Posted at 11.25.2018
In this essay I am looking at the work of Henry Fox-Talbot and Louis Daguerre. I shall compare both different functions they uncovered in the creation of picture taking in the years before 1839 when the first photographic means were gifted to the planet by Louis Daguerre. Then just a little later the patented calotype uncovered by the British man Fox-Talbot. The calotype and the daguerreotype process were highly different advancements. The question I am asking is 'was picture taking an invention or a breakthrough?' To do this I am going to have to look at in detail both procedures and the history surrounding them. I'll take a look at optics and specifically the camera obscura to see the influences these men were under in creating both calotype and the daguerreotype.
"The camera itself is dependant on optical ideas known at least because the time of Aristotle" 
It is known a filmless version of the camera was in use in the middle-1500s as a drawing tool for painters. This screen produced a graphic suited to tracing, from the inverted image conveyed through the zoom lens. The human eye was the prototype because of this tool, which functioned as a primitive expansion of what the eye can view. At the moment,
"Photographic technology was directed toward perfecting the medium as a surrogate, more complex vision. " 
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
The Camera Obscua was a dark package or room with a opening in area or wall. In the event the hole was minute enough, an inverted image would be observed on the opposite wall. It is said that Roger Bacon invented the camera obscura around the entire year 1300, but this has never been accepted by scholars. In fact, the Arabian scholar Hassan, in the 10th century, referred to what can be called a camera obscura in his writings with which he and Bacon noted viewings of solar eclipses. The earliest record of the utilization of an camera obscura are available in the writings of Leonardo da Vinci in the 1400's
"Leonardo pioneered his own method of photography 300 years before the birth of photography". 
At about the same period Daniel Barbaro, a Venetian, advised the camera as an aid to attracting and point of view.
"Picture taking was provided to the entire world on August 19th 1839 at a joint appointment of the Academy of knowledge and the Academy of Fines Arts in Paris. "
Poe by William S. Hartshorn, 1848
Fig 2The daguerreotype process was the first workable approach to capturing and protecting images. The man who uncovered and named and perfected the method of producing direct positive images on a silver-coated copper plate was Louis Daguerre, a talented French artist and scenery painter. Daguerre started out experimenting with means of fixing the images developed by the camera obscura in 1824.
In 1829 he fashioned a relationship Joseph Nicephore Niepce; a French scientist and inventor who, in 1826, possessed succeeded in acquiring a graphic of the view from his bedroom windows by by using a camera obscura and a pewter plate layered with bitumen. Niepce called his picture-making process heliography often called 'sun drawing'.
"Heliography was initially coined by its inventor, Joseph Nicephore Niepce, to recognize the process where he obtained the first everlasting photographic images. Using its traditional derivation from the Greek-helios signifying sunlight, and graphein denoting writing or drawing-the term encompassed both the source and the process in talking about this first successfully permanent method of letting light record itself" 
Though while he previously managed to construct a long lasting image by using a camera, the coverage time was very long around 8 hours. Niepce later discarded the idea of pewter plates in favour of silver-plated bed sheets of copper and discovered that the vapour from iodine reacted with the silver precious metal coating to produce magic iodide, a light sensitive compound.
Niepce passed on in 1833, which was seen by many as convenience. Daguerre retained the experimentation with copper plates layered with magic iodide to produce positive pictures. Daguerre uncovered that the latent image on an exposed dish could be developed with the fumes from warmed mercury. The use of mercury vapour supposed that photographic images could be produced in twenty to thirty minutes rather than hours. In 1837, Daguerre found a means of "fixing" the photographic images with a remedy of common salt.
Daguerre started out making successful pictures using his much better process from 1837. On 19th August, 1839, at a gathering in Paris, the Daguerreotype Process was exposed to the planet.
The Calotype was a refinement of the process of photographic drawing, offering a a lot more hypersensitive medium through its use of the latent image phenomenon. It was created by Fox Talbot in Sept 1840 and copyrighted on the 8th of February 1841. Although it was never remotely competitive in the commercial sphere, Talbot used it as the foundation of the photographic business in Reading, it was offered as the best option to the Daguerreotype and better suited to amateurs, music artists, and experts, who adopted it generally.
"Web publishers and physicists, printers and chemists, opticians and mathematicians, businessmen and precision engineers applied the procedure, developed it further and extended its distribution. "
Fox-Talbot. W (1838)
Fig. 1 The Calotype process is a poor image that also creates a wax newspaper negative, although its positive counterpart, the salted newspaper printing, is the more prevalent form where it is satisfied. Calotypes are made by brushing the best quality drawing or writing paper with a solution of silver precious metal nitrate, drying the paper, and then immersing it in a solution of potassium iodide to form a light-sensitive covering of sterling silver iodide. Immediately before use the surface it treated with gold nitrate to act as an accelerator. Coverage in a camera, where the paper must be held in a dark slide, produces a latent image which is developed by cleansing in gallo-nitrate, fixed in hypo and washed.
The translucency of Calotypes can be upgraded by waxing, and a good can be made by repeating the initial process. When toned in for example, silver chloride solution gives a purple tone, an optimistic stated in this way is actually a 'salted paper printing'.
The magnetism of the calotype process was that it allowed a latent image on the paper to be transformed into a genuine image following the paper have been removed from the camera.
The calotype process allowed much shorter exposures than for photographic drawing, and so made portraits possible. Exposures of around 1 to 3 minutes might be needed for a calotype. Talbot's early photographic drawing process might have required an exposure of one hour.
"The chief differences between the two are that calotypes are negatives that are later published as positives in writing and that daguerreotypes are negative images on mirrored surfaces that reflect an optimistic looking image. "
While Daguerre got funding and the support of the People from france Academy of Sciences, his rival Talbot had to be very much self applied sufficient to push his methods. The French decided that their invention should be considered a gift to the planet. Oddly though, Daguerre have register a patent in Britain for the procedure.
"Free to the world all over the place except Britain. " 
This slowed the progression of photography by there being just a few people who could legitimately make daguerreotypes in the country. Since Talbot did not merely shortage the money of Daguerre but also his financial status, he searched to making his investment money from focusing on his photographic finds back again by patenting his method and charging anyone who wanted to use them.
While we know why Talbot got out his patent and priced money for a certificate. It is definitely a mystery as to why Daguerre would like to restrict the utilization of "his" technology in the same country that a competition of his was just as destined to make it to the history books.
At first Talbot possessed a lot of trouble developing how to properly fix his images presenting another gain to the already unique daguerreotypes to be much more popular. Nevertheless, while Daguerreotypes were initially much more popular, their years of practical creation didn't really make it past the past due 1800s though they are still used in imaginative practice. Talbot's technology of negative to positive process was much more influential to help expand advancements in the photographic industry and keeps much more relevance to anyone still dealing with film and traditional printing.
Taking the historical and chemical substance information into consideration it is difficult to put the label of technology or discovery on either or both the Calotype or the Daguerreotype. Invention is grouped as "The take action of inventing something that has never been made or used before. " Though "If someone makes a discovery, they become aware of something that they did not learn about before. " 
This leads me to propose that both men used technology that were around since the time of Leonardo Di Vinci some 400yrs previously. I would like to put forward the case that instead of discovery or technology the original procedures of picture taking were attained by advanced modification and manipulation. The building blocks for both techniques had existed for a long time before there is finally a process for fixing the images once and for all. It really is then arguable that the breakthrough regarding the fixing of the images is tangible but not an technology but more crudely a subject of learning from your errors. The daguerreotype process is definitely the first photographic process practical due to subjection time fell from hours to minutes. However, it does not possess the aptitude for replication this was a handicap that Fox-Talbot's Calotype did not have but the quality was missing there was no clean, sharp image. Both of the process's though their many adaptations from the primal camera obscura still were very basic. This I believe is why the Ambrotype process, also often called the damp collodion process, developed in 1861 rendered both the daguerreotype and the calotype obsolete.
The wet collodion process was learned by Scott Archer. He posted the procedure in 1851 and allowed its use free from copyright. This differed from Fox-Talbot who copyrighted his process. This is a clear sign as to the reasons the damp collodion soon surpassed the calotype. Being copyright free meant that is was easily available for many who could spend the money for materials and thus of course available to improvements.
The collodion process used a fine film of collodion, put on glass, making a base for the image. This a glass negative that was normally used to make a number of designs. However, Archer discovered that a thin glass negative could become the photography itself, if it was viewed against a black background.
Like the daguerreotype the ambrotype created a unique image, comprising a negative, often underexposed, installed on a dark qualifications in a case or frame. The image would be either normal or reversed according to set up emulsion side of the negative lay against the black backing.
"Unlike a daguerreotype, an ambrotype image can be seen when viewed from all angles. Because of this the procedure became popular, even although finished final result lacked the depth and tonal range of the daguerreotype. " 
Concluding this essay it is clear if you ask me that the Calotype and the Daguerreotype are both advancements of the camera obscura and even before technologies. The procedure of the camera obscura was superseeded in the same way that moist collodion later rendered Daguerre and Fox-Talbots procedures were rendered outdated. I believe by looking at proof that there surely is a strong basis for the argument that the introduction of the process's was down to the task by the two men who learned the main element to fixing the image but it isn't their invention to promise.