Old vs New - Daguerreotype vs. Digital

[GrahamL]

I was reading about the detail present in daguerreotypes and came across this link (apologies if someone has previously posted it in the past). http://www.rochester.edu/news/photos/daguerreotype.html

This digital capture of just one of a set of photographs of the 1848 Cincinnati waterfront is said to be equivalent to a 140,000 MP image. Interestingly you need computerised treatment of the image to get the full detail.

Similarly I understand that large glass-backed photographic plates are still in use for some astronomical/scientific applications where high resolution detail over a large area is paramount, if Wikipedia is correct.

Not proposing anyone moves to this early Victorian tech, just amused than in moving to the much more usable paper and film photo-technologies a significant attribute was diminished. The innovation path has never been smooth.

Graham

[Mike Farley]

Personally, I have long been surprised at how detailed some images taken in the Victorian era are, especially considering that the optics they used were very basic compared to today. In part the quality is due to using a larger recording medium, which makes fewer demands on a lens. I have heard it said that a medium format film camera can outresolve a 35 mm one, even if the latter has a high quality lens, e.g. Leica. One advantage that a Daguerrotype has is that the image is a directly produced positive, so there are no intermediate steps via a negative which inevitably would reduce detail. Even so, it is still astonishing to see just what the technology could achieve with a bit of modern assistance. Thanks for sharing.