Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Times have changed... would you be a photographer 100 years ago?
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
Mar 28, 2020 10:26:31   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
How many of us today would be enthusiastic photographers 100 years ago?

I ask because of reading, "Photographic Amusements, Including A Description of a Number of Novel Effects Obtainable with the Camera" by- Walter E. Woodbury, - Revised and Enlarged by Frank R. Fraprie-Ninth Edition- 1922  Copyright- 1896... and admit to a good bit of smugness when discussed is the hilarity of having the photographer- or others- appear to be shaking hands with themselves or flouting the laws of time and space. But, I also must allow a good bit of respect for these early shutterbugs given the difficulty of doing such things IN CAMERA!. Even a simple silhouette image becomes a major undertaking when background, reflectors- position of the window... lots of things must be considered...

There are fun things, too: "Photo in a Bottle" - that is, photographic emulsion being sloshed about to coat the interior of a bottle, letting it dry and taping a negative to the bottle's exterior then, heading into sunshine with a finger up the bottle's orifice so it can be turned for an even exposure. Simply pour developer, stop and fixer into the bottle for processing. And, "electric photographs" - various metal objects (coins a favorite) placed on a dry plate and passing a current "exposes" the silver halides without visible light..

One novelty offered is having an image of your favorite scenic, or perhaps Uncle Fred, that reveals itself only when its temperature reaches whatever temperature hog fat liquifies and turns transparent. I suppose, if the image was a bit risqué', it would be a hoot in some Wisconsin ice fishing shack. Regardless, instruction for making this delightful, "Disappearing Photograph" is provided and the materials list includes: white wax, hog lard, a strip of "gold beater's skin" and strong glue. Not mentioned is the point at which lard turns rancid... No doubt this novelty is best suited for cooler regions.

How 'bout "Post Mortem" photographs... First, have a negative of the departed one; either provided by the family or, taken yourself.  Then, mix together various amounts of, "... bichromate of ammonia, albumen, grape sugar, bichromate of potash, honey..." plus other ingredients which combined and gently heated over a spirit lamp, and, while still warm, is applied evenly to a glass plate, which, when dry, is ready to be exposed.  Place the glass plate and afore mentioned negative onto a printing frame and expose to the sun for two to five minutes.  Next, remove the negative and place the exposed plate in a dark, damp place to absorb moisture.   When the plate becomes tacky, evenly dust over it the cremated remains of the departed one (the guy in the negative)... which will, "  ... adhere to the parts unexposed to light, and a portrait is obtained composed entirely of the person it represents, or rather what is left of him." But wait! There's more!! "When fully developed the excess of powder is dusted off and the film coated with collodion.  It is then well washed to remove the bichromate salt.  The film can, if desired, be detached and transferred to ivory, wood, or any other support."  
For me... all I can imagine is something along the line of Elvis on black velvet...

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 10:40:18   #
Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida
 
fuminous wrote:
How many of us today would be enthusiastic photographers 100 years ago?

I ask because of reading, "Photographic Amusements, Including A Description of a Number of Novel Effects Obtainable with the Camera" by- Walter E. Woodbury, - Revised and Enlarged by Frank R. Fraprie-Ninth Edition- 1922  Copyright- 1896... and admit to a good bit of smugness when discussed is the hilarity of having the photographer- or others- appear to be shaking hands with themselves or flouting the laws of time and space. But, I also must allow a good bit of respect for these early shutterbugs given the difficulty of doing such things IN CAMERA!. Even a simple silhouette image becomes a major undertaking when background, reflectors- position of the window... lots of things must be considered...

There are fun things, too: "Photo in a Bottle" - that is, photographic emulsion being sloshed about to coat the interior of a bottle, letting it dry and taping a negative to the bottle's exterior then, heading into sunshine with a finger up the bottle's orifice so it can be turned for an even exposure. Simply pour developer, stop and fixer into the bottle for processing. And, "electric photographs" - various metal objects (coins a favorite) placed on a dry plate and passing a current "exposes" the silver halides without visible light..

One novelty offered is having an image of your favorite scenic, or perhaps Uncle Fred, that reveals itself only when its temperature reaches whatever temperature hog fat liquifies and turns transparent. I suppose, if the image was a bit risqué', it would be a hoot in some Wisconsin ice fishing shack. Regardless, instruction for making this delightful, "Disappearing Photograph" is provided and the materials list includes: white wax, hog lard, a strip of "gold beater's skin" and strong glue. Not mentioned is the point at which lard turns rancid... No doubt this novelty is best suited for cooler regions.

How 'bout "Post Mortem" photographs... First, have a negative of the departed one; either provided by the family or, taken yourself.  Then, mix together various amounts of, "... bichromate of ammonia, albumen, grape sugar, bichromate of potash, honey..." plus other ingredients which combined and gently heated over a spirit lamp, and, while still warm, is applied evenly to a glass plate, which, when dry, is ready to be exposed.  Place the glass plate and afore mentioned negative onto a printing frame and expose to the sun for two to five minutes.  Next, remove the negative and place the exposed plate in a dark, damp place to absorb moisture.   When the plate becomes tacky, evenly dust over it the cremated remains of the departed one (the guy in the negative)... which will, "  ... adhere to the parts unexposed to light, and a portrait is obtained composed entirely of the person it represents, or rather what is left of him." But wait! There's more!! "When fully developed the excess of powder is dusted off and the film coated with collodion.  It is then well washed to remove the bichromate salt.  The film can, if desired, be detached and transferred to ivory, wood, or any other support."  
For me... all I can imagine is something along the line of Elvis on black velvet...

So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?
How many of us today would be enthusiastic photogr... (show quote)


Absolutely. I began my practice in a dark room with Kodak chemistry books from the 1930's where we made our solutions from scratch and the learning curve was huge for me as a young & eager beginner. I still have a couple of those origin publications in storage.

I wish more of our younger population could have been exposed to the rigors of the old ways to appreciate the incredible distance our sport has come. If you're a good chemist , you're most likely a good cook as well and I am. The lessons learned go far and wide especially in the art & entertainment business. I went into so many rodeos with my curiosity and it all started with a $5 camera I got at a rumage sale around 1955.....who knew?

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 10:47:36   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
fuminous wrote:
How many of us today would be enthusiastic photographers 100 years ago?
So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?


Not likely. I would be trying to put my life together again surviving WW1 and/or the "Spanish Flu".

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 11:14:30   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
fuminous wrote:
So, again: Would you be a photographer 100 years ago?

Certainly. I began emulating the work of men like Beebe & Clegg, whose pictures of railroads were taken just about a hundred years ago.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:22:26   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
100 years ago photographers had to be able to think and visualise. Today it's mostly point and shoot, and photoshop it.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:23:12   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
Blair Shaw Jr wrote:
Absolutely. I began my practice in a dark room with Kodak chemistry books from the 1930's where we made our solutions from scratch and the learning curve was huge for me as a young & eager beginner. I still have a couple of those origin publications in storage.

I wish more of our younger population could have been exposed to the rigors of the old ways to appreciate the incredible distance our sport has come. If you're a good chemist , you're most likely a good cook as well and I am. The lessons learned go far and wide especially in the art & entertainment business. I went into so many rodeos with my curiosity and it all started with a $5 camera I got at a rumage sale around 1955.....who knew?
Absolutely. I began my practice in a dark room wi... (show quote)


Gotta agree with you Blair, if for no other reason than photographers weren't very common and, being a photographer got you into many a place you wouldn't normally have access... or meet the people you meet.
And, yes, I'm a good cook, too!

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:29:26   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
joer wrote:
Not likely. I would be trying to put my life together again surviving WW1 and/or the "Spanish Flu".


Yup, lots of troubles a century ago but, we have lots of troubles today, too... Back in the 70's I had it in my head that, as a photographer with adequate photo skills and knowledge, I might be sometimes hungry but would never starve to death... Of course that was before digital images, camera phones, Photoshop... and everybody being a photographer...

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 11:37:06   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Possibly, since "film" was invented in 1885, definitely not with wet plates though.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:38:03   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
rehess wrote:
Certainly. I began emulating the work of men like Beebe & Clegg, whose pictures of railroads were taken just about a hundred years ago.


Absolutely!!! THAT! was the time- especially for 'specialization' - railroads, ships, autos in particular, medical, manufacturing. Let's not forget Edward Curtis and his wonderful work, or Michael Disfarmer... Yup, 100 years ago, had you any talent and the means, your photographs today would be quite a valuable collection. Trouble is... wouldn't do YOU much good...

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:50:54   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
Leitz wrote:
100 years ago photographers had to be able to think and visualise. Today it's mostly point and shoot, and photoshop it.


That's not wrong, Leitz, also, it wasn't cheap and required lots of work to reach that finished product. On the other hand, looking at the work of early studio photographers, there wasn't much imagination displayed (perhaps by equipment limitations) and processing was strictly by the numbers... production work. Today, photography might be a tool used in support of some other effort- such as high-speed, spectrum, infra-red- even dental ... each can record spectacular images but, the objective was to record information- documentation. But, I understand your point- thoughtless snapping is certainly a reality.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 11:51:07   #
rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA
 
Depends on if I could have afforded it back then. A century ago, photography as a hobby was more of a leisure class thing.

Reply
 
 
Mar 28, 2020 12:00:27   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
Longshadow wrote:
Possibly, since "film" was invented in 1885, definitely not with wet plates though.


Heavy, messy, delicate and often disappointing... wet plates ain't for me either, Longshadow... or, dry plates either. Still, with a mind set shaped by today's knowledge, I'd like to think that, 100 years ago, I'd put up with all that trouble if for no other reason than the adventure of it... a socially acceptable excuse for a life as vagabond and voyeur... just visiting... sell a few tin types and move along...

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 12:07:55   #
fuminous Loc: Luling, LA... for now...
 
rook2c4 wrote:
Depends on if I could have afforded it back then. A century ago, photography as a hobby was more of a leisure class thing.


That's true- photography also demanded a certain level literacy and education- more likely found among the prosperous

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 12:10:46   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
Leitz wrote:
100 years ago photographers had to be able to think and visualise. Today it's mostly point and shoot, and photoshop it.

I don’t think that is true. I’m not sure someone could do anything in LightRoom that couldn’t be done {more slowly} in a DarkRoom. Besides, there are some things {such as to get a different angle on the front of a building} which could not be fixed only in the field in any era.

Reply
Mar 28, 2020 12:11:42   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
I have a photo of my great great grandparents' home. On the back it says that the photo was taken and printed by my great grandfather in '97. So photography was not that uncommon 100 years ago. A lot of family photos are dated in the late 1800s. Most of the pre-1880 photos I have were studio shots.

Reply
Page 1 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.