong shadows biased in one direction, as are evident under the bed.
In closing it could be argued that if the natural source was that strong why do we not see the shadow cast by the leg of the table directly onto the side of the bed frame.
I know nothing we have determined is conclusive, but I maintain the indications are good that an artificial light source was used.
But we have to admit that the photo is old and worn so drawing a firm conclusion is likely too much to expect.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Karoline
Wednesday, 29 December 1999 - 03:12 pm | | Hi Bob, thanks for the explanation.
Jon - I don't think you are right about the use of flash guns in the 1860s. But maybe I'm just showing my lack of knowledge. They certainly were not used by Carroll, or any other prominent photographer in the UK, until the opening years of this century. In fact, photographers were so restricted by the need for good natural light that they frequently gave up photography during the gloomiest winter months, and their studios were called 'glass houses' because they were almost all windows.
If you look back at your own posts you'll see that collodion was the best medium in use up until about 1890. The exposure time needed for this stuff is about 45 seconds - so a flash gun just wouldn't be any use.
Maybe what you're talking about is certain photographers using an oil lamp or something to add to the available natural light - rather than an actual artifical flash?
I've never heard of this being done - but I guess it's possible.
Maybe you could look up your civil war sources and check it out.
Karoline |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 02:01 am | | Hi, Jon and Karoline:
I was already to triumphantly announce that artificial light was used in photography during the Civil War but I find in Ross J. Kelbaugh's "Introduction to Civil War Photography," p. 11, "An adequate source of natural light, either from a glass skylight or an opening in a tent roof, provided the illumination needed to take a picture in the era before the artificial flash."
Chris George |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 06:48 am | | Hi all,
I did take Jon's suggestion about artificial light to mean non-flash, as we know the plate medium was not suitable for flashlight photography.
Even natural light source produces shadow when e.g. light comes from a window that itself is partly blocked to daylight from e.g. opposite buildings. In Kelly's room we have the light from the two windows and, we may presume, the open door. The door itself blocked any dirrect light from that source to the top end of the bed. If the camera was in the room, it would have probably been placed between the windows so as not to block light from that source.
The door may also have been closed, to increase contrast. This occurs when the amount of diffused light is reduced compared to directional light. The directional (plus diffused) light in this case could only have come from the windows, diffused light only from the (when open) door. This effect becomes obvious when we look at the different in lighting effects on a sunny and then a grey day.
There is little difference in photo-chemical reaction between a few photons over an extended time, or a large number over a short time. This is true as long as the photochemical used remains otherwise stable.
The main reason for artificial light was and is to reduce the time of exposure. (In the early days, you were fixed in position by a support apparatus to help you keep still long enough) It also leads to the possibility of studio lighting improvements by selected illumination, or very short exposure times by flash.
Flash-photography is mostly , even today, pretty crude, being a trade-off of all sorts of light-levels and distances. OK, there are some cameras that are claimed to be almost perfect under all conditions, but you need a two-year training course to operate 'em.
Best regards
Bob |
Author: ChrisGeorge
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 10:25 am | | Hi all:
In my last post I mentioned photography expert and collector Ross J. Kelbaugh. Here is a link to Ross's site "Historic Graphics" which provides some neat early images, information on his publications including the pamphlet on Civil War photography that I mentioned, as well as links to other sites on the history of photography:
http://www.bcpl.net/~images/
Ross provided a number of spectacular early images for a book of photographs documenting Baltimore history that I have published, "Baltimore Close-up" (Arcadia Publishers ISBN 0-7524-0906-9). Several of the photographs to be seen on his site appear in my book.
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 11:44 am | | For those of you who are interested in the extensive use of artificial light PRIOR to the developement of the 'flash gun'...please read on....
LIGHTING
In the early days of photography the only source of light was, of course, the sun, so most photography depended upon long days and good weather. It is said that Rejlander used a cat as a primitive exposure meter: placing the cat where the sitter should be, he judged by looking at its eyes whether it was worth taking any photographs or whether his sitter should go home and wait for better times! The nearer to the birth of photography, the greater the amount of lighting needed, as the first chemical emulsions were very insensitive.
The first artificial light photography dates back as far as 1839, when L. Ibbetson used oxy-hydrogen light (also known as limelight) when photographing microscopic objects; he made a daguerreotype in five minutes which, he claimed, would have taken twenty-five minutes in normal daylight.
Other possibilities were explored. Nadar, for example, photographed the sewers in Paris, using battery-operated lighting. Later arc-lamps were introduced, but it was not until 1877 that the first studio lit by electric light was opened by Van der Weyde, who had a studio in Regent Street. Powered by a gas-driven dynamo, the light was sufficient to permit exposures of some 2 to 3 seconds for a carte-de-visite.
Soon a number of studios started using arc lighting. One advert (by Arthur Langton, working in Belgravia, London), boldly proclaims: "My electric light installation is perhaps the more powerful in London. Photographs superior to daylight, Pictures can now be taken in any weather and at any time."
More from Arthur Langton's advertisement: CAUTION "Many photographers advertise 'portrits taken by electric light' but 9 out of 10 do not possess an electric light, owing to its costlinss they use an inferior and nasty substitute... a pyrotechnic powder which gives off poisonos fumes."
(His spelling, by the way!)
In June 1850 an experiment conducted by Fox Talbot, probably using static electricity stored in Leyden jars, was conducted at the Royal Society: a page of The Times was fastened on to a wheel, which then revolved rapidly. Writing about this the following year Fox Talbot stated: "From this experiment the conclusion...is that it is within our power to obtain pictures of all moving objects....providing we have the means of sufficiently illuminating them with a sudden electric flash."
The object then had been to arrest fast action. A few years later William Crookes, editor of the Photographic News (October 1859) was responding to a query put to him on how to light some caves: "A...brilliant light...can be obtained by burning....magnesium in oxygen. A piece of magnesium wire held by one end in the hand, may be lighted at the other extremity by holding it to a candle... It then burns away of its own accord evolving a light insupportably brilliant to the unprotected eye...."
That same year Professor Robert Bunsen (of Bunsen burner fame) was also advocating the use of magnesium. The first portrait using magnesium was taken by Alfred Brothers of Manchester (22 February 1864); some of the results of his experiments may be found in the Manchester Museum of Science and Technology. It was however very expensive at that time and did not come into general use until there was a dramatic fall in the cost of magnesium a decade later. This, coupled with the introduction of dry plates in the 80s soon led to the introduction of magnesium flashlamps. They all used the same principle: a small amount of this powder would be blown, using a small rubber pump, through a spirit flame, producing a bright flash lasting about 1/15s. It also produced much smoke and ash!
Then in the late 1880s it was discovered that magnesium powder, if mixed with an oxidising agent such as potassium chlorate, would ignite with very little persuasion. This led to the introduction of flash powder. It would be spread on a metal dish the flash powder would be set of by percussion - sparks from a flint wheel, electrical fuse or just by applying a taper. However the explosive flashpowder could be quite dangerous if misused. This was not really superseded until the invention of the flashbulb in the late 1920s.
Early flash photography was not synchronised. This meant that one had to put a camera on a tripod, open the shutter, trigger the flash, and close the shutter again - a technique known as open flash.
Certainly early flash photography could be a hazardous business. It is said, for example, that Riis, working during this period, twice managed to set the places he was photographing on fire!
In fact, the "open flash" technique, with flash powder, was still being used by some photographers until the 1950s. This was particularly so when, for example, a large building was being photographed; with someone operating the shutter for multiple exposures, it was possible to use the flash at different places, to provide more even illumination.
By varying the amount of grammes of flash-powder, the distance covered could also be varied. To give some idea, using a panchromatic film of about 25ASA and open flash technique, at f8, a measure of 0.1 grammes of flash would permit the flash-subject idstance to be about 8 feet, whilst 2.0 grammes would permit an exposure 30 feet away. The earliest known flash bulb was described in 1883. It consisted of a two pint stoppered bottle which had white paper stuck on it to act as a reflector. To set the flash off, a spiral of ten or so inches of magnesium on a wire skewer was pre-lighted and plunged into the oxygen.
It was not to be until 1927 that the simple flash-bulb was to appear, and 1931 when Harold Egerton produced the first electronic flash tube.
I am indebted to the late Arthur Gill, FRPS, a leading member of the Royal Photographic Society's Historical Group, for much of this information.
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:11:12
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 12:36 pm | | And here's one example of its use in 1888....
thought it was in the U.S.A.....but still relevent.
RIIS, Jacob
b. 3 May 1849; d. 26 March 1914
Jacob Riis arrived in America as an immigrant from Denmark at the age of 21. He found life hard, and only just made a living as a police court reporter for the New York Tribune.
By the end of the 1880s photography was becoming cheaper, and he hit on the idea of using photography to draw attention to the conditions under which the poor in America (particularly the immigrants) were living. He was clearly committed to this cause, and as a Sunday school teacher he had successfully encouraged his students to become involved in numerous fund-raising activities to help the poor.
His first book, "How the other half lives," exposed the appalling conditions of the time. It caused a considerable stir. One day Riis returned to his office to find a note reading "I have read your book and I have come to help." It was from the (then) head of the New York Police Board of Commissioners, Theodore Roosevelt, later to become President of the United States. Moved by the photographs Riis had taken he was instrumental in securing a number of reforms. Riis was offered public office on more than one occasion, but always refused.
Many of his photographs needed to be taken at night. His artificial lighting consisted of open flash, for which he used a frying pan. Twice he set fire to the places he visited, once he set fire to his own clothes, and on another occasion he almost blinded himself. An article in the Sun (New York) for 12 February 1888 described his antics: "With their way illuminated by spasmodic flashes... a mysterious party has been startling the town o' nights. Somnolent policemen on the street... tramps and bummers in their so-called lodgings, and all the people of the wild and wonderful variety of New York night life have in their turn marvelled at and been frightened by the phenomenon. What they saw was three or four figures in the gloom, a ghostly tripod, some weird and uncanny movements, the blinding flash, and then they heard the patter of retreating footsteps, and the mysterious visitors were gone before they could collect their thoughts and try to find out what is was all about.... The party consisted of members of the Society of Amateur Photographers of New York experimenting with the process of taking instantaneous pictures by an artificial flash light, and their guide and conductor, an energetic gentleman who combines in his person... the two dignitaries of deacon in a Long Island church and a police reporter in New York....."
Other books by Riis include "Children of the Tenements" (1903) and "Children of the Poor" (1892).
© Robert Leggat, 1999. Though permission is granted for downloading portions of this work for the purposes of individual study, copyright remains in the name of the author.
Last updated 08/24/1999 05:11:26
Regards, Jon |
Author: Karoline
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 12:38 pm | | Thanks Jon,
I'm glad I wasn't too wrong. I was fairly sure that no one in the mid-century was using flash.
Okay, so if flash photography was strictly experimental until the 1900s or thereabouts, then if you're right about the Kelly picture using artificial light,it must have been some sort of electric lamp or magnesium flare.
I suspect that those arc lamps were slightly gimmicky (and expensive) things. I wonder if anyone would have dragged them (and their power source) all the way to Whitechapel for the purpose of taking this photo?
I guess that leaves some kind of flare or firework type of thing.
Or maybe the guy just took his photo on a very bright day.
Look at some of Rejlander's and Carroll's work, all done in natural daylight. With an expert behind the camera, and really crisp development, the shadows can be amazingly deep and sharp, as Bob has said.
But since no one has even found that retina-photo I guess it doesn't matter much one way or the other.
Which is kind of comforting isn't it?
Karoline |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 12:45 pm | | Hi Jon,
nice of you to up-load all of it, but I've already read it (well most of it) from the site. Good and informative, it tells us a lot about the times, and what was possible then. We just mustn't forget that what may have been possible in very imformed circles then would not necessarily be available to the ordinary man. Mankind can fly to the moon nowadays, but I can't.
I think of eyeball photography, that was more a laboratory experiment type than an everyday snap, I don't think even moderate photographers of the time would have been aquainted with the technique.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 01:08 pm | | Karoline: My problem was I knew I had read of it and I felt sure it was magnesium, but was reluctant to say so without the meat 'n potato's to back it up. :-)
Bob: The photographer at Millers Court was hardly 'the ordinary man'.
We cant say for sure whether it was used, but we can see the means was available, and a photographer either hired by the Met. police or brought by Dr. Phillips to such a high profile case as the Ripper murders, certainly would be of high professional abilities and not some guy with a corner store.
:-)
Thanks for taking an interest.....
Jon |
Author: Bob_C
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 01:16 pm | | Hi Jon,
Quite right that the photographer was high-calibre, I've made that clear often enough. That doesn't mean that he would have to have been versed in some special techniques like EBP (EyeBallPhotography) or have the equipment for it. The official mind was against such, seeing no point to it (wisely) and would not have required their man to bother looking into it.
I do not mean that the good man could not have been interested in it, or have no knowledge, Just that he would hardly bother to do something complicated, controverse and probably pointless without the orders of his employers, the police.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 30 December 1999 - 01:38 pm | | Bob,
I know bugger-all about photography and even less about EBP, but from what I've read it would appear to me as purely an experiment.
There were no professionals at it, and hence no special equipment, however as they must have used 'special' lenses to photo flowers & bugs (I'm guessing) or close-up shots in general, surely this is all they would have had available.
No-one was going to invest money in developing special lenses for a process that was never proven to work.
Having said that, I read a story of a coloured guy in S. Carolina who was convicted, in 1903, of a murder based purely on the results of EyeballPhotography.
Read into that, what you will. :-)
Regards, Jon |
Author: Bob_C
Monday, 03 January 2000 - 07:40 am | | Hi Jon,
first of all, good wishes to the new year.
This EBP (my own fabrication) was indeed 'experimental', but the lenses needed were just close-up, nowadays so-called 'Macro'-lenses, which allowed the camera to be focused on the retina through the lense of the eye itself.
I think we can take reports of anyone getting convicted (black or white) by EBP with a pretty good pinch of salt, even in 1903, although in this crazy world almost anything is possible.
The Y2K nonsense is a pretty good example of this. (hee hee) There are a lot of 'experts' sitting around now with a lot of egg on their faces, the 'end-of-the-world-prophet brigades' even more so.
Best regards,
Bob |
Author: Jacunius
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 05:33 am | | One of the most important issues I find about this particular discussion, is how the Kelly photograph was taken. Why this intrigues me, is because I believe it to be possibly reversed. I have spoken to someone who deals with these old glass pictures, and they also have pointed out that it was a mistake that often happened.
If this is so then where is the evidence? Look at the lay out of Kelly's room in many newspapers, some of them show the bed the other way round! (yes we all know about the newspapers of the time) Yet even the description given by those who went into her room are vague. As for Dr Bond's report on Kelly, posted back to Scotland Yard in 1987 - I believe it to be a fake! Has there been a thorough analysis of it, to prove it is genuine? - not that I know of, we are just to take for granted that it is real.
Many files have disappeared throughout the years, imagine if a blank letterhead of the MEPO was found, what then would stop a hoaxer by producing such material. Just look at Kelly's picture, and read Bond's report carefully, there is hardly anything in his report that can not be assumed from the picture. Then study Bond and numerous Victorian doctor jargon and bingo - a fake report. Of course there is the heart issue, but remember the hoaxer is out to produce new evidence - the Maybrick diary is no exception! If the Kelly picture is back to front, then Bond's report is not real.
Yours
picture perfect?
Jacunius. |
Author: Jon
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:00 pm | | How do you mean, "how the Kelly photograph was taken?". Why is that important?
Box camera(?), tri-pod, timed exposure, if you read all of the above you will know we discussed when the flash was introduced.
What is important about the suggestion that the plate may have been reversed?, and what evidence do you have to support such a suggestion?
Jon |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 06 June 2001 - 07:05 pm | | This is an interesting point , could Dr Bond's notes be a fake document ? If so , what reason could there be for faking them ?
Profit - nope. Fame - nope. Reputation - nope.
The only point of the notes being faked would seem to be to provide misleading evidence about the case - and what reason would there be for that ?
I couldn't even tell you who discovered them offhand without looking it up !
The thing with the Maybrick Diary is it almost seems too good to be true ( in general I think killers would prefer not to keep such an incriminating document ! ) The same cannot be said about the Bond notes however. |
Author: Jacunius
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 01:39 am | | Jon,
It is important how her picture was taken, because if I remember correctly that picture was taken through the window, and at that stage no one was allowed to go into the room. We all know that to do this one of those two windows was completely taken out, which one? Look at the angle it was taken, then look at the supposed layout of Kelly's room in Sugden's book. It would have to be the furthest window, right? Have you ever seen this photo in reverse?, I have by transparent photocopying, and the results are startling! Also there are many known facts that can easily explain why her bed could be the other way round, but I have not the time at present to show them - do you?
Simon,
thanks for your sensible inquiry. Thou shall know if you only question!
A clue - who do you think printed (amongst many things) Dr Bond's report first in full. Oopps I said too much! Remember profit can come from fame, and as far as reputation is concerned, who knows perhaps they already had it? - that's another clue by the way.
Yours
obligingly,
Jacunius.
PS, By the way Simon, Dr Bond's report of Kelly in situ, was returned anonymously to Scotland Yard in 1987.
J. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 07 June 2001 - 06:01 pm | | Jacunuis
- Both known pictures were taken from inside the room.
- No evidence the windows were ever removed.
- Photo's were taken inside with a tripod mounted camera.
- No-one was allowed to disturb the crime scene until 1:30pm, that includes removing any fixtures like doors or windows.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Judith Stock
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 12:42 am | | Jacunius,
Jon is correct, but many others have been down the same road you now travel. The photos were all taken from inside the room with a fixed mount camera. Check any of the following sources for corroboration: Evans & Skinner, Sugden, A-Z.
Within all your labyrinths, spirals, and rhombic dodechedrons, is there a point to your not-so- subtle accusations of cover-up, subterfuge and obfuscation?
We all wait with bated breath......
Regards, and Jon....cheers....long time, no talk.
Judith Stock |
Author: Christopher-Michael DiGrazia
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 08:13 am | | As far as I can determine, Dr Bond's report (returned along with other missing material) was first published in full by Martin Fido in his "Crimes, Death and Detection of JTR."
And if there is a report noting that the window to Kelly's room was ever removed, I haven't seen it (or, to be charitable, my aging memory cannot recall such). All I have seen is that the door was forced to gain entry, and this was on Arnold's orders after 1.30pm when it was evident Warren's bloodhounds were not coming.
But so what? Anything can look like a conspiracy if you're determined enough. Sorry for the weary tone, Jacunius, but we've heard variants of this before. Teasing about "clues" and "many known facts" is a sure way to put the wind up people, even if you don't want to do it.
Regards,
CMD |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 12:11 pm | | Dear Jacunius,
Any idea who the police-photographer was?
Rosey :-) |
Author: Jon
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 05:52 pm | | Judith
Hi Stranger, nice to see you make an appearance every now & then.
CMD
I think we can safely place the "window removal" story as originating with The London Times, Nov. 10th, but supported nowhere else, that I know of. No mention of this event in any first-hand statements by either officials or witnesses present at Millers Court nor any hint at such a suggestion at the following inquest.
Cracklin Rosie
No mention of the photographer's name at the Millers Court location.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Michael Lyden
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 06:25 pm | | Hello Everyone,
Does anybody Know,at what point in time,on the 9th of Nov' The photograph of Kelly's windows was taken ie.prior to or after the body was photographed?
Regards,
Mick Lyden |
Author: Jon
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 06:56 pm | | Mick
We are at the mercy of vague reports as to when the photo's were taken.
Accounts suggest that the photographer was sent for after the door had been forced but before the main examination that day. The sequence of events went something like this...
1:30pm, door forced open.
1:30-2:00pm, Dr. Philips conducted a preliminary examination of the body, the photographer was sent for.
2:00pm (or shortly after) the other doctors arrived and the main exam. got underway.
3:50pm (approx), the body was removed to the mortuary.
Many photo's were taken that day, according to Walter Dew, and we cannot be possitive when any of them were taken.
The outside shot may not have even been taken on the same day, but because there is no evidence in the photo of the windows been boarded up or door secured then we might allow that it was taken while the doctors were inside and the court had been totally cleared of people. If it was taken on the day of the murder then this is when I suggest it was done (2:00-4:00pm), because after that the windows were boarded up and the door also, and this was obviously intended to keep the morbid thrill-seekers away, so the premises may have been in that condition for several days.
On the Saturday Dr. Phillips & Coroner McDonald entered the premises to sift the ashes of the grate, looking for something which may have been burned on the day of the murder. Whether the premises were boarded up on Friday or Saturday we cannot know, but the photo, if contemporary, may have been taken around this period.
Regards. Jon |
Author: Judith Stock
Friday, 08 June 2001 - 09:18 pm | | Hi back, Jon. it HAS been ages, and I'm sorry that Jacunius got me that way, but I couldn't stand it anymore......you remember what Popeye said? "I CAN'T STANDS NO MORE!" It's just that rubbish like this makes me crazy....conspiracies 'round every corner. Ye gods! It reminds one of the Dealey Plaza conumdrum, which is never-ending and eternal!
I suppose that knowing the killer will never be named to everyone's satisfaction bothers some no end, and rather than admit it's an insoluble riddle, there are those who will put bogeymen on the Met and on the Vigilance Committee, and surround them with cabals and conspiracy theories.
It's really this simple......if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, then.........it's probably a duck!! Go figure......
Cheers to all,
Judy |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 06:20 am | | Dear Jon,
If the photograph of the house was contemporary with the event as you suggest...after the door was forced with an axe...there would be signs of damage/debris around the doorway.
As an expert in forcing entrances and exits, I can positively state that a 19th century slat-and-bar construction in pine, approximately two-and-a -half/three quarter inches thick and a two inch steel locking-bolt...and the standard lock having about 6/7 two-and-half inch steel screws to secure it to the door and 3 such screws to retain the locking plate to the heavy door-post...I can assure you it takes a strong man with an axe to remove that door...and there would'nt be much left of a door.
The Kelly photograph I have seen does not exhibit anything to suggest that door had been SMASHED down...
In my opinion, the Kelly photograph was taken (via a window which had been forced open) prior to anyone entering that room.
Rosey :-) |
Author: Bob Hinton
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 07:10 am | | Dear Rosey
I'm not quite sure if you're describing a door to a tenement house or the main gate to the Tower of London. A door 2 1/2 3/4" inches thick? Sorry to disallusion you the actual frame of the door would be about 3/4 to 1" thick at most and the four softwood panels about 1/4 to 1/2 at most.
I'm not sure where you get the bit about a bolt from, there's nothing to back that up. The lock would be secured with 3 or 4 (certainly not 6 or 7) small screws possibly 3/4 or 1". The door frame would be a relatively flimsy thing.
A straight punch (over a folded jacket) in the centre of the door, where the frame crosses over is enough to take out the complete middle of the door allowing a hand to be put through to release the lock. It would not take much effort to remove that door, and it certainly wasn't smashed down with an axe.
The door was opened by McCarthy who, bearing in mind it was his door, opened it by inserting the tip of a pickaxe in between door and frame and gently levering it open. This was accomplished with very little damage
all the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 09 June 2001 - 07:57 am | | Thankyou Bob for your usual unjection of sane logic......some people just go off on a tangent.
(expert indeed)
Judy
Yes,...there are those who read a little but profess alot, then there are those who read alot but think very little.......logic is a rare commodity.
Regards, Jon |
|
|
|
|
