tintype v. daguerreotype

[flip]

Inquiring minds apparently wanted to know. :angel:

 

[mwooten]

I vote "tintype", because I can spell it without looking it up.

 

[Creagerj]

The daguerreotype is noted for is much broader tonal range and vivid detail. The tintype is also nice, but isn't as detailed, and is a more contrasty with less mid-tones.

 

[photogdave]

Tintype is strictly amateur. Pros always go with daguerrotype.

 

[Beemermark]

So, I'm not sure I understand the question?

 

[Creagerj]

So, I'm not sure I understand the question?

There was a bit of a competition between these two formats in the early days of photography. In the end, neither of them won out, and they both succumbed to the wet plate process, as it was reliably reproducible, and produced high quality images. I think that the OP is poking fun at the film vs. digital debate.

 

[N. Bruce Nelson]

tintype v. daguerreotype

I voted tintype because that is the only one I have made. In the early 80s, I made about 20 with a 5 x 7 view camera. I loved the results. The long exposures made my human subjects look just as stiff as they did in the vintage images.

I also did a lot of cyanotypes. Legacy chemistry is fun, but one has to be very careful with some of the methods.

Bruce

 

[tbarker13]

What an interesting thread.🙂

It seems to me that as soon as they took away the mercury vapors, they drained the soul out of image-making process🙂

 

[Freakscene]

They aren't comparable. A tintype uses a blackened iron sheet as the backing and relies on angular reflected light to view the image as a positive. A Daguerrotype has a reflective background formed by an amalgam of mercury and silver. A Daguerrotype almost glows from within; a tintype is oddly dark, often very three-dimensional looking and somewhat spooky.

The sad thing is how few people actually get see good examples of historical processes.

Marty

 

[xayraa33]

I love looking at daguerreotypes, except for the post- mortem images.

 

[Creagerj]

I love looking at daguerreotypes, except for the post- mortem images.

Those are some of my favorites. It makes me wonder what resulted in such a dramatic shift in attitude toward such practices. I know that some people get postmortem photos of their cats and dogs, but I think it is generally frowned upon to do that with a person.

 

[Darkhorse]

There was a bit of a competition between these two formats in the early days of photography.

I don't really think there was any real sort of competition between the two from what I understand. Daguerreotype was high-end, tin types were on the very low-end.

 

[urban_alchemist]

I absolutely love dags - I own quite a few, both modern and antique (though not post-mortems; I find them incredibly creepy). They have this ethereal look to them: flickering and disappearing as the light and viewing-angle changes.

Beautiful...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Tintypes have no soul and are too easy; the digital images of their age.

(Ducks & awaits sh*tstorm, tongue in cheek, as I suspect was Phil's intention).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ranchu]

I would have to go with Autochrome!

 

[Sparrow]

I would have to go with Autochrome!

I don’t hold with these modern methods 😉

 

[Muggins]

Yet the amateur tintype outlasted the professional daguerrotype by decades because it was quick and simple. I believe that there were tintype "instant" photographers working on the US into the early 20th century, when daguerrotype had long since become a historical curiosity.

Funnily enough, tintypes are very uncommon here in the UK - ambrotype or contact print seem to have been the preferred formats instead.

Personally I love them both - daguerrotypes are things of beauty, their poorer relations often contain much more social history. I'd love to have a go at either process.... and just for the OP'er, I'll get in a snipe at film vs digital - who'd have thought anyone would want to do that 170 years later?

Adrian

 

[Avotius]

How long till we are complaining that our digital cameras are not shooting the "daguerroetype look"? 😀

 

[Gumby]

I don't really think there was any real sort of competition between the two from what I understand. Daguerreotype was high-end, tin types were on the very low-end.

I'm not so sure about the "pro vs amateur" or "high-end vs low-end" comparison... but Dag technology was competing with Ambrotypes, not Tin. Tin came later... after Dag had already become obselete.

 

[Sparrow]

ironically Joseph Charles (commonly called Jacquard) was weaving pictures digitally with punch-cards before all these processes were discovered, a resoloution of around 150x300dpi was possible, 1815'ish

sadly the camera needed an artist sat inside it to capture the image … never really caught on