Ambrotypes: Advantages and Disadvantages

ambrotype children
Figure 1.--Here we see a pile of Ambros and Dags and the case elements. It shows the vulnerability of the Ambro glass plate and whty they had to be cased. Noted the cracked plate wich could not be repaired. The girls wear matching gingham dresses with low necklines. The dealer tells us, "This is a group of mostly cased photographs. It is from an estate sale pickup from years ago, they came from the estate of a family named Badley just north of Baton Rouge. This lot is being sold for parts or restoration, hate to throw something like this away. Two cases that have fallen apart, some other pieces of missing cases, an image of an older lady from the family printed on heavy paper (only paper photo in the group I think), and an unfortunately broken glass photo on a tin background of two younger children. It all came from the same family."

There were advantages and disadvantages to the Ambrotype. This discussion is primarily focused a comparison with the Daguerreotype which was the dominant format when the Ambrotype appeared (mid-1850s). Th real cometition, however, was with the CDV which became popular shortly after Ambros appeared (early-1860). The advantages far outweighed the disadvantagesbased on the response of the marketplace--at least the American marketplace. We see far fewer Dags after the appearabnce of Ambros. The principal advantage was the cost. They were much cheaper to produce, giving the process a substantial advantage over Dags. Glass was much less expensive than the the polished metal plate needed for a Daguerreotype. Dags used a highly polished metal plate. The plate was more expensive than glass and polishing that plate was an even more expensive undertaking. Another important advantage was the shorter exposure time required. This was far preferable to the clientelle. It also avoided the problem of changing light sources. Production costs were also lower because the process involved fewer steps. And the glass plate could be reverse mounted by putting the emulsion side of the glass plate on top of a dark backing material. This eliminating lateral reversal that could not be corrected with Dags. The Ambrotype could also be viewed from any angle. A Dag had the disadvantaged that the mirrored surface could only be seen to best advatages from an angle. The principal disadvantge was that the images were produced were not as high a quality as Dag images. Ambros did not have the tonal range of a Daguerreotype. And the glass plate was much more fragile than the Dag metal plates. Like Dags they could not be duplicated.

Ambrotype/Daguerreotype Comparison

There were advantages and disadvantages to the Ambrotype. This discussion is primarily focused a comparison with the Daguerreotype which was the dominant format when the Ambrotype appeared (mid-1850s). Th real cometition, however, was with the CDV which became poular shortly after Ambros appeared (early-1860). The advantages far outweighed the disadvantagesbased on the response of the marketplace--at least the American marketplace. We see far fewer Dags after the appearabnce of Ambros. We are less sure about Europe because thge photographic industry was so much limited in Europe. The great bulk of the early photographs we have found come from America. As a result we are unabkle to assess the relative popularity iof the two fornmats in Europe. We suspect that the sanme dynamic in America also operated in Europe, bur we can not say ghat wuith any certainty.

Advantages

The principal advantage of the Ambrotype was the cost. The Ambrotype was a less expensive alternative to the Daguerreotype. They were much cheaper to produce, giving the process a substantial advantage over Dags. Glass was much less expensive than the the polished metal plate needed for a Daguerreotype. Dags used a highly polished metal plate. The plate was more expensive than glass and polishing that plate was an even more expensive undertaking because it was so labor intensive. Another important advantage was the shorter exposure time required. This was an important advatnage because the long exposure times needed for Daguerreotype often ruined many settings as well as making the process of sitting for a portrait a tedious trial. It also avoided the problem of changing light sources. Production costs were also lower because the process involved fewer steps. And the glass plate could be reverse mounted by putting the emulsion side of the glass plate on top of a dark backing material. This eliminating lateral reversal that could not be corrected with Dags. The Ambrotype could also be viewed from any angle. A Dag had the disadvantaged that the mirrored surface could only be seen to best advatages from an angle. Ambro portraits could be created with a shorter exposure than a Dag. This was not just a matter of comfort for the sitter, a not unimportant matter in itself. A long exposure raised the possiblilty that the sitter would move, ruining the exposure. This of course raised the cost. The Ambrotype 'negative' could be flipped and mounted in a lateral reverse format through simply putting the collodion side down over the backing material. Thus there was no lateral reversal, as was the case in most Daguerreotypes. Also unlike Daguerreotypes, Ambrotypes were easy to look at because they could be viewed from any desired angle. The Ambrotype was very quickly adopted for use in photographic studios and in only a fw years had largely dispalced Daguerreotype process by 1860. The Daguerreotype as the first popular photographic process had so completely captured the public imagination that the term 'Daguerrean' was applied to any studio photographer long after the Daguerreotype process had largely disappered in the commercial trade. You do not hear of an Ambroerrean'.

Disadvantages

Despite the popularity of the Ambo, there were disadvantages. The principal disadvantge of an Ambrotype was that the images were produced were not as high a quality as Dag images. Ambros did not have the same tonal range of a Daguerreotype. Aniother disadvantage of a glass plate was much more fragile than the Dag metal plates. The vulnerabilty of glass mean that an Ambro could easily be broke. The metal Dag plate was also vulnerable because it could be scratched. A good example is an 1840s Dag portrait of two unidentified twins. Unlike Ambros, however, it could not be broken. This is why most Dags and Ambros were sold in protective cases.

Dag-Ambro Comparison with CDVs

Again the response of the marketplace was almost immediate and decisive, at least in America when the albumen-based CDV first appeared (early-1860s). The related cabinet card also shared the CDV advantages as it also involved the albumen pricess. For some reason the CDV was not am immediate success when it first appeared in Europe. We susoect this was because photography was not as widespread in Europe at the time. The CDV was superior to the cased Dags and Ambros in almost every way. The primary advantage was that they were much less expenssive. A CDV was only a small fraction of the ciost of an nmbro or CDV. Another major advatage is that CDVs could be duplicated. Copies could be sent to family abd friends at very low cost. Both Dags and Ambros were one shot affairs. There was no way of copying them. An image to send to family or friends involved the inconvenience and cost of a whole new shoot. In additiion, one could conveniently carry images of loves ones. Bulky cases were not required which meant that many images could be carried. The one advantage of Ambros and Dags was that the process was quicker because no printing was required.







HBC






Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to:Main ambrotype page]
[Introduction] [Activities] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Clothing styles] [Countries]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]



Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Hair styles] [Shirts] [Suits] [Tunics]




Created: 5:34 PM 6/26/2018
Last updated: 5:34 PM 6/26/2018