Invention and Evolution of Photography
 
The invention of photography, or attempts at capturing and displaying real images, slowly developed over centuries.  Dating back to 5th century China, the ‘camera obscura’ played a fundamental role in man’s relationship to projecting images. During the inspirational decades of the Second Industrial Revolution, many men around the world simultaneously created a method for making projected images permanent. “Photography was not invented by one single person.  Nor was it the result of a singly inspired moment of genius.  Economic, political, and social circumstances counted just as much as scientific criteria, lucky observations and the intuition of a few clever men”(Frizot, 23).  In France, these ‘clever men’ included Joseph Nicéphore Niepce and Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre, while in England it was primarily William Henry Fox Talbot.  In a sense, they shared a search for greater knowledge.  Sometimes they worked directly with each other, like Niepce and Daguerre, but more often than not, they worked alone.  Surprisingly, they reached conclusions almost simultaneously and were on the verge of announcing their inventions within days of each other.  Thusly, it is easily debatable concerning who can truly claim the fame as ‘inventor’. 
The idea behind the invention was simple, as Niepce explains: “Light…reacts chemically on various substances.  It is absorbed by them, combines with them, and imparts to them new properties” (Classic Essays, Niepce, 5). With this in mind, all it took was to find the appropriate chemicals that would create a light sensitive substance, and then combine this with a box-like ‘camera obscura.’ Niepce first entitled his invention “heliography” which he defined as an “…automatic reproduction, by the action of light, with their gradations of tones from black to white, on the images obtained in the camera obscura” (Classic Essays, Niepce 5).  His first heliograph, a view taken from his window in 1816, is considered to be one of the very first photographs.  Niepce worked independently, with limited success, from 1816 until 1827, when he first met Daguerre.  The two men corresponded via letters about their personal research, sharing successes and failures.  Daguerre continued to fine-tune the invention after Niepce died in 1833. 
In 1839, just over a decade after the two men established their partnership, Daguerre had perfected the process enough for public presentation.  He summarized his invention with the modesty of any classic inventor: “…I announce today this new process which I have given my name, calling it DAGUERREOTYPE, and which differs entirely as regards rapidity, sharpness of the image, delicate gradation of the tones, and above all, the perfection of the details…” (Classic Essays, Daguerre 13). Dominique François Arago officially presented the Daguerreotype to the French Chamber of Deputies on January 7th, 1839.  Following this official declaration, word of the invention spread like wild-fire.  The world was shocked upon hearing of Daguerre’s success.  But no one was more shocked than Talbot, who was just on the cusp of announcing his own photographic invention: the Talbotype.

Photography’s Progress: Part I

The rapid growth of photography benefited greatly from technological advancements of the Second Industrial Revolution.  Communication was markedly improved because of electricity and the telegraph.  In addition, physical and social advancements of the time influenced how quickly photography encompassed the world.
Technically speaking, Daguerre’s original invention continually morphed. Shortly following the Daguerreotype, in 1839, French inventor Hippolyte Bayard produced a way to obtain image positives directly on paper and in 1841 Fox Talbot patented his photographic version entitled the Calotype. “By 1854 there were already twenty-seven available variant processes from which to choose.  Photographic technique was like medieval science, a discontinuity of unrepeatable recipes ever-increasing in number and variety in the search for standardization”(The Second Empire 401) .  Each additional technical adjustment aided in the facility and rapidness of photography.
During the same period, photography expanded geographically and in quantity.  By the early 1850s, French photographers like Maxime du Champ were traveling the world documenting countries in Africa and the Middle East.  This ‘Expeditionary Period’ garnered the first photos of foreign lands and culture for Western-European consumption.  Back in France, the physical growth of photography was stunning. In 1848, Paris housed thirteen studios, and by 1868 that number had increased exponentially to 365 (McCauley Industrial 1).
Clearly, the Second Empire influenced photography’s growth.  As Dennis Grady explains, there were two kinds of photographers during the 1850s Realism movement: “those would wanted to create acceptable art, and those who were more interested in social progress” (Grady, 153).  Grady compares the French government’s “metaphysical idealism” to Realism.  In this case, the latter challenged the former.  Nadar is a prime example of the photographers seeking social progress, since he “photographed only the great liberals of his day…”(Grady 153).

Nadar’s Technological Experiments

During photography’s Realism Movement in the 1850s, Nadar was among the photographers more invested in progress than creating “acceptable art” (Grady 153).  He prodded at the boundaries of the art form and, notably, explored new possibilities in two physical directions: vertically up and down.  Nadar took a camera above Paris in a specially designed hot air balloon and then below the city utilizing artificial light to photograph the catacombs and sewers.  These two projects demonstrate a subtle relationship between the resolute bohemian and the Second Empire.   A few of Nadar’s prominent photographs from this era document Haussmann’s construction projects. Nadar selected subject matter created or altered by the Second Empire.  Like Marville, Nadar’s subject matter was connected with the work of Napoleon and Haussmann, but it was not photographed with the intent of visually demonstrating support for the empire and urbanization, nor was it a government assignment to record the streets of Paris.  Instead, Nadar photographed as a means of advancing the technology of the art form.  Nadar was the first to photograph Paris from high up in the sky.

The image here is a modern print from four of Nadar’s negatives.  The four images placed side by side facilitate, or even mimic the movement of eye. Almost like reading a book, taken from left to right,

we are guiding across the composition. In the two photos on the left, we see one broad boulevard radiating across the photograph in an uninterrupted straight line. As the boulevard is centered and highlighted in white, we are immediately drawn to its presence.  For any Parisian of the time, this bold line would have been an unmistakable reference to Haussmannization.  In a way, it seems like Haussmann’s work is slicing through the middle of the photograph. As our attention moves towards the two photos on the right, the perspective changes slightly, yet the same boulevards reassure the continuum from right to left.  The viewer new becomes privy to a more precise location: the Arc de Triomphe is completely visibly and we see hints of numerous boulevards branching out in other directions.
This aerial project was revolutionary in the sense that Nadar gave viewers an entirely new perspective with which to see their city and its urban changes since Napoleon III.  In photographing the city from such an angle, it is clear that Nadar observed the visual impact of Haussmannization.  Does the chosen subject matter does not mean that Nadar is trying to communicate his support for these changes?  The photographs could be read in such a way that Nadar was either expressing his socialist mindset or interested in progressing the capabilities of photography.  It is still not clear, however, what affect his images had on the public. 
Nadar’s gift of a new perspective could have affected Parisians in many ways.  Perhaps the photographs allowed them to see Haussmann’s changes and think of the city’s new beauty with its wide-open boulevards.  This would have resonated with the Republican or conservative groups, perhaps even contributing to a pro-Napoleon III political stance. Or, the photographs could have evoked nostalgia for what the boulevards erased from the city.  These sentiments would have contributed to anti-empire beliefs and swayed socialist thinkers.
While photographing underground, Nadar also offered Parisians a new way of viewing their city. During this phase, he photographed primarily the newly built sewer systems and the ancient city catacombs. The image of sewers is important because it was photographed with the use of artificial light.

Beginning in 1861, Nadar aspired to expand his photography beyond the limitations of natural light (Grandy 25).  In the following year, Nadar experimented with 73 views of the Paris catacombs and in 1864 he began photographing the sewers.   “In photographing the sewers, Nadar contributed powerfully to new ways of seeing and understanding the city, by challenging a series of metaphorical axes ranging across light, cleanliness, verticality, knowledge and control”(Grandy 26). Without previous knowledge of what we are looking at, the viewer could easily be confused.  Are those tracks on the ground?  What are the objects in the upper right hand corner? And where is the light coming from?  The overall darkness and rounded tunnels suggests an underground setting, perhaps the Métro.  But then the way the floor reflects light hints at the presence of water, and thus, the sewers. In all of this hypothesizing, the eye can easily get distracted in the upper right hand corner: pondering the ring shaped objects. If we shake this trance, and look directly across the tunnel, we can see similar repeating rings.

With a different perspective, these rings line up and now resemble pipes. We also notice that the darkness is broken up in various ways. Upon closer inspection, it appears that light is coming from two areas, behind the photographer and near the end of the left-most tunnel.  Knowing that Nadar was experimenting with light clarifies this confusing element.  After all of this contemplating, it feels as though the eye was deceived many times.  In playing with artificial light, Nadar was also playing with human perceptions via photography.
Shelley Rice reconfirms that Nadar’s intentions underground and in the air were of a personal nature, and not for the benefit of Napoleon III. “Nadar looked to the skies, and he looked to the sewers and catacombs, in his quest for a void where the spirit could be free…liberated from normal, physical and societal laws”(Rice Parisian 174).

Photography’s Progress: Part II

The Second Empire also affected French social structures, which seemed to indirectly, yet positively, impact the growth of photography.  Much of photography’s financial success rested on its usefulness to the morphing French society. When Napoleon III became emperor, he set off waves of change by transforming the structure of French social classes.  First, Napoleon III’s regime increased the number of civil servants by expanding bureaucracy. This “giant machine of civil servants” meant a brand new clientele of portrait photography (Freund 53). “While the economic boom in France from 1851 to 1857 facilitated the growth of the photographic industry, it also produced the specimen known as the urban, class-conscious petit bourgeois, whose self-importance was augmented by a new sense of national pride” (McCauley A.A.E. 54).  This emerging class applied its prosperous status towards the budding art form of photography.
The petit bourgeois sponsored much of photography’s initial prosperity.  They were inspired by a desire to move up the social ladder and finally possessed the financial means to reach their goals.  These luxury-seekers were particularly interested in portraiture.  From 1839 to 1850, nearly ninety percent of all daguerreotypes were portraits (Hamilton and Hargreaves 29). As a result, the term ‘daguerreotype’ becomes nearly synonymous with the 6 ½ by 8 ½ inch portrait (Frequently Asked…).
After nearly a decade, daguerreotype portraiture gradually faded into the production of cartes-de-visite. “…Carte-de-visite emerged on the scene in the late 1850s, allowing celebrity pictures to be produced on a mass scale, then circulated, sold, collected and assembled”(Hamilton and Hargreaves 43). Notably, it was the first type of photography to be priced within reach of the ‘common man’ (Coltharp 61).  Originally, it was meant to replace the conventional calling card and usually displayed a photo measuring 2½ by 3½ inches (Coltharp 61).   “Besides being used as calling cards, carte-de-visite served many purposes.  People exchanged them with their friends…had them mounted on the covers of bibles and on the backs of ladies’ fans”(Coltharp 62).  This widespread cultural fad, made famous by A.A.E Disdéri, would remain popular for less than a decade.  In 1866, the cabinet sized photo, only slightly larger than the carte-de-visite, became the commodity de jour.

A.A.E. Disdéri : Homme d’affaires

Dubbed as the “father of commercial photography,”  Disdéri was born in 1819 and became a key figure in the advancement of photography (Freund 53).  Throughout his life he approached his photography with a businessman’s eye for turning a profit.  Widely renowned for his portraits and generally acknowledged as the creator of cartes-de-visite, he revolutionized the printing process by introducing mass-production. Above all else, Disdéri was driven by a desire to succeed in the business.  At the height of his career, he managed studios in Paris, Toulon, Madrid and London.  Astonishingly, his Paris studio employed ninety workers who could produce 2,400 carte-de-visites per day.  On top of all this, he advertised a record of taking 65,000 celebrity photographs (Coltharp 62). In order to achieve his monetary goals, Disdéri relied on simple economic terms of supply and demand.  For every commodity there is a supply and a demand.  In the case of Disdéri, the demand was the customer’s desire for portraits and the supply was the quantity of portraits he could produce. He focused on three areas of the photographic process to prompt an increase in demand and then applied technological advancements to increase supply. Supply and demand were entwined with each other and thus played off the success of the other.

First, to augment demand, Disdéri needed to increase the number of portrait commissions.  One way to accomplish this was to broaden the clientele base through a decrease in price.  In addition, Disdéri increased his number of clients by lowering the turn-around-time for a portrait. For example, at his Parisian studio, he established a 48-hour service for copies of photographs (Freund 57). Finally, Disdéri catered to the desires of the masses.  He began packaging portraits of well-known social figures as a collector’s item (Freund 57). From 1860-1862, he published two weekly installments, each costing one franc.  Every installment, later compiled into an album named Galerie des contemporains, contained one carte-de-visite sized portrait and a four-page biography of that person (McCauley A.A.E. 55). These Galeries played right into the goals of the Second Empire elite, notably, Napoleon III. “Disdéri’s cartes-de-visite, which had been conceived as inexpensive portraits for the bourgeoisie, became a means of advertising or propaganda for the rich or talented…”(McCauley A.A.E 54).
Disdéri was also conscious of supply.  To increase the supply of photography, Disdéri turned to the idea of mass production, which played an important role in lowering costs. Using this method, Disdéri made 1 negative with twelve identical exposures for 1/5 the usual cost. He charged 20 Francs for the twelve photographs, where previously it had been 50-100 Francs for just a single photograph (Freund 56). “By effecting this change in size and price, Disdéri made photography accessible on a broad scale”(Freund 57).  Indeed, Disdéri had positively influenced the accessibility of photography while also experiencing personal profits.

Photography’s Social Significance

From a broad prospective, photography’s growth was bilaterally influenced by social changes and technological advancements. The social transformations within Napoleon’s regime increased the demand for and popularity of photography, particularly portraits, which then augmented the physical growth of studios.  Continuous technical advancements of the Second Industrial Revolution improved the scientific process, which, in turn, furthered the practice of photography.
Within 20 years, photography had become functional on multiple levels.  In France, photography revolutionized the visual definition of Paris.  Photography presented such a detail-oriented image that no other medium had previously achieved.  As a political and social capital of Europe, Paris became center stage for numerous social revolutions in the late 19th century.  Photography was not only crucial as a scientific and artistic invention; it also unquestionably contributed to significant Parisian events. “Photography came of age as a socially functional medium of representation in Paris during the years of Haussmann’s administration, so the early accomplishments of the medium must be seen as inextricably intertwined with the equally revolutionary birth of the modern urban environment” (Rice Parisian 46). Such a statement can also be applied beyond the realm of Haussmann.  Photography was a functional medium for the Emperor on many additional levels as it played a critical role in the representation of the Second Empire as a whole.