Can this 1844 daguerreotype be Richard Wagner?

General Discussion about Wagner and The Ring of the Nibelung

Moderators: alberich00, Justin Jeffrey

Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:25 am

Re: Can this 1844 daguerreotype be Richard Wagner?

Post by albertkaplan » Sat Mar 30, 2013 8:22 am

I would like to repeat here what I wrote on the Richard Wagner section of my website, Grant Romer believes that he examined a copy daguerreotype, and this is also the opinion of Mike Hager of Museum Photographics. It was likely made in 1855-57. We know that it was made in Hamburg. As Richard Wagner was well known in the mid-1850s it is not unreasonable to assume that Mr. Turnau made more than one copy. If so, and if they are extant, they would likely be in Germany. It is posible that the original is extant! Its discovery would be extraordinary. Both the original and copys would be laying, unrecognized, in collections of photographia in museums, private collections, and the stocks of dealers in photographia. If anybody can figure out a way to publicize the image in Germany, it is possible that one or more copy daguerreotypes will surface. And, hopefully, the original will surface. Very unlikely, I agree. But possible.
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 7:55 am

Re: Can this 1844 daguerreotype be Richard Wagner?

Post by feuerzauber » Mon May 13, 2013 2:51 am

Albert Kaplan has forwarded answers to two technical questions, arising out of Peter Bassett's discussion, provided by Mark Osterman of Eastman Kodak House:

(1) How were early daguerreotypes copied with a second daguerreotype?
There is nothing to doing that. It could have been done from the earliest era of daguerreotypy.
The trick was no different than copying a daguerreotype today: Lighting, and not having the camera reflect on the plate.

(2) How did early daguerreotypes achieve left-right image correction?
Of course you don't need to copy a daguerreotype to have the subject in the
correct orientation. All you need is a prism or front-surface mirror at right angles to the lens.
Post Reply