Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Boulevard du Temple

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Boulevard du Temple

This is "Boulevard du Temple", the first ever photograph of a person. The photo was taken by Louis Daguerre in late 1838 or early 1839. It is of a busy street, but because exposure time was over ten minutes, the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show.
This is "Boulevard du Temple", the first ever photograph of a person. The photo was taken by Louis Daguerre in late 1838 or early 1839. It is of a busy street, but because exposure time was over ten minutes, the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show.
Reason
historical: first photograph of a person
Articles this image appears in
Photography, Louis Daguerre
Creator
Louis Daguerre
Nominator
AndonicO Talk | Sign Here
  • Support — AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 14:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support wow, nice picture considering its age. Very historical and clean. — Arjun 14:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Per all above.--¿Why1991 ESP. | Sign Here 15:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support meets the historic and encyclopedic criteria, in addition to size. Support per nom.--Andrew c 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional support – I had originally uploaded this image with the intention of nominating it; the picture is of historical significance and is in remarkable condition considering its age. However, the reason that I did not ever nominate it was that all of the information about it, including the caption, has been assembled from various personal web pages. Before we feature this, we should cite a reliable academic source who agrees that this picture is what we say it is. --Arctic Gnome 19:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Is this your website? | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 19:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That looks like one of the pages I used. Do you know if the organization that hosts it is a credible source? --Arctic Gnome 20:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Here's the Wikipedia article on ".co.uk". Here's another site too, which looks more credible, as it is by the University of New York. It looks to be an online class or lecture however, and a password is needed to get in. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 22:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
          • The .co.uk site should be good enough, although it would be nice to find a peer-reviewed academic reference. --Arctic Gnome 01:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I find the explanation on the image page ... the city traffic was moving too much to appear. The exception is a man in the bottom left corner, who stood still getting his boots polished long enough to show a bit unbelievable, since the exposure time is claimed to be ten minutes. You would not stand totally still for 10 minutes with one leg lifted for boot polishing! Rather, it may be a person placed there by the photographer. Withholding my vote until any "hearsay" is cleared up. --Janke | Talk 22:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I doubt he was a plant; the artist would have just taken a picture of a person up close if that were what he wanted. The man need not have stood perfectly still that whole time; I'm sure he spent the ten minutes shifting around within a few inches and changing feet, but that wouldn't have made a difference for the image. The caption should read that he stood still enough while getting his boots polished. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The explanation on this page must be at least an exaggeration, too - 'Although, as a contemporary noted at the time, the boulevard in question was "constantly filled with a moving throng of pedestrians and carriages", the street in Daguerre's early photograph appeared to be completely deserted "except for an individual who was having his boots brushed."' A street constantly filled with a throng of moving people would surely not photograph as a clean white pavement, utterly disregarding anyone who was not motionless for the entire exposure - it would photograph with dark blurs in any areas where people were present for a significant portion of the exposure. I suppose this could simply indicate differing expectations of what a 'constantly filled' street looks like.... TSP 22:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it's an exaggeration, just a different use of terms. When I think of a "busy street", I'm thinking of downtown Toronto at rush hour. I'd bet that by 1830s standards, "busy street" just meant several carriages, not a whole line of them. --Arctic Gnome 01:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know (and I've read about this in a scientific journal) it is indeed true that there was a lot of traffic, but it cannot be seen because of the long exposure time. It seems weird but it is true. Whether this is the first picture of a person is something I don't know, but since this is one of the first Daguerretypes this is very likely. Anyhow this is one of the most important pictures ever made and therefore I am going to support this one.-Wutschwlllm 00:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: a great historical photograph. Will do well as an FP! Ackatsis 02:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support A historical photograph with great encyclopedic value. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 02:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. I just came across this and was wondering why it wasn't already an FP; turns out it was just uploaded recently. howcheng {chat} 07:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme Support due to the notability of this picture, as well as its image quality and size even though it's over 150 years old. -- Altiris Exeunt 08:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per all above. —sd31415 (sign here) 11:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, per all reasons above. Jellocube27 16:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support encyclopedic importance. --Midnight Rider 18:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Support as per everyone else. Kind of spooky, i like it. Bobanny 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Support Nice --Fir0002 01:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Support for all the reasons listed above and any to follow. Excellent Find. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support for obvious historical reasons. (Thank goodness for digital colour photography!) Yuser31415 05:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support Very cool and of course uber enc --froth'T C 05:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support. Although it was shot in a really bad camera and isn't colorful enough. Just kidding. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Support although it would be nice if the caption included more info about the subject: is it in Paris? I suppose it is the same street which is today called the Boulevard du Temple? If so, is the vantage point situated near Place de la Republique, looking south? Spebudmak 23:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Promoted Image:Boulevard du Temple.jpg Raven4x4x 06:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)