I have just now returned from a three day family vacation to Big Sur. Very beautiful and very relaxing. Since my portable daguerreotype salon is still not done (how many years did you say??) I decided to keep a small hand in the game by reading a novel “The Daguerreotype” by Patrick Gregory.

While on the surface this novel ends up having only a little to do with daguerreotypes per se, it is a worthwhile first effort by the author. It is period fiction about the life of an Englishwoman who emigrates to the Midwestern United States during the daguerreian era. It is interior fiction, so if you need larger than life characters blazing across the sweep of history, give it a skip. If you like reading about the changes people go through trying to cope with life happening you might give it a try. As a hospice nurse I found the segment about the protagonists final days accurate, moving and thoughtful. Even though a single daguerreotype is featured but three times in the story, the author does create a nice sense of the almost magical quality of the images done in the medium.

It won’t make you a better daguerreotypist, but it is a good read.

While I was at Big Sur I did a fair amount of digital photography, and I got to wondering if there were ways to use the digital to explore the daguerreotype process. In particular – since the daguerreotype is sensitive to the blue end of the spectrum, I wondered if using a blue filter to create B&W digitals would give me a sense of what the tonal values would be? Given how time consuming and expensive daguerreotypes are, I also wondered if I should use my digital to “scout locations”? It might help me take more daguerreotypes that actually turn out to be worth the effort.

4 Responses to “Novel?”

1. Jon says:

   June 5, 2008 at 6:37 pm

   You could probably also create digital negatives for daguerreotypes as they do for platinum/palladium printing and the myriad of other historic processes. The advantage is that you could make a daguerreotype of a scene that’d be impossible to do actually take your ‘portable daguerreotype salon’ to and you’d also be able to have multiple tries at one image until you got the image right. A teacher of mine makes absolutely beautiful platinum prints of images he took with a 4 mp camera. Though I suppose there might be some loss in the authenticity of the process but that’s another discussion all together.
2. Larry says:

   June 6, 2008 at 5:53 am

   The digital negative dag thing has been done, but there is a subtle difference, something special, that in-camera dags have that the contact printed ones do not have. A good thing to start with is to shoot and in-camera copy of a 8 x 10 black and white print, if you use a color print it will be more “daguerriean correct” ie. reds will be black, blues over exposed, with the b&w print it makes a nice even tonality on the dag plate.
3. andy says:

   June 6, 2008 at 6:51 am

   I had read a bit somewhere about using a digital print on a transparency as a contact negative for a daguerreotype. It seems to me that the difference would be the “grain” created by the dot pitch of the inkjet printing process. No matter how good your print, it is still far coarser than the molecular structure of the daguerreotype surface. Of course since I haven’t tried it I don’t know if the difference is perceptible to the eye.

   I also agree that the subject of authenticity is an entirely different thing. I won’t take a religious stance on any issue of technique – since to me an artist is free to try anything. For me though, one of the great appeals of the daguerreotype is the reduced amount of manipulation compared to the digital realm.

   Larry, I’m afraid you lost me though with your comment about copying a print. Are you saying make a daguerreotype of a color or black and white print? Maybe you would be willing to expand your comment.
4. Jonathan Danforth says:

   June 6, 2008 at 10:44 am

   I make LOTS of contact print daguerreotypes. I think that a pro can easily tell the difference between an in-camera dag and one produced by contact print. I’ve got to say that it’s FAR easier but Larry’s right about the difference.

   The daguerreotype has a humongous resolution and nothing compares to an in-camera image. The results from my new modern Schneider lens are so sharp and detailed that I’m giddy with delight.

   Here’s the link to my article about contact printing daguerreotypes: http://www.shinyphotos.com/2008/01/28/contact-printing-a-daguerreotype/

   Jonathan