This entire thing has been very interesting. I would like to read the technical aspects of the lens distortion, or other distortions possibly caused by the emulsion.
I do have one question and one comment.
I don't see dating the matting as a purely negative exercise. It means more if the item os in hand, but it's not impossible for a photo to be recased either for style after production or by an owner using a similar case much later to replace a damaged case.
My question is - Corey owns the Dag in question. Why was the high resolution image obtained from Ken Burns? The only reason I can think of is knowing it existed made exposing the Dag to the light from scanning unecessary? (Although if I owned something like it I'd do my own high res scan)
Steve B
Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
The dating of a dag by the matting is a negative test -- that is it shows what something is not, not what it is. Perhaps the wording in my earlier post contributed to the confusion. But by negative test I mean that since the more ornate brass mattings did not begin to appear until the 1850's, had the half plate exhibited it, we would know it could not date to the period AJC was in NYC. However, just because the half plate matting is plain, that does not mean the dag had to have been produced in the 1840's. More likely than not it was. But it is still possible that it was taken in the 1850's by a studio that was still was offering the option of the plainer mat, and that is what the customer chose.
|