You show me yours ......

[LoneyBones]

I think the first person to have his photo taken was a boot polisher.
The photo was a time exposure and as he was sitting polishing boots he was the only person who came out in the print. Everyone and everything else that was moving was blurred. But can't remember off hand who took the photo.  
Leonie.

[daval57]

I would love to know who was the first person born to have their photo taken? (as opposed to who was the first person who had their photo taken). Have tried to google it, but haven't come up with answer. 

Hi MarkyP,
What's the difference between the two scenarios you mention?  Aren't they both the same thing?
Prue 

MarkyP now offline Prue so I'll take the liberty of replying.  No, I don't think they are the same.
The 1st person to have their photo taken may have been born in say 1800, the 2nd born 1790.  
So the 1st person to be born that had their photo taken was actually the 2nd person to have their photo taken.
Clear as mud, eh

Dave  

[joboy]

I am so very glad that I started this topic .... I have learned a lot ... and thank you to the photo buffs who are having their say ......... beautiful photos ... keep sending please.
I just googled 'earliest photos' and there is one by Joseph Niepce in 1825 showing a boy leading a horse.
Joe

[daval57]

That's a photo of a drawing.  I found that too.

[daval57]

Just found this but being Wikipedia, I don't rely on it.  Seems too late too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cornelius

[LoneyBones]

Google and Wiki will wonder what hit them. They're having a run on first photos.
I still opt for the one by Dagguere, 1838. Even if the person in it was serendipitous.
Leonie.

[daval57]

I was asked to spell serendipitous at school once and got it correct.  Teacher thought it was a pure fluke.  

[LoneyBones]

My Grandparent's beach cottage was called "Serendipity" and being curious I had to know what it meant. My Grandmother made me "Look it up in a dictionary."

[nickgc]

This married couple were both born in the late 1790s by best estimate.  They were my 3rd great grandparents.  They were Dunkards (no, not a misspelling, rather a German religious group now called "Brethren").

The husband died in 1865 so I estimate early 60s for the photos.  Altho she looks rather stern, she also looks younger than 60, so could be before then.

Does anyone think the quality is good enough that they might be worthy of sending to the resto board?

Nick