I was chatting to a friend the other day and he mentioned 'Daguerreotype'.
Needless to say I hadn't heard of it; google came up with this and thought some of you might find it interesting
http://www.thedaglab.com/daguerreotype-process-details/
I was chatting to a friend the other day and he mentioned 'Daguerreotype'.
Needless to say I hadn't heard of it; google came up with this and thought some of you might find it interesting
http://www.thedaglab.com/daguerreotype-process-details/
Interesting to see that people are keeping this process going (I have enough trouble getting things right with digital .). The results look interesting but I'd think you really need to see them 'in the flesh' to appreciate them. His prices seem cheap given how complex the whole process appears.
Cheers.
I agree on all counts.
A friend of mine that doesnt need to worry about cost enjoys playing with the process, although he admits digital is a lot easier..
It's not a simple process, the image is one-off and reversed, and both bromine and mercury are toxic.
Alive and still clicking - apologies to PSQ.
Living and working in the Roaring Forties
Assorted cameras of all sizes and shapes including Pentax K (the original), MX, Z1,K20D; 50mm 1.2, 35mm 2.0, 85mm 1.8