Jessica CaleNov 19, 2022

If you can believe it, this picture of the Paris Catacombs was taken in the 1860s. Can you imagine how hard it would have been to get down there and take photos (and find your way out again) without electricity? The photographer was Félix Nadar (see reply below).

If you’re interested in the history of the catacombs, we talk about it in Episode 18 of the Dirty Sexy History podcast.

#histodons @histodons #goth #FrenchHistory #19thCentury #VintagePhotography

Show threadKansas Grant
@dirtysexyhistory @histodons I just finished reading "How We Got to Now" by Steven Johnson. In one chapter, he talks about the invention of flash photography, so that photo reminds me of that. However, due to the lighting and the date, the Catacombs photo appears to be taken with natural light.
Nov 19, 2022 at 4:24pmWeb
Show threadJessica CaleNov 19, 2022
@KansasGrant how interesting! Not natural light—there’s no light down there whatsoever. He used a series of special lamps. I wish I could remember what they were called! I think that’s one in the picture with him in the first reply
Show threadKansas GrantNov 19, 2022
@dirtysexyhistory Makes sense. In Johnson book, he makes reference to that kind of thing, and talks about the problems involved. In your photo, the photographer must have done a good job to make the lighting appear natural to me.
Show threadTJJohn12Nov 19, 2022
@KansasGrant @dirtysexyhistory Any sense of exposure length on this? The subjects obviously weren’t going to move that much, but this had to have been a half minute or more of exposure time. Amazing!
Show threadKansas GrantNov 19, 2022
@TJJohn12 @dirtysexyhistory I have no idea but I do know that film was very slow back then, so I think you're right about a very long exposure.
Show threadTJJohn12Nov 19, 2022
@KansasGrant @dirtysexyhistory This would have been a wet glass plate ambrotype - I’ve had a couple taken in the past and in a decently lit cloudy outdoor setting exposure length was 6-10 seconds.