The daguerreotype is famous – why not the calotype?

https://www.google.com/search?q=david+octavius+hill+artwork

https://www.moma.org/artists/2648

https://www.nationalgalleries.org/search?artists%5B5351%5D=5...

My mother organised an exhibition of Hill & Adamson's work when I was a child in 1970:

https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog/1381628

D.O.Hill Calotypes are rare and sell for high prices at auction:

https://www.invaluable.com/artist/hill-david-octavius-ggaa1b...

It's here on Blurb:

https://www.blurb.com/books/8879159-pencil-of-nature

I used images from the Metropolitan Museum of Art and text from Gutenberg.

It's not perfect and the Blurb proprietary author file disappeared by the time I got the proof copies. I didn't have the energy to recreate it because what I made was good enough.

And better than anything else I could find back then, but maybe things have changed.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/1384661@N22/

I have wondered for years how this was achieved. Photographs were produced by a chemical process, so how did they etch into a lithograph or a linotype machine etc. to print newspapers?

I am really hoping to find a book on the history of science or technology. How people developed from, say, the four humors and phlogiston to modern theories. Or how the Copernican model and Kepler’s laws led to Newton. Or how atoms were discovered, subatomic particles, the space between atoms, or what people inferred when they didn’t have the tools to simply look at it. How Francis and Crick actually discovered DNA’s shape etc etc.

I want to see the mistakes along the way, like luminiferous ether, or the age of the earth before radioactivity was discovered.

Is there such a book or series ??

I'm really not sure about the premise of this article. Fox-Talbot is not especially unknown in the UK, if anything I'd say he was actually pretty well known here.

As a child I can definitely remember seeing BBC TV programmes like Blue Peter celebrating his work.

If you'd have asked me as a child who invented photography I probably would have said his name because that's what we were taught.

I might have known the name Louis Daguerre was involved somehow in an early rival process but I would have also known that modern photography (at the time) was based on Fox-Talbot's concept of the negative.

If you aren't already famous or wealthy or connected, there is no guarantee that you are able to acquire wealth through this way. Even with connections and wealth, there is no guarantee of a business.

I myself would hope to one day to use patents for posterity, but not to enforce a monopoly. Businesses will look at what I have and what they have and laugh in my faces and tell me that I have to pry their money from their lawyers' dead hands.

That's fine. I don't anticipate relying on monopolies or licensing as a revenue source.

Daguerreotypes are pretty artifacts in comparison. Fox Talbot was the Gutenberg of photography.