
Adventures in 19th-century photography - prostoalex
http://mortalmuses.com/2014/10/03/adventures-in-19th-century-photography/
======
jrapdx3
Wet plate photography was supplanted by technologically better dry-plate
methods in the 1880's. Yet there are periodic revivals of interest in the
older ways. It's fascinating how such "ancient" art techniques never really
die.

Of course, when "reborn" the results aren't quite the same. The new wet-plate
images bear the stamp of our modern and superior optics and other beneficial
present-day technologies. The "hybridization" of old and new creates something
novel and can lead to new forms of artistic expression.

Digital photography is ascendant, but film will never completely disappear.
Vinyl records still have fans. Acrylic paint is quite new, water-based forms
invented just 50 years ago. Chemically far superior to oil paints, yet some
painters still prefer oils (in use for 700 years).

Egg tempera goes back a thousand years, casein was used by the ancient
Egyptians and fused glass by the Romans. Popularity of these techniques waxes
and wanes, but never ceases altogether.

It's healthy to try our hand at our predecessors' crafts. It stimulates
creativity, as well highly entertaining and educational. It gives us greater
appreciation of what we have now, and stronger connection to our common
history.

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> Digital photography is ascendant, but film will never completely disappear.

Medium format film cameras produce better results than anything you can get
from a digital camera that costs less than $20,000. Large format film cameras,
despite being wildly impractical for most uses, are still unmatched.

~~~
stan_rogers
Don't be so very sure about that: [http://www.luminous-
landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8...](http://www.luminous-
landscape.com/reviews/cameras/iq180_vs_8x10.shtml)

Yes, you can get a greater tonal range in a single capture if you're shooting
B&W and know your way around the Zone System, but that is the sole remaining
real benefit. And unless you're contact printing at the original negative size
(and don't mind the inevitable damage to your neg or the quality loss of an
interneg), you'd want to have at least a digital intermediate step between
negative and print (unless you're turned on by contrast masking, spotting and
bleaching under a loupe).

------
iammyIP
Very nice, warm and human - like shooting a deer with a selfmade bow makes the
meal cooked on a similarily archaic selfmade fire taste so good if you are
hungry after a long hike through the uncharted wilderness. And that´s the
impression without even seeing the proper images in reality - the complicated
material procedure shines through with sheer brute force. Thus it impresses
even in digital, representing only a tiny fraction of my screen, not only
because the algorithm that would simulate such procedure with all its
imperfections would be very very very hard to do, but also because it was done
by human hands in direct access mode.

