Colorized Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre
I had some free time tonight and came across an article regarding the first known photograph of a human by Daguerre. Curiosity got the best of me, so I decided that I’d take a look and see if I encounter anyone else in the image. As I looked, I quickly realized that I would have to clean-up this image and make some further adjustments to reveal more detail. I figured that I was probably a perfect candidate for analysis as it relates to my line of work. What I ended up with was a colorized version of this Daguerreotype. I didn’t spend too much time refining the image – maybe a little over a hour tops. I’m certain I could spend days if I really wanted to get it just perfect, but for the purpose this suited it just fine.
Here is the original black and white image:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre
Direct download link if you’re having problems viewing this in your browser:
Wikimedia Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre (right-click, save-as.)
Here is the colorized version of this photograph which helped bring out the details for me:
Colorized Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre
Direct download link if you’re having problems viewing this in your browser:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre colorized (right-click, save-as.)
Here is a version with my notes superimposed on top of the image noting my findings:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre with Notes
Direct download link if you’re having problems viewing this in your browser:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre color notes (right-click, save-as.)
In the end, I think I may have identified some additional people within this scene. I think I may have also identified the time of day and season. I can’t be 100% certain. In an ideal situation, I’d like to get my hands on the original plate in order to accurately scan it. That may bring out a little more detail, but I would imagine it would be minimal at best.
It would be great if other people would take a look at it and see if there’s anything that I missed.
UPDATE (11/1/2010)
Based on some very good observations and comments, I’ve made some updates to this image and highlighted other call-outs.
- I’ve changed the scene to spring for this version.
- I’ve removed the red from the street. It is most likely grey, but the grey makes the image slightly more difficult to interpret.
- The grass has been removed based on other, most recent photographs. I believe that this was probably a hard-packed clay instead.
- This might seem far-fetched, but a cat might be seen in a window (from Karen.)
- Based on a comment, I think that the person “getting his shoes shined” is actually someone at a water pump (thanks Coldcat.) I believe there may be two buckets at his feet.
- Based on a comment by “Mik in Montague”, there seems to be someone sitting to the left of the wheelchair/baby carriage. I now believe that they’re sitting on a bench which is facing us.
- To the right (behind the carriage) seems to be another person sitting behind the carriage. I’ve made out the shape of what seems to be an arm. Sarlix may have commented on this earlier.
- I’ve just noticed that there may be a little person sitting, facing the carriage in between the two people at the bench.
Here is the latest revised image:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre Modified 11/1/2010
Direct download link if you’re having problems viewing this in your browser:
Boulevard du Temple by Daguerre-modified (right-click, save-as.)
Here is a close-up of the person at the “water pump”:
Boulevard du Temple Water Pump
Here is a close-up of two (perhaps even three) people possibly sitting at a bench to the right of the person above. Please note that a lot of the fine noise and “blocks” in this image is due to JPEG compression. The only way to really remove the noise is to take a better look at the original JPEG (if available assuming that is hasn’t changed much) or to rescan the original plate image:
Boulevard du Temple Bench
Followed your link from the comment on theatlantic article. Your colorized version of this photograph is really impressive. The ability to make out detail in the color photograph versus the original really accentuates the objects. Reminds me of some of the work I did in college in DSP for images.
The Cart or Stroller image defiantly looks like a person stood behind a babies pram to me. Nice work by the way :-)
The men is simply using/waiting at a water pump that’s why he stay so long.
http://membres.multimania.fr/histoiredesarts/dagguerreotype.html
Quite impressive. Good deductions. Although I personally wouldn’t paint my homes roof orange!
this is great editing. wow. wish i would be your apprentice.
@Eric Thanks Eric! It’s honestly not the best job as I didn’t want to spend too much time on it. One could probably spend days pulling out almost every piece of noise, applying individual colors to each element, and dodging and burning others.
At first, the intent was simply try to help distinguish one item from another, especially at the street level. But then I became a little carried away. ;)
@Sarlix Hi Sarlix. You’re probably correct. Some have said his captures took roughly 10 minutes – in that amount of exposure time, tree leaves blow, people, and horses move, etc. Applying my knowledge of long exposure times from taking HDR images, at about 20-30 seconds, usually a moving object is a blur. When you start increasing the time, moving objects such as people walking can become a complete blur.
It’s hard for me to imagine someone leaving a baby or a stroller just sitting around. Chances are there is a person nearby that was moving enough that they may have not been captured.
The image brings into even more questions. The guy standing there has one foot up on something. I really think he’s getting it shined. Could you stand naturally like that for 10 minutes (assuming it is 10 minutes) without moving significantly? I have no doubt this image took time to capture, but 10 minutes to achieve that result with him seems to be pushing the limits.
Another thing to note are those near-black thigh-high blocks that are evenly-spaced along the road. I think they’re bollards to prevent horses and carriages from crossing the sidewalks. But they also might serve as a place for tying up carriages and horses. You’d think that this was a popular market area, and that you would at least see a horse and carriage waiting around but they’re completely absent.
@Chris Ha. Thanks Chris. It looks more like a yellowish hue on my calibrated monitors (I calibrate roughly every two weeks.) I don’t have a degree in historical architecture, but in referencing multiple paintings from around the area it would probably be safe to assume that the roofing materials were often made out of wood. I saw a few paintings that had this coloring.
Ultimately, it’s just an educated guess. It’s impossible to tell from this black and white image beyond a brick and beam pattern what types of wall and roof colors he would have seen.
@carolyn Thanks Carolyn for the compliment. I wish I had more free-time (as well as patience) to have brought this to the next level of hand-painting all of the individual elements.
Great work! re: determining the time of day – the view is to the south-east so those are definitely evening shadows and if its autumn in Paris my guess is it’s probably close to 3-4pm :)
Thanks for adding some insight regarding the time of day! The sun is definitely not in the main view so assuming your direction is correct, then you would be right in saying it’s the afternoon which could also cast sharper shadows.
There is a possibility it was taken in the spring. There’s a lot of small, barren trees however. Maybe they were sparse and blowing just enough to disappear in a long exposure? I’d think you’d see at least a few smaller ones throughout the image but I haven’t come across any which leads me to believe it was taken in autumn.
Great work! A note on the bollards…it appears that is exactly what they are. They would have been concrete units serving multiple purposes. 1. Keep the horses and carriages on the street. 2. serve as a step to exist the carriage. 3. They were typicaly fitted with iron rings to tie up the horses. You will still find a few of these is “old town” districts of U.S. towns predating 1900.
Just a quick note – directly down from the shoeshine guy and just before you get to the roof of the house in the foreground is what looks like the shoulders and head of another person. The rest of him/her is cutoff by the roof.
I don’t see that. I see a chimney however.
@John. Thanks John – how on Earth did you know so much about those details?
I tried looking for the location of where this would have been taken – to see if there were any more remnants or clues. The boulevard in the original photograph bends – I think it appears in two places. One at the end of the photo, along the length, and it almost seems like there’s a cross-road in the foreground.
I’ve tried looking for it on Google streetview, but I haven’t had any luck… Maybe somebody else can find this?
View Larger Map
Your guess on the cobblestone street color might be very close. Many years ago I found a cobblestone in the US that was ballast on an old ship and its very close to that color. A type of granite I think.
There’s some more information on the photograph in this article – http://www.all-art.org/history658_photography13-2.html . It notes that Daguerre himself recorded that it was taken at eight o’clock in the morning.
Thanks for the article:
“”Noon” wrote the photographer in his own hand under the picture on the left. “Huit heures du matin” (eight o’clock in the morning) is legible below the photograph with the shoeshine man – information that later formed the basis of the attempt to determine the exact date of the picture. Using contemporary maps and diagrams, and taking into account the length of the shadows and the camera position of 51 1/2 feet above the street, Peter von Waldhausen has been able to date the view of the boulevard to the period between 24 April and 4 May 1838. The identity of the shoeshine man and his customer, however, remain matters for speculation.”
So the picture on the left-side was taken at 8:00 am, but no real guarantee of the one on the far right of the link you just presented which could have been taken at a different time.
As for the season, it would be interesting to see how Peter came to that conclusion.
Here’s a comment thread on Gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/comment/31508236
Someone mentioned that the guy getting his shoe shined was at this location:
View Larger Map
very nice. thank you very much.
Just when you think there’s nothing left to discover… Someone is saying that the image going around the web is inverted. Is it???
http://www.niepce-daguerre.com/boulevard_du_Temple_de_dag.html
This picture is really cool. I copied this picture onto Google Earth in an overlay. Then zoomed in on….really interesting…the more you zoom into the picture….the closer the twp image is more definitely defined, try it you will like it.
I think the guy doing the shoe shining is pretty apparent…
I think there’s a cat in the window in the foreground, the small window just below and to the right of the superimposed word “area.” Anyone else see that cat? and what’s in the window 2 up from there, with the blinds pulled partially open? a kid watching the photographers? another cat? were house cats the thing to do in 19th c paris?
@ColdCat
How is this article certain that it is a water pump?
“It’s hard for me to imagine someone leaving a baby or a stroller just sitting around.” I agree. However, people do this in Denmark today, so it’s possible.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Denmark+leave+baby+outside
It takes away from the beauty of the Black/White Image
Fantastic! I love the annotations on the colorized image. Well done!
@A Keep in mind that in order to produce these images, it took 5-60 minutes to expose. In that amount of time, if someone walks around, they will disappear from the picture. If there’s only slight movement for that duration, then it might show up as a blur.
In this area, there were probably a lot more people walking about as well as horses and carriages moving. The question is, did anyone else stay still long enough that it shows up solidly?
If it was a stroller, there could very well be a person that was moving around it as the picture developed. It could also be a wheelchair. I think there looks like there’s two wheels there.
@Alex Alexander I agree. I wasn’t trying to produce something that was better or beautiful – if that was the case, I could have spent several days on refining this image – removing noise by hand, tracing more carefully, and really spending the time to work individual colors onto individual objects. The coloring was only done merely to help me differentiate objects within the noisy original.
Hi, really nice work. It’s weird to watch such an old picture of a street I ride nearly everyday.
Concerning the color of parisian paved streets, they’re not made with bricks but with little carved stones and usually are light grey.
For the sidewalk, there is another chance to be beige more than green if they’re made with clay like other larges avenues and parks.
A picture of that :
Agrandir le plan
@Badeu Very interesting. I left the street red because it helped separate the rest of the objects, but I think you are correct.
I would have assumed the green was a grassy area because there were a lot of trees. I didn’t see any indication of planters surrounding them. I wouldn’t have thought these were planted directly in clay. I really appreciate you pointing this out.
I doubt it was red brick on the street, it appears to be too large. Rather it would likely be gray cobbles. And, rather than Fall, it could be any season as the small trees could be dead. Small trees often don’t survive. Besides, the other trees look quite lush, it’d be odd for some trees to already have lost all their leaves while others are lush.
I don’t see any other people, the three unidentifiable notations look like treetrunks. Look at the spacing between the other trees. It’s quite regular. And, they’re in a line. The stroller could just as easily be a street cleaner’s handcart, as it seems a tad larger than any old strollers I’ve seen, which tend to be rather fragile looking.
The green areas as grass is doubtful. It’s more likely to be hardpacked earth, that could be swept. A light brown gray color. The trees would be planted straight into this, no planter, no demarcation whatsoever.
About the dog and child, I think that’s a stick planted next to a small tree, just like you see with many of the trees on the nearer side of the street.
Thanks for your posting. Interesting to read your commments. I took a look, and think their could be a few other people pictured, though they are not truly distinct. I’m not convinced about the season though. For one, I would expect still fewer leaves, and two, I would expect the traces of more smoke from the chimneys. Only one in the foreground shows any activity. (Yes, smoke moves, but a constant stream would leave a trace as it does above the one chimney). Summer heat would account for the trees as they are, foliage, and some that didn’t make it. also for those windows that are apparently open on the sunny sides of buildings.
Do take a look at those exposed roofing rafters. I believe there are hints that some of those shapes visible toward the top and toward the right are workers. At least they do appear so to my eyes after playing with the original. Also, toward the left of the photo, on the right side of that building with the illegible sign, there appears to be a person standing on a balcony; again, it appears so to me. What do you think?
One more possibility, on the roof top terrace in the forground toward the center of the photo, but on the right of the terrace, there is a ghost of an image that could be a woman hanging laundry. Ok, maybe my imagination is running away with me, but do take a look. I was having fun with a few more of the “ghosts,” including one that hints at a carriage and horses, but it’s hard to be definite. We’re too spoiled by hi-res mult-megapixeled images!
I am so fascinated by all of this!!!
I agree that the man probably is at a water pump, not getting a shoe-shine.
I’m also very impressed with the composition of the photograph. Makes me think the photographer was influenced by painters of the period.
Is it possible that the man with his leg up is cleaning his shoes using a scraper which removes mud and other, less pleasant things?
@Sarlix
Is it possible the cart to the right of the man is someone using a wheelchair?
I actually see something that could be a face at the left second floor window, right pane. Perhaps it’s just something hanging in the window.
It appears there may be someone sitting on a chair or bench next to the wagon, though, why would there be a bench there when there are no other benches in that area?
And, if you notice all the trees with support frames around them, I’m beginning to believe that the thing people think is a water pump may actually be another tree. And the bulky thing next to it is a wagon? Can you see the wheels? And based on the shadow he’s throwing (follows his body and his out-stretched leg) the shadow next to his makes it appear there’s something in the wagon. Perhaps a kid, sitting up? Could be a wheel chair, too.
I’m not sure I agree about the time of year, either. There are plenty of non-denuded trees in the photo, and they don’t appear to be fir. Perhaps the other trees are either new plants, or dead? There doesn’t appear to be any leaves on the ground. Either they all blew away, or the street cleaner is quite aggressive on the fallen leaves front.
And what are all those pot-like things lining the street? Barricades to stop the house drawn carriages from storming the sidewalk, or trash cans? Rain buckets?
Such fun to scrutinize. Thanks!
Here’s a new NPR link to this article:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2010/10/28/130898617/the-first-photo-af-a-human-or-two-humans-or-three
@KenC I agree now that it’s probably hard-packed earth based one what others had posted – a beige clay.
@GeorgeN Smoke from a chimney would dissipate and blow around. In this long exposure, there’s a good chance it would have disappeared. But I agree that the season was difficult to determine. I took a little bit of artistic license in making it an autumn scene.
As for people in the rafters – so much of this is very hard to tell. I have no doubt there were more people moving around the area but the long exposure would have accounted for their disappearance.
@peter owen I agree – I think it turned into a lot more fun for a lot of us than expected. It’s the historical version of “Where’s Waldo?”
@kd I agree that it really is a remarkable composition. I don’t think many photographers today with a digital camera could pull an image like this off. I didn’t realize it at first until I spent some time looking at it.
I think you’re right but I’d also add that some of the painterly qualities in this colorized photograph appear “painterly” mainly because the original lacks a lot of definition. It’s high contrast with very little “grayscale values.” If the lines were more defined and less noisy, I think it would appear more like a photograph versus a painting.
@G Due to the exposure time, that would have to be a very long process of mud removal while standing still.
@Barry A few others mentioned this. It could be. I’d think we’d have to look at carts, strollers, and wheelchairs from this period and France in order to compare.
@Mik in Montague I can see what you’re looking at. It’s just so hard to determine.
I think you’re right on the person sitting on the bench next to the wagon/stroller!!! And there’s a person with a missing head sitting next to that person, but you can see her arm!!!!!! We have a face!!! We have a bench! That is an awesome find!
“I’m beginning to believe that the thing people think is a water pump may actually be another tree.” That begs the question as to why someone would put their foot up against a tree for several minutes and hold it there. I tend to think it’s a pump or someone getting their shoes shined.
“And what are all those pot-like things lining the street? Barricades to stop the house drawn carriages from storming the sidewalk, or trash cans?” I think we’ve determine that they are exactly that – “bollards” as myself and another commenter pointed out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollard
The street is most likely not brick, but granite paving blocks, a far more common street surface from that era. See a pic of this type of stone here: http://rssy.com/images/4x4x8-cobble.jpg
@Dawn M. Shepherd Hey Dawn. Thanks for the comment. A couple of others pointed out something similarly. It was left red originally to help distinguish objects.
I updated the image (and article now) to include more information and some changes. There might be a third person (a kid) on the bench!!!
There is a four story building in the middle or upper middle left side of the daguarreotype. On the side of the building is a painted advertisement. Though the characters in the sign are blurry, I believe the three characters in the second line from the bottom make the number “104.” If this is correct, then the whole photo has been reversed.
yikes, now i see the guy on the bench, maybe watching the photographer, minding the baby while his wife shops for silk stockings. one leg is up on his knee.
i also totally see mik in montague’s man’s face in the glass pane. what you have circled as a cat i think is a kid, the cat is 2 windows down from there.
i thought i saw a woman’s face, with big puffy hair on to of her head. she’s crossing the street, face is to the right and above of where you have annotation “almost looks like.” but the scale would be off, if it was a face it should be smaller.
@cleo
Yes it is inverted: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130898617&sc=nl&cc=brk-20101101-2235&ps=brk-mp
While it may be off the “first-human” topic, I just thought I’d mention this. For all the enhancing that’s been done, there’s one significant thing that hasn’t been done in order to view the scene as it would have looked from the window where the picture was taken.
Daguerreotypes are mirror images of the actual scene being photographed. You need to flip the picture, left-to-right, in order to see what Daguerre was looking at out that window. And if you flip the picture, you can make out some of the writing on the side of the one building, such as “104 Rue de la (something)” Perhaps someone more versed in French than I am could make out some more.
The switch in orientation may, or may not, change how other features are viewed and/or deciphered.
As far as the time of day, I found another blog [http://www.alscotts.com/daguerrotype/] where the author claims that while the date of the daguerreotype is unknown, it IS known to have been taken at 8 am. If you are judging by the direction the shadows are falling, flipping the Daguerreotype indeed matches with it as being morning, not evening.
When you flip the daguerreotype, I believe it matches up with this: View Larger Map
First, let me say that Boulevard du Temple is a relatively short road, so there isn’t a lot of places this could be along it. The bottom of the daguerreotype is the intersection of Boulevard du Temple and Place de la République. You will see that if you turn the Google image 180 degrees. Place de la République is the bend in the road to the bottom left in the daguerreotype. You will also see the incline of the Boulevard du Temple depicted in the daguerreotype.
Now, with the Google image in it’s original orientation, I believe the building on the right side of the street, to the left of the Bourse du Travail storefront, and with a slate blue/gray roof is the same building in your colorized, non-flipped version that is touched by your caption words “Street color…”. The number of windows (7) along the building’s front, above the roof-line is the same. The set of smaller windows (5 of them) above those windows seems to line up with the daguerreotype, too, as do the windows down the side of the building. Granted, there are no chimneys, but they were most likely removed in a modernization of the building and it’s roof.
That building (the only match I could find) with it’s windows (dormers) in the roof along the front and the side, plus the curve in the road, and the incline at the beginning of Boulevard du Temple (the only incline I could see in Google street-view along that road) lead me to believe that my Google image falls about half-way up the road as depicted in the daguerreotype.
The biggest problem in seeing the whole view in Google, is that if you go to the intersection of Boulevard du Temple and Place de la République to look up the street, the street-level trees obstruct the view. Plus, you really need an elevated view to line up with what Daguerre saw. Only having street-level or directly overhead viewing options in Google just muddles things.
One thing I’d like to correct from my previous post is I now believe the sign on that building says “104 Rue du (something)” rather than “104 Rue de la…”. The French can get picky about masculine vs. feminine tenses. LOL
@John L Previously, I had mentioned this in the comments.
@John L I saw that link. It’s one study which doesn’t necessarily reflect accurate conclusions.
“The biggest problem in see ing the whole view in Google, is that if you go to the intersection of Boulevard du Temple and Place de la République to look up the street, the street-level trees obstruct the view. Plus, you really need an elevated view to line up with what Daguerre saw. Only having street-level or directly over head viewing options in Google just mud dles things.”
I agree that the trees are the biggest impediment to matching the views. Plus, without access to whatever building is in the current location or a crane, it’s somewhat pointless other than for potential reference.
So much of what existed has been replaced within the past 150+ years.
As for the sign, I’m surprised you could make out any of that text.
I looked a bit further and found this street-viewView Larger Map looking up Boulevard du Temple from the bend at Place de la République that is unobstructed by trees. I believe the man was getting his shoes shined on the corner at the left of the picture. You can see the building with the slate blue/gray roof up the block on the right. And to the far right you can clearly see the inclined slope of the street.
As Tom noted above, the image is indeed reversed, in true “camera obscura” fashion. Flip the image horizontally to view the street in it’s proper orientation. The view is towards the southwest, with the morning sun shining in from the left. As for the sign in question, he correctly read the numbers. That particular line reads “104 Rue (de or le) ???” [104 “Unknown” Street). The first word below it is “Huile” [oil]. The line above it reads “de M. Axmes” [of Mr. Axmes]. It is apparently an advertisement.
By the way, the original dagguerreotypes would give a reversed (negative) image if rotated slightly. Doing this in your image viewer can help to bring out a few details. By the way, if you look carefully above the low roof in the foreground, you can see several “ghost” heads. Not as clear as the man having his shoes shined, but they stood there gawking long enough to be seen. I wouldn’t be surprised if that really is a child’s face in the upper window across the street, the one with the curtain held open. A curious child is likely to stand and stare much longer than an adult would.
One more note. Looking at some other web sites on this image, the original has evidently been lost. What we’re looking at is the reproduction of a copy made in the 1930’s. That might account for some of the “noise” and lack of clarity.
@GeorgeN Thanks for all that information. I think we should also add another first: “First photograph of an advertisement” lol.
French study with 2002 new print from the same place :
http://www.niepce-daguerre.com/boulevard_du_Temple_de_dag.html