1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Birth of Photgraphy

Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by SXH, Jan 11, 2017.

  1. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    The edition of Science Stories on Radio 4 at the moment is called the Birth of Photography and is about William Fox Talbot.

    A podcast is available for the next 30 days from here.


    ETA: and if a mod could fix the thread title, that would be nice.
     
  2. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    As there are so many that have a claim on being the Father of photography, how did the come to settle on Fox talbot.
    There were so many aspects of photography that it is hard to find a winner.
    Photograpy had many important advancements and processes from blue prints, fabric and ceramic printing. Microfilming. Lithography. Photography with a portable camera was just the glamerous branch.
     
  3. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Michael Pritchard fixes the blame on Daguerre and Niepce (pere et fils) with the announcement by Arago in 1839 of a commercial process. Fox Talbot's oldest surviving image dates to 1835 but the process wasn't commercially viable until 1841 when he obtained a patent. Then again, Thomas Wedgwood was making his "Photograms" as early as 1800 but even he did not see them as a commercial product.
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Indeed, my last AP column of 2016 addresses precisely this point. At least, within the limit of <500 words.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  5. Roger_Provins

    Roger_Provins Well-Known Member

  6. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Then you have photograms, unfixed images, partially fixed images...

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  7. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Rather than wasting your time writing posts showing off your knowledge of the early days of photography, you could always listen to (at least the beginning of) the podcast and find out WHY they went with WFT. *

    Apart from RogetH who lives, I think, in forrin so would need to use one of them address spoofing progs to be able to download said podcast.


    * I shall probably get around to listening to it myself in the near future... :oops:
     
  8. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Steve,

    You mean you recommended it without bothering to listen to it?

    I've already downloaded it and listened to as much as I can stand. I was much reminded of an infants' school teacher with whom I had a brief affair in the early 1970s. I particularly remember her saying, "That was nice, wasn't it?" The presenter and others sounded like her, even though (or possibly because) they dived into pornography within a few minutes of the beginning.

    AND they used the continuous present, rather incompetently, which always drives me up the wall.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  9. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    I didn't 'recommend' it, I just let people know it was on so they could have a listen and make up their own minds.

    As I shall do when I get around to it.
     
  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Dear Steve,

    Fair enough, but I've found the comments in this thread at least as informative as the programme; or, as I say, as much of it as I could stand.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  11. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Well, I've had a listen to it (it was either that or a repeat of 'Allo 'Allo!) and thought it was OK for a general audience who probably had never heard of WFT. As such, it was a bit fact-light. It did get a bit socio-political and speculative toward the end - maybe it should have been split into two programmes, to cover both more deeply.

    The porn bit was quite short and explored the idea that up until then all images had been drawn and now you could see 'real people', not an artists impression. Not a very deep idea, but interesting if you had never considered it before.

    As for the woman's voice? Well, it struck me that she was trying to put over her enthusiasm, but in a rather am-dram way. But then again, some people's voices when faced with a recording device do go a bit different from their normal voice - mine on my old works ansaphone sounded like Marvin the Paranoid Android. On a bad day!

    All in all, it was OK. Not brilliant but adequate for an audience not made up of the members of this forum.
     
    Roger Hicks likes this.

Share This Page