The Oldest Photograph

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:20 am

We recently came across this photo in the family archives. The baby in it is my grandmother! We estimate it to have been taken circa 1885.

I'm by no means an expert on photography but enjoy taking and looking at pictures. I use a Kodak Easyshare Digital camera - model CX4230 -. I recently downloaded Picasa2 software available from Google. I find Picasa to be much more powerful and flexible than Kodak and it has been very useful in collating and organizing my photographic collection..

Any comments/ experiences from colleagues on the forum would be of interest.

Norm.

Attached files

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:20 am

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: We recently came across this photo in the family archives. The baby in it is my grandmother! We estimate it to have been taken circa 1885.

I'm by no means an expert on photography but enjoy taking and looking at pictures. I use a Kodak Easyshare Digital camera - model CX4230 -. I recently downloaded Picasa2 software available from Google. I find Picasa to be much more powerful and flexible than Kodak and it has been very useful in collating and organizing my photographic collection..

Any comments/ experiences from colleagues on the forum would be of interest.

Norm.
It would be nice to see a picture of the modern day descendants sitting next to this picture. Looks so old. Was it a daguerrotype?

Tombstone · Post by **Tombstone** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:53 am

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: We recently came across this photo in the family archives. The baby in it is my grandmother! We estimate it to have been taken circa 1885.

I'm by no means an expert on photography but enjoy taking and looking at pictures. I use a Kodak Easyshare Digital camera - model CX4230 -. I recently downloaded Picasa2 software available from Google. I find Picasa to be much more powerful and flexible than Kodak and it has been very useful in collating and organizing my photographic collection..

Any comments/ experiences from colleagues on the forum would be of interest.

Norm.
This is great. Your grandmother was a cute baby!

I love photos - everything about them. I'm torn, however, about losing great video camera recording opportunities. I'm usually clicking away with my digital camera - but then realize later how great it would have been to have made a video.

When I look back at my old videos, this point really hits home. I know that I can/could carry two cameras, but that is also a pain in the rump.

devist8me · Post by **devist8me** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:02 am

Great picture P.E. I really don't know a lot about photography, but do have a digital camera that I use all the time. I also have the Picasso software and think it's wonderful.

along-for-the-ride · Post by **along-for-the-ride** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 1:48 pm

Thanks for sharing. Great photograph! I know you are proud to have it. I enjoy looking at old family photographs---even fron other people's families.

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:16 pm

Thanks everyone for your interest. I don't think it was early enough to be daguerrotype. This type, I believe, started to be phased out around 1850 and was replaced by the wet condolian system. But it could have been. As you say,Kensloft, it has that appearance.

Post by **kensloft** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 6:20 pm

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Thanks everyone for your interest. I don't think it was early enough to be daguerrotype. This type, I believe, started to be phased out around 1850 and was replaced by the wet condolian system. But it could have been. As you say,Kensloft, it has that appearance.
Easy way to tell is if there is a metal backing on the photograph.

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:26 am

The photograph doesn't have a metal backing

Post by **kensloft** » Sat Apr 09, 2005 6:59 pm

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: The photograph doesn't have a metal backing
Then it's not a daguerrotype. Probably Eastman paper. Don't take my word for it but it was in that period that paper came into vogue. Chemicals used mercury and caused a lot of health problems for the photographers from their work in the darkroom.

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:14 am

Thanks for the info. It's amazing when you think of the advances photography was made since those days!

Post by **kensloft** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:56 am

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Thanks for the info. It's amazing when you think of the advances photography was made since those days!
Spent years in the printing industry and one of my functions was in the darkroom. It was interesting but tedious. The revolution in the evolution of photography with computers is phenomenal and makes life a lot easier if you got into computers. It is awesome. I love watching and being a part of the things that can be helpful to saving the environment by not having to make use of the chemicals and other things that go into creating photography.(as an aside, did the baseballteam take the 3 in a row from washington.

Philadelphia Eagle · Post by **Philadelphia Eagle** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:01 am

Unfortunately the Phillies did not take 3 in a row from Washington - they won the first and lost the next 2!. The crystal ball I consulted is obviously faulty and the Phillies once again flattered only to deceive.

Concur with you re the enviornment.