> 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. Defining a photograph as only coming from a negative- positive process is a wild fantasy - Which can be corroborated nowhere. Daguerreotypes or any other direct positive processs (slides) is photography and are photographs. This gets questioned nowhere ever. Mark William Rabiner --- 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