51:
706:. Probably the new version, although I am with Jonas, that the first version has something to offer too. Arguably the Hi-Res version is scanned at a resolution that is significantly higher than any resolvable feature in the image, but that isn't much of a problem. It might be worth adjusting the contrast to bring out the features in the sky that are visible in the first version. This might be a lossless PNG, but there are few absolute standards to say that the scanning got the grey-scale transfer function 'correct'. The first version shows the picture as it is displayed on the
443:
The
University of Texas has unexpectedly denied allowing a high-res photo to be made available, despite the fact that a couple years ago they had a link for one to be downloaded freely on their site. They don't have a copyright on the image, they are just unwilling to let it be made available. I
424:
Actually, it's the first, low-res image that's washed out. It's been drastically cleaned up in something like
Photoshop to make it look like a normal photo. The high-res version is lossless (the PNG, at least; the JPG is slightly compressed) and from the original source, so it's correct, despite
154:
No, I'm not joking. Are you saying that if someone discovers something old that was never published or copyrighted in the past, it is inelligable to be copyrighted? If that is so under law, I am very eager to have the point clarified. People sticking copyright notices on the first publication of
254:
this. And then look out on these buildings, and those fields, and take in the subtle modulations of shadow and light. Look at that bold shadow on the diagonal in the context of the whole, and remember—from its beginnings, this brave new art form, photography, contained both abstraction and
293:
either new version. I appreciate your clarity, Jonas. Does anyone know where the photo was taken, and what of? It'd be absurdly awesome if we could get a modern photograph of the same location, though it's probably much different now if it's anywhere urban.
137:). If a work was created long ago, but never published until recent years, can that publication be copyrighted? If so, that may be the situation with this image. I will change my vote to support if/when it can be demonstrated that this is public domain. --
725:
itself is shown obliquely and framed. As you would guess, it looks like it has very low contrast. But that still doesn't mean there is a definitive print. In any case, it doesn't give a strong argument to adjust the levels in the hi-res scan. --
246:. No question of this photograph's import—it deserves its own Knowledge entry. The condition and quality of the image is irrelevant. Apart from the rubes who think it should be in clearer focus (how can you make technical demands of the
147:-How could I not support?!! As for inquiries of copyright, I sincerely hope this is a joke. The image is 180 years old!!! The creator died less than a decade later. There is simply no way it isn't PD.--
509:
Oppose, the photographer was obviously very unskilled. The backrgound is barely visible and the color is washed out. I don't understand how the black and white effect improves the picture.
555:
This oppose vote demonstrates why some sort of entrance exam must be required before one can cast
Wikivotes. (Just kidding, but this comment boggles the imagination!) What is it about the
34:
721:
Ah sorry, I should have checked more carefully. The first version is actually a 1952 silver-gelatin print from the original heliograph possibly retouched with watercolor. The 1826
417:
either the original or the hi-res version. I will note however that the hi-res version seems much more washed out than the original, but not so much that it is objectionable.
229:. I've contacted the University of Texas, and am trying to get a much higher resolution version. They have a link to a large TIFF on their site, but the link is broken. --
250:
made by man?), I think the people who are critical of this image haven't really taken the time to enter it with their imaginations. Imagine the experience of having
371:
unless proof is provided this wasn't the first. I never liked technical demands on featured pics, but having them on such an early photograph is ridiculous.
764:
187:. Secondly I do not believe this should be a featured picture because although it is the first photograph taken, it is not that great a picture. --
605:
We should probably call it something else than "first picture" since we are not sure that this is the case. Perhaps we are even sure that this is
50:
214:
if copyright is not an issue. (And if it is, what a joke!) Not that great a picture? Damn rights it is, if it's the first image ever captured!
162:
If it's in the public domain, it can't be copyrighted. The original creators died long ago; it doesn't matter when it was first published. --
17:
183:, Firstly I believe the statement that this is the first photograph is de-batable, it is often said the first photograph was taken by
155:
newly discovered works from before 1923 is not uncommon; if this is bogus it would help to be able to show this point, thanks. --
301:
Hehe, nice idea! I guess this could be done for any old picture, but it's, naturally, especially interesting for this one.
451:
If anyone knows of a book that contains this image, I can get it through interlibrary loan and scan it at 9600 dpi :) --
710:, so I would have thought they had got the levels set to give a similar impression to seeing the image in real life. --
23:
598:. It's the first photograph ever! P.S. hi-res version rules, please put it on commons so others can use it too --
274:
How could there be a "higher resolution" version, it's the first photo ever so what came out was what came out! -
486:
Actually, I think I found a high-res source for the image at
University of Minnesota. I'll send them an email.
134:
696:
No, no, no! The new, high resolution, looks worse than the old one. My opposition stands firmly, I'm afraid.
394:
376:
669:
the high-res version. Though, does anyone have a color version? B&W photography is sooo outdated =D --
59:
697:
610:
465:
If you know where it used to be and the copyright is not a problem, maybe archive.org could help out.
302:
282:
203:
105:
543:
531:
510:
339:
329:
636:
495:
478:
457:
431:
295:
267:
235:
168:
390:
372:
188:
184:
156:
138:
40:
707:
472:
Yeah I already tried that, and there was nothing like it on LOC Memory or OAISTER either. --
579:
517:
275:
94:
563:
336:
326:
218:
58:
Surely the featured pictures should contain the first photograph ever. It was taken by
743:
727:
711:
679:
the high-res version. Agree with Asriel86, a color version would be even nicer :-))) --
648:
631:
516:
I do hope this Oppose is a joke. This oppose should not be counted, if it's serious! -
490:
473:
452:
426:
360:
351:
230:
163:
148:
199:
758:
680:
670:
659:
599:
418:
407:
256:
124:
690:
589:
466:
316:
112:
78:
71:
111:
I have uploaded a better version right from the
University of Texas that owns it.
100:
So classic, but low-res and mostly made out of JPEG artifacts, so I will have to
575:
588:. Awesome photo. As well as being the first photograph this photo looks good --
722:
560:
266:
unless a higher resolution version is submitted; you can hardly see anything.
215:
740:
Promoted Image:View from the Window at Le Gras, Joseph Nicéphore Niépce.jpg
39:
574:. A higher-res version would be keen, but this one is quite sufficient. —
689:
The high res version over the low res. Good work finding it Brian0918!--
489:
I got a reply from UMN--they're going to send me their high-res TIFF. --
406:, agree with above, unless evidence is shown that this isn't the first.
195:
617:
Alright, I got a high-res version from UMN, and they said that
350:
The first picture definatly deserves to be a featured picture.
742:+25 / -3 (I think) with a preference for 2nd hires version --
255:
literalness. It's a terrific start, and it should be honored.
445:
104:. When those things are straightened out, I'll support it!.
24:
Knowledge:Featured picture candidates/First
Photograph
530:(I guess I shouldn't be sarcastic) Sorry about that.
559:photograph that some people seem not able to get?
444:guess I'm just too used to the selfless likes of
198:gives a supposedly earlier example. Furthermore,
315:- it has a surreal and impresionist feel to it.
335:Support 2nd first picture (high-res version).
8:
202:has a more complete picture of the history.
325:, even more support for a bigger version.
281:Simply digitized in a higher resolution.
133:until copyright status is clarified (see
194:No, perhaps not the first photograph as
49:
425:being less aesthetically pleasing. --
18:Knowledge:Featured picture candidates
7:
359:NOTICE:I support the Hi-res photo.
765:Ended featured picture nominations
620:the image is in fact Public Domain
31:
77:Support high resolution version.
647:"high resolution" version :)--
1:
135:Image talk:FirstPicture.jpg
781:
248:very first permanent image
673:17:58, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
421:07:53, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
396:17:39, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
342:17:09, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
332:17:40, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
298:19:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
746:16:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
730:12:23, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
714:12:13, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
700:17:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
693:00:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
683:18:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
662:17:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
651:17:20, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
641:16:55, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
613:19:20, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
602:10:46, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
546:01:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
534:19:49, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
520:11:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
513:04:25, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
469:20:45, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
436:08:21, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
410:10:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
389:the hi-res version too.
378:09:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
363:23:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
305:18:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
278:17:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
191:19:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
159:19:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
151:19:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
127:12:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
108:10:36, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
81:07:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
74:09:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
54:The 2nd first photograph
592:10:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
568:02:37, 2005 Apr 9 (UTC)
500:02:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
483:20:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
462:20:29, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
354:03:02, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
319:14:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
285:10:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
270:09:30, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
259:06:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
240:01:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
223:23:47, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
206:13:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
173:22:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
141:18:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
115:11:27, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
97:10:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
55:
47:
93:be a Featured Pic! -
53:
45:
42:File:FirstPicture.jpg
630:high-res version. --
46:The first photograph
658:high-res version.
654:Excellent photo.
271:
212:Absolutely support
185:William Fox Talbot
56:
48:
262:
89:- how could this
22:(Redirected from
772:
639:
634:
566:
518:Adrian Pingstone
498:
493:
481:
476:
460:
455:
434:
429:
276:Adrian Pingstone
238:
233:
221:
171:
166:
95:Adrian Pingstone
60:Nicéphore Niépce
43:
35:First Photograph
27:
780:
779:
775:
774:
773:
771:
770:
769:
755:
754:
708:UTexas web site
637:
632:
564:
496:
491:
479:
474:
458:
453:
432:
427:
236:
231:
219:
169:
164:
41:
38:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
778:
776:
768:
767:
757:
756:
752:
750:
749:
748:
747:
734:
733:
732:
731:
716:
715:
701:
694:
684:
674:
663:
652:
642:
615:
614:
603:
593:
583:
569:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
484:
463:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
400:
399:
398:
397:
380:
379:
365:
364:
356:
355:
345:
344:
343:
320:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
296:Matthewcieplak
288:
287:
286:
268:Matthewcieplak
260:
241:
224:
209:
208:
207:
196:DigiCamHistory
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
142:
128:
118:
117:
116:
98:
84:
83:
82:
37:
32:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
777:
766:
763:
762:
760:
753:
745:
741:
738:
737:
736:
735:
729:
724:
720:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
699:
695:
692:
688:
685:
682:
678:
675:
672:
668:
664:
661:
657:
653:
650:
646:
643:
640:
635:
629:
626:
625:
624:
622:
621:
612:
608:
604:
601:
597:
594:
591:
587:
584:
581:
577:
573:
570:
567:
562:
558:
554:
545:
542:
539:
538:Clarify again
536:
535:
533:
529:
525:
522:
521:
519:
515:
514:
512:
508:
499:
494:
488:
487:
485:
482:
477:
471:
470:
468:
464:
461:
456:
450:
449:
447:
442:
435:
430:
423:
422:
420:
416:
412:
411:
409:
405:
402:
401:
395:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
374:
370:
367:
366:
362:
358:
357:
353:
349:
346:
341:
338:
334:
333:
331:
328:
324:
321:
318:
314:
311:
304:
300:
299:
297:
292:
289:
284:
280:
279:
277:
273:
272:
269:
265:
261:
258:
253:
249:
245:
242:
239:
234:
228:
225:
222:
217:
213:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
192:
190:
189:Electricmoose
186:
182:
179:
172:
167:
161:
160:
158:
153:
152:
150:
146:
143:
140:
136:
132:
129:
126:
122:
119:
114:
110:
109:
107:
103:
99:
96:
92:
88:
85:
80:
76:
75:
73:
69:
66:Nominate and
65:
64:
63:
61:
52:
44:
36:
33:
25:
19:
751:
739:
703:
686:
676:
666:
655:
644:
627:
619:
618:
616:
606:
595:
585:
571:
556:
540:
537:
527:
523:
446:David Rumsey
414:
403:
386:
368:
347:
322:
312:
290:
263:
251:
247:
243:
226:
211:
180:
157:Infrogmation
144:
139:Infrogmation
130:
120:
101:
90:
86:
67:
57:
698:Jonas Olson
611:Jonas Olson
541:support any
303:Jonas Olson
283:Jonas Olson
204:Jonas Olson
106:Jonas Olson
723:Heliograph
638:™
609:the case.
524:Clarifying
497:™
480:™
459:™
433:™
337:Spangineer
327:Spangineer
237:™
170:™
744:Solipsist
728:Solipsist
712:Solipsist
649:Deglr6328
633:brian0918
492:brian0918
475:brian0918
454:brian0918
428:brian0918
361:TomStar81
352:TomStar81
232:brian0918
165:brian0918
149:Deglr6328
62:in 1826.
759:Category
681:Bricktop
671:Asriel86
660:Sandover
600:Bricktop
544:Leonardo
532:Leonardo
511:Leonardo
419:Enochlau
408:Enochlau
323:Suppport
257:Sandover
252:invented
704:Support
691:Fir0002
687:Support
677:Support
667:Support
656:Support
645:Support
628:Support
596:Support
590:Fir0002
586:Support
572:Support
528:Support
467:Janderk
415:support
413:I will
404:Support
387:support
385:Note:I
369:Support
348:Support
317:Brookie
313:Support
291:Support
244:Support
227:Support
200:Fotoart
145:Support
121:Support
113:Janderk
87:Support
79:Janderk
72:Janderk
68:support
576:Korath
526:=: -->
264:Oppose
181:Oppose
131:Oppose
102:oppose
561:Denni
557:first
216:Denni
125:Eagle
16:<
580:Talk
607:not
391:Mgm
373:Mgm
123:.
91:not
761::
665:I
623:.
448:.
70:.
582:)
578:(
565:☯
393:|
375:|
340:∞
330:∞
220:☯
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
