EARLY DAGUERREIAN WORK OF DRAPER AND
GOODE
In his 1858 letter to an investigative committee from the Mechanic's Club of the American Institute,
Draper described in detail his first introduction to Daguerre's process. Illuminating portions
crossed out in Draper's rough draft are here included within parentheses. In this letter Draper
explained:
(I removed to New York in Sept 1839, and) The first that I knew of the particulars of Daguerre's
process was the publication of it in the London (news sheet I saw? at the Astor House on the day
of its arrival?) Literary Gazette which contained Arago's report of the (proceedings) meeting of the
Academy of Sciences on Aug 19th and this I saw at the time of its arrival in New York. I do not
recollect the date, but it strikes me it must have been in (October) September, however it would be
very easy to ascertain by looking in the newspapers of that time.[32]
It is generally accepted that the London Literary Gazette containing Arago's description of
Daguerre's process arrived in New York on 20 September 1839 aboard the British Queen.
In contrast to the case for Morse and Seager, the historical record evinces exactly when and from
what source Draper first obtained Daguerre's process. Added to Draper's precise description of
the resulting sequence of events, this information disputes Robert Taft's statement: "Draper
maintained with vigor during his later life that he took the first portrait, but nowhere does he state
the time when he first succeeded."[33] Draper explained precisely (in
comparison to other early practitioners such as Morse and Cornelius) his sequence and date of
experimentation:
(Before returning home) I bought at once some of the common silver-plated copper, and the next
day tried Daguerre's (method) process. I believe I was at that moment, the only person in America
who had any practical skill in (this kind) experiments with light but then I had had ten years
experience in such matters. (I succeeded without any) Those of you who know the failures and
disappointments incident to photographic experiments, can appreciate thoroughly the value of such
a schooling in a delicate operation like Daguerre's. I succeeded with no other difficulty than the
imperfection of the silver plates in copying the brick buildings, church, and other objects seen from
my laboratory windows.[34]
In another source Draper elaborated on the details of his first experiments with Daguerre's
process. "Putting an ordinary spectacle lens in a cigar box I began to experiment and succeeded
easily in obtaining views from the east windows of the University Chapel. From those windows
with my cigar-box camera I took many and many a view."[35]
Rear
(east) side of the New York University building. John Draper took his first daguerreotype from the
bottom of the large rear chapel window (shown covered over in this photo c. 1880). Samuel
Morse took his first daguerreotype from a third floor stairway window approximately at the
location of the X.
[Fig. 4 credits]
The information contained within these two quotations clarified that on 21 September 1839 (one
day after getting the process), Draper easily (except for inadequate plating) took his first
daguerreotype views out the east windows of the New York University Chapel. Unlike Morse and
possibly Seager, who had to wait to construct a camera according to Daguerre's specifications,
Draper's previous experience with radiant energy and Talbot's photogenic drawing enabled him to
immediately substitute simpler materials.
In yet another source Draper described his simple apparatus in detail: "Some of the finest proofs
were procured with a common spectacle lens, of fourteen inches focus, arranged at the end of a
cigar-box as a camera; a lens of this diameter [one inch] answers very well for plates four inches
by three."[36*]
The
cigar boxes in this c. 1870 carte de visite may approximate the 1840s box
Draper used as his
first daguerreian camera.
[Fig. 5
credits]
Draper was among the first practitioners of photography in the world to immediately utilize his
scientific knowledge of the important difference between the visual and
chemical focus. From their previous experiments Draper and Goode understood that light
rays toward the violet end of the spectrum had most intensity of photographic effect. This
knowledge allowed Draper to both speed up the process and utilize lenses that were not
achromatic (achromatic lenses contained a combination of crown and flint glass that focused light of all wavelengths upon the single
focus of best visual effect.) Even though light of most wavelengths affected the daguerreotype
plate, blue-violet light worked with the greatest intensity and speed. Draper could thus use an
uncorrected lens of pure flint glass in which light of each wavelength
came to a slightly different focus. Draper manually moved the sensitive plate to the precise focus
of the blue or violet light. According to Draper:
if the plate be withdrawn at a certain period, when the rays that have maximum energy have just
completed their action, those that are more dispersed but of slower effect, will not have had time
to leave any stain. We work, in fact, with temporary monochromatic
light.[37]
Draper utilized this technique with uncorrected chromatic lenses as early
as his spring 1839 work with Talbot's photogenic drawing process. Other optical scientists
around the world understood these principles but few put them into photographic practice as early
as Draper. These optical principles were clearly stated by John T. Towson in the November 1839
issue of the Philosophical Magazine, but months earlier (21 September) Draper utilized the
technique with the daguerreotype by simply extrapolating methodology he developed with
photogenic drawing in Virginia.[38*]
Draper evidently mastered and simplified Daguerre's process one day after its arrival on the
British Queen. He lost no time returning to his attempts at portraiture initiated six months earlier
using Talbot's process. In Virginia Draper had:
tried to shorten the long time then required (by) . . . enlarging the aperture of the lens &
diminishing its focus, so as to have the image as (brilliant) bright as possible; for it was plain that
in no other way could landscapes be taken or silhouettes replaced by portraits.[39]
On either 22 or 23 September 1839 Draper and Goode attempted portraiture. Following the lens
principles outlined above, they used a combination of a pair of convex
lenses of five-inches aperture and seven-inches focal length to have as much light as possible
fall on the image. Draper posed Goode inside the chapel of the University of the City of New
York and instructed him to hold very still for a long period. To further maximize light passing
through the lens, Draper dusted Goode's face with white flour. After carefully focusing Goode's
image visually Draper pushed the back of the camera to the violet focus of his
chromatic lenses and made his exposure.[40]
The resulting picture was possibly the first experimental daguerreotype of the human face.[41*] In writing about this first attempt, Draper noted that Goode's dark
clothing was recorded in the photograph. Obviously it was unnecessary to whiten the face with
flour because, "even when the sun was only dimly shining, there was no difficulty in delineating
the features."[42] Draper further stated that "the forehead, cheeks and chin
on which the light fell most favorably, would come out first."[43]
Draper continued the trials. Later that day, by increasing the intensity of illumination and
prolonging the exposure time, he secured Goode's whole countenance. In later years when
confronted with claims of rival's experimental portraits, both Draper and Goode considered this
final image capturing Goode's whole countenance to be the first daguerreotype of the human face.
At the time of the experiments however, Draper considered the results to be experimental,
unsatisfactory, and incomplete. He stated: "But as you will gather from the size of the lens I used,
though it was a combination of a pair of convexes, nothing like a good
picture was possible."[44]
Draper's exact meaning in this final statement is obscure. A lens with such small difference in
ratio of focal length (seven inches) to diameter (five inches), would have
maximized light falling upon the daguerreian plate. It would, however, have been impossible to
achieve any degree of sharpness in the image (in other words there would have been no
depth of field) owing to the degree of spherical
aberration in a lens with such a ratio of diameter to focal length (f stop would have been only
about 1.4). A "good" picture with everything in focus was impossible because owing to the
sperical aberration of this lens, nothing could be in clear focus. Although Draper
achieved a daguerreotype showing all the features of Goode's face, it was out of focus, or as he
called it "an imperfect proof."[45]
Once Draper went on to capture "the whole countenance" with this lens, even if out of focus, he
possibly accomplished the first true (if highly experimental) likeness of a human face. Probably
only two other men can be considered historical competitors for this accomplishment:
1) Alexander S. Wolcott, who on 7 October (two weeks after Draper's achievement), succeeded in
taking a tiny three-eighths-inch (it measured less than one-quarter inch square) profile
daguerreotype of his partner John Johnson. Wolcott himself describes this image as a "profile of a
person standing opposite a window." His words may be interpreted to imply, and no other extant
description rules out, the possibility that the daguerreotype depicted Johnson standing
full figure. If so, Wolcott's minute product would not even qualify as a close portrait of the human
face, which was the "portrait" desired in 1839.[46]
2) Samuel Morse probably made his first daguerreotype on 27 September. Soon after this
accomplishment he took portraits of his daughter and her friends. Morse could only have used an
achromatic lens of the type recommended in Daguerre's pamphlet. Such
a lens had an f stop of about f15 and would only have taken distant, full
length, outdoor photographs of people sitting very still. Distance and time required for such
"portraits" meant poor resolution of facial detail.
The resulting picture style can best be observed in an early Philadelphia example most likely taken
with a similar lens. The daguerreotype is of John McAllister, Jr., sitting on a rooftop. It is
reproduced on page thirty-five of William Welling's book, Photography in America: The
Formative Years, 1839-1889.[47]
[Fig. 6 credits]
Marcus Root included an engraving after one of Morse's early portraits in The Camera and the
Pencil but the engraver "opened" the girl's eyes and probably also enlarged their presence in
the picture by ignoring (and thus effectively cropping) the background as nonessential.[48]
[Fig. 7 credits]
The March 1873 Scribners Monthly Magazine published another Morse daguerreotype that
has often been overlooked. It most likely was taken with the same standard daguerreian lens as the
McAllister daguerreotype.[49*] According to the Scribner's
article, the original image depicted three sitters, but the engraver cropped out one figure (and
likely all background) and thus also enlarged the presence of the two remaining sitters.
[Fig. 8 credits]
Both original daguerreotypes by Morse would have likely resembled the McAllister daguerreotype
in distance from the camera. Early attempts made in France after Daguerre's announcement were
probably similar full-length figures at a distance from the camera. This writer suggests that all
such figures captured in a daguerreotype plate were no more the "portrait" desired in 1839 than
Wolcott's three-eights inch profile.
Plate
"H" is discussed below.
[Fig. 9
credits]