As photography began with the Camera Obscura dated back to 4th century BC and known as an ancient building block for photography where an image is reflected into a dark room upside down using only natural light, which is still used by photographers to this day. It was then developed by French photographer Nicephor Niépce in 1822 who is named the father of photography, his first photograph was a view from his window in Burgundy, France. He used a sheet of pewter coated with bitumen, which required at least 8 hours of exposure time. Painter Louis Daguerre heard about this achievement and he decided to partner with Niépce. Daguerre continued to develop with the process by using silver-plated copper sheets and mercury vapor. As he continued to develop this process, Daguerre was able to reduce the exposure time.

After the death of Niépce in 1833, Daguerre concentrated his attention on the light-sensitive properties of silver salts. For the process which was eventually named the daguerreotype, he exposed a thin silver-plated copper sheet to the vapour given off by iodine crystals, producing a coating of light-sensitive silver iodide on the surface. The plate was then exposed in the camera. Initially, this process also required a very long exposure to produce a distinct image, but Daguerre made the crucial discovery that an invisibly faint “latent” image created by a much shorter exposure could be chemically “developed” into a visible image. The Daguerreotypes, introduced in Paris in 1839, process made it possible to capture the image seen inside a camera obscura and preserve it as an object, they were usually portrait and the rarer, landscape ones were more expensive. Typically Daguerreotypes would be used for recording many other images such as documentary subjects, antiquities, still lives and remarkable events.

In the same year of 1839 William Henry Fox Talbot invented the calotype process. Calotype is an early photographic process, using paper coated with silver iodide. Paper texture effects in calotype photography limit the ability of this early process to record low contrast details and textures. Despite their flexibility and the ease with which they could be made, calotypes did not replace the daguerreotype. The calotype produced a less clear image than the daguerreotype. The texture of the paper was visible in prints made from it, making an image that was grainy or blurry compared to daguerreotypes, which were usually clear.

A daguerreotype would be seen as a window image as they document reality through the photographs and portraits of real people. A calotype would been seen as a mirror image as they can be manipulated as they weren’t typically used for documenting portraits of people and can be taken of anything as they were easier and cheaper. Using one of Szarkowski’s quotes ‘is it a mirror, reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it, or a window, through which one might better know the world?”

Mirror Image

This image is a mirror image as it has been highly edited and manipulated. I have chosen to analyse this image as I think there is a lot to talk about where every part of the image has been edited in some sort of way, for example the woman has been edited onto a stack of wooden blocks and reflected the same image on both sides. The body has been put on two sides of the blocks and one side has got a combination of black and white blocks where the body is shown more in the black parts and in the white parts the body is much lighter and almost transparent. On the other side where all the blocks are black and the body is also a more transparent figure yet is more visible and more obviously a body than the side that has a combination of black and white. The artist could have seen this image as a way to express the same body but differently, The two different colours on each side of the blocks could reflect on how the artist is feeling like feeling seen in different situations and referred to on the blocks. “The distance between them is to be measured not in terms of the relative force or originality of their work” I agree with this quote about photographs because it tells you that a photograph isn’t just about the originality of the picture its about how they do it and what the story behind the photo is whether its reality or made up and romanticized.

Window Image

Rafal Milach, ICELAND, Saudakrokur, 2010, Annual horse gathering country ball.

I think this image is a window image as it has been taken of three people clearly under the influence. This Image to me is objective, shows realism and presents the effects of alcohol is young adults. This would be a window image as it is not staged and is taken authentically of three adults, one asleep or resting on the table and two kissing. This could also be seen as a more subjective image and therefore a mirror image but I think the realism of this proves otherwise. The actions that these adults are presenting can clearly show the influence of alcohol. a quote that I think goes well with this image from John Szarkowski’s thesis would be “The distance between them is to be measured not in terms of the relative force or originality of their work, but in terms of their conceptions of what a photograph is: is it a mirror, reflecting a portrait of the artist who made it, or a window, through which one might better know the world?” I agree with the quote because photographs can be objective where the subjects in the photo are real and representing what is in the image clearly with realism and truth or subjective where you get to make up a story and choose what the story is behind the image. “generous and inclusive acceptance of fact, objective structure,” and that the selection among these facts is the romantic, personal opposite built into any photograph of merit.” This quote from Jed Pearls review argues with John Szarkowski’s thesis that an image is either a window or mirror is argued from Jed Pearl that photographs all have romanticism included and that each photography has their own subjective story as it is personal to the photographer and each person that looks at it.

I think that John Szarkowski’s theory and Jed Pearls review has made sense of the idea of window and mirror images and has been put together well where John Szarkowski had put his idea out and Pearl has reviewed it and made it make sense. The difference between mirror and window images are that the mirror image has been manipulated and edited highly whereas the window hasn’t and is authentic. The subjectivity behind the mirror image is in the imagination of the people who sees it and has a selective story behind it. Whereas the window image has got truth behind it and is objective as there is what is in the image and that is it. “an evolution from public to private concerns and at the same time a potential toward either self-expression or exploration in the unique sensibility of each photographer” Is a quote Jed pearl used in his review of Szarkowski’s thesis and I think it has value towards what the thesis is getting across with mirror and window images as both include the photographers vision where a mirror is a reflection of the photographer and a window is what the photographer sees as objective and real where he wants to document the message they try to get across.