Are daguerreotypes known to be superior quality over ordinary stereocards?
Quality of Stereocards
Quality of Stereocards
In the Ian Leigh book, "Delamotte's Crystal Palace", I feel the usefulness of stereocards with regards to the Crystal Palace is not emphasised enough. Firstly, with whole sets of stereoscopic views being developed from all kinds of angles, they easily provide more coverage of the palace over any set of postcards. The Delamotte photos were said to be an important find at the time, but atleast half were already known views--not just a few--OVER HALF. The thing that gets me is that the Ian Leigh book states that these photos are good quality and at the same time sort of dismisses stereocards as not being in the same league (in so many words). In fact, the Delamotte photos discovered a few years back were evidently in a very poor condition. The known views were already available in better quality. As for stereoscopic views, they may not show as wide an angle, but they are nevertheless right up there in my opinion. Take the one below for example--accumulated dirt notwithstanding...
Are daguerreotypes known to be superior quality over ordinary stereocards?
Are daguerreotypes known to be superior quality over ordinary stereocards?
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
Falkor, you have again anticipated my latest post on the "walk through the nave" thread.
I have tried to clarify the story of the creation of images of the Crystal Palace by various firms, without getting too technical about the different photographic processes.
I'm not sure why Ian LEITH's book gave you that particular impression.
Daguerrotypes v prints v stereoviews.
Daguerrotypes are negative images on glass, cased in front of a dark reflective surface, creating the appearance of a positive image. The tradition is that they are unique as there is no negative, though surely the plate itself could be used as such.
The magic of the stereoview image is lost, I think, on those who don't have access to a viewer, or can do the crossing your eyes trick. The three dimensional effect is spectacular, with views seeming to go back miles.
The change to what I will call paper prints meant a reduction in production costs and ease of manufacture. With such a high demand for stereoviews at the time, there was also call for many different images, of the Crystal Palace for example, which is why they are a source of unusual views of the building.
Paper prints are much more vulnerable to the conditions they are stored in, than daguerreotypes, although they are vulnerable too in their own way. A print can fade and suffer from foxing. The English Heritage/Delamotte images are perhaps not in the best condition. I recently bought some identical prints, that have fared better, from ebay. The fact is though, far fewer stereoviews would have been sold or survived if only the more expensive daguerreotypes had been produced.[/u]
I have tried to clarify the story of the creation of images of the Crystal Palace by various firms, without getting too technical about the different photographic processes.
I'm not sure why Ian LEITH's book gave you that particular impression.
Daguerrotypes v prints v stereoviews.
Daguerrotypes are negative images on glass, cased in front of a dark reflective surface, creating the appearance of a positive image. The tradition is that they are unique as there is no negative, though surely the plate itself could be used as such.
The magic of the stereoview image is lost, I think, on those who don't have access to a viewer, or can do the crossing your eyes trick. The three dimensional effect is spectacular, with views seeming to go back miles.
The change to what I will call paper prints meant a reduction in production costs and ease of manufacture. With such a high demand for stereoviews at the time, there was also call for many different images, of the Crystal Palace for example, which is why they are a source of unusual views of the building.
Paper prints are much more vulnerable to the conditions they are stored in, than daguerreotypes, although they are vulnerable too in their own way. A print can fade and suffer from foxing. The English Heritage/Delamotte images are perhaps not in the best condition. I recently bought some identical prints, that have fared better, from ebay. The fact is though, far fewer stereoviews would have been sold or survived if only the more expensive daguerreotypes had been produced.[/u]
I'l explain how I got my impression based on a series of quotes...I'm not sure why Ian LEITH's book gave you that particular impression.
That is false. The Negretti and Zambra volume of stereocards are the first set of images to show the palace during it's heyday.These images, published here for the first time, are the first set to show one of the most important buildings in England at the height of its fame in the late 1850s.
Only some? Try over HALF... In fact, Ken Kiss believes there might only be a handful he hadn't seen already. Also, photographs before and after the opening are easy to distinguish, and we already knew Delamotte took photos at both times.Although some of the images were already known, they were mostly confused with the similar views taken by the photographer, which showed the palace while it was under construction.
They aren't anywhere near the best images of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham. And Ian Leith fails to point out the condition of the Delamotte set.Delamotte's newly discovered photographs, the best images of the second Crystal Palace yet known, provide an opportunity to re-examine its significance.
Well, in most cases for most areas, this is true. Take Lewisham for example, there are some images from the 1850s and 1860s, but most came later, during the postcard era. However, where the Crystal Palace was a tourist attraction, most images came from the first 2 decades as opposed to later. Ian Leith quite rightly points out the lack of views for certain areas of the palace, like the Industrial Courts. He mentions how Delamotte took an artistic point of view and not a documentary "objective" type of view, but at the same time fails to point out that stereoviews were taken in this very way, and included glimpes of the Industrial Courts. Terry's scan showing the corner of the Musical Instruments Court is the only postcard I know that shows any of these courts. The palace just doesn't seem to have been as popular at the turn of the century as it had been in the previous decades. The early views of even the Fine Arts Courts are far more numerous.Later images, by constrast, are so numerous that we are overwhelmed by apparently overlapping and proliferating visual evidence.
Ian Leith finally mentions stereocards, but overshadowed in the same sentence by Delamotte's "large-format mounted prints". Yeah, right, but what about the quality, Ian???A huge number of stereo images proliferated in the late 1850s and 1860s at accessible prices, but large-format mounted prints like Delamotte's had a much more limited circulation.
Not to put down Ian Leith's book, which is a lot better than the Jan Piggott book in terms of context. I like the way Ian Leith points out what is missing from the photographic record and provides plans of the courts etc. If you read an article in Crystal Palace Matters about the Assyrian Court, for example, it fails to point out crucial pieces of information like "No Interior views are known to exist", but Ian leith does a great job here. I could try and come up with a list of criticims for the Jan Piggott book to help you see it in a new light, as I'm due to re-read it soon. It's really just a fancy piece of English writing, making use of some unnecessary French words with lots of redundant information and not much new. The content and context is seriously lacking.
Edit: spelling
-
tulse hill terry
- Posts: 688
- Joined: 25 Jun 2007 01:33
- Location: sarf lunnen
A note on Daguerreotypes.
I have been reading around the subject of early photography. Not easy, as most that has been written is orientated to the date of the first appearance of the various new technologies.
Daguerreotypes are unique images created by the etching with light sensitive chemicals, a negative image onto a silver plated copperplate.. This is then cased in an airtight case, under glass.
Delamotte used the new collodion process, creating negative images on wax paper, then used to create albumen print positive prints. [The negatives would have to be processed on the spot in a matter of minutes.]
The collodion process was also used to create a negative image on glass. This would be then cased under glass, with a dark surface behind which would give the appearance of a positive image. These images are called "ambrotypes."
These "ambrotypes" would be cased the same way as a daguerreotype, I doubt if any museum or collector would choose to take one of these cases apart to decide the difference!
I do wonder if the daguerreotype views of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham are actually ambrotypes, and as such, Negretti & Zambra could have used their stock of what are actually ambrotypes to produce identical albument print images.
I know the catalogue of the London Stereoscopic Company states that the same images were availiable as daguerreotypes and [albument] prints.
There's a catalogue that has just appeared on ebay, showing prints of daguerreotypes, but with positve images, not possible from daguerreotype surely.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-1856-John-Ma ... dZViewItem
Ends 07-Jan-08 00:58:22 GMT
The positives are also wildly mis-labelled, with an image of the Greek and Roman Sculpture Court at the Crystal Palace in Sydenham mixed in with the International Exhibition at Paris 1855.
To quote from the book: ""The supplementary back, or perforated mat in the back of the book, is intended to view Daguerreotype pictures on glass . . ." Surely only possible with "Ambrotypes."
I have been reading around the subject of early photography. Not easy, as most that has been written is orientated to the date of the first appearance of the various new technologies.
Daguerreotypes are unique images created by the etching with light sensitive chemicals, a negative image onto a silver plated copperplate.. This is then cased in an airtight case, under glass.
Delamotte used the new collodion process, creating negative images on wax paper, then used to create albumen print positive prints. [The negatives would have to be processed on the spot in a matter of minutes.]
The collodion process was also used to create a negative image on glass. This would be then cased under glass, with a dark surface behind which would give the appearance of a positive image. These images are called "ambrotypes."
These "ambrotypes" would be cased the same way as a daguerreotype, I doubt if any museum or collector would choose to take one of these cases apart to decide the difference!
I do wonder if the daguerreotype views of the Crystal Palace at Sydenham are actually ambrotypes, and as such, Negretti & Zambra could have used their stock of what are actually ambrotypes to produce identical albument print images.
I know the catalogue of the London Stereoscopic Company states that the same images were availiable as daguerreotypes and [albument] prints.
There's a catalogue that has just appeared on ebay, showing prints of daguerreotypes, but with positve images, not possible from daguerreotype surely.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Rare-1856-John-Ma ... dZViewItem
Ends 07-Jan-08 00:58:22 GMT
The positives are also wildly mis-labelled, with an image of the Greek and Roman Sculpture Court at the Crystal Palace in Sydenham mixed in with the International Exhibition at Paris 1855.
To quote from the book: ""The supplementary back, or perforated mat in the back of the book, is intended to view Daguerreotype pictures on glass . . ." Surely only possible with "Ambrotypes."