Category Archives: Photography Formats

Daguerreotype of Magdalena Hulst, circa 1855, DAG.09; Photography collection; Brooklyn Historical Society.

Digital Photograph taken at the Brooklyn Botanical Garden.

I personally think that the trip to the Brooklyn Historical Society taught me many new things, especially about daguerreotype photographs. It was exciting to know that we were able to see the daguerreotypes up close. Daguerreotypes are really different from digital photographs. Daguerreotype pictures are pictures that were made with chemicals and the pictures appear on metal plates. When I viewed one of the daguerreotypes, at first you couldn’t see the image, but when I viewed the picture on a different angle, I saw an image of a young woman sitting down. Digital photography is such a dramatic change from daguerreotype. Digital photographs are a stark images with vivid colors, yet daguerreotypes are images that you have to take time to look at to see what they really are, and the decorative frames that they put around these small images are beautiful, and seemed like it took a lot of time to create. This shows the difference of photography and the difference of how much goes into developing a photograph from the 1800’s to now. Overall our visit to the Brooklyn Historical Society was like a step back into the past, and it was a great to view the different daguerreotype pictures.

In the following paper, I will make several observations about the significant differences between “Danguerrereotype” picture and a digital photograph.

The “Danguerrereotype” picture does not offer vivid details to the viewer, anywhere close to the level of Digital photography. These pictures are in black and white or solid colors which are in direct contrast to today’s modern digital photography which allows for the full spectrum of color. In fact, in many cases it  almost seems to be a cloud and there is an aura around the subject matter of the picture. These qualities do not allow for a completely accurate representation of the person or subject matter, in the same manner that a digital photograph would. However, the same qualities which might make the picture look less representative of the subject matter also add an artistic appeal to the picture. This is especially true when viewing “Danguerreotype” pictures of people. These black and white representations of people seem to capture the soul of the person but not necessarily does the viewer feel like they are looking at the person himself. When a person views a picture of a person that is taken digitally, you can see that person’s outward appearance in plain and sometimes painstaking detail. It is the same as seeing a person in passing on the street or at a restaurant. The “Danguerreotype” picture makes the viewer feel like you are viewing something spectral…”real” but “other worldy”. That is what makes the “type” pictures appeal to me against digital photography. They almost appear haunted the viewer loses the detail of the subject matter and you see the essence.

Conversely, Digital photography is excellent for capturing subject matter that contains vivid colors and detail. I compared a picture of a flower that was done in the respective mediums. The “type” picture feels like the colors bleed and they are not very vivid. When you view the flower, it is pretty but looks more like a smudge on paper then the digital photograph. The best analogy I can make is that the “type” picture has an abstract quality to it which makes it appealing but not necessarily representative. The digital photograph of similar subject matter just pops of the page at the viewer. You can see the color and all of the details of the flower. Each petal is clearly demarcated from the next, you can see all of the different parts of the flower. This compares much more favorably to the “smudge” of the “type” picture. With a digital photograph you can also see other elements of the background very clearly. Thus, the viewer is able to really consume and relate to the subject matter presented in digital photography. The evolution of digital photography has evolved so greatly that if you put a picture of the subject matter next to the subject matter itself, the viewer would not be able to identify the real flower. This is in direct contrast to the “type” pictures that we see.

In summation, both types of representations having redeeming  and interesting qualities. The “type” representations just have more of an abstract feel. The digital photography is representative of what a person actually views in real life.

Daguerreotype of Christina Payne Hallock, circa 1855, DAG.04: Photography collection; Brooklyn Historical Society.

Last class we went to Brooklyn Historical Society, and it was a really interesting trip. First of all, it took us no more than 15 minutes to get there, and once we got there we were able to enter the library in order to analyze the daguerreotypes. It was really nice seeing them in real life because if you have ever seen a daguerreotype image on a book or online is nothing like the actual thing. It was a really interesting experience because those are historical objects, and we were able to see them in real life and even touch them! One of the most impressive things about them is that they are quite reflective, and very detailed and of course, they have no color unlike the pictures we have been taking during the semester. Also, another difference between them is the exposure time, as we can see on the daguerreotype, the woman looks so serious, and that is because the exposure time was too long (it could lasted up to several minutes) and nowadays, the exposure can even go up to a small portion of a second. Even though, nowadays the technicals of taking a pictures have improved, I really liked the daguerreotypes because they look so artistic and had a meaning behind them, not like today pictures that sometimes we just take pictures for the sake of taking them.