Talk:History of photography

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 October 2021 and 17 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashbeamer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:27, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jammer092. Peer reviewers: Jmmcgill.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Early 1839??
Where do you have these sources from? Peter von Waldhausen, who knows Daguerre like no other, believes this photo was shot between 24 April 1838 and 4 May 1838, so nothing with "late 1838" nor "early 1839". Reference URL: http://www.niepce-daguerre.com/boulevard_du_Temple_de_dag.html So can we please remove this incorrect 1839 alternate date? If there are no objections/reactions of any kind, I will do it myself after some days. -andy 77.7.111.185 (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It isn't BCE and CE, its BC and AD.
This has been established for a very long time and just because some secular "scholars" want to eliminate the Christian Way of life doesn't mean the established norm for so many centuries can be revoked. It is all still based on Jesus' birth anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.75.196 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 May 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ERA: "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word 'era'. Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change." — howcheng  {chat} 21:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1822 or 1826?
The Photography article states, "The first permanent photograph was made in 1822[2] by a French inventor, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce..." This article states, "The history of photography commenced with the invention and development of the camera and the creation of permanent images produced in 1826[1] by the French inventor Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.[1]"

One needs corrected, unless there's a semantic difference I'm missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.7.226.227 (talk) 19:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

2011. 9. 16. (金). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.189.143.160 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It all depends on the definition of "a photograph". If that is understood to mean a permanent (i.e. reasonably light-fast) image of any kind created by the action of light, then Niépce's 1822 contact-exposed (no camera) copy of an engraving — what we would more likely call "a photocopy" — takes the "first" honors. If the more common understanding of "a photograph" as a lens-imaged view of external reality is applied, then the date moves ahead to Niépce's first durable camera photograph in 1824, similar to the well-known surviving 1826-7 photo on pewter (which is not "the first photograph" by any definition, although it is usually so called — it is simply the oldest that still exists) but made on a slab of limestone and effaced not long afterward.


 * To further complicate the matter, some old histories date a Niépce camera photograph of a table set for a light meal to 1822. Modern expert opinion is that it was made much later than the 1826-7 view from his window, probably in 1832, which would make it the second-oldest camera view of the world that we can still contemplate (the third-oldest being one of Talbot's Summer 1835 "mousetrap" pictures, and not necessarily the latticed window image traditionally called his first). Unfortunately, we can contemplate it only by way of a poor halftone reproduction made in the 1890s. The original was last seen as part of a historical display at the 1900 Paris Exposition, after which it mysteriously disappeared. The photo was on glass, so its probable fate is not hard to imagine. AVarchaeologist (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

First portrait
As far as I can tell, it is not clearly established what photograph was actually the first portrait, as the dates for both of the main contenders are uncertain (although it seems both were probably taken in 1939). Our article currently states that the Cornelius photograph was the first, but this appears to be original research. Would anyone mind if I remove this claim? Kaldari (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oldest photo of an oldest person
Conrad Heyer, this picture was taken circa 1852. He was approximately 103 when photographed, having been born in 1749. He was reportedly the first white child born in Waldoboro, Maine, then a German immigrant community. He served in the Continental Army under George Washington during the Revolutionary War, crossing the Delaware with him and fighting in other major battles. http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/the-worlds-first-eyewitness/ •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  08:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Portrait photography had already become practical ten years earlier, when Mr. Heyer was 93 and older, earlier-born nonagenarians and then-centenarians were also still alive, so this unqualified claim, like so many "first" "earliest" and "oldest" claims, is reckless at best. AVarchaeologist (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: Here you can see Revolutionary War veteran Baltus Stone (1744-1846), photographed at age 101 in 1846...and the author of the page prudently writes only that he is one of the earliest-born men ever photographed. Even academic sites can be wrong, but before swallowing any such claims, do some fact-checking and figure that Cornell University is probably a much more reliable source than somebody's blog. AVarchaeologist (talk) 07:51, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Exposure time
It hardly seems feasible that the man having his boots polished would stay in the position shown for "at least ten minutes", so why is there not a whole series of smeary ghost images around that spot? What plausible sequence of events could have caused the observed result from a 10-minute+ exposure? 109.157.10.129 (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * It's Paris in 1838 and the notion of a French gentleman chatting it up with a bootblack for ten minutes while one of his high patent leather boots gets a thorough cleaning and polishing does not overly strain my credulity. Compare a modern-day leisurely session in a barber's chair. The clearest available enlarged views of that part of the plate show that, despite the anchor points, the customer's arms and head, and most of the bootblack, are themselves either invisible or in the "smeary ghost image" category as the result of movement during the exposure. Some commentators claim to see "smeary ghost image" traces of other people elsewhere in the scene, but unlike the immortalized pair on the corner they are too indistinct to justify any definite identification as human figures. 66.81.220.24 (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What is an "invisibly faint latent image"
Invisibly means not visible. Faint means barely perceptible (in this case visible) and a latent image is by definition an invisible image. It's in paragraph 6 of the Development of Chemical Photography section. I don't know what is meant so I can't fix it. Stephlet 00:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephlet (talk • contribs)


 * Fixed with "faint"-->"slight" etc. Intent is to convey that it is essentially a matter of degree only. 66.81.241.5 (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Peer Review #1
The lead section gives a brief but well written and inclusive introduction to the topic. However, the section “Etymology” could easily be added to the lead section as it is an extremely short section on its own and lacks the ability to be considerably lengthened. The information of the section “Technological background” also seems out of place. The information is either repeated elsewhere in the article or could be more strategically placed in a different section for the most clarity.

The section “Development of chemical photography” is lengthy and filled with excellent information but perhaps further sectioning it off would make the material more readable and comprehensible.

The section “Development of digital photography” in comparison is very short and lacks the same depth of information the previous section contained. For instance the bullet point featured in this section could be elaborated on. Pictures depicting the progression of digital photography over the years would also be a valuable addition to this section. Jmmcgill (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of photography but there are major errors in the first paragraph visible to the casual reader. It says that Thomas Edison was born in 2189, that daguerrotypes take 'years' to develop in the camera and that cameras were mass-produced in the 1730s and the '17st' century. There is also a strange reference to 'satan's work'. This feature needs fixing by someone who has knowledge of photography. RisenFall (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)RisenFall

Picture from 1850s or 1880s?
Could someone please check my question on the Talk Page of Rabindranath Tagore? Wiki-uk (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

overlap with History of the camera
An awful lot of the History of photography overlaps with the History of the camera. And too much of those histories is also present on Camera as well as Photography.

I suppose History of the camera could be merged into History of photography, but maybe there are to much (technical) details there that won't fit here. And maybe History of photography could focus more on printing, art history and use of photography as a (journalistic) medium.

Camera and Photography might be better off with shorter abstracts and a references.

I'll start by working on the History of photography page and see what can be used and moved or copied from the other pages, but I'm not sure how much time I can spend on it. If others can help to improve these pages, it would be appreciated.

Early examples of use of fading/tanning and dream of fixing mirror images?
For the earliest history I took Gernsheim's ideas of the "long-cherished dream of humanity" to fix the reflections of the mirror and his idea that fading of textile and suntanning of skin was observed as affected by light. But I wonder if there are any historical examples; texts about these ideas/observations or possibly objects that creatively used fading/tanning effects. Gernsheim just states these ideas as facts or logic and they do make sense, but I'd like to see this supported with examples and have not yet found any. Please add them to the page if you know any relevant example.

Active voice copyedit reversion
Can you please explain further your reasons for reverting my copyedit? My edit converted the sentence to the active voice, which is generally considered clearer. Also, "the year of 1848" is more succinct as just "1848" — another change you reverted. Qono (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was initially considering just fixing the number agreement error, but then on reading it decided there was no improvement that I could see that I'd want to keep. The obsession with active/passive is not a good reason for the edit.  If someone wants to make it actually more clear, that's fine. Dicklyon (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin suggestion in opening remarks
The following, (with the arguable exception of a possibly photographic process used to create the mysterious shroud of Turin) requires removal. The Shroud has been examined and proven not to be created by any photographic means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A3C0:1D0B:D429:A9D4:EB87:B068 (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the second time I'm removing this claim, sourced to the theory of an art student and with no apparent scientific update after almost 30 years. EEng 15:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Film in the lede/intro - it’s as if it’s afterthought
The first and only mention of film is near the end of a sizeable paragraph, the third one o think, which waxes lyrical on daguerreotype. Boscaswell  talk  07:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)