A B C

-----Antiques – Books – Collectibles -----

Developing Your Knowledge

of Photographic Processes

By Ray deThy

Beginning in the early 1840’s, photography as we know it today, began. Prior to then, the capturing of images required that an artist produce a “one-of-a-kind” rendering. Although some attempts were made prior to Louis Daguerre’s successful introduction of the “daguerreotype” the procedures were so unwieldy and expensive that they were not useful. Since 1840, a series of photographic processes evolved that were functional and reasonably priced.

The following is a brief description of each type of photograph along with a rarity scale with examples and a valuing summary. This may help those of you who may wish to assess the value of any older images that you may have. For the most part, this column will deal primarily with the general forms of photography during the period beginning in the 1840s and ending in the 1870s.

The daguerreotype (see photo #1) was produced on a silver-based liquid on a copper plate. The process was time consuming and somewhat haphazard in the sense that the preparation of the plate before it was slipped into the camera and the actual completion of “taking the picture” were a stressful experience for the subject and the photographer and his aides. It required at least two people to produce the image, and the sitter had to perfectly still for 30 seconds or more, or the process would have to be repeated to obtain a satisfactory result.

The ambrotype (see photo#2) appears to be similar to the daguerreotype but is a very different process. Novice collectors sometimes find it difficult to differentiate between the two, but it is necessary to do so because, all things being equal, a “dag” is several times more valuable than an “ambro.” The easiest way to be (almost) sure which is which: Hold it in a lighted area and if it behaves like a mirror, it is a daguerreotype; if it does not have a mirror-like surface, it is an ambrotype. In a few situations, the daguerreotype may have surface soiling, and the glass surface that protects the ambrotype might make it difficult to discern the difference.

The process of making an ambro image required sequences similar to the daguerreotype except that the dag was a copper back and the ambrotype was glass with a dark background, which changed the “negative” to a “positive” image. But the ambro components were less expensive (though a bit messier) and the printing process was easier. These factors reduced cost, but were somewhat complicated by the fact that the amount of “still –time” for subjects was doubled or tripled over the requirements for the daguerreotype. This extra time produced significant stress for the subject, which is readily visible in the stern and anguished look on the faces of many ambrotype subjects.

The ambrotype was used for a few years concurrently with the daguerreotype until the early 1860s: it was documented until midway through the Civil War.

The tintype (see photo#3) was also a negative turned into a positive image, but instead of using glass for the finished result, the tintype image was applied to an enamel-blackened sheet of tin. During the last years of the Civil War and until the late 1860s, the tintype was the photograph of choice for the general population. Though the daguerreotype and ambrotype still had devotees, the tintype had several significant advantages over both. The image could be produced in three to 10 seconds, and it was very sturdy—enough so that it didn’t need to be cased (though many were, for aesthetic reasons).

As noted, although the tintype was largely dominant during the latter part of the 1860s, it soon gave way to paper photography but continued as a minor source of photographs until the early 1900s.

The image case (see photo #5) that housed the dag, ambro and tintype images has become a significant collectible in its own right even though its purpose was merely to protect the finished product, which had to be “cased” to protect the surface of the image. The case has an interior frame that was covered with glass as a “backing.” The image in the mini-frame was inserted in an outer case covered with embossed paper in the early years. In the 1850s, the case was made of a heated and molded plastic called a “Union” case. By the way, the Union case has frequently been described (erroneously) as“gutta-percha” both then and now. But gutta-percha, although a plastic-type material, is far too brittle and fragile to be used effectively. I don’t really know why this occurred except that both were a form of early plastics. Photo #5 shows the details of a Union case. This is a simple decorated one. More complex cases—especially those with Civil War motifs such as flags, soldiers and armament—are frequently valued as much as or more than the photographs they protect. This is especially true if the case images are common ones.

The carte de visite (see photo#4), which translates from French as “visitor’s card,” was quickly made from a glass plate and was generally kept on file by the photographer so that it could be replicated in the future. It produced a negative that was printed on light-weight card stock treated with a solution called albumen. The result was a photograph 2 ½ inch by 3 ½ inch mat adhered to a card of 2 ½ inches by 4 inches. The extra width at the bottom of the card was used for identification of the photographer, the subject, etc. As its name implies, many people had multiples of the DVS’s made and as was the custom of the times, left one in a called card receptacle at a home or office as a remembrance of the visit.

The process to produce was accomplished by a camera that had eight openings so that if all were left open, one print could be made of one view in multiples of eight images. Any other variation of openings could be closed so as many as eight different views could be developed at one time. This feature together with a much shorter sitter’s posing time meant that multiple prints could be gotten quickly and cheaply. The full sheet was cut into eight photographs, which were then mounted. The imagery is lacking in the clarity of its ambrotype competitors but was by far the image maker of predominant use until the late 1860s.

Summary:

General standards of rarity and valuing of cased photographs are relatively simple.

  1. Dags are three to four times more valuable than ambros and 10 to 20 times more valuable than tintypes and CDVs, assuming that the rarity of the images and cases is similar.
  2. The elaborate cases as mentioned in the column are easily worth $50 to $250 or more.
  3. The rarity of the photographs is determined by the subject image
  1. Most common: posed individual photos in ordinary attire and the subject has no celebrity.
  2. Uncommon: subjects that are rare because the cost of the photo limited their ability to sit—various ethnics of the period, Negroes, rural scenes, animals, etc.
  3. Rare: people or scenes of celebrity and/or actions—i.e. Civil War combatants in uniform with weapon(s), occupational images—musicians, farmers with equipment, landscapes (especially of know locations), etc. The common images may cost several dollars to $10; the uncommon, from $10 to $50; the rare, from $50 to several thousand dollars or more.

Value & Tip

Today’s item is a carte de visite of Stonewall Jackson, the West Point graduate who became a legendary Confederate States Civil War general.

VALUE

Jackson was a very humble and introverted personality who assiduously avoided personal publicity. He had only two pictures taken while in uniform during his lifetime. One Gen. Robert E. Lee ordered him to have taken during the Civil War that was sold to his admirers in order to raise money for the Confederacy. He was in his Southern uniform and had his full beard. The other is the subject of this segment. It is a bust photo of Jackson as a young West Point officer. It had been originally taken by one of the best and well-known photographers, E. Anthony of New York City, and republished by Anthony in 1862, to take commercial advantage of Jackson’s celebrity. It is not the rarest war period image, but because of the great numbers of Civil War memorabilia collectors, it has a value in this fine condition of $750 to $850.

TIP

There are two characteristics of the CDV from which you can generalize and apply to other Civil War-era CDVs. Please note the two thin lines that border the photo. These were used exclusively during the early 1860s. So even if there is no identification on a CDV, the presence of these lines is an almost foolproof means of accurately dating it.

Furthermore, if a tax stamp of the type shown on the back of the CDV in the photo is present, the item can be specifically dated as having been printed during the last year of the war. The back shown was used to demonstrate what the stamp looked like. It was not on the reverse of the Jackson.