Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The First Photograph of a Human

Posted by samzenpus on from the fist-cheese dept.

wiredog writes "The Atlantic has a brief piece on what is likely to be the first photograph (a daguerreotype) showing a human. From the article: 'In September, Krulwich posted a set of daguerreotypes taken by Charles Fontayne and William Porter in Cincinnati 162 years ago, on September 24, 1848. Krulwich was celebrating the work of the George Eastman House in association with the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Using visible-light microscopy, the George Eastman House scanned several plates depicting the Cincinnati Waterfront so that scholars could zoom in and study the never-before-seen details.'"

8 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Cat by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    Okay, the first photo of a human, whatever.

    But now I want to see the first photo of a cat. Ideally one with a caption.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    1. Re:Cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just because MrEricSir has an unhealthy obsession with cat daguerrotypes does _not_ make him a catholic.

      I'm certain he can quit any time he wants to.

    2. Re:Cat by MrEricSir · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone needs to tell that cat: "Keep your fork, there's pie"

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  2. Re:No by HouseOfMisterE · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're a couple of posts behind on this stuff...

  3. Old news is so exciting by bhcompy · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is so old it's in my Art textbook from my Art 110 GE class.

  4. Zoom and Enhance by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Funny

    You're mistaken there. I was watching CSI and visible-light microscopy-level zooming is nothing.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  5. Re:What I find more interesting... by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, the techniques are definitely different. While this photograph is defnitely very high resolution, you likely had to wait ten minutes for the image to be firmly etched into the plate. Would be really hard to take a shot of the World Cup... though you would likely get a good shot of the World Series.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  6. Re:No, it isn't. by hedwards · · Score: 2, Funny

    You are indeed, unless you've found somebody that's like 180 years old.