This is remarkable! I can see how this image could spark the imagination at that time.
rants_unnecessarily on
Shame it’s in such bad repair. Can’t tell at all what is part of the original picture in relation to how they moon’s surface looked.
AllegedlyElJeffe on
Something tells me that it’s probably looked more detailed at the time it was taken
farganbastige on
Having a really hard time believing cell shaded moon was a photograph. How does the dark side get a black outline between it and the black of the universe behind it?
6 Comments
This is remarkable! I can see how this image could spark the imagination at that time.
Shame it’s in such bad repair. Can’t tell at all what is part of the original picture in relation to how they moon’s surface looked.
Something tells me that it’s probably looked more detailed at the time it was taken
Having a really hard time believing cell shaded moon was a photograph. How does the dark side get a black outline between it and the black of the universe behind it?
https://library.nyu.edu/about/events-exhibitions/exhibitions/draper-daguerreotype/ or https://seethinklab.com/1840_john-draper_earliest-image-of-the-moon has a better image of the photograph.
This is the negative image – not the positive (this changes based on viewing angle).
The positive viewing angle shows craters on both sides (earth shine I presume). The crescent is an artifact and not the moon itself.
I’d also recommend https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/778144 (an albumen silver print on wood from 1863)
I have a hard time connecting this photo with the word, “detailed”. For that year, however, I’m sure it was amazing!