926
extremely small photographs that are viewed through
a microscope or magnifying lens. Throughout its his-
tory, however, the term has been routinely applied to
photographs of microscopic subject matter large enough
that they may be viewed unassisted. The later are more
precisely termed photomicrographs and are dealt with
in a separate entry.^
History
In many ways the idea of combining the camera and the
microscope was an obvious extension of the camera’s
innate potentials. Not only was the knowledge of lenses
and light required by photography also required by
the successful microscopist, but the projected image
visualized through the microscope was analogous to
that recorded in the camera. No less a pioneer than Wil-
liam Henry Fox Talbot (1800–1877) took photographs
through the microscope as early as1835.
Logically, the process could just as easily be reversed,
using the microscope lens to reduce rather than enlarge
the image recorded by the camera. The resolution re-
quired to print an image so small, however, made the
accomplishment more technically diffi cult. The earliest
microphotographs were probably delicate, irreproduc-
ible daguerreotypes that have not survived. After these
initial experiments the historical development of micro-
photography diverged from that of photomicrography
because of the different use-value assigned to each. The
value of preserving and sharing what was seen through
the microscope as photomicrographs was clear. The
microphotograph, on the other hand, seemed to many
contemporaries to have no practical applications. George
Shadbolt (1819–1901), who coined the name micropho-
tography, was of the opinion that “microphotographs can
never be more than amusing curiosities.” Most micro-
photographs were indeed produced as novelties, and it
is as a novelty product that microphotographs became a
signifi cant feature of nineteenth-century visual culture.
The idea to use microphotography to reduce and store
information as microfi lms arose independently, and was
not put into practical application until the 1930s.
Like many milestones in the history of photography,
microphotography was most likely pioneered by several
people working around the same time. John Benjamin
Dancer (1812–1887), is generally credited with success-
fully producing the fi rst microphotograph. Dancer was
an optician, inventor and entrepreneur who specialized
in producing optical equipment like microscopes and
magic lanterns. Dancer’s fi rst successful microphoto-
graph, a daguerreotype of a 20 inches long document
reduced to 3mm in length, was printed in 1839. Accord-
ing to a later account, his technique involved using the
eye of a freshly killed ox as a lens. The wet collodion
process invented in 1851, with its excellent resolution
and easy reproducibility, galvanized a new wave of
experimentation. Dancer produced his fi rst collodion
microfi lms early the following year. Although he lost a
priority dispute with Dancer as to who could claim to
be the inventor, Shadbolt was working in a micropho-
tography around this time as well. He became the fi rst
to publish a workable microphotographic process in- Others surely printed microphotographs as well,
either out of curiosity or as demonstrations of technical
acumen. Alfred Rosling, for example, exhibited pages of
the Illustrated London News at the Photographic Society
of London in 1853 to demonstrate the resolution of his
lenses. Although they were not produced for that pur-
pose, Rosling’s microphotographs must be considered
the fi rst newspaper microfi lms.
According to biographers, it was by accident that
Dancer happened upon the idea to market micropho-
tographs. When Edward William Binney asked Dancer
to produce a photographic record of a memorial tablet,
Dancer printed a microphotograph instead. Distributed
to friends in early 1853, the image generated so much
interest as to convince of microphotography’s salability.
Dancer’s slide-mounted microphotographs quickly be-
came a popular addition to the natural history slides and
microscope equipment his company offered the bour-
geois consumer. He offered microphotographs featuring
local monuments, famous persons, and miniaturized
texts like the Lord’s Prayer. The subject choices refl ect
the microphotograph’s status as an entertaining novelty
destined for the bourgeois parlor, and simultaneously
appeal to an implicit educational benefi t to be derived
from exercising one’s faculties of visual observation.
Production of novelty microphotographs spread
abroad when Sir David Brewster (1781–1868) toured
Europe with examples of Dancer’s work, which were
displayed at the Académie des sciences in Paris and later
presented to the Pope. The most prolifi c manufacturer
was René Dagron (1819–1900) in Paris, who launched
lucrative businesses selling images that were inset, along
with a tiny, jewel-like magnifying lens in curios such as
a signet rings, penknives, and religious charms. These
trinkets, called Stanhopes, were immensely popular
as souvenirs featuring a “hidden” vista that magically
unveils itself to the knowing eye. Although popularity
waned after the 1870’s, Stanhopes remained in produc-
tion through the 1970s.
The idea applying microphotography in preserving
public records and library catalogs received rare men-
tions in periodicals as early as 1853. It was espionage,
however, that provided the biggest impetus to the use of
microphotography for information storage in the nine-
teenth century. In a 1857 article on the micrometer for
the 1857 Encyclopedia Britannica, Brewster took up the
theme in a way that echo in popular fi ction for decades
to come, writing that “microscopic copies of dispatches