April 10, 2008 10:07 AM PDT

Photography may be older than you think

by Phil Ryan
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 1 comment

This image of a Leaf, an early photogenic drawing, was thought to have been created by William Henry Fox Talbot in 1839, but may have been created by Thomas Wedgewood in 1805.

This image of a Leaf, an early photogenic drawing, was thought to have been created by William Henry Fox Talbot in 1839, but may have been created by Thomas Wedgewood in 1805.

(Credit: Sotheby's)

For years now, it generally has been accepted that the earliest known photographs made using easily repeatable techniques (photogenic drawings) were made about 1839. Some photographs had been made earlier, but they required extremely long exposures and were considered impractical. However, the world of photography might soon be turned on its head if a photogenic drawing that was recently removed from auction at Sotheby's turns out to have been made in 1802, as one photographic historian thinks it might.

David Schonauer, editor of American Photo magazine, has a detailed account of the story on the State of the Art blog at popphoto.com, but here are the basics. The image of a leaf, which is currently part of the Quillan Company Collection, had long been thought to have been created by early photographic pioneer William Henry Fox Talbot who was a contemporary of Louis Daguerre, whose eponymous Daguerreotypes launched an image-making craze in the mid-1800's from which the world has never recovered. Now, photo historian Larry J. Schaaf has said that the Leaf image may have been created by Thomas Wedgewood as early as 1805, or possibly even earlier. Just to put that in perspective, the earliest known permanent photograph (an eight-hour exposure out the window of a building in Saint-Loup-de-Varennes, France) was created by Joseph Nicephore Niepce circa 1826. If Schaaf is correct, Niepce may lose his coveted spot in photographic history and possibly fade away like so many unfixed photogenic drawings.

Stay tuned kids...this is about as exciting as photographic history gets.

Recent posts from Crave
So you've got a Zune...now what?
So you got an iPhone, now what?
Post-Christmas Wireless-N routers explained
How to buy a Bluetooth headset
Apple owns iSlate.com--the mystery deepens
Fleximus camera perfect for plumbers
Friday Poll: What do you most want to see in 2010?
New Android phone? Start with these free apps
Add a Comment (Log in or register)
by otokichi April 11, 2008 12:09 PM PDT
A long time ago, when chemical-based photography was hot, Polaroid's P/N produced both a print and a fixable negative for "need to know right now" technical and fashion photography. If the negative wasn't run through a sodium sulfite bath, it faded away and all one had was the print. One could argue that without the negative, one didn't have the original and possessing the print alone was suspect. In these Photoshop days, one needs only some kind of image to "improve" upon, which leads to another kind of "is it real?" debate. So how does one assess a salt print negative that will fade into a dark smudge if subjected to intense analysis or used to make a serial print series? (The former is needed to set a creation date range, the latter to do a "Maurice Minnifield" and market a set of ethereal/limited series set of prints.) I left chemical-based photography when Kodachrome still existed, but I'd be intrigued if the Wedgewood first is confirmed.
Reply to this comment
advertisement

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

Add this feed to your online news reader

Crave topics

15 sites that went kaput in 2009

Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.

Top 10 news stories of the decade

Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.