The Daguerreotype
The First Practical Photograph and the Decade It Ruled
- 20 chapters
- 41m
- Photography
- Free · no sign-up
Chapters cover how the process worked from plate manufacture to development, including sensitization, exposure, and fixing steps. The book details unusual cameras used for daguerreotypes, astronomical applications, and later reduction of exposure times. It also examines the transition from daguerreotype to wet collodion processes.
This detailed guide explains everything from camera obscura principles to late 19th century uses. Anyone interested in early photography techniques will find this comprehensive overview worth their time.
Listen
-
Read this chapter
For centuries after the Renaissance, creators and inventors pursued a way to mechanically capture what the eye sees. One tool they used was the camera obscura, which projects an image onto a surface. Artists would trace these images or use them to work out issues like perspective and color. This device transforms a three-dimensional scene into a flat, two-dimensional view.
In the early 17th century, Angelo Sala, an Italian physician and chemist, wrote about powdered silver nitrate darkening when exposed to sunlight. He documented this change in the chemical compound but did not find any practical use for the reaction. His observations remain among the earliest recorded notes on how light affected silver compounds, even though he did not explore what that might mean for creating or preserving images. Sala’s work was more of a curiosity than a breakthrough, laying the groundwork for later developments in photography, though he himself did not pursue its potential applications.
The development of practical photography depended on earlier discoveries of halogens like iodine, bromine, and chlorine, which made silver-based processes possible. These elements allowed for the reduction of silver iodide, silver bromide, and silver chloride into metallic silver. The daguerreotype used this kind of process, though it wasn’t the first—Niépce had experimented with paper negatives using silver chloride, while Wedgwood worked with silver nitrate, and Schultze created stencils using the same substance. Hippolyte Bayard was encouraged by François Arago to delay publishing his own paper-based method.
The daguerreotype emerged from a series of earlier discoveries in photosensitive materials. In the 13th century, Albertus Magnus worked with silver nitrate, and in 1724, Johann Heinrich Schulze mixed silver with chalk to create a light-sensitive compound. Then, in 1822, Joseph Niépce developed heliography using bitumen. These innovations paved the way for the practical photograph that would follow.
Thomas Wedgwood made the first confirmed effort to fix an image seen through a camera obscura during the 1790s. An account of his work from 1802, written by Sir Humphry Davy, describes what came before. That description gives us insight into early experiments with light and shadow, even though the process wasn’t yet fully successful. The year 1802 marks when Davy shared details about Wedgwood’s attempts, which were part of a larger exploration into how images might be captured permanently. These efforts laid groundwork for what would later become photography.
Mr. Wedgwood began his work trying to capture images formed by a camera obscura, which were too faint to make a clear impression on nitrate of silver in any reasonable time. He first used the nitrate of silver, a substance suggested to him by a friend who said it was very sensitive to light. Despite many attempts, none of his early experiments succeeded in achieving the result he wanted.
-
Read this chapter
In 1829, Louis Daguerre, a French artist and chemist, met Nicéphore Niépce while getting a camera obscura from the optician Chevalier. Niépce had already made an image using his heliography process. They began corresponding, though Niépce was cautious at first, using a numerical code to protect his work. For example, 15 stood for "the tanning action of the sun on human skin," 34 meant "camera obscura," and 73 referred to "sulphuric acid."
The written contract between Nicéphore Niépce and Daguerre bound Niépce to share details of his asphalt process, also called heliography. Daguerre swore to secrecy, risking financial penalties, and agreed to build a camera and improve the method. Eventually, the refined technique became known as the physautotype. Niépce’s early work stemmed from his interest in lithography, using a camera obscura to capture images that were then turned into engravings for printing. His heliography needed extremely long exposures, so Arago said it was unfit for practical use. Still, without Niépce’s efforts, Daguerre likely could not have developed what would become the daguerreotype process.
After Niépce’s death in 1833, his son Isidore inherited the rights and a new agreement was made between Daguerre and Isidore. Isidore signed a document admitting the old process had been improved as much as possible, and that a new method named after Daguerre was sixty to eighty times faster than the one Niépce had created using asphalt. This new technique used silvered plates treated with iodine and developed with mercury fumes. To commercialize the discovery, 400 shares were offered at 1,000 francs each; secrecy would end once 100 shares were sold, or the rights could be purchased outright for 20,000 francs.
The process is expensive, and there's doubt about whether subscription would work. One person who has seen the results believes that anyone who pays a thousand francs upfront won't know if it's worth keeping secret until after they've learned the method. M. de Mandelot knows several people willing to pay but won’t because they fear the secret will leak on its own. The writer agrees with M. Arago’s idea to have the government buy the discovery and has already spoken with deputies who support this approach. M. Arago plans to speak at the Académie des Sciences next Monday. Isidore did not help invent the daguerreotype or learn its secrets, yet he still received a state pension alongside Daguerre.
Miles Berry, acting as a patent agent in England on behalf of Daguerre and Niépce, submitted a six-page memorial to the Board of the Treasury hoping to replicate the French government's arrangement for purchasing the daguerreotype patent. He wrote that the purpose was “for the purpose of throwing it open in England for the benefit of the public.” After presenting this request on behalf of the inventors, Berry was instructed by the Lords and others that Parliament had allocated no funds for such a purchase.
In France, François Arago, a member of the House of Deputies, worked to ensure the daguerreotype process would be shared freely by having bills passed through Parliament. His efforts led to the invention being made available to the world without charge, except in England and Wales, where Richard Beard held patent rights. Daguerre had patented his method in England, while Beard later secured improvements in Scotland. Meanwhile, Antoine Claudet had bought a licence directly from Daguerre, giving him access to the process in England and Wales, though not exclusive control. The French government’s decision meant that, unlike in England, no patent restrictions applied elsewhere, allowing the daguerreotype to spread more widely across the globe.
According to John Johnson's account, Alexander S. Wolcott created the mirror daguerreotype camera in just one day after learning about the process. The speed of this invention highlights how quickly new ideas could be applied once the method was clear. This development played a key role in spreading daguerreotype photography throughout the United States, giving more people access to the technique. The mirror camera made it easier to handle and frame images, helping the medium gain popularity in the years that followed.
-
Read this chapter
In September 1835, a review in the Journal des artistes mentioned rumours swirling through Paris studios about Daguerre’s work with metal plates and the camera obscura. It said that Daguerre had found a way to capture images on prepared plates, so that a portrait or landscape projected by the camera obscura would leave a light-and-shade imprint, preserving it permanently. One writer called it perhaps the greatest marvel the physical sciences had ever produced. Four years later, in 1839, a reporter for The Athenaeum noted that the daguerreotypes being shown were far better than those seen “four years earlier,” confirming the timeline of the process’s development.
In September 1836, Viollet-le-Duc's father saw a Daguerre photograph from his diorama top, showing Montmartre hills with a telegraph tower over a mile away. In April 1837, Daguerre told Isidore Niépce his equipment was ready. At the joint French Academy meeting on 19 August 1839, François Arago mentioned Niépce's earlier process improved by Daguerre, calling it the heliograph and physautotype, but criticized it for being inconvenient and impractical—like eight-hour exposures that moved the sun too much. He praised the daguerreotype instead. Isidore Niépce resented this omission of his father's role, so he wrote a pamphlet titled Histoire de la découverte improprement nommé daguerréotype ("History of the discovery improperly named the daguerreotype").
In 1835, Daguerre attended an announcement but complained of a sore throat. That same year, William Fox Talbot disclosed his silver chloride "sensitive paper" process. These two revelations led people to later regard 1839 as the birth year of photography, when the daguerreotype was officially introduced to the public. It was not until later that it became clear Niépce’s contribution had been minimized in Arago’s efforts to promote the new technique. A photograph taken in 1826 or 1827 is cited in Eder’s History of Photography as the earliest known image. Nicéphore’s true place as the inventor came to light through his son Isidore, who expressed outrage over how his father's early work had been ignored, despite Nicéphore having shared his method at a time when it was still secret.
The idea of “the birth of photography” means different things to different people. Some point to 1839, when the daguerreotype process was officially revealed, suggesting it had been secret before then. Others focus on when the first photograph was taken—possibly as early as 1822, though research now points more likely to 1826 or later, using methods like heliography. Fox Talbot created his earliest images in the summer of 1835. Meanwhile, Daguerre and Niépce had agreed on a plan where funding would come through subscriptions, but that effort failed. François Arago, who later spoke about patent systems in the French parliament, opposed the subscription idea and instead helped Daguerre by getting support passed in both houses.
In 1839, the French government took ownership of the daguerreotype process in exchange for lifetime pensions to Daguerre and Isidore Niépce, who was Niépce's son and heir. On August 19, the government publicly announced the invention as a gift to the world. But five days earlier, on August 14, Miles Berry, acting on Daguerre's behalf, had filed a patent in England under the number 8194 of 1839. The patent described the method as "A New or Improved Method of Obtaining the Spontaneous Reproduction of all the Images Received in the Focus of the Camera Obscura." It covered England, Wales, Berwick-upon-Tweed, and all of her Majesty's colonies and plantations abroad. Richard Beard later purchased the rights to this patent, and also secured a Scottish patent, although he apparently did not enforce it. The United Kingdom and its colonies therefore became the only places where a license was required.
-
Read this chapter
A broad-leaved tree in bright sunshine can act like a camera obscura, fulfilling all the necessary conditions: the sun serves as a bright light source, the leafy canopy creates shade, and the flat surface beneath shows the projected image. The gaps between the leaves form tiny pinholes, creating an inverted picture of the scene. The sun's image appears as a round disc, and during a partial eclipse, it takes on a crescent shape.
In 1502, Leonardo da Vinci described a device called oculus artificialis, or “the artificial eye,” in Codex Atlanticus. He explained how light passing through a small hole in a wall would project an image of the outside world onto the opposite surface. The image appears upside down, but clearly shows all the objects illuminated by sunlight. This early form of the camera obscura was not directly lighted by the sun, and the room where it was observed had to be dark except for the light entering through the aperture.
In another notebook, he wrote: "You will catch these pictures on a piece of white paper, which placed vertically in the room not far from that opening, and you will see all the above-mentioned objects on this paper in their natural shapes or colors, but they will appear smaller and upside down, on account of crossing of the rays at that aperture." If these pictures originate from a place which is illuminated by the sun, they will appear colored on the paper exactly as they are. The paper should be very thin and must be viewed from the back.
In the 16th century, Daniele Barbaro proposed using a larger hole along with an old man’s spectacle lens—a biconvex lens designed to correct long-sightedness—which created a much brighter and sharper image than the small hole alone had produced.
By the late 18th century, wealthy amateurs favored a small, easily carried box that used a lens to project an image onto a ground glass screen inside. With the device aimed at a scene, a user would place paper over the screen and trace the image with pencil or pen. The fragile sketches created by light left on the screen prompted some to search for a method of capturing these moments more permanently—and without manual tracing—through chemical means.
Daguerre, a skilled professional artist, worked with the camera obscura to help him get the right proportions and perspective in his art. He used this tool while creating theatrical scene backdrops and also in designing the massive, ultra-realistic panoramas for his widely seen Diorama exhibitions.
-
Read this chapter
The daguerreotype process shares some chemistry with today’s gelatin silver method, starting with silver halides that form in darkness before exposure to light creates a latent image. That image then becomes visible through development, and finally gets fixed using sodium thiosulfate, commonly called “hypo.” What sets the daguerreotype apart is how the silver halides are created directly on a surface of metallic silver, and how the development happens through exposure to mercury vapor.
-
Read this chapter
The daguerreotype image appears on a smooth silver surface, typically a thin layer mounted on copper, though brass or solid silver sheets also work. In the 19th century, the usual material was Sheffield plate, made by fusing sterling silver onto a copper base, then rolling it into thin sheets. The layers kept their proportion as the metal was pressed down. Sometimes, a final coat of pure silver was added using electroplating, either on its own or combined with the Sheffield plate method.
In order to keep the buffing material from tearing the plate during polishing, the edges of the plate were bent back using special devices. These tools were part of a patented system that also acted as plate holders. The design prevented direct contact with the plate's surface while it was being processed.
-
Read this chapter
To get the best image quality from a daguerreotype, the silver-coated plate had to be polished until it was almost perfectly smooth and reflective. Any sign of tarnish or dirt had to be removed before the plate was ready to be treated with light-sensitive chemicals. That final step of cleaning and polishing had to happen just before the photograph was taken, so the surface stayed in top condition. The daguerreotypist needed to make sure the silver was completely clean and free of any contamination when the plate was sensitized.
In the 19th century, the process of polishing involved using a buff covered with hide or velvet, starting with rotten stone, then jeweler's rouge, and finally lampblack. The work was originally done entirely by hand, but soon buffing machinery was developed to help. To finish, the surface was cleaned with nitric acid to remove any leftover organic material.
-
Read this chapter
In the process of creating a daguerreotype, the silver-coated surface had to be prepared by exposing it to different gases in darkness or under a safelight. Initially, only iodine fumes were used, coming from crystals at room temperature, which formed a layer of silver iodide. Soon, it was discovered that treating the surface with bromine fumes afterward greatly improved its sensitivity. Chlorine fumes also worked, as did a mix of bromine and chlorine. A final step often involved re-fuming with iodine again.
-
Read this chapter
The process began when the plate was placed into a light-tight holder. To start the exposure, a dark slide was withdrawn or doors in the holder were opened, revealing the sensitized surface inside. The camera lens cap was then removed, initiating the exposure that formed an invisible latent image on the plate. The length of time needed depended on the chemistry used, how bright the light was, and how much the lens focused it—exposures could last from seconds to minutes. Once the exposure seemed complete, the lens was capped, the holder sealed again, and the plate was taken out of the camera.
-
Read this chapter
The process of making a daguerreotype involved a crucial step called development, where the invisible image was brought into view. This was done by placing the plate in a special box and exposing it to vapors from heated mercury for several minutes. The technique required precise control and the right equipment to produce a clear, detailed photograph. The developing box was designed specifically for this purpose, ensuring that the mercury fumes reached the plate evenly. Without this step, the latent image would remain hidden, and no photograph could be seen. This method became the standard way to complete daguerreotype images during the decade when the process dominated photography.
The daguerreotype process used mercury, a substance known to be toxic even in the 19th century, yet safety measures were seldom implemented. Today, people handle the chemicals involved with much greater care, recognizing both personal health risks and environmental damage from chemical waste. The hazards of working with mercury and other traditional materials in daguerreotype creation are now understood far more thoroughly than they were decades ago.
-
Read this chapter
In 1840, a variation of the daguerreotype process known as the Becquerel variation was published, though it saw very little use in the nineteenth century. In this method, plates sensitized only with iodine were developed by being exposed to sunlight filtered through yellow, amber, or red glass. The silver iodide remained unresponsive to red light, but the latent image formed in the camera by blue, violet, and ultraviolet rays became color-sensitized, so that this filtered light intensified the image as if the plate had been left in the camera for hours or days. When fully developed and fixed, Becquerel daguerreotypes often appear with a bluish tint. Although the image quality may not match that of traditional mercury-based methods, modern photographers often prefer this technique because of the dangers and costs associated with mercury.
-
Read this chapter
Once the image was developed, the plate needed to be fixed to stop any remaining light sensitivity. This process involved washing away the unexposed silver halide using a chemical solution. Daguerre initially used a hot saturated mix of common salt for this step.
In 1840, Hippolyte Fizeau added a new step to the Daguerreotype process called gilding or gold toning. This technique involved placing a gold chloride solution on the image, then briefly heating the plate over a flame before draining, rinsing, and drying it. The treatment gave the usual steely gray photograph a slightly warmer tone and helped secure the silver particles that made up the image. Without this step, the results were as fragile as the "dust" on a butterfly’s wing.
-
Read this chapter
Even when reinforced with gilding, the image surface remained fragile and prone to damage, as air caused the silver to tarnish over time. To protect the finished plate, a cover glass was used and sealed with paper strips soaked in gum arabic. In the United States, a gilt brass mat known as a preserver was typically placed between the image and the glass, while in Britain, the same purpose was served by a pinchbeck. Across continental Europe, thin cardboard mats or passepartout were more commonly used for this protective layer.
In the US and Britain, people continued storing miniature paintings in leather or paper-covered wooden cases with raised patterns, extending this practice into the daguerreotype era. Some daguerreotypists who were portrait artists made miniatures using black-lacquered cases decorated with inset mother of pearl, while a more substantial option was the Union case made from colored sawdust and shellac formed in heated molds to create decorative relief. Production began in 1856, and all types of cases were lined with velvet, plush, or satin to reflect light into the plate for viewing and protect the cover glass. Some cases held two daguerreotypes opposite each other, displayed on tables or mantelpieces, though most were small and pocket-sized rather than carried that way. In France and continental Europe, another approach was common: hanging the daguerreotype in simple or elaborate frames.
A daguerreotype of Walt Whitman was determined to have been made in New Orleans, with the frame style pointing to its French and continental origin. The type of mounting suggested a wall-hanging design typical of that region. A piece of paper from Le Mesager, a bilingual newspaper from New Orleans at the time, was found stuck to the plate in the frame, offering further proof of where it was created. Historians also look for hallmarks on the silver plate and the unique polishing marks left by photographers using a leather buff, which creates fine parallel lines visible on the surface.
Because the daguerreotype was produced on a thin, malleable metal sheet, it could be readily cut to fit into small, decorative cases—much like miniature paintings mounted in lockets. Beyond that, these images were also set into watch fobs and watch cases, ornate silver or gold jewel caskets, and other elaborate containers. Some were even incorporated into the handles of walking sticks or fashioned into brooches, bracelets, and other jewelry items now known to collectors as "daguerreian jewelry." The surface of the image was often protected by a sealed glass cover, attached either to the daguerreotype itself or to the container’s opening, with many pieces including a hinged protective lid.
-
Read this chapter
Daguerreotypes appear as mirror images because they're viewed from the side that originally faced the camera lens. A simple way to tell if one has been flipped is to look at clothing: men's garments are buttoned left over right, while women's are done the opposite way. While it was possible for a daguerreotypist to use a mirror or prism in front of the lens to avoid this effect, it was rarely done in practice. Each daguerreotype is a one-of-a-kind image, but it could be copied by re-daguerreotyping the original, which also preserves the mirror effect. Additional copies were made through lithography or engraving, and today, they can be digitally scanned.
The daguerreotype process sometimes used attachments that caused a loss of light, which meant longer exposure times were needed. These attachments also often lowered image quality unless they were very high-grade. In some cases, text that's meant to be read correctly—or buttons on men’s clothing placed normally—can indicate the photograph is actually a copy of an image where those elements appear backwards. This is one of the unusual traits that helps identify certain daguerreotypes as reproductions rather than original captures.
The experience of viewing a daguerreotype is unlike any other photograph. The image doesn’t lie flat on the plate; instead, it appears to float in space. As you shift your angle, the picture seems to flip from positive to negative, creating an apparition that emerges only when your eyes are properly focused. This effect is unique to the original daguerreotype process. When images are reproduced using other methods, this phenomenon disappears. Similar visual tricks can be found in holograms on credit cards or Lippmann plates.
A daguerreotype taken with care could capture incredibly fine detail, and in this regard, images from the 1800s often outperformed digital cameras developed more than a century later. The sharpness and clarity of these large-format photographs were such that they reproduced minute features with a fidelity that even the digital technology of the early 2000s couldn’t match.
The process of creating daguerreotypes typically involves mercury vapor from a heated pool to develop the image, leading many to believe the final result is an amalgam of mercury and silver. However, when using the Becquerel method—which includes a red filter and extended exposure—images can be made without any mercury involved. Chemical tests on these mercury-free results show that no mercury remains in the finished picture. This challenges the long-held idea that the image itself is composed of mercury and silver alloyed together through development with mercury vapor.
The daguerreotypes of the 1852 Omaha Indian delegation in the Smithsonian show a copy made in the camera, with high contrast and a black line along the side of the plate. These unusual markings are part of what makes the images distinctive, offering a glimpse into early photographic techniques and the way they captured not just likeness but also the physical characteristics of the subjects. The presence of such a feature in the Smithsonian’s collection highlights how these early photographs were both scientific records and artistic endeavors, shaped by the limitations and innovations of the daguerreotype process.
-
Read this chapter
In the early 1840s, two key changes made photography much faster. First, a new type of camera lens created a brighter image, cutting down how long a photo needed to be exposed. Second, scientists adjusted the chemical process used to prepare the photographic plates. These improvements together meant that pictures could be taken in a fraction of the time it had taken before. The results were quicker, clearer photos and a big step forward for the medium.
The first daguerreotype cameras couldn't be used for portraits because exposure times were too long, using Chevalier lenses at f/14 that produced sharp but dim images requiring several minutes even in bright sunlight. A faster lens could have cut exposure time by 90 percent but would cause distortion and blur. Before 1841, most daguerreotypes showed still life, landscapes, or buildings, with portraits requiring sitters to stay motionless for minutes, often resulting in unflattering results. The Woolcott mirror lens made small, postage-stamp-sized portraits possible. In 1841, Professor Petzval, with help from Voigtländer firm and mathematicians, designed the Petzval Portrait Lens with f/3.6 aperture reducing exposure time to one-fifteenth of Chevalier lens needs. Though sharp in center, image quality dropped toward edges, making it unsuitable for landscapes or general use. Petzval intended it to work with two different rear components—one for portraits, one for landscapes.
The second major advance in the daguerreotype process came through chemistry. Originally, plates were sensitized using only iodine fumes. Then it was discovered that adding bromine or chlorine fumes greatly boosted sensitivity, cutting exposure time to as little as fifteen to thirty seconds under good light, per Eder. Multiple people independently made this finding. Wolcott created a mixture later sold by his partner John Johnson under the name “quickstuff.” Two men named Goddard also contributed—Paul Beck Goddard, a Philadelphia physician and chemist, and John Frederick Goddard, who spoke at the Adelaide Gallery and helped Beard establish the first daguerreotype studio on Regent Street. The latter published his findings about bromine’s effect in the Literary Gazette on December 12, 1840. In Vienna, Krachowila and the Natterer brothers reached similar conclusions.
-
Read this chapter
In December 1839, Carl August von Steinheil developed a compact, portable metal camera that was a fraction of the size of the model offered by Giroux. This smaller device produced daguerreotypes meant to be seen through a specialized brass viewer. At least ten of these miniature cameras were manufactured.
Alexander S. Wolcott's camera was an early attempt to solve the problem of finding a good "fast" lens for portraits, and it became the subject of the first US patent for photographic equipment. The device used a concave mirror instead of a lens, working on the same principle as a reflecting telescope. The mirror was mounted at one end of the camera, and focusing was achieved by sliding the plate holder along a rail. Built specifically for portraiture, this design produced an image that outshone what a Chevalier lens could deliver, and even surpassed the later Petzval lens in brightness, though the overall image quality was only marginal. The camera was only practical for use with small plates.
In 1841, Friedrich Voigtländer created a compact, all-metal Daguerreotype camera that was small enough to be carried. The camera featured a portrait lens at the front and another lens for focusing at the back. It was designed to use round plates. Only six hundred of these portable cameras were ever produced.
A guide was published on August 1, 1841, detailing how to use a new daguerreotype camera designed by Professor Petzval and made by Voigtländer and Son in Vienna. The document was printed by J.P.Sollinger and offered instructions for creating portraits using this innovative photographic equipment. It reflected the growing interest in the practical application of the daguerreotype process, which had been introduced just a few years earlier and was rapidly gaining popularity across Europe. This particular manual emphasized the technical aspects of the apparatus, aiming to help users achieve better results with their photographs. The collaboration between Petzval’s calculations and Voigtländer's craftsmanship marked an important step in refining the daguerreotype method for widespread use.
For a daguerreotype, the person must sit outdoors, and exposure times depend on lighting. Overcast or dark winter skies need about three and a half minutes; in the shade on a sunny day, one and a half to two minutes suffice; direct sunlight requires only forty-five seconds, though deep shadows make that rarely practical.
The exposure times listed were clearly meant for plates treated only with iodine; better ways of preparing the plates were just starting to appear in 1841–42.
In 1845, Friedrich von Martens created a unique camera for taking panoramic photographs, designed specifically for curved daguerreotype plates. This device featured a special lens that could turn to capture a wide angle of 150 degrees. It was known by two names: the Megaskop-Kamera or the Panorama-Kamera.
In 1841, Netto set up a studio where the camera's front section, complete with the lens, was embedded into the wall separating the studio from the adjacent darkroom, while the back portion of the camera remained inside the darkroom.
-
Read this chapter
A Swedish amateur photographer working with the daguerreotype process once held his subject so close to the sunlight that the intense glare nearly blinded him, all while the sitter remained still for the full five-minute exposure needed to capture the image.
Even with faster lenses and more sensitive plates, portrait sessions in studio lighting still required several seconds of exposure on the brightest days, and much longer on hazy or cloudy ones. The sitter had to stay perfectly still during this time. A head rest was already being used for portrait painting, and it became standard practice in photography as well.
Roof-level studios served as the daylight workspaces for daguerreotype portrait makers, designed like greenhouses to capture natural light. These spaces used screens and blinds to manage brightness, directing or softening the light as needed. Blue filters were occasionally applied to help subjects endure the intense illumination. Because the process relied heavily on blue-light sensitivity, removing other wavelengths didn’t greatly extend exposure times.
Most daguerreotype portraits were posed with sitters leaning on adjustable supports or using hidden head rests to keep them still, resulting in stiff and lifeless expressions. Yet some photographers began experimenting, capturing more animated likenesses by using the tableau vivant method, creating images full of character that are now highly prized by collectors. When children were involved, their mothers often stood hidden within the frame to soothe them and prevent blur from movement.
-
Read this chapter
In France, André-Adolphe-Eugène Disdéri and Jules Itier made their mark as leading daguerreotypists, while in Switzerland, Johann Baptist Isenring achieved similar prominence. In Britain, the situation was different: Richard Beard acquired the British daguerreotype patent from Miles Berry in 1841, then tightly managed his rights by licensing use across the country and taking legal action against those who infringed. Antoine Claudet and Thomas Richard Williams were among the artists creating daguerreotypes there. Meanwhile, news of the new photographic process reached America in February 1839, and from there, daguerreotype photography took hold quickly.
In the early 1840s, the daguerreotype invention reached practitioners in the United States over just a few months, introduced by Samuel Morse, who is known for creating the telegraph code. It's possible Morse was the first American to see a daguerreotype up close. His background in both art and technology drew him to the new process; in the summers of 1820 and 1821, he experimented with photography alongside Benjamin Silliman. In his essay The Gallery of the Louvre, Morse used a camera obscura to accurately record the space, which then informed his final painting.
In January 1839, Samuel Morse met Louis-Jacques-Mande Daguerre in Paris, where the inventor had just revealed his new daguerreotype process. At first worried that this invention might compete with his telegraph, Morse soon recognized its revolutionary power. He told his brother Sidney what he’d seen, and Sidney shared the account in the New-York Observer on April 20, 1839—marking the first firsthand report of the daguerreotype in America. The public quickly took notice, with newspapers and magazines celebrating how the technique supported democratic ideals by offering a more affordable way to make images than painting. An article in the Boston Daily Advertiser on February 23, 1839, likened it to the camera obscura but highlighted its special ability to "fix the image permanently on the paper, or making a permanent drawing, by the agency of light alone."
By 1853, the United States produced an estimated three million daguerreotypes annually. One original Morse Daguerreotype camera is now on display at the National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. A booming market for portraits developed, largely driven by itinerant photographers who moved from place to place. For the first time, people could afford an accurate likeness of themselves or loved ones, making the process especially popular among those with modest means. Both famous figures and ordinary citizens wanted their pictures taken, and some workers would set aside an entire day's pay for a daguerreotype, including occupational portraits. Notable practitioners of the era included James Presley Ball, Samuel Bemis, Abraham Bogardus, Mathew Brady, Thomas Martin Easterly, François Fleischbein, Jeremiah Gurney, John Plumbe Jr., Albert Southworth, Augustus Washington, Ezra Greenleaf Weld, John Adams Whipple, and Frederick Douglass.
In 1841, the first daguerreotype was taken in Australia, though it has not survived. The earliest existing daguerreotype from that country is a portrait of Dr. William Bland, made in 1845. Meanwhile, in Jamaica, a Frenchman named Adolphe Duperly published a booklet called Daguerian Excursions in Jamaica, which contained a series of photographs taken directly on location using the daguerreotype process, and likely came out in 1844.
In 1857, Ichiki Shirō made the first known Japanese photograph, a daguerreotype of his daimyō Shimazu Nariakira, which was later recognized as an Important Cultural Property by the government of Japan. Meanwhile, in the early 1850s, Augustus Washington left Hartford, Connecticut, and eventually took daguerreotypes of political leaders in Monrovia, Liberia. He went on to serve in the Liberian House of Representatives and later became a member of the Liberian Senate.
-
Read this chapter
In 1839, François Arago outlined a wealth of possible applications for the daguerreotype in his address to the French Chamber of Deputies, including astronomy. Though the process was soon overshadowed by other photographic methods, the daguerreotype was still occasionally used for astronomical photography well into the 1870s.
On July 28, 1851, a solar eclipse was captured in a photograph by Johann Julius Friedrich Berkowski, using the daguerreotype process. This image stands as the first known photograph of such an event, marking a moment when astronomy and photography began to merge. The daguerreotype, still relatively new at the time, allowed for a level of detail that had never been achieved before in documenting celestial phenomena. Berkowski’s work demonstrated the potential of this emerging technology not only for art or portraiture, but also for scientific observation. His achievement opened the door to more precise documentation of astronomical events, laying groundwork for future discoveries in the field.
When the transit of Venus approached and astronomers needed to observe it from different locations on Earth to calculate distances in space, they turned to daguerreotypy for its accuracy. Though the collodion wet plate process had become a cheaper and more convenient option for portraits and other uses with shorter exposure times, the daguerreotype method proved superior for these celestial recordings. That’s because it was a dry process, offering greater dimensional stability. In contrast, collodion glass plates were exposed while wet, and their emulsions would shift slightly as they dried, causing distortion in the final image.
-
Read this chapter
Even though people often say the daguerreotype process ended completely by the early 1860s, evidence shows it was still used very occasionally for about 150 years after that supposed extinction. Some of the original daguerreotypists didn’t fully give up their method when they began producing the newer, less expensive, and easier-to-view but duller ambrotypes and tintypes. Later photographers, drawn by historical interest, occasionally tried making daguerreotypes themselves, and a few even brought the process back commercially as a “retro” style for portraits. These late uses were rare, and examples from between the 1860s and 1960s are now extremely hard to find.
The daguerreotype saw a quiet revival in the late 20th century, and today only about a hundred people worldwide continue to practice the process. Artists such as Jerry Spagnoli, Adam Fuss, Patrick Bailly-Maître-Grand, Alyssa C. Salomon, and Chuck Close have brought the technique back into the art world. Modern use of electronic flash has helped overcome the challenges of the slow daylight method.
Contemporary artists continue to work with the daguerreotype process, shown in international group exhibitions like the 2009 event in Bry Sur Marne, France, which featured 182 images by forty-four creators, and the 2013 ImageObject show in New York City, presenting seventy-five pieces by thirty-three artists. The Astolat Dollhouse Castle also includes daguerreotypes among its displays. What draws people to the medium is the “magic mirror” quality of light reflecting off the polished silver plate, creating a sharp yet ghostly image, along with the meticulous craftsmanship required to produce each one.
Read
Free to download, keep and share. For general information only — not professional medical, legal or financial advice. Please consult a qualified professional.