Tue 26 Oct, 2010 02:33 am
That's in Paris, by Louis Daguerre..
too close to the silver nitrate
I remember seeing this photograph in my history of photography I had take back several years ago. This assumption that these may be the first human beings on film seems a bit too late in the making.
I wonder if Krulwich's so called epiphany is just a personal thing or an actual historical revelation that no one figured before.
i seem to recall the claim being made about this photo nearly 30 years ago
That Krulwich thinks he's so smart but he's apparently 30 years late! (((sigh))) I figured as much....
Thanks for the sanity check DJ.
might have been nat geo or one of the science type journals
from wiki about Daguerre
Daguerreotypes were usually portraits; the rarer views are much sought-after and are more expensive. The portrait process took several minutes and required the subjects to remain stock still. Samuel Morse was astonished to learn that Daguerrotypes of streets of Paris did not show any humans, until he realized that due to the long exposure times all moving objects became invisible. The time was later reduced with the "faster" lenses such as the Petzval's portrait lens, the first mathematically calculated lens.
there caption for the photo
"Boulevard du Temple", taken by Daguerre in 1838 in Paris, was the first photograph of a person. The image shows a street, but because of the over ten minute exposure time the moving traffic does not appear. The exceptions are the man and shoe-shine boy at the bottom left, and two people sitting at a table nearby who stood still long enough to have their images captured.
the photo shows up on this list of the top 10 firsts in photography as #3, not sure where they sourced their info, but the post is from January 13, 2009, so they scooped Krulwich by almost two years