Did the earliest cameras really require exposures lasting hours?

Asked 8/1/2020

2 views

2 answers

0

I once read that in the earliest days of photography, people had to stay still for hours to get a picture taken, almost like sitting for a painting. Is that actually true? If so, why were exposure times so long, and how long did early portrait subjects typically have to remain still?

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

4

The claim is 'half true'.
Very early photographs did take hours of exposure, but by the time the first portraits were being taken, that was down to 15 minutes or so. A long time to be sitting still, of course, but the sitters were aided in the same way as for painted portraiture, they had head- & arm-rests to enable them to hold a pose for this amount of time.

If you look at very early photographs, the streets appear to be empty. [This used to be an easy 'art history' thing to Google. Since lockdown… not so much.]

I found this about Daguerre's early work, claiming the example photo was an exposure of 10 - 15 minutes - but that was after Daguerre had improved on earlier techniques.
Lower left in the picture, you can see the first ever image of a human in a photo - chap having his shoes shined managed to stay in roughly the same place for the duration of the exposure.

From Khan Academy - Daguerre, Paris Boulevard

enter image description here
Louis Daguerre, Paris Boulevard, 1839, Daguerreotype

Joseph Nicephore Niépce is acknowledged to have taken the first ever surviving photograph, the exposure time of which is claimed to be about 8 hours.

From Time - View from the Window at Le Gras - Joseph Nicéphore Niépce

enter image description here

Originally by user57929. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user57929

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

Mostly yes, but with an important distinction: the very earliest photographic processes could require exposures measured in hours, especially for the first experimental images. However, by the time portrait photography became practical, exposure times were typically much shorter—still long by modern standards, but often around 10–15 minutes rather than hours.

That’s why early portraits look so stiff: subjects had to remain very still, sometimes using head or arm supports like those used in painted portrait sittings. In early street scenes, moving people often disappeared entirely because they didn’t stay in one place long enough to register.

The main reason was extremely low light sensitivity in early photographic materials, combined with slower lenses and less efficient optics than modern cameras. As photographic chemistry and lens technology improved, exposure times dropped from many minutes to seconds, making portrait photography much more practical.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer