I guess I should probably back up files of my stuff online, so I put some of my old work on flickr. I'll get around to adding photos eventually.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mosesart/
Da Svedanya amigos
Friday, 25 September 2009
EARLY PHOTO PROCESSES
hey all,
Recently we visited an exibit at Old College on the U of Delaware campus, where they showed us exactly how the process of photography came to be. What I found super interesting was the earliest forms of photographs called AMBROTYPES. Heres a little more informacion.
The ambrotype process (from Greek ambrotos, "immortal") or amphitype is a photographic process that creates a positive photographic image on a sheet of glass using the wet plate collodion process. In the United States, ambrotypes first came into use in the early 1850s. The wet plate collodion process was invented just a few years before that by Frederick Scott Archer, but ambrotypes used the plate image as a positive, instead of a negative. In 1854, James Ambrose Cutting of Boston took out several patents relating to the process and may be responsible for coining the term "ambrotype".
In Great Britain it was called collodion positive: one side of a very clean glass plate is covered with a thin layer of collodion, then dipped in a silver nitrate solution. The plate is exposed to the subject while still wet. (Exposure times vary from five to sixty seconds or more depending on the amount of available light.) The plate is then developed and fixed. The resulting negative, when viewed by reflected light against a black background, appears to be a positive image: the clear areas look black, and the exposed, opaque areas appear light. This effect is achieved by coating one side of the glass negative with black varnish. Either the emulsion side or the blank side can be covered with the varnish: when the blank side is blackened, the thickness of the glass adds a sense of depth to the image. In either case, another plate of glass is put over the fragile emulsion side to protect it, and the whole is mounted in a metal frame and kept in a protective case. In some instances the protective glass was cemented directly to the emulsion, generally with a balsam resin. This protected the image well but tended to make it darker.
The ambrotype was much less expensive to produce than the daguerreotype, and it lacked the daguerreotype's shiny metallic surface, which some found unappealing. By the late 1850s, the ambrotype was overtaking the daguerreotype in popularity; by the mid-1860s, the ambrotype itself was supplanted by the tintype and other processes.
Ambrotypes were often hand-tinted. Untinted ambrotypes are grayish-white and have less contrast and brilliance than daguerreotypes.
Recently we visited an exibit at Old College on the U of Delaware campus, where they showed us exactly how the process of photography came to be. What I found super interesting was the earliest forms of photographs called AMBROTYPES. Heres a little more informacion.
The ambrotype process (from Greek ambrotos, "immortal") or amphitype is a photographic process that creates a positive photographic image on a sheet of glass using the wet plate collodion process. In the United States, ambrotypes first came into use in the early 1850s. The wet plate collodion process was invented just a few years before that by Frederick Scott Archer, but ambrotypes used the plate image as a positive, instead of a negative. In 1854, James Ambrose Cutting of Boston took out several patents relating to the process and may be responsible for coining the term "ambrotype".
In Great Britain it was called collodion positive: one side of a very clean glass plate is covered with a thin layer of collodion, then dipped in a silver nitrate solution. The plate is exposed to the subject while still wet. (Exposure times vary from five to sixty seconds or more depending on the amount of available light.) The plate is then developed and fixed. The resulting negative, when viewed by reflected light against a black background, appears to be a positive image: the clear areas look black, and the exposed, opaque areas appear light. This effect is achieved by coating one side of the glass negative with black varnish. Either the emulsion side or the blank side can be covered with the varnish: when the blank side is blackened, the thickness of the glass adds a sense of depth to the image. In either case, another plate of glass is put over the fragile emulsion side to protect it, and the whole is mounted in a metal frame and kept in a protective case. In some instances the protective glass was cemented directly to the emulsion, generally with a balsam resin. This protected the image well but tended to make it darker.
The ambrotype was much less expensive to produce than the daguerreotype, and it lacked the daguerreotype's shiny metallic surface, which some found unappealing. By the late 1850s, the ambrotype was overtaking the daguerreotype in popularity; by the mid-1860s, the ambrotype itself was supplanted by the tintype and other processes.
Ambrotypes were often hand-tinted. Untinted ambrotypes are grayish-white and have less contrast and brilliance than daguerreotypes.
Many ambrotypes were made by unknown photographers, such as this American example of a small girl holding a flower, circa 1860. Because of their fragility ambrotypes were held in folding cases much like those used for daguerreotypes
This one is pretty fierce.
To read up more on the process of ambrotype photography please click this link to lead you to a rather sketchy site: http://ancestorville.com/ambrotypephotographs.html
Wednesday, 23 September 2009
SELF PORTRAITS
hey peoples first post hurr.
So first a little a background info, I'm a freshman at the U of Delaware and an art major. In our foundations Digital Media class we were assigned to go out and snap 3 pro self portraits that could visually communicate your personality, thoughts, dreams and fears through a camera lens. Being an amateur photographer myself I had no idea how to work this ridiculous 500 dollhair camera we all had to buy over the summer, yet I persevered. I got an 8/10 so it wasn't crash and burn.
The first is my favorite shot, it was taken in the afternoon by the Amy duPont Music building after spending 5 hours roaming campus trying to find the right spot and trying not to look like a freak taking pictures of himself, so I just sat down here frustrated then looked up and figured I might as well. Metaphorically it could stand for whats to come in the future and the challenges that come with it.
In the second picture I wanted to do something neat with light and shadow and took a shot of my silhouette on the balcony of some rando building near Purnell Hall. It might be Purnell. Here it could possibly stand for my past and things I choose to leave behind or not.
The third was a silly shot I took with my friend Annie who wore my BAMF aviators that are pretty lame. But it still was neat shot that was a tribute to the uber famous wedding photographer Bryan Caporicci's own self portrait, but I don't know the dude's work. Jon Cox said he liked how the distortion made my hands look huge and the camera small. I actually have big hands. MLIA.
So first a little a background info, I'm a freshman at the U of Delaware and an art major. In our foundations Digital Media class we were assigned to go out and snap 3 pro self portraits that could visually communicate your personality, thoughts, dreams and fears through a camera lens. Being an amateur photographer myself I had no idea how to work this ridiculous 500 dollhair camera we all had to buy over the summer, yet I persevered. I got an 8/10 so it wasn't crash and burn.
The first is my favorite shot, it was taken in the afternoon by the Amy duPont Music building after spending 5 hours roaming campus trying to find the right spot and trying not to look like a freak taking pictures of himself, so I just sat down here frustrated then looked up and figured I might as well. Metaphorically it could stand for whats to come in the future and the challenges that come with it.
In the second picture I wanted to do something neat with light and shadow and took a shot of my silhouette on the balcony of some rando building near Purnell Hall. It might be Purnell. Here it could possibly stand for my past and things I choose to leave behind or not.
The third was a silly shot I took with my friend Annie who wore my BAMF aviators that are pretty lame. But it still was neat shot that was a tribute to the uber famous wedding photographer Bryan Caporicci's own self portrait, but I don't know the dude's work. Jon Cox said he liked how the distortion made my hands look huge and the camera small. I actually have big hands. MLIA.
Thursday, 10 September 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)