The First Photograph of a Human

wiredog writes "The Atlantic has a brief piece on what is likely to be the first photograph (a daguerreotype) showing a human. From the article: 'In September, Krulwich posted a set of daguerreotypes taken by Charles Fontayne and William Porter in Cincinnati 162 years ago, on September 24, 1848. Krulwich was celebrating the work of the George Eastman House in association with the Public Library of Cincinnati and Hamilton County. Using visible-light microscopy, the George Eastman House scanned several plates depicting the Cincinnati Waterfront so that scholars could zoom in and study the never-before-seen details.'"

Cat

[MrEricSir]

Okay, the first photo of a human, whatever.

But now I want to see the first photo of a cat. Ideally one with a caption.

Re:No

[HouseOfMisterE]

You're a couple of posts behind on this stuff...

Old news is so exciting

[bhcompy]

This is so old it's in my Art textbook from my Art 110 GE class.

Zoom and Enhance

[stoolpigeon]

You're mistaken there. I was watching CSI and visible-light microscopy-level zooming is nothing.

Re:Cat

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because MrEricSir has an unhealthy obsession with cat daguerrotypes does _not_ make him a catholic.

I'm certain he can quit any time he wants to.

Re:What I find more interesting...

[MyLongNickName]

Well, the techniques are definitely different. While this photograph is defnitely very high resolution, you likely had to wait ten minutes for the image to be firmly etched into the plate. Would be really hard to take a shot of the World Cup... though you would likely get a good shot of the World Series.

Re:No, it isn't.

[hedwards]

You are indeed, unless you've found somebody that's like 180 years old.

Re:Cat

[MrEricSir]

Someone needs to tell that cat: "Keep your fork, there's pie"