If anyone here is interested in seeing (or buying) a gallery full of beautiful Dags.(many of them hand colored), this is worth a visit.

http://www.perfectlikeness.com/

Jim Conway

Wow, were they being shown in original condition?? From how delicate I thought they were, especially the Daguerreotypes, I am amazed at how well preserved they are. The images are fantastic. Thanks for the link Jim.
I really didn't think they aged that well. Kind of makes me wonder if modern photography has anything on the old style Dags Ambros and Tins. I have wedding photos taken only 25 years ago that didn't age that well.
I notice no prices were given. Do you have any idea what some of those would sell for these days?
DJ

Most of the Daguerreotypes in pristine condition that come up for auction run $350.00 and up. I spotted a few in this gallery that the "and up" would make me afraid to ask!

It is amazing that the lasting qualities of the earlier processes appear to have been far ahead of most contemporary materials but there seems to be little doubt it also did a few photogs in from the fumes :-( Many are unaware of it but a bit of Formaldehyde in the formulas could have made your 25 year old wedding pics last as well. Always a trade off in there somewhere isn't there?

Jim Conway

I take it the formaldehyde is a discovery of recent years or was my photographers printer negligent? Don't suppose I can add to the life of my old photos by brushing them with formaldehyde. Sure wish it were that easy since I have the stuff anyway.

At any rate, I certainly learned a few things here I didn't know before.
DJ

I didn't intent to mislead here - the chemical formulas that have and have not been used over the years have constantly changed and the lists of chemicals now banned is growing (including Kodak film cleaner) so don't know what you could do with a batch of your own formaldehyde brew if you have access to it but I doubt if it'll do much for old photos!

Here is a great web site for seeing step by step how the Dags were made (including fuming).
http://www.ccsd.ca/charlotte/dagazine/mi/exhibit/brochure.htm

...and just think, some people consider PhotoShop difficult to learn! Enjoy :-)

Jim Conway

That's a fantastic link and it really gives a person a good idea of what went into taking a simple photograph back then. Wow, That is definately more involved than I thought it was. I think you're right, after seeing that, Photoshop is a piece of cake. :D

Looks as if you not only had to be a good photographer back then but a mechanical engineer and chemical engineer as well as an artist. Kind of puts a whole new appreciation on their finished work.

Thanks Jim, that was very enlightening.
DJ

The pictures are nice, but most of those borders are quite ugly.

The "borders" are the real thing - thin pieces of metal that have tarnished over a period of 150 to 160 years. There is no retouching involved here, these are actual photographs of the original artifacts.

Jim Conway

I was playing.

My error Mig - I posted this in Salon where "retouching talk" is to be avoided ...then reacted like it was posted in Edgucashun -

JMC