Early ambrotypes (collodion positives)

Hello all

I am often sent privately-owned ambrotypes to work on. Most of them are dateable from dress to the mid-late 1850s or early 1860s but occasionally there is a query as to whether they could possibly be pre- 1854, the year when I understand (from Audrey Linkman's The Victorians: Photographic Portraits) that restrictions to the use of the wet collodian process were finally removed.

I can't seem to find out much more about its early history betweeen 1851 and the end of 1854. Does anyone know for sure whether any commercial photographers were likely to have been using the process and producing ambrotype portraits during these years?

If anyone can suggest any answer to this query I'd be very interested and grateful!

Thank you,

Jayne

You need to be a member of British Photographic History to add comments!

Join British Photographic History

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Thanks Michael, that certainly makes sense and fits in with the evidence of surviving ambrotypes. Thanks to several members' input, this question now seems to be clarified. Isn't it remarkable how the progress of commercial photography in those first decades can be charted almost year by year.

    Regards
    Jayne

    Michael Pritchard said:
    In answer to your specific query about 1851-1854 I would suggest - and the evidence seems to show this - that the wet-collodion process had a slow take up after 1851. It required other experimenters to take Archer's published process and develop it further to produce a more workable process that could be used commercially. It wasn't until c1853/54 that there was a rapid rise in the number of studios once a practical process had been developed and Talbot's threat of litigation against those using collodion had disappeared. This might explain why there are relatively few wet-collodion portraits before c1854.

    regards

    Michael Pritchard
  • In answer to your specific query about 1851-1854 I would suggest - and the evidence seems to show this - that the wet-collodion process had a slow take up after 1851. It required other experimenters to take Archer's published process and develop it further to produce a more workable process that could be used commercially. It wasn't until c1853/54 that there was a rapid rise in the number of studios once a practical process had been developed and Talbot's threat of litigation against those using collodion had disappeared. This might explain why there are relatively few wet-collodion portraits before c1854.

    regards

    Michael Pritchard
  • Hi Brett,

    I would be a little wary of Gernsheim's writing as when I was researching Archer he made a basic error on Archer's death date which would have been easy to have checked. It was because of that I decided to only trust original documentation.

    Best wishes,

    John.
  • You've done some sleuthing, haven't you Brett...This is an interesting ad and ties in with my wandering thoughts following our discussion - that presumably Fox Talbot would only have known if others were producing ambrotypes if they openly advertised their work, detailing the processes used. I bet some provincial studios escaped his eagle eye. I'd like to think that Mayall was perhaps being deliberately confrontational here. Or maybe he was referring to collodion prints, and not ambrotypes? I don't know much about Mayall's work.

    Brett Payne said:
    OK. Well this advertisement, dated 3 April 1852, appears to offer some evidence that at least one well known London studio photographer was prepared to dip his toe in the Fox-infested waters.
  • OK. Well this advertisement, dated 3 April 1852, appears to offer some evidence that at least one well known London studio photographer was prepared to dip his toe in the Fox-infested waters.

    The Morning Chronicle (London, England), Saturday, April 3, 1852; I...

  • Hi again Brett

    Thanks, that's interesting. Yes, John Brewer mentioned earlier that Fox Talbot did take action against some photographers using the process early on, though not, apparently, others. It seems, then, that some commercial portrait photographers were risking it in the years before the pivotal court case of December 1854. I believe it is true to say that the non-renewal of the patent in 1855 effectively removed any remaining opposition and opened up ambrotype photography to all professionals. According to Audrey Linkman, the numbers of UK portrait studios rose rapidly and significantly from 1855, which supports the likelihood that many more photographers began to use the process from that year onwards. Most of the ambrotypes that I've seen are dateable to at least the mid-1850s. It would be interesting to see any examples thought to date from c.1852-5.
    Jayne


    Brett Payne said:
    Gernsheim goes further, after having described several of the court actions and injunctions taken by Talbot in 1853 and 1854, to state:
    "The harshness of Talbot's proceedings, after the collodion process had been in general use for two years ..."

    From the context, I assume that he is referring to its use in studio photography, and the proceedings that are being referred were in December 1854.

    Brett.
  • Gernsheim goes further, after having described several of the court actions and injunctions taken by Talbot in 1853 and 1854, to state:
    "The harshness of Talbot's proceedings, after the collodion process had been in general use for two years ..."

    From the context, I assume that he is referring to its use in studio photography, and the proceedings that are being referred were in December 1854.

    Brett.
  • Hi again Brett

    Thank you for the snippet from the Gernsheim book, which I haven't had the pleasure to read. I believe it is still considered one of the major sources on early photography.
    When I first started this discussion I was trying to establish the facts surrounding the early use of the wet collodion process for portrait photography. Judging from input from other members and my own experience of looking at privately-owned ambrotypes it does seem that, although the earliest ambrotypes were produced in 1852, they were relatively rare before c.1855, because of restrictions to their use (see earlier comments).
    The later 1850s and very early 1860s seem to have been the heyday of the good quality ambrotype, and during those years they were evidently being produced by all sorts of commercial photographers, for clients of all social ranks. I think it was after the cdv became more fashionable and convenient in the early 1860s that the ambrotype began to deteriorate and became associated to some extent with travelling and other cheaper photographers. As we are finding out, though, ambrotype production drifted on until towards the end of the century. I wonder if any other members have come across examples dating from the 1890s or later?
    Jayne


    Brett Payne said:
    Getting back to your original question, I have at the moment on loan from my university library Helmut Gernsheim's "The Rise of Photography, 1850-1880." This gives a fairly detailed account of both the development of the early processes and their use in popular portraiture, with plenty of stunning examples.

    "[Ambrotypes] were exceedingly popular in England with the cheaper kind of photographer from 1852 until about 1863, when the fashion for cartes-de-visite superseded them."

    However, the source provided for this information, i.e. issues of The Photographic News in 1858 & 1865, are obviously not contemporary.

    Regards, Brett
  • Hi Brett

    Well, you certainly come across as very knowledgeable! Yes this new book does include a significant section on dating dress - that of men, women and children. So too did my first book, which concentrated on the visual image, especially how to interpret fashion/clothing clues to date old photographs: Family Photographs and how to Date Them (Countryside Books, 2008). I do use other dating techniques such as photographer operational dates, photographic format and style of photographic mounts etc. but I firmly believe that in most cases it is dress that helps to determine the most accurate time frame for 19th and early 20th century photographs. Sorry to go on...
    Regards
    Jayne

    Brett Payne said:
    Thanks Jayne for your kind comments. I am an expert on neither photographic processes nor their products, so every article that I research and write represents a part of my learning process. My motivation, like yours, has originated from the family history view point, and I'm continually looking for more ways to extract sippets of relevant information from old photographs, whether they be conventional portraits or subjects in ccomplex landscapes such as the example mentioned.

    I'm particularly interested to hear of your forthcoming book, and that you're a professional dress historian. Dating clothing is a weak point for me. Will the book concentrate much on clothing fashions?

    Regards and best wishes, Brett
  • Getting back to your original question, I have at the moment on loan from my university library Helmut Gernsheim's "The Rise of Photography, 1850-1880." This gives a fairly detailed account of both the development of the early processes and their use in popular portraiture, with plenty of stunning examples.

    "[Ambrotypes] were exceedingly popular in England with the cheaper kind of photographer from 1852 until about 1863, when the fashion for cartes-de-visite superseded them."

    However, the source provided for this information, i.e. issues of The Photographic News in 1858 & 1865, are obviously not contemporary.

    Regards, Brett
This reply was deleted.