Quote:
Originally Posted by RUKen
I think that the negatives were glass plates, which were a lot bulkier than film, so the photographers were not inclined to take multiple exposures of the same subject.
|
Don't disagree at all, but just wondering why photographers may not at least have taken a second photo to be safe. Again, not super into and especially knowledgeable about early photography, but the mention of glass negatives has me immediately thinking, fragile and easily breakable. Thus, maybe an even greater reason/need to be sure to have a backup or extra photo or negative.
Have never actually handled an early glass photo negative. How fragile, and susceptible to damage and breaking, are they? If they can fairly easily be damaged and broken, one would think that photographers would somewhat routinely take extra photos in instances where a person's, such as Plank's, image was going to be used for multiple projects, no?
I do have a small collection of baseball related magic lantern slides. Are those in any way comparable to the type of glass used as photo negatives then? Sorry if boring others by asking, just find it interesting, and always good to learn/discover new things, right?