Circa 1846 Daguerreotype – Alexander Joy Cartwright debate

[steve B]

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

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.

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by steve B

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

The high resolution image was obtained from Ken Burns because that was what was required to expose a missing portion of the irises. This is discussed in length in the newsletter supplement.

[steve B]

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.


Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.

[bmarlowe1]

Originally Posted by steve B

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.

In the end Mr. Mancusi had the super-hi-res scan, and his opinion remained,
"So it is highly unlikely almost to the point of exclusionary that Subject A and Subject C are the same individual."

[benjulmag]

Originally Posted by steve B

The question wasn't about why the high res image was needed.

It was more about why it was sourced from a third party when you own the original.

I don't think the sourcing makes any material difference , I was just curious as to why it was done that way.

Both experts have made good points, and I'm left wondering if there would be as much diference in opinion if both had had the high res scans available.


Steve B

For another hobby I've had to reverse engineer some mechanical parts from photos. Not quite the same thing, but I'm somewhat familiar with reflections causing measurment problems on modern photos.

When Ken Burns photographed the half plate some years earlier for his Baseball documentary, he gave me a copy of the transparency he generated. I loaned it out some years later and the person I loaned it to lost it. When Jerry Richards told me the image Mark generated (the one Mr. Mancusi used) from another transparency I had (from another photo shoot for another project) was of insufficient resolution, I had the idea to contact Kens Burns to see if he had a high resolution copy that I could use. I no longer had Ken's contact info so I turned to John Thorn, who knew Ken well. Ken did in fact have a very high resolution digital image of it, which he was gracious enough to provide me. I in turn sent it on to Jerry Richards. That was the practical solution to give Mr. Richards what he required. Photographing daguerreotypes is extremely difficult. It takes a skilled photographer to produce a high quality reproduction of a dag. Ken's photographer did a superb job, and using that image was easier and more cost effective than having it reshot.

[steve B]

Thanks Corey, it all makes sense now.

Steve B

[Rich Klein]

With any 19th century item from Ken Burns excellent series.

A long-time ago, I was chatting with Marty Appel, who wrote an award-winning work on Mike "King" Kelly. Somehow we were discussing Kelly and the subject of a photo purported to be Kelly on that documentary came up. Marty told me he asked Ken Burns office about that since he thought he had seen every possible photo of the King. Marty told he was told that the photo of the boozing young man was not Kelly but someone who looked enough like him for TV purposes.

This was not the only factual exaggeration Burns made, there was a great SABR-L thread back in the day about all the problems with anything from that documentary. That thread is worth reading and IIRC, Keith Olbermann also wrote a long article about all the factual problems with Burns.

So, if Burns says that is Alexander Cartwright, I'd really take that with a grain of salt.

I'm not a photo expert, but I do know about the Burns issue.

Rich

[bmarlowe1]

Subject F in Corey's dag is wearing an earring (see below). I have no thoughts on whether that has any useful significance, but if anyone else does, please post.