History of photographic prints?

[VladTepes]

Can anyone tell me:
When photography started to become common?
Were the first photos Sepia toned and true B&W developed later on? (approx dates)
When did colour photography (for still photos not movies) come in?

Thanks

[JDNSW]

Photography first became possible in the 1820s, but reasonable photographs did not become possible until about 1850 when the positive/negative concept was developed. From then until the 1890s it remained the domain of the proffessional or well heeled amateur, with wet pla tes prepared on the spot and immediately before use. Some photographs, using large format cameras were of outstanding quality. Film speeds were very low, so still objects were most successful. Family portraits became common in the 1860s. In the 1890s George Eastman started selling the Kodak camera with multiple small plates precoated with gel emulsion. The whole camera was sent back to the factory for developing, printing and reloading the camera. This setup was soon replaced by roll film, initially paper, but soon cellulloid, and with the box 'Brownie' amateur photography really took off. By the early 20th century, many other companies were into the act, and amateur photography became commonplace. 35mm, using movie film was introduced early in the 20th century, but did not become common until after WW2. SLR cameras were rare until the 1960s or later. Colour photography was first introduced in about 1900, but did not become available to the public until the 1930s, and remained very expensive and hence rare until the 1950s, when lowering costs and post war prosperity led to a boom in colour photography - as 35mm slides. Colour prints remained rare until the 1970s, when they gradually replaced slides as costs decreased. Sepia prints were always an upmarket variant of black and white. Hope this helps, John

[VladTepes]

Helps heaps, thank you !

In the old sayd (and I'm thinking Edwardian era here) was there a normal "format" for photo prints? i.e. were they generally square or rectangular portrait, rectangular landscape ???

[werdan]

The Kodak Box Brownie was released in 1901 which game a 6cmx6cm square negative. Before that it was mostly wet then dry plate collodion which was large format, between 3x5" up to 8x10" and beyond.

I did a tintype course a couple of weeks back and it was great!

[JDNSW]

Helps heaps, thank you !

In the old sayd (and I'm thinking Edwardian era here) was there a normal "format" for photo prints? i.e. were they generally square or rectangular portrait, rectangular landscape ???

There were a number of standards. In that period into the 1920s probably the most common film size was 120. But the format was up to the camera designer. Some used a square format, others used a rectangular format, either across the film (to give more exposures per film) or along the film for maximum size. In all rectangular formats either landscape or portrait could be used just by turning the camera. Worth noting that stereo cameras have been available since well back in the nineteenth century, but have never captured much of the market. I grew up with the family owning my mother's pocket Kodak No1a, dating from the 1920s and a box Brownie of uncertain age. But we could rarely afford film until the 1950s. The first 35mm camera in the family was my brother in law's in about 1955. Hope this answers your question. John

[Bigbjorn]

I got a Praktica IVB slr for a 21st. birthday present in 1962. JD is right, slr's were not common then. News photogs were still humping around Speed Graphics and many professionals still stuck to their rangefinder 35mm's. Kodak Tri-x was the new revolutionary fast low light film. I think it was 400ASA, and very grainy. You could tell the brand of colour film by looking at the colours of a processed slide. They were all different. About 1967 I bought a used Praktica 2 1/4" square slr. This looked like a grown up version of their 35mm. slrs. It used 120 roll film. It was in a car that was stolen and never recovered. Pity, it was a wonderful piece of kit and a replacement was too expensive for me. I had bought it well from a guy who was about to do a runner from a bad marriage.