Is there a possible photo of Beethoven?

[Preston]

I read that the first good quality picture from a camera was in 1826. So it might be possible that there is a photo of Beethoven out there, somewhere.

In my opinion that would amazing, truly astonishing. I couldn't imagine seeing Beethoven in a real picture.

Kind Regards,
Preston

[PDG]

There is no photo of Beethoven. If there were, it would ruin the Blind Faith/mystique concept. A bit like with God.....Only that the ramifications would probably be greater.....

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Preston:
I read that the first good quality picture from a camera was in 1826. So it might be possible that there is a photo of Beethoven out there, somewhere.

In my opinion that would amazing, truly astonishing. I couldn't imagine seeing Beethoven in a real picture.

Kind Regards,
Preston

Dear Preston;

I think that you are overestimating how fast these new fangled contraptions spread at that time. If you are correct with the invention year of 1826, then the camera was a very expensive item to buy, few people would know how to work it, fewer people would know what it was good for, and developing pictures would be terribly expensive.

Take the invention of the telephone in 1876. The Western Union Telegraph Company sent representatives to look it over, they all came back saying that the telephone had no practical application! When Edison patented his phonograph, recording music was not listed as a practical application.


Hofrat

[Agnes Selby]

Dear Preston,

Neither was the car. It was considered a
silly contraption suitable only for the rich and for playboys. No practical use
was envisaged for the car.

Regards,
Agnes Selby.

[PDG]

Originally posted by Agnes Selby:
Dear Preston,

Neither was the car. It was considered a
silly contraption suitable only for the rich and for playboys. No practical use
was envisaged for the car.

Regards,
Agnes Selby.

Hang on, Agnes! You just mentioned the very practical uses still enjoyed by us boys to this day. Vroom! Vroom!

[Rutradelusasa]

Originally posted by Hofrat:
Dear Preston;

I think that you are overestimating how fast these new fangled contraptions spread at that time. If you are correct with the invention year of 1826, then the camera was a very expensive item to buy, few people would know how to work it, fewer people would know what it was good for, and developing pictures would be terribly expensive.

Take the invention of the telephone in 1876. The Western Union Telegraph Company sent representatives to look it over, they all came back saying that the telephone had no practical application! When Edison patented his phonograph, recording music was not listed as a practical application.


Hofrat

He didn't say the invention of the camera, he said good quality photos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera



------------------
"Wer ein holdes weib errugen..."

[robert newman]

Photography was actually around from as early as 1802. But one of the great problems was to permanently fix the image. They usually faded within a few hours. It wasn't till 1826 that Niepce in France succeeded with his own developing technique, this later improved by Daguerre. Quite independent of him were developments by men such as Fox Talbot. There is good evidence for photographs being taken during Beethoven's lifetime. But I think that if the great man had ever been photographed there would have been some reference to it somewhere.

[Cetto von Cronstorff]

Originally posted by Preston:
I read that the first good quality picture from a camera was in 1826. So it might be possible that there is a photo of Beethoven out there, somewhere.

So you think that this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Vi...i%C3%A9pce.jpg

is a 'good quality picture'. Interesting.

[Peter]

Originally posted by robert newman:

Photography was actually around from as early as 1802. But one of the great problems was to permanently fix the image. They usually faded within a few hours. It wasn't till 1826 that Niepce in France succeeded with his own developing technique, this later improved by Daguerre. Quite independent of him were developments by men such as Fox Talbot. There is good evidence for photographs being taken during Beethoven's lifetime. But I think that if the great man had ever been photographed there would have been some reference to it somewhere.

What is annoying is that the oldest photo in existence (1826) is such a boring subject - why couldn't he have taken a more interesting view and why aren't there more images dating from this time?

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Hofrat]

Originally posted by Peter:
What is annoying is that the oldest photo in existence (1826) is such a boring subject - why couldn't he have taken a more interesting view and why aren't there more images dating from this time?

Dear Peter;

It could very well be that the photographer did not know he was doing something historical. May I point out that the first recorded voice was that of Thomas Edison reciting the nursery rhyme "Mary had a little lamb." I would think that if he would have known the historical significance of his recording, he would have said something more monumental.


Hofrat

[terry]

In my opinion that would amazing, truly astonishing. I couldn't imagine seeing Beethoven in a real picture.


I agree! I'd die for a photo from him! ("by" him?oh dear)

[LizR]

Originally posted by Cetto von Cronstorff:
So you think that this:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:View_from_the_Window_at_Le_Gras%2C _Joseph_Nic%C3%A9phore_Ni%C3%A9pce.jpg

is a 'good quality picture'. Interesting.

Well, it certainly isn't up to your amazing standards, Dr L.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by terry:
In my opinion that would amazing, truly astonishing. I couldn't imagine seeing Beethoven in a real picture.


I agree! I'd die for a photo from him! ("by" him?oh dear)

Well, of course there is the death mask. Not as realistic as a photograph but pretty close, no?

Here is a sculpture made after a life mask of James Madison, the American founding father.
Pretty impressive, as I feel I'm actually seeing him in person when I look at it. It's about halfway down the rather lengthy page.
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/ma...retirement.htm

[robert newman]

It may one day be possible to obtain images older than photography as we know it. After all, sensitivity of certain sorts of prepared surfaces to light was appreciated a long time before the first photograph of 1826 was taken.

It's also not impossible that fingerprints of the composers may be detected on musical manuscripts. Or that DNA can be somehow made to tell the state of health of, say, Beethoven at the time when he wrote what he did. A most interesting area of research would be to ask what made men like Niépce first begin experimenting with photography. (We know he was fascinated with the newly-invented art of lithography which swept over France in 1813 and had begun his initial experiments by 1816. Unable to draw well he had first placed engravings, made transparent, onto engraving stones or glass plates coated with a light-sensitive varnish of his own composition. These experiments using the well known 'camera obscura' would eventually lead to the invention of the new medium. But between 1813 and 1826 he and others must have made many attempts to photograph things without successfully managing to retain the image of what was photographed.

(I did read once of a freak 'photograph' (sillhouette ?) from the 16th century somehow being naturally created during a lightning storm of a workman as he worked on plastering a wall - but lost the report and can't remember the details).

R

[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 07-28-2006).]

[Nightklavier]

And then there's the Shroud of Turin, rumored to have been a possible Renaissance photograph among other things... like being Jesus.