 BetterPhoto Member |
Founder of Photography Who was the actual founder of photography? Thanks, Ashley
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Look it up! Go to the library...do a Google search...do an 'Ask Jeeves' search. Do something! Don't ask someone else. Do your own homework, for Pete's sake! I did a search and found the answer in about 2 seconds. Tip: When looking for information on the World Wide Web, it is sometimes necessary to actually READ and not just look at all the pretty pictures... P.S. Does your mother know you're cheating?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill McFadden |
Piper L must have been eating nails for breakfast or had a really bad day! The purpose of this discussion is to provide constructive criticism. I suspect the question is directed at finding a starting point, not at receiving an answer. After all, this site IS A RESOURCE ON THE NET!!! Anyway, you may want to look up the following terms on the Internet, (1) daguerreotype and its creator, (2) Daguerre. (3) William Henry Fox Talbot and his creation (4) calotype, and (5) the collodion wet-plate. Ask Jeeves, as Piper L pointed out, is an excellant resource tool.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
This may be a resource on the net, but it isn't researching when you simply ask someone for the answer because you're too lazy to look it up, read and learn something while doing it, which is what I suspect was the objective of whatever assignment this came from. Nice job, Bill M. I bet you build your kids' science projects for them too. LOL Just kidding. I can just spot a lazy kid from a mile away, is all. You are too kind. Ashley, I hope you get an A.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Damian P. Gadal |
Don't forget Niépce - where was Bill when I was taking calculus???
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill McFadden |
Calculus was beyond me!!! Never could get past the question of why do we need imaginary numbers...aren't the "real" ones enough! I first thought the teacher was joking. I like photography, political science, English and business courses. They seemed to be more or less reality based. (or as close to reality as school gets.) I went through college before Bill Gates and company made computers go mainstream. (yes, I am old enough to remember when typewriters, not computers were used and only the military used the Internet.) kids have it much easier when it comes to research and production of papers now. If they just know where to look. Bill
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Bill, don't feel bad. I am from the last typewriter generation, I think. My kids bitch about using MS Works to write papers. I like to bore them with my liquid paper and footnote stories. They have no idea what word processing did to change the term paper. Kids have it easier all right. They could save a lot of energy if they'd stop whining!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
Ok, just my two cents, I had a 15 years old set of encylopedias at home, a manual typewriter, and I had to walk 20 minutes to the Library. I think the internet and word processing was developed to make like easier for the next generation. It's out fault for wanting things to be easier for our kids then we had it. That said, if things had been a little easier for me to get information then maybe my grades would have been better, but probably not because (guess what? I was a lazy teenager). What is the real difference between discovering this web site and asking a question, and asking Jeeves. The difference is we can be irritated. And they can get a lecture on cheating from us. I'm sure thats a lot of fun for them and you just don't see a lot of them return. Is this good? What if they have a ligitimate question latter on? Have we made them feel welcome ( I think not) We don't have to do their homework, but we don't have to be snobs either. Hope your week gets better Piper. I hate when I'm in a mood like that.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Judith, I don't remember doubting the legitimacy of the question. It's the principle of the thing. If you want to answer the question, please, be my guest. The purpose of this site is to answer questions about photography. If Ashley had exerted the energy required to press just one or two more links here, she could've found the answer right here on Better Photo. Unfortunately, I didn't know the answer to her question right off the top of my head. I found myself doing the 'work' for her and finding the answer right here on BetterPhoto.com! Now why should I go to the trouble when Ashley is unwilling to do the same? The truth is, people who ask these types of questions aren't interested in getting involved here anyway. They clog up the Q&A with inane queries that make it harder, not only for those of us who contribute here on a regular basis, but for first-timers who are looking for legitimate help. I'm not in a 'mood', nor am I above helping those with legitimate queries. (I believe I DID help Ashley by giving her the tools to find the answer herself.) What did you contribute? If you can find your way through all the Ashley questions, you might see where I've been contributing on both sides - asking and answering - on a regular basis for the past 2-3 years here. So, don't even go there with the insinuation that I am too snobby to help those who ask.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
My My My. I didn't mean to get you so upset, and I never said you didn't contribute. I just thought the scolding you gave her was a little harsh, when she thought she was doing her homework (after all her mom didn't ask the question for her.) We never answer these questions fast enough for high school students to get there homework done anyway. My daughter doesn't have three or four days to wait for an answer ( its alway due the next day) Your right these kids aren't really interested in getting involved, so why get worked up enough over to give a lecture.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Touche', Judith. It's not worth getting 'worked up' over, but I am never one to stay quiet when something catches my attention. By the way, can we get back to more important issues like how to use my new camera?! Just got the 256mb CF card and I'm thinking now I should've gone for the 512. I'm just not crazy about paying so much for what's basically a floppy disk for my camera! Okay, so I'm probably way off.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
I'm never one to stay quite either, so on to more important things. I don't know how much you shoot at one time, but I get about 50 images on a 256mb card. Thats more then a roll of film and easier to change. My budget has never allowed me to spring for a bigger card, but in smaller amounts I now have 3 256mb card. It's just easier to spend 100 bucks at a time for me. Oh in case you don't remember or I didn't mention before I shoot everything RAW.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Okay, so how are you getting 50 RAW images per 256 card? Are you shooting in compressed RAW mode? My camera gives me 25 shots in RAW--or at least that's what it said when I formatted the card. Haven't started shooting on this card yet. Will it change as I shoot or something?
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
No its not compressed, I think mine said like 20 or 25 when I formatted it but I actually get 50. I was pleasantly suprised. What kind of memory cards are you using. I have 2 Lexar 4X, but I have one Lexar 24x. I cost more, but it's well worth the extra money. It save pics at a much faster rate, and if you shoot fast it can really make a huge difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
The new B&H catalog has the 4x card for 69.95 the 24x card is 119.95 the 512mb 24x card is 199.95 or 159.95 for 12x. Speed makes the difference.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
They're both Lexar 12x speeds (one 128 and one 256). I was wondering how much faster the 24x cards would be. So you recommend the extra money for the 24x? Just wondering if you have your camera set on something that changes your shooting mode to something other than RAW uncompressed. Not doubting your observation, but I don't understand the technology behind getting 50 frames when the camera says 25. This is interesting. Will have to shoot some experiments and see what I get. I am set on auto or default for most everything, I guess. Can't think of anything that would change the number of shots. This is weird. Let me know if you discover something other than auto/default that you might be set to. Another thing: I've got a non-D Nikon lens attached at the moment, though I'm still getting the matrix meter symbol on my LCD. I thought I read where the non-D lenses would automatically change the camera to center-weighted, but I might be confusing this with the CPU issue or the flash distance/TTL stuff (also something I'm totally confused about!)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Sorry. Meant to say that I'm set on auto everything as far as all the menu options are concerned. I usually shoot with aperture priority or manual mode, if it matters. Man, am I making this more complicated than it has to be? ARGH
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
I only have 2 lens and they are both Nikon, so I'm sure on that part. I haven't had a 12x, but the 24x is a huge difference from 4x, so I recommend it. Without it I was waiting a lot for the card to save what I shoot, and I shoot a kids basketball game with it and didn't miss a shot. I am also pretty much auto everything. I shoot manual, because I do portrait work and have to set f-stop and shutter speed according to how my lights are set up. I would recommend that you set your white balance yourself. I just don't trust the auto on that. The pics come out better when I set it to the type light I'm using. Don't worry you can find the answers as you need them. I still don't get it all, but until it makes a difference in something I want to shoot, I just leave it on auto, and don't worry about it.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
I leave WB on auto so I won't forget about it. I haven't really ventured out with the camera yet, so I haven't needed to set the WB since the Nikon capture 3 and Bibble trial programs let you change the WB after-the-fact. This is something the previous capture version was lacking when playing with RAW files, as I understand it. The Bibble software is a nice replacement for those of us without PS-7 since we'd have to buy PS-7 in order to use the new RAW plug-in. Have we already gone over this? LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
No we haven't covered that yet, but I hate the computer, so I would just rather fool with the camera. I crop, maybe adjust brightness and thats about it. I just don't time to understand photoshop, nor do I really want to. I like my cheap little easy editing software.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
For Ashley: And Now for Something Completely Different Go to Google, or whatever your favorite search engine is and search for "camera obscura" which I would argue was the very first camera. BTW, "camera" is latin for "room." It's principles were understood over a milennium prior to anything else yet mentioned and it employed the same fundamental principles modern cameras use today: What most normally think of as a camera today has a lens. The lens gathers in light and projects an image. That image is recorded by film, or in the case of digital cameras, onto a CCD or CMOS sensor. For a camera to be a camera does not require an optical lens. It simply requires *something* to perform the same function that a lens performs (gathering light to project an image). Similarly, it does not require film, CCD or CMOS sensor either. It simply requires *something* that performs the same function (recording light; the image). What makes a camera, a camera is the functions performed, not how it's accomplished, or what it uses to do it with. Stretch your mind and think of things in terms of role, function and purpose. Camera obscura: IMHO it was the very first camera. Everything else since then has been nothing but technological changes in how the light is gathered and how it is recorded. I call them "changes" but not "advancements." Why? "Advancement" is an opinion about the technological changes. Simply because one technology is newer than another does not automatically mean it is an advancement. If pressed, I could make rational arguments that everything since the camera obscura has not been and advancement, but just the opposite. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Judith A. Clark |
Has anyone thought that Ashley asked this question 2 days ago, and probably gave up after no one answered in about 15 minutes. These Kids put there homework off till the last minute. She is probably deleteing the e-mails now because she just dosn't care anymore. But my real point is I know basically nothing about the history of photography and I kind of find your answere interesting so keep them coming. Thanks John.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
I am hoping Ashley will look it up . . . if only out of sheer curiosity. References to the principles of the camera obscura are found in Chinese documents as early as the 5th Century B.C. in the writings of Mo-Ti. AFIK, there's really no attribution to who discovered the basic principle and how to make a pracitcal one. Aristotle also understood its optical principles in 300+ B.C. and wrote about them. Leonardo da Vinci's writings in the 1400's contain drawings of practical camera obscura. Its latin name is attributed to Johannes Kepler from his writings in the early 1600's (the three "laws" of planetary motion guy). "Obscura" in latin means "dark." The entire name translates to "dark room" (in Latin syntax, an adjective follows the noun it modifies). Anyone who has made a box for viewing the projection of a solar eclipse on white paper inside the box so the eyes are not damaged by viewing it directly has created a camera obscura. That should be enough clues!!! Its importance? IMHO, it is the use of the camera obscura during the Rennaisance [??], and the realistic imagery it produced, that introduced the concepts of perspective with vanishing points, and the study of light angles and shadows (and their realistic use) into artwork [at least European artwork]. It also spurred the search for methods of recording images in greater detail and much, much faster than the "original" method used to record a camera obscura image. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
Give a man a fish and feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime. Think about it Ashley.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Bill McFadden |
After reviewing all of the interesting answers on this site to what a teacher may have thought of as being an closed question, I am under the impression that Ashley may have discovered the numerous possibilities and wanted some advice. I know I sure do not know for certain what any teacher would consider the correct answer at this point. If I were Ashley reading the various "correct" answers, I would review them, make a decision based on what I thought the teacher might want to hear, print this discussion and let the teacher see the answer is not a one word response! After working as a trainer of soldiers for the better part of two decades, working as a substitute teacher and training employees where I work now on occasion, I believe what most kids AND adults want is not the answer but a start point. People like to work. Anyway, that dead horse has stopped kicking... My brother does tell his kids anytime they complain that he had to go walk to school for 20 miles, each day, every day, uphill in BOTH directions through a blizzard every single day from September through June! Somehow, I doubt his kids believe him... Of course, they respond with own joke, by telling him he has to nice to them. unless he wants to be put in a bad nursing home at the end of his days!
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Bill, Read your first posting. I define what constitutes a "photograph" from its Greek root: I further define "photography" as the act of making a photograph. It has no requirement or restriction on the technologies used. This was the basis for my first posting. FWIW, Talbot's writings refer to the device he constructed for making images using his calotype process as a camera obscura. His invention was a different technology to record the image inside a camera obscura that had not been used for doing this before. His motive? He was disappointed with the images he made using a camera lucida. This disappointment led to seeking a different technology that would enable creating (recording) the imagery he envisioned with greater personal satisfaction. The basic chemistry used by the calotype process was already well known. His invention was a practical application of that chemistry in a manner that had not been done before. IOW, he brought together two things already known and integrated them into a practical device. This is not to diminish Talbot's achievement. Being able to "see" how the integration of disparate technologies can create a practical device requires a very creative mind. His originality is in their integration. -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||