Marvin, (smiling...) If a photograph comes from a negative, is a transparency not a photograph...? I have seen printed images of Nicéphore Niépce's image in books, therefore it must be a photograph ne c'est pas? ;-) Why then did 'America' buy the 'photograph' if it wasn't a photograph? Was it that Big Yella in Rochester wanted the copyright? ;-)) John On 03/12/2009 09:30, "Marvin" <marvin0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's the point Emmanuel, though it was the first recorded image it was not > the first photograph, since a photograph requires the possibility of > duplication-a negative,(I can hear people say now-but there's digital-der), > that accolade goes to William Henry Fox Talbot, a photograph of his home, > Lacock Abbey. > The process was one in which a negative was produced, the negative and the > plate are stored in the UK I can't quite recall where I think the National > Film and Television museum in Bradford. The year of his invention was 1836. > Further, if the American's bought the Nicéphore Niépce plate on the strength > of it being the first photograph, then I'd say the French got a very, very > good deal. > Thanks, > Marvin. > --- Rollei List - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org - Online, searchable archives are available at //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list