Home U.S. Coin Forum

possible new first photograph ever in a book

I have written 53 books on coins. I am currently working on a book on copyright protection for photographs,
Part of which required research into the history of photography.

I read regarding the first photograph used in a book that

In 1843, Anna Atkins’s book, Photographs of British Algae, was the first to contain photographs. Atkins’s father, John Children, was friends of William Talbot and John Herschel. Instead of drawing the plants, she used Hershel’s process called cyanotype or blueprinting to create impression of the plants. Atkins only made 13 copies of her book. Eight months later, Tablot published The Pencil of Nature, which became the first book to contain photographs that was commercially available.
I believe that there might have been an earlier photograph used in a book, below is my thoughts on it

In 1842, William DuBois and Jacob Eckfeldt of the Philadelphia Mint, published a book titled: A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins of All Nations, struck within the past century. In 1851, a second edition was published titled New Varieties of Gold and Silver Coins, Counterfeit Coins and Bullion, with Mint Values.

In the first book, A Manual of Gold and Silver Coins of All Nations, struck within the past century, written in 1842, there are coin images on the cover and in the back of the book. It states regarding the images that “comprises a front view of the Mint of the United States in the title page, and sixteen plates (which find their pace in this chapter) comprising about two hundred specimens of coins.” It states under Chapter VI, Description of Plates, that the original plan was to have no photographs in the book as the cost to have engravings executed were too high. These plates are obviously engraved plates that are a hard surface in which the design is engraved into and then used to make a print. A process was used to create the engravings whereas the images of the coins could be copied to engravings with only a little labor and expense, but still retain the accuracy. This is accomplished using a mechanical device which “on point is tracing a line across the face of a medal, rising and falling according to the elevation and depressions over which it passes, another point shall draw, on a flat surface, a profile of this line”, … “and the profile lines were drawn on an etching ground laid on copper or steel, by the etching-point.”

These engraved coin images were made through a mechanical process with the goal of duplicating the image of the coin exactly. The process used to copy the image is repeatable, with a subsequent process on the same subject would normally produce the same results. As such, there is no artistic judgement or creativity that was used in the creation of these images and they would not be copyrightable. If the engraved images were created manually, then there is a high probability that they would be copyrightable.

On page 189, it states regarding the image of the Philadelphia Mint on the title page of the book:
"To obtain the vignette of the Mint (which is in the title page), as there was no medallion to rule from, it was required to go back to the original; and this necessity brought into play another brilliant invention of modern times, the daguerreotype. A picture of the edifice was taken with this instrument by Mr. Saxton, from which a copy was engraved in soft metal by Mr. Gobrecht, from this copy, counterpart was obtained in copper by the electrotype, and therefrom the engraving was effected. "

In 1842, a photograph was taken of the Mint using the daguerreotype process. The photograph was used to make a copy in soft metal, then copper, from which an engraving was created, which was used in the book. The photograph of the Mint building would have been copyrightable. The subsequent copy in soft metal, copper, engraving, and the image used in the book would arguably all be derivative works of the original photograph, in a different medium, especially given that the objective was to reproduce the photograph exactly. Therefore the image of the Mint building in this book would most likely be copyrightable. It is also arguable that the image of the Mint building in this book would qualify as a photograph used in a book, and therefore this might be the first photograph ever used in a book.

Curious on your thoughts

Kevin

Note on beginning of photography
The first photograph by a camera was taken by Nicephore Niepce of Paris in the mid-1820s, in a process called heligraphy, using a pewtar plate covered by a thin coat of light-sensitive solution of bitumen of Judea (a type of asphalt or petroleum tar), dissolved in lavender oil. The first successful photograph is believed to be of the courtyard of his estate, Gras. It took several hours of sun exposure to capture the positive image that were usually crude in nature. Louis Jacques Mande Daguerre joined Niepce in 1829, with the process being improved before Niepce’s death in 1833.

In 1839, Daguerre introduced the daguerreotype process, which was the first commercially available process. This only required roughly 30 minutes of exposure to produce the positive image. He also used a more sensitive resin and improved the exposure treatment, which results were greatly improved in detail and clarity of the image. Daguerre discovered how to use iodized silver on the plate which can become visible when exposed to mercury vapor that settles on image after it is exposed. If the developed photograph was exposed to light, the unexposed area of silver darkened. This was fixed through a solution of table salt to dissolve the unexposed silver iodide. Daguerre used a meniscus lens for his camera made by Charles Chevalier and N.M.P. Lerebours of Paris. In 1839, Niepce’s son and Daguerre sold the daguerreotype process to the French government, which process was used until the 1850s.

PS I have written several photographic museums around the world to ask their opinion

Kevin J Flynn

Comments

  • 291fifth291fifth Posts: 23,898 ✭✭✭✭✭

    The first photographs actually date from the period around 1816 but none survived since they did not know how to fix the image. When exposed to light the images would simply fade away. The first photographs that were properly fixed were the ones made in the mid-1820's by Niepce. The photo of the courtyard mentioned is now in a museum in Houston.

    The daguerreotype process, which was publicly introduced in 1839, was exceptionally popular in the United States and many of the advancements in the process were made there. The popularity of the daguerreotype process started to fade due to the introduction of less expensive processes in the 1850's but it never died out completely. Some fine art photographers still used the process today!

    If you want to read an excellent book on the history of photography try "On The Art Of Fixing A Shadow - One Hundred And Fifty Years Of Photography" which was published in 1989 by Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company in association with the National Gallery of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago.

    All glory is fleeting.
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    See_ Journal of Numismatic Research_ (JNR) Issue 2 for a description of the process.

  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Guess my first question, borne of ignorance and possibly completely unimportant, is "What constitutes a 'photograph'?"
    Is an engraving of a photograph still a photograph?
    Is a hand drawn rendition of a photograph still a photograph?

    I'm guessing artistic renditions in books are nearly as old as books are. But at what point, and under what circumstances, is that rendition considered a "photograph"?

    It's probably academic when it comes to copy write rules and laws...they are probably all copy write worthy. But when you attempt to identify the FIRST photograph, someone needs to set the rules for what constitutes a photograph.

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭

    TommyType,

    photograph definition - oxford - A picture made using a camera, in which an image is focused on to light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment, or stored digitally.
    A work under copyright laws, includes photographs, engravings, art, statutes, .....
    Based upon the derivative laws and case law, if a photo is taken, and the image of the photo is hand drawn, it is considered the same work. So an engraving is an engraving, but as it is copied from the photograph, it is the same work.

    In the case of Anna Atkins using the cyanotype process, this process created a negative, from which a positive could be
    made, but back in the 1840s, I believe they still would have had to make an engraving in order to print in a book, they
    are not inserting the photograph

    I see your question and point, which are good, and I need to fully research and understand better, during that period
    how were photographs taken and then used in a book.

    Kevin

    Kevin J Flynn
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭

    Hi Boston,
    Thanks for your comments, if you send me an email at kevinjflynn88@yahoo.com, can send you a list
    Kevin

    Kevin J Flynn
  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭

    I was shocked at the number of historical photographic web sites there were

    Kevin J Flynn
  • CoinstartledCoinstartled Posts: 10,135 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 31, 2019 10:28AM

    Love the old photos. This image of lincoln's funeral procession, believed to be taken by Mathew Brady, was discovered in the last few years.

  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Through the 1890s a photograph was commonly used to guide creation of an engraving or shaded illustration. The early difficulty was how to convert the photo into something that could be reproduced on a printing press. Many authors of personal edition books tipped photographic prints in the the printed pages during binding, as in the Anna Atkins example.

    Half-tone illustration printing was soon developed but was very difficult to control. Original photos were also a problem in half tone reproduction because managing contrast was a major problem. Only within very narrow circumstances did most photos have a tonal range compatible with the printing technology. Heliotype reproduction was invented to avoid these problems, but had its own limitations. (See William H. Harrison, "The Heliotype Process," Nature volume 4, (June 1, 1871), pages 85–87.

    Further use of engravings was encouraged by the poor quality of original photos - especially those taken in workplaces under available light. The plate engraver could imitate light, shadow and detail barely visible in the photo, while maintaining accurate perspective and spatial relationships.

    I would not call the reproductions by Peale and Saxton "photographs." They are mechanical engravings.

  • kevinjkevinj Posts: 972 ✭✭✭

    Thanks for the update Roger,
    So Atkins actually used actual photographs in her book? Where did you read this?
    What about Talbot's book soon thereafter that was commercially available?
    Thanks
    Kevin

    Legally, the copying of an image from one medium to another is a derivative work, just like scanning a photograph to a digital image for a simple comparison. The drawing a picture of a photograph is considered the same work, but a different medium. You can read about this is the copyright book I sent you. If a photograph is used to create an engraving that is then used in a book, it is still considered the same work. If this was the normal process in most of the 19th century, going from photo to engraving that was used to print the book, and the photo in the book is considered the same as the original, then it would be logical that they are related, both legally and generally.

    Kevin J Flynn
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 31, 2019 11:13AM

    All of the duplication processes of the time, such as "presscopy"/ "letter press"/cyanotype were wet processes which could not be done with a bound volume without ruining the other pages.

    About 30 years ago I wrote a limited edition (10 copies) specialized book on digital imaging for the government of Saudi Arabia. I used original images of the various processes and outputs because it was impossible to reproduce them using any form of normal printing.

    Original Battelle Memorial Institute reports for the Treasury in 1964-65 were made with tipped-in original photos - normal printing quality was not high enough.

  • PipestonePetePipestonePete Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited January 31, 2019 11:14AM
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Photography enters the scene in one special situation. At the front of Eckfeldt’s book was a ruled engraving of the U.S. Mint in Philadelphia. The illustration was produced from a photograph Saxton had taken in 1841 with his daguerreotype camera pointed northward from the south side of Chestnut Street, the street toward which the Mint building faced. Christian Gobrecht, the mint’s engraver, cut an incuse relief from the daguerreotype in soft metal, and Peale made an electrotype from this incuse model. Saxton used the ruling machine on the electrotype to make an engraved printing plate. The names “Gobrecht” and “Saxton” can be seen below the building at left and right, respectively.

  • cmerlo1cmerlo1 Posts: 7,890 ✭✭✭✭✭

    @291fifth said:

    The first photographs actually date from the period around 1816 but none survived since they did not know how to fix the image. When exposed to light the images would simply fade away. The first photographs that were properly fixed were the ones made in the mid-1820's by Niepce. The photo of the courtyard mentioned is now in a museum in Houston.

    The daguerreotype process, which was publicly introduced in 1839, was exceptionally popular in the United States and many of the advancements in the process were made there. The popularity of the daguerreotype process started to fade due to the introduction of less expensive processes in the 1850's but it never died out completely. Some fine art photographers still used the process today!

    If you want to read an excellent book on the history of photography try "On The Art Of Fixing A Shadow - One Hundred And Fifty Years Of Photography" which was published in 1989 by Bullfinch Press/Little, Brown and Company in association with the National Gallery of Art and the Art Institute of Chicago.

    It's actually here in Austin- I've seen it a few times:

    https://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/permanent/firstphotograph/

    You Suck! Awarded 6/2008- 1901-O Micro O Morgan, 8/2008- 1878 VAM-123 Morgan, 9/2022 1888-O VAM-1B3 H8 Morgan | Senior Regional Representative- ANACS Coin Grading. Posted opinions on coins are my own, and are not an official ANACS opinion.
  • PipestonePetePipestonePete Posts: 1,922 ✭✭✭✭✭

  • TommyTypeTommyType Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭✭✭

    I've had nightmares that looked something like that..... ;)

    I'd complain about the earliest surviving photograph being so mundane.....But I think when I first got a camera, I took a picture of my foot. So...Good One! :P

    Easily distracted Type Collector
  • RogerBRogerB Posts: 8,852 ✭✭✭✭✭

    "Cameras" had been in use for hundreds of years. Fixing the image was the "magic." Niepce's photo of his backyard was the first real photo and not a heliotype printing plate, although the technology was the same. Member Ambro should be posting to this thread - he makes "old style" plate cameras.

  • Timbuk3Timbuk3 Posts: 11,658 ✭✭✭✭✭

    Fantastic historical information. I'm quite amazed by the knowledge of many individuals on this forum site !!! :)

    Timbuk3
  • OuthaulOuthaul Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭✭✭

    This photograph of Boulevard du Temple in Paris was made in 1838 by Louis Daguerre, the brilliant guy that invented the daguerreotype process of photography. Aside from its distinction of being a super early photograph, it’s also the first photograph to ever include a human being. Because the image required an exposure time of over ten minutes, all the people, carriages, and other moving things disappear from the scene. However, in the bottom left hand corner is a man who just so happened to stay somewhat still during the shot — he was having his shoes shined.

    Detail...

  • kazkaz Posts: 9,052 ✭✭✭✭✭

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file