+1 if you understand the importance of this window

btw, I've had a vasectomy, so no stake in that bet!
 
1835 rings a bell. I did know this but only from my pointless days at collage. I have zero interests in the history of photography... My lack of interest is also thank s to my time at college.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Fox_Talbot

Tells you all (and more!) that you need or want to know about him. Can't find any EXIF on any of the copies of "that" photograph for some reason - must have "saved for web"!

I have to admit to a love for trivia which is just one reason I knew who but often fail to follow my curiosity all the way which may go a little way to explaining why I didn't remember where, although my recent brain surgery probably didn't help either.
 
+1

Did an article for a magazine on it as well. Owe a lot to this place
 
I think EVERYONE owes at least a little something to foxy! I wonder how many these days would be polishing their tin plates, exposing those plates to weird and wonderful and potentially deadly vapours and everything else for a tintype, if talbot didn't make his discoveries?
Doubt you would get Nokia branded tin plates or canon glass plates for colodian.
I for one am glad i switched to film and historic process, i have learned how to create good images with nothing more than what i am given. Light, film, camera, chems and paper.
Where as with digital, there was a lack of honesty to my images. A little too much free play.
I still shoot digital, would be an idiot not too but there is something so satisfying about analogue process if you carry it through from eye to print.
 
I did know what the significance of the window was, and even the name of the person who made it famous, but even after reading Ken's post before it was 'moderated' where he named it, I still can't remember where it is.
 
Last edited:
modchild said:
I did know what the significance of the window was, and even the name of the person who made it famous, but even after reading Ken's post before it was 'moderated' where he named it, I still can't remember where it is.
Click to expand...

Its the oriel or lattice window in laycock Abbey. The subject of the first photographic negative produced by Sir William henry fox talbot
 
Last edited:
Simon photo said:
I think EVERYONE owes at least a little something to foxy! I wonder how many these days would be polishing their tin plates, exposing those plates to weird and wonderful and potentially deadly vapours and everything else for a tintype, if talbot didn't make his discoveries?
Click to expand...

Someone else would have discovered it just the same - I 'owe' Foxy nothing :D

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Someone else would have discovered it just the same - I 'owe' Foxy nothing :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Nothing other than paving the way for further and greater innovations in both camera design and film/ emulsion, standards and laws only for the digital age to develop so fast and massive, reach a saturation point where just about anyone on the planet has access to create or witness digital media first hand and not just embrace the digital process for what it is but to also (poorly) try and emulate the past through the use of plug ins, apps and bad editing.

Basically the pioneers used their brains so the rest of us plebs don't have to, fact.
 
Simon photo said:
Basically the pioneers used their brains so the rest of us plebs don't have to, fact.
Click to expand...

I agree - I just doubt very much that in the last 150 years no-one other than Foxy would have thought of it

Just because one genuis thinks of something doesn't mean those genuis' that follow wouldn't also have thought of it ;)

Dave
 
Well of course others did think of it; Daguerre for one, at about the same time as good old William Henry Fox-Talbot. But metaphorically at least, the English Channel was a bit wider then, so even though they trod on each others toes there was room for both Fox-Talbot's Calotype process alongside the Daguerrotype in a way that would have been fought to the death in a courtroom today.

For those who say they have no interest in the history of their subject; if you don't know where it's come from, how can you ever understand where you're taking it?

A personal reminiscence; when I was in the Army I was singled out in my unit as a keen and reasonably capable photographer and did quite a bit of official photography. At one point I was handed a 16mm film camera and told I was going to shoot a film of an upcoming engineering task in Canada. When I protested that I knew absolutely nothing about making movies I was sent on a film-making course at Salisbury College of Art, where I was taught by WH Fox-Talbot's grandson! He made sure we were all aware of who had invented photgraphy, and his name wasn't Daguerre!
 
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...


...and HND and Degree too.. yes.

Ignoring the history of a subject you teach is ridiculous. Are you just teaching a very narrow subject, like wedding photography, or photography in general? If the former, then fair enough, but if the latter, you are extremely remiss in ignoring the past. Some of the techniques you are using today in Photoshop are nothing more than digital developments of traditional darkroom processes. The same underlying photo theory we use for exposure etc are essentially unchanged and stem from the infancy of the medium.


[edit]

Just taken a peek at your site.. so you teach people how to be wedding photographers.. so perhaps you don't need to. I am surprised however, that you personally have no interest in your chosen medium's history and development.
 
Last edited:
Just wondering Dave, do you hold the same disdain for the invention and evolution of the charge coupled device by smith and boyle?
Without which perhaps we might not be experiencing the world of digital media quite this way?
Just imagine wedding photos without fake Polaroid colouring or heaven forbid SEPIA!
 
Last edited:
Back on topic, no had no idea about the significance of the window but will definitely make an effort to get over there when I'm next in the area. Thanks for sharing.
 
Pookeyhead said:
...and HND and Degree too.. yes.

Ignoring the history of a subject you teach is ridiculous. Are you just teaching a very narrow subject, like wedding photography, or photography in general? If the former, then fair enough, but if the latter, you are extremely remiss in ignoring the past. Some of the techniques you are using today in Photoshop are nothing more than digital developments of traditional darkroom processes. The same underlying photo theory we use for exposure etc are essentially unchanged and stem from the infancy of the medium.


[edit]

Just taken a peek at your site.. so you teach people how to be wedding photographers.. so perhaps you don't need to. I am surprised however, that you personally have no interest in your chosen medium's history and development.
Click to expand...

Do you truly believe someone new to photography and digital processing NEEDS to know that dodge & burn in Photoshop are named after techniques involving faffing about with hands as masks etc. under an enlarger ???

Don't they in fact just need to know what they do and when to use them???

You don't NEED to know ANYTHING about the history & development of photography to be able to take a good photo really do you

And yes I do teach photography to those new to photography at club level and even on TP meets. I teach people how to take photos :)

Simon photo said:
Just wondering Dave, do you hold the same disdain for the invention and evolution of the charge coupled device by smith and boyle?
Without which perhaps we might not be experiencing the world of digital media quite this way?
Just imagine wedding photos without fake Polaroid colouring or heaven forbid SEPIA!
Click to expand...

Indeed I do Simon, I know it works and what it does, I don't give a toss about how they developed the idea or the manufacturing process - I take photos and so long as the gear allows me to do that that's all I (anyone) need to know

If you are interested in history or technology that's fine, its just not necessary to taking a photo. Next you'll be arguing that you NEED to know about the discovery of oil and the development of the internal combustion engine to be able to drive a car - which you don't btw :lol:

Happy to debate this on another thread specifically about the relevance if you wish, but for now I think we should leave this one back to the OP's question :D

Dave
 
Ed Sutton said:
That suggests to me that your interest is in using cameras rather than photography.
Click to expand...

God knows how you read that into it :thinking:

But to clarify - I teach people about Photography, as in how to take photos, look for & use light and everything else that goes with it. Some info on apertures, shutters, etc. is needed for that but I have little interest in cameras other than they allow me to take photos; just as I have no interest in computers other than they allow me to process my photos

I do not teach anything about the history of photography or the development of cameras - its not relevant to image capture

Clearer ??? :)

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
If you are interested in history or technology that's fine, its just not necessary to taking a photo. Next you'll be arguing that you NEED to know about the discovery of oil and the development of the internal combustion engine to be able to drive a car - which you don't btw :lol:

Happy to debate this on another thread specifically about the relevance if you wish, but for now I think we should leave this one back to the OP's question :D

Dave
Click to expand...

Happy to continue this debate here as i am the OP.
And after having spent the first nine years of my working life as a heavy goods vehicle technician i would like to think i know a few things about engines, combustion, ins and outs.
Don't be so hasty to assume everything.
I have a hunch that my interest into the history of photography may have something to do with me not using it as a money making tool. However, should i find myself in your position, teaching others about the ins and outs of photography then im pretty Damm sure i would want to be armed with any information that my students required.
Explaining the reasons why certain (not all) images from way back when have a brown tint or cast would be much more rewarding than just "gives it a great faded vintage look yeah"
This really isn't a personal attack, rather my opinion.
 
Photography is rather more than that. - really, I don't get you Dave, feel free to elaborate how knowing anything about Fox Talbot will help anyone take a better photo :thumbs:


And I also don't agree that knowing about such as the mistake that led to cross processing has any relevance to explaining what that look is when its there as a Lightroom preset. Anyone new to photography will simply see 'Cross processing' as a colour change effect and assume its a name, it doesn't matter whether they know why it has that name

There's nothing at all wrong with knowing everything there is to know about photographic history, just as there's nothing wrong with knowing everything there is to know about the use of titanium in cameras or how they grind the glass

But is any of that actually relevant to capturing the scene in front of you to hang on your wall, or to making your client happy ??? I don't think so

I've also been on lots of courses to further my own photography and I have bought quite a few training based DVDs too and not once, ever, has anything to do with history or development of technology ever come up - perhaps those trainers are all wrong too then :shrug:

Dave
 
DG Phototraining said:
Photography is rather more than that. - really, I don't get you Dave, feel free to elaborate how knowing anything about Fox Talbot will help anyone take a better photo :thumbs:
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing photography and taking pictures. The two are not the same thing. Which is the point I am clearly failing to make.
 
Dave (Barnsley Dave) is right.

The history of photography has zero to do with being able to take good photos.

I can prove it.

I have no knowledge of the history of photography but I take good photographs
 
Last edited:
Ed Sutton said:
I think you are confusing photography and taking pictures. The two are not the same thing. Which is the point I am clearly failing to make.
Click to expand...

Damn it, I've been doing that for the last three years, I thought I was doing photography but all along I was just taking pictures :'(
 
I think the point some people are trying to argue (badly) is that DG teaches people how to take photographs, not about photography in general. Two different things.

I do however agree that the ability to take a good photograph has NOTHING to do with history and 'firsts' - only how to manipulate your camera into capturing the desired effect.
 
joescrivens said:
Dave (Barnsley Dave) is right.

The history of photography has zero to do with being able to take good photos.

I can prove it.

I have no knowledge of the history of photography but I take good photographs
Click to expand...

I can also prove it - I have a little knowledge of the history of photography and take (mostly) crap photographs. :p

Strictly speaking (from a derivation/semantic point of view), Photography is writing/drawing (the graph bit) with light (photo). It's very true that knowing who invented the negative/positive aspect of the art doesn't help anyone take better pictures, neither is it necessary to be able to D&P your own films these days. However, some of us are interested in the origins of the craft just as some of us non mechanics do know how an internal combustion engine works - at a basic level, down to the chemistry of oxidisation (burning). No need to know that to be able to drive and, although I do know that, I'm denied a driving license at the moment after undergoing open brain surgery 2 months ago (in fact, 2 calendar months ago, at this very moment, I had a bloody great hole in my skull and a team of surgeons peering into it removing the tumour!). Only 2 months before I can put my intimate knowledge of sucking, squeezing, banging and blowing into use again - Dr's advice pending, of course...:thumbs:
 
Ed Sutton said:
I think you are confusing photography and taking pictures. The two are not the same thing. Which is the point I am clearly failing to make.
Click to expand...

Repeatedly failing as you appear to offer no explanation as to what you do mean :thinking:

And Nod - ooh :( didn't know that - I hope whatever the hole was for has worked ??? :)

Dave
 
I knew what the window was, where the window was and who owned the window. I also knew what he did and its importance.

Another thing I know is that Diddy Dave (as he used to be known) could, and often does, start arguments in empty rooms, just for the hell of it.....:D

Andy
 
DG Phototraining said:
Repeatedly failing as you appear to offer no explanation as to what you do mean :thinking:

And Nod - ooh :( didn't know that - I hope whatever the hole was for has worked ??? :)

Dave
Click to expand...

Yup, the excavations worked a treat! Apparently, had they not done the digging, I would have been dead in 3-6 months, so would have between 1 and 4 to go! As soon as I came round in the ICU (brain surgery patients end up there as a recovery room), I knew I was better (as in much improved, not completely healed!), as did my wife when she walked in and saw me sitting upright and smiling (for a long time before, I was usually slumped and looking unhappy). Still brings a touch of moisture to the backs of my eyes when I think what I (well, my body, it wasn't really me inside it then) put her through. I'll NEVER be able to thank her enough for chasing Doctors etc to get me well and taking the time to be with me every minute possible (I was in hospital around 50 miles from home and she didn't miss a visiting time). The scar over the rooftop is fading fast and the brain is expanding to fill the gap left by the tumour's removal (not sure how much extra brain power I can take!). Everyone who saw me in the months before and has seen me since has noticed a mahoosive difference - and I feel it.

To reveal my given name (although almost everyone who knows me calls me Nod) and to use a line from an old film, "Gordon's Alive!!!"
 
That's fantastic news. So nice to hear some good stuff for a change. :thumbs:
 
Andysnap said:
I knew what the window was, where the window was and who owned the window. I also knew what he did and its importance.

Another thing I know is that Diddy Dave (as he used to be known) could, and often does, start arguments in empty rooms, just for the hell of it.....:D

Andy
Click to expand...

Cheeky Sod :razz::razz::razz:


Nod said:
Yup, the excavations worked a treat! Apparently, had they not done the digging, I would have been dead in 3-6 months, so would have between 1 and 4 to go! As soon as I came round in the ICU (brain surgery patients end up there as a recovery room), I knew I was better (as in much improved, not completely healed!), as did my wife when she walked in and saw me sitting upright and smiling (for a long time before, I was usually slumped and looking unhappy). Still brings a touch of moisture to the backs of my eyes when I think what I (well, my body, it wasn't really me inside it then) put her through. I'll NEVER be able to thank her enough for chasing Doctors etc to get me well and taking the time to be with me every minute possible (I was in hospital around 50 miles from home and she didn't miss a visiting time). The scar over the rooftop is fading fast and the brain is expanding to fill the gap left by the tumour's removal (not sure how much extra brain power I can take!). Everyone who saw me in the months before and has seen me since has noticed a mahoosive difference - and I feel it.

To reveal my given name (although almost everyone who knows me calls me Nod) and to use a line from an old film, "Gordon's Alive!!!"
Click to expand...

YAY :banana:


Ed Sutton said:
Where shall I start? :thinking:

:D
Click to expand...

You can :razz::razz::razz: too

:lol:

Dave
 
Ed Sutton said:
It's similar to the difference between calligraphy and literature.
Click to expand...

They aren't comparable or relevant to each other. In the same way knowing the history of photography is not relevant to being a good photographer.
 
Thanks for the continued good wishes. I'm sure that at some point I'll forget the traumatic bits (after all, I was asleep for the most traumatic part - the op!) but I will (hopefully) never forget the kindness shown to me by everyone I've come into contact with since, from new friends and aquaintances to old ones. I'm sure that kindness has helped my recovery, especially that shown to me by the ward and theatre staff at the often maligned Plymouth Derriford hospital, specifically Moorgate ward. Incidentaly, there are loads of lovely photos of Dartmoor stuck on the ceilings of most of the bays on the ward, apparently taken by one of the Doctors - not sure if he/she's a neuro doctor or from elsewhere in the hospital but there are some lovely pics among them. I just hope that nobody here ever needs their services!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top