tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38446021.post3819563832944154226..comments2024-01-08T00:59:52.091-07:00Comments on muse-ings: The world's oldest photograph - 1790?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38446021.post-58736169781909914202008-04-03T08:17:00.000-06:002008-04-03T08:17:00.000-06:00Wishful thinking? While if true, it would be the H...Wishful thinking? While if true, it would be the Holy Grail of photography, it seems highly unlikely to be what is being put forth for a host of reasons. Read Robert Leggat's entry on Thomas Wedgwood: "[Wedgewood] had worked closely with Davey, and their work was very nearly a breakthrough, for they had made what one can best describe as photograms. However, they were unable to fix the images, and the story is told that Wedgwood was reduced to examining his pictures furtively by the light of a candle. They also tried using a camera obscura, but the chemicals being used at the time were not sufficiently sensitive.<BR/><BR/>In the report to the Royal Society, June 1802, Davy wrote:<BR/><BR/>'The copy of a painting, or the profile, immediately after being taken, must be kept in an obscure place. It [m]ay indeed be examined in the shade, but, in this case, the exposure should be only for a few minutes; by the light of candles or lamps, as commonly employed, it is not sensibly affected.'<BR/><BR/>Wedgwood died three years later, aged 34. What neither he nor Davey could find was discovered in 1819 by Sir John Herschel."<BR/><BR/>www.rleggat.com/photohistory<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it is by Herschel instead which could still make it the world's first extant photograph.afterimagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06376044546858482790noreply@blogger.com