+1 if you understand the importance of this window

Last edited:
Will you be using a mousetrap? :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think all these clues help if you have no idea in the first place (like me) :lol:
 
I watched a rather decent version of Pinafore in front of that window a few months ago! :D

(I live about 4 miles away)
 
Not another one!! :shrug:
 
Ok so this has gone quiet so for anyone still guessing or still cares
The window, as some of you know was the subject of the first photographic negative made by Henry Fox Talbot and is located at Lacock Abbey near Bath.
Its a fascinating place to visit and The village is such a delight to just walk around. The Abbey itself has been used in many film and tv productions namely harry potter.
And also ground zero for modern photography.
I wanted to get a gauge on how many people knew the history or origins of photography as things seem to be accelerating at such a fast rate, and many people consider roll film to be antique :lol:
That's not to say anyone needs to know by any means.
Like i said im a sucker for the past, like visiting the pub in oxford that Tolkein used to frequent (edit, its the eagle and child) its just a pub but its good to have some connection to the past.
 
Last edited:
There are a few places the style of architecture might fit, but for me you let the cat put the bag by asking on a photography forum why the window was important.
Had to be Lacock :D

I totally agree about it being a great day out - so much to photograph both at the Abbey and in the Lacock village.
There is a gallery on the edge of the village that last time I visited had a wonderful exhibition of Antarctic images.
Here's one of my images of the infamous Lacock Cooking Pot. Something weird about the lighting in this shot; it has a quality that looks far more like film than digital.
http://www.wild-landscapes.co.uk/photos/i-ZBTZMnq/0/X3/i-ZBTZMnq-X3.jpg
 
As my earlier posts showed, I got Fox-Talbot but originally thought it was Waltham Abbey, then Latham Abbey, then gave up guessing and was reminded by Google that it was Lacock Abbey.

Film? IIRC, that photograph was shot using a glass plate negative - film was a later invention.

Simon, did you/can you get to the original spot that he took his photo from? May be a reasonable chance if you took your 5x4 camera - close to F-T's aparatus in size and shape. I think we'll let you use a sheet of film rather than coating a glass plate with (IIRC) some rather noxious chemicals! Not sure what lens he used, although since he was as well known (at the time) for his work in optics, I think it was a lens rather than a pinhole.
 
Yeah you can visit the rooms of the Abbey that were living space. I expected the window to be for some sort of mad Victorian study or laboratory but its part of a long hall like room with a piano and other curio. Entertainments room lol
I have gone as far as making my own paper negatives with my own silver gelatin emulsion but alas they are such slow speeds and low tonal range the camera would have to be set up for hours.
 
We did the same (neg making) as an experiment at school (Chemistry experiment rather than photography, although the Chem teacher was also the gent in charge of the darkroom and other aspects of photography there) but, as you say, the results were rather slow and fiddly - far easier to use what's commercially available, even if it is slightly cheating!
 
And yeah his "mousetrap" cameras were equipped with lenses, modified camera obscures basically. The calotype process he used was very clever if not a little messy. But certainly not out of reach these days, many people use this method. Its on my to do list and i have most of the chemicals. Just not sure the staff would appreciate silver nitrate or gallic acid stains on their carpet.
 
I would expect those stains to be already present, although modern Joe Public's (if I may refer to your good self in such a manner!) stains would certainly be less welcome than those from 120 (or so) years ago!

It would be interesting to compare the results from similar equipment but modern negs/prints and digital photos to the original photograph. Maybe on your next visit?
 
Nod said:
I would expect those stains to be already present, although modern Joe Public's (if I may refer to your good self in such a manner!) stains would certainly be less welcome than those from 120 (or so) years ago!

It would be interesting to compare the results from similar equipment but modern negs/prints and digital photos to the original photograph. Maybe on your next visit?
Click to expand...

Im planning on going up again in the new year when i get some spare time. I might even make some paper negatives and my own mousetrap by then but a shot from the inside would be good.
I got a digital one mind HAHA wouldn't let that slip by ;)
 
I wonder if to engage in photography you were compelled to process your own films and prints in a traditional darkroom with chemicals, whether photography would be as popular as it is today. In some ways it felt more of an acheivement, but perhaps I'm harking back to the smell of fixer through rose tinted nostrils so to speak.
 
artyman said:
I wonder if to engage in photography you were compelled to process your own films and prints in a traditional darkroom with chemicals, whether photography would be as popular as it is today. In some ways it felt more of an acheivement, but perhaps I'm harking back to the smell of fixer through rose tinted nostrils so to speak.
Click to expand...

I am working back, in a historic sense. I think im around the early 1900s at the moment and i find it such a more rewarding process than digital. Its not convenient, fast or sometimes safe but for the most part a true immersion into what photography is.
And getting naked in the darkroom is proper funky ;)
 
artyman said:
I wonder if to engage in photography you were compelled to process your own films and prints in a traditional darkroom with chemicals, whether photography would be as popular as it is today. In some ways it felt more of an acheivement, but perhaps I'm harking back to the smell of fixer through rose tinted nostrils so to speak.
Click to expand...

I go with artyman. I remember in the 1950,s. exposing contact prints on a sunny window sill. Then dashing into the bath room to develope them. Then my mother telling me off over the mess.
 
I can honestly say that apart from the magic moments as prints emerge from white paper under the safelight, I really don't miss much about the darkroom. Apart from turning the enlarger on its side and projecting the neg on the far wall so that pushed (to 1600) Tri-X grain was about 1/2 to 3/4 of an inch across! Pixels just don't have the same magic.

Dev used to give me contact dermatitis and fix just gave me a headache, so don't miss the chemicals at all.
 
I just love the smell of stop bath in the morning!


:)
 
I'm not much into history - I didn't know the window and now I do I don't care for the knowledge; if I visited the place I suppose I'd now mention it but I wouldn't walk out of my way to see it

As for darkrooms - I've been in two in my life, and had B&W film developed in each (by another) - I was completely bored by the experience and was delighted when digital came out :)

Dave
 
Dave, as you are in the business of educating others about photography, I'm rather surprised by both those statements. Isn't darkroom work (and photographic history) still a part of the syllabus for O and A levels?
 
Nod said:
Dave, as you are in the business of educating others about photography, I'm rather surprised by both those statements. Isn't darkroom work (and photographic history) still a part of the syllabus for O and A levels?
Click to expand...

Doesn't he teach 'the business of wedding photography', which has nothing to do with photography, he can be excused for his ignorance (just).;)
 
Only if he's an SWPP member!!!
 
Nod said:
Dave, as you are in the business of educating others about photography, I'm rather surprised by both those statements. Isn't darkroom work (and photographic history) still a part of the syllabus for O and A levels?
Click to expand...

Hi Nod :)

I don't teach photography much, certainly not on a commercial level anyway, my involvement commercially is in the business side of it only presently

Having never done, nor had anything to do with, O/A/Degree schooling I have no idea what they teach - though I have met a few with Photography degrees and wondered what the Hell they must have been doing for 3 years :D

I honestly don't see how history of photography has any bearing on taking or processing a good photo, and as I no longer know ANYONE who regularly uses film (and no Pros at all) I can't see the point in teaching darkroom skills either :shrug:

Dave
 
Phil V said:
Doesn't he teach 'the business of wedding photography', which has nothing to do with photography, he can be excused for his ignorance (just).;)
Click to expand...

:razz::razz::razz:


Nod said:
Only if he's an SWPP member!!!
Click to expand...

And I am - so :razz::razz::razz: to you too


:lol::lol::lol:

Dave
 
For the record, yes, I knew, but only because it was on a photography forum and the window was mentioned. I grew up developing my own b&w, and although I love the convenience of digital, as someone else said, nothing can compare to the magic of seeing the image slowly appear on a blank sheet of paper.
 
:lol: :lol: :lol: back at you!

TBH, I don't see the relevance of film these days but I do know it's still taught - up to and including degree level IIRC. I do know people (and a pro or 2) who do still use film though. I have no formal training or qualifications in photography, just a (younger person's) lifetime of experience and interest in most aspects of the hobby. History may no longer be completely relevant but IMO, it's important to know a little of the origins of the medium we all work in. Many people still believe that Daguerre was the father of photography but W H Fox Talbot's photograph predates Daguerre's work by around a decade.
 
Sue, if you can open the lid of an inkjet and see the image appearing from the nozzles, it's still a bit magical but not when compared to an image slowly appearing in the tray. The inkjet option is also helped by the fact that it happens in full light, so you can see the final result instantly (and in full colour). Never done colour printing - can that be done under a safelight or is it a complete dark process?
 
Nod, I've never thought of that I will have to give it a go! I didn't print colour either, but I seem to recall that safe lights can't be used.
 
Nod said:
Many people still believe that Daguerre was the father of photography but W H Fox Talbot's photograph predates Daguerre's work by around a decade.
Click to expand...

That is sooooooooooooo useful to know when you get your first DSLR ;)

And yes, colour printing is done in total darkness - anyone who knows the history of photography should know that :lol:

Dave
 
I never claimed to know the history of photography, just the parts that are of interest to me! Thank you for the education. I'll bet my chances of ever having kids that that wasn't learned from the Rswipe lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top