Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by soneca on Thursday November 05, 2015 @08:17PM
(#10517297)
The human in question is standing in the bottom-left of the photograph, on the pavement by the curve in the road. He is having his boots shined.
So there is enough information to know that there are two human beings. Sounds like those records of the very first man to climb a mountain, you know, except of all those native guys that went there before and carried the bags, guided and have all support so that european could be the first man to get there.
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by adiM on Thursday November 05, 2015 @08:46PM
(#10517395)
Reminds me of the narration in a National Geographic short documentary that I saw in the visitor center of Yellowstone National Park (recollecting from memory): "Lewis and Clark were the first human beings to set foot on this land" ... (and 2 minute later) "... "Native Indians had been living here for thousands of years".
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by nickbauman on Thursday November 05, 2015 @11:32PM
(#10517844)
The truly interesting story of the first photographs were back in 1827 when Nicophore Niepce invented the silver halide process that's still in use today. Daguerreotypes came later, were a technological dead end, so toxic, so limited. Niepce has another claim to fame in that he also invented the bicycle. Two big inventions in one lifetime, quite an accomplishment!
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by vacri on Thursday November 05, 2015 @10:57PM
(#10517758)
They mention later in the article that the second figure is also visible, but much less distinct. The first figure is unmistakably a person, but if you remove the first figure, the second figure loses context and isn't so clear.
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by rcurry on Thursday November 05, 2015 @11:58PM
(#10517912)
The article makes it very clear that they are talking about the first "recognizable human form" in a photograph, and they go on and on in great detail about what they mean by that.
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by dkonofalski on Thursday November 05, 2015 @06:40PM
(#10516896)
How amazing that the first person to be in a photograph was there simply off of the chance event that he decided to have his shoes shined. If it had been something else, he would have moved off the plate by the time it was developed. The fact that it was an event that, for the most part, required him to stay put has put him into history forever. /mind blown
Re:The first photograph of a human being (1838)
by ch on Thursday November 05, 2015 @10:44PM
(#10517728)
Its funny, I actually think when the picture was flipped back to how the photographer saw the scene, that it was a better composition. The road seemed unnatural in the original.
I wonder now if that is just some internal bias to it being "more real"?
Fox Talbot and Daguerre were contemporary inventors with different processes - but AFAIK there are no people in Fox Talbot's work until 1840 so Daguerre appears to be the first to record a human via this new technology.
So there is enough information to know that there are two human beings. Sounds like those records of the very first man to climb a mountain, you know, except of all those native guys that went there before and carried the bags, guided and have all support so that european could be the first man to get there.
I wonder now if that is just some internal bias to it being "more real"?
I couldn't pinpoint why. I hadn't noticed the text on a sign by then.
Fox Talbot and Daguerre were contemporary inventors with different processes - but AFAIK there are no people in Fox Talbot's work until 1840 so Daguerre appears to be the first to record a human via this new technology.
It seems his studio was very close to the above location: http://www.midley.co.uk/diorama/Diorama_Wood_2.htm
> removing the narrow, dark and dangerous streets of the medieval city and replacing them with parks and open spaces. This process began in 1853.