A 160-Year-Old Photographic Mystery
In 1851, Levi Hill claimed he invented color photography. Was he a genius or a fraud?
- By Amanda Bensen
- Smithsonian magazine, April 2010, Subscribe
In a letter to the Daguerreian Journal in 1851, Levi Hill claimed to have invented color photography. National Museum of American History, SI
Photo Gallery
|
A 160-Year-Old Photographic MysteryExplore more photos from the story |
Video Gallery
The History of Color Photography
While Levi Hill supposedly invented color photography in the 1850s, it was the Lumiere brothers who devised the first commercially viable photographic process
“There, do you see it?” she asks, holding up a small, silvery rectangle in the half-lit room.
For a moment, I do: a splash of blue on a bird’s wings. Then it disappears.
The photograph, captured some 160 years ago, reveals the outline of an owl and three smaller birds.
Lifting another plate from a storage box labeled “Hill, Levi,” Michelle Delaney sighs as she examines it.
“Oh, that makes me sad. You used to be able to make out the outline of the village in the center here, but it’s faded even more now,” she says. I see only a blur of brown, gray and white; what a ghost might look like caught on camera.
In a sense, that’s what Delaney, 44, curator of the National Museum of American History’s photographic history collection, has been chasing the past three years: the ghost of the Rev. Levi L. Hill. In the years since his death in 1865, a few historians praised Hill as the unacknowledged inventor of color photography. (A Scotsman, James Clerk Maxwell, is generally credited with producing the first successful color photograph, in 1861.) Most, however, concluded that Hill was a hoodwinker.
Hill was a Baptist minister in West Kill, a tiny town in the foothills of New York’s Catskill Mountains, when he began experimenting with daguerreotypes, an early form of photography. In February 1851, Hill made an astonishing claim: “I now have forty-five specimens, all of which present the several colors, true to a tint, and with a degree of brilliancy never seen in the richest Daguerreotype,” he boasted in a letter to the Daguerreian Journal, the first commercially produced photography magazine. He vowed to continue experimenting until he “perfected the discovery” and assured fellow photographers that, after patenting the process, he would share it with all of them for a “reasonable” price.
The journal’s editor, S. D. Humphery, lavished Hill with praise, christening his invention a “Hillotype.” But the fervor soon soured. Hill had promised a public demonstration of his works and process, but he kept pushing the date back.
Hill had tried—and failed—to patent his method. An 1853 government document stated that “existing patent laws would not afford to the inventor the security required” for his chemical process. Hill turned his back on photography altogether in 1855 after his wife and research partner, Emmeline, died at age 38.
He did finally publish his ideas in an 1856 volume titled A Treatise on Heliochromy, but by then, says Delaney, most of his peers “had thoroughly dismissed Hill’s work as fakery.”
By the time he died nine years later, obituaries referred to his Hillotypes as a failed experiment.
“Hill had a lot of supporters and a lot of naysayers,” says Delaney. Hoping to resolve the question of what Hill actually accomplished, she teamed up with independent conservator Corinne Dune and experts from the Getty Conservation Institute and George Eastman House. They analyzed the Smithsonian’s collection of 62 Hillotypes, using the latest methods of spectroscopy to identify materials and pigments without damaging the works. What they found largely vindicated the inventive clergyman.
“There’s limited color, but a wide enough range to see that he was successful,” Delaney says. But the project’s researchers also discovered that some of Hill’s works had been hand-colored or enhanced.
Delaney, who is still researching Hill, plans to include a chapter about him in a book she is writing about early American photography. “I think his legacy is that he really inspired people, in both America and Europe, to go forth and work with color processes,” she says.
She has made two visits to West Kill to consult local historians and archives, and hopes to track down more of Hill’s work, since his logbooks show he was prolific. She is particularly curious about the contemporary European art prints Hill often used as photo subjects.
“West Kill is still basically a one-block town, so I’m thinking, where did he get all those European prints?” And, she wonders, “How would someone not trained in chemistry learn to do this stuff?”
At the very least, he was a colorful character.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.
Related topics: Photography National Museum of American History Renovation and Restoration 19th Century
| Tweet | Digg |
Comments (8)
As Brian indicates, it is known, or said in some articles,that Joseph Boudreau recreated the hillotype process. His results and lab notes could be a good stating point in order to elucidate if the process works. The original Hill text is, sometimes, ambiguous, and it describes a lot of complex steps.
On the other hand, it seems that the Hill's authentic color photographs are not very clear. Is it a degradation effect?
Finally, is there any explanation of the cause of the color of the true color hillotypes? Is an interference phenomenon? Is it similar to Becquerel colored images?
Thanks,
Ramon Barnadas
Posted by Ramon Barnadas on May 8,2011 | 05:41 PM
Why not offer a grant to someone who can recreate Hill's Heliochromy? It appears that there is plenty of interest in myth busting the the plates in the Smithsonian collection. Who ever said that the Smithsonian plates were actually Hill's Heliochromy? My understanding of the provenance of these plates is that they were donated by Hill's son-in-law with no documentation as to what the process involved was. Levi Hill practiced many different experimental photographic processes; these plates could represent any of a number of different experiments.
Posted by Phillip Murphy on November 21,2010 | 09:03 PM
My father researched whatever he could find of Hill's processes, attempting to recreate these color photographs. And after several years, he succeeded. Search for the name Joseph Boudreau. Hill did it, and my father validated it.
Posted by Brian on September 17,2010 | 12:02 AM
So, in conclusion, could be the is not true that he is a fraud, because as you saying, he produced successfully some color photographs, and he did that , it mean that he invented the color photography didnt he?. I dont know why they acuse him as a fraud, I know he did some fraud with some photos, but in fact he invented the color photograpy.
Posted by Giancarlo on April 18,2010 | 05:42 PM
Carlos, thanks for your comment. To clarify: The Getty/Smithsonian analysis proved BOTH sides of the argument -- it showed that Hill had in fact successfully produced some authentic color photographs. But it also showed that some of his other photos had been enhanced by hand.
He did show his color photos to people who visited his studio in West Kill, enough to convince famous supporters like Samuel Morse to publish letters of support on his behalf. But Hill didn't want to give away the secret of his process until he'd secured a patent, and that never happened.
Posted by Amanda on April 8,2010 | 10:26 AM
I still can't get why this clergyman is considered to be the first person to have developed color photography since he was never able to either publically demonstrate it or patent it. Furthermore, as read in the article it was proven his works had been manually colored or enhanced.
Posted by Carlos Villena on April 4,2010 | 01:07 AM
Rick, that's a great point -- but in the case of the owl, Hill photographed an artist's drawing, not real birds. Thanks for reading!
Posted by Amanda on April 2,2010 | 12:48 PM
I can see why some might thing Hill was a fraud. Photography of that time required particularly long exposures, yet Hill's process appears to have caught the owl in mid-wing beat. Some of today's cameras can't do that without blurring. I'm surprised the article didn't mention this.
Posted by Rick Jackson on April 1,2010 | 06:09 PM