<p>One possible answer is that Herschel probably understood that the state of the art in photography in 1839-1840 <em>wasn't astronomically useful</em>. If you look at <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/789162" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Draper's photograph of the Moon</a>, it's pretty limited in detail. It's basically an uninformative -- if cool -- stunt: you probably wouldn't learn anything new about the Moon from it.</p>
<p>People had been sketching the Moon as seen through telescopes for over two hundred years.  There was no general perception that the surface of the Moon was at all variable (aside from the changing phases), so a careful drawing by a competent artist was useful at all times, and probably far more useful than what could be obtained from the photographic technology of the time.</p>
<p><a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/snapshots-of-the-sun/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Sun makes for an instructive contrast.</a> It is, of course <em>very bright</em>, so you can feasibly take photographs of it with 1840s technology in a short period of time (1/60 second!), without having to worry about tracking it. Moreover, it has <em>sunspots</em>, which come and go and move around, so that a (primitive) photograph of the Sun at a particular moment (potentially) has astronomically unique and useful information that a photograph of the Moon would not.  It's maybe relevant that the first serious celestial photographs were in fact of the Sun, starting in 1845, and the first photograph of a solar eclipse was in 1851.</p>
<p>So I would guess that Herschel assumed (correctly) that there was nothing (astronomical) to be gained by trying to photograph the Moon in 1839 or 1840, compared with observing it using the <em>much</em> more sensitive dark-adapted human eye. He may have known about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_photography#History" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Louis Daguerre's <em>failed</em> attempt to photograph the Moon in 1839</a>, which apparently produced only a featureless blur. (And I get the impression that Herschel's interest in photography was a very general one, based in part on his longstanding interest in chemistry, and not something connected with his interest in astronomy.)</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The first-known attempt at astronomical photography was by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre, inventor of the daguerreotype process which bears his name, who attempted in 1839 to photograph the Moon. <strong>Tracking errors in guiding the telescope during the long exposure meant the photograph came out as an indistinct fuzzy spot.</strong></p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T18:39:52.813Z
2024-04-01T23:00:58.577Z
2024-04-01T23:00:58.577Z
Peter Erwin
<p>John Herschel took a photo in September and Draper took one the following March. That's only a 6-month interval at a time when photography didn't exist. You're asking why Herschel didn't think of doing everything at once.  There is no problem here.</p>
<p>On top of that, John Herschel who took the 1939 photo was a different person than William Herschel, the famous astronomer who discovered Uranus. John's early interest was photography and math, not astronomy.</p>
<p>William Herschel did very important things, but inventing astrophotography wasn't one of them.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T02:00:19.403Z
Just from Wikipedia [John Herschel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel) "Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1st Baronet KH FRS... was an English polymath **active** as a mathematician, **astronomer**, chemist, inventor, **and experimental photographer** who invented the blueprint[ and did botanical work. Herschel **originated the use of the Julian day system in astronomy. He named seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus – the seventh planet, discovered by his father Sir William Herschel. He made many contributions to the science of photography**..." He was active.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T02:05:33.383Z
Is it possible to show that *the timing* John's obvious interest in observational astronomy using telescopes did not coincide with his interest in photographing them? The key assertion of your answer is "John's early interest was photography and math, not astronomy" so that needs supporting sources so that we know it's factually correct. I'm assuming that naming seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus happened because he *observed* them as on observational astronomer. Is that incorrect? Or did it happen well after the 1939/40 time frame? *Thanks!*
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T11:37:00.530Z
I'm not defending my PhD. And in a search, I skip the wikipedia link. I researched it; that's what I found. My impression was that William was into photography when young. He took a picture of his dad's telescope but he didn't take pictures _through_ it until much  later. That's the extent in my interest in it. I learned at Reddit not to talk to pointlessly angry people because I'm autistic and can't perceive social context,  so I take them seriously.
Miss Understands
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T12:36:32.167Z
Great! In Stack Exchange, assertions in answer posts should always strive to be supported by authoritative  links, citations, references, etc. "I'm convinced this is true" doesn't count. Right now I simply don't believe what you've written - it looks made-up. If you know this to be factual rather than just your impression, then those facts can be supported. Since you didn't know John Herschel personally, you must have gotten this information somewhere. We can't know how true it is until it's supported. I'm not singling you out, that's how we should always approach SE answers.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T13:51:50.870Z
John Herschel certainly *was* interested in astronomy; he was one of the founders of the Royal Astronomical Society (in 1820, when he was 28 years old), and was its president on three different occasions. He spent four years in South Africa (1834-1838) surveying the southern sky and compiling a catalog of stars and nebulae.
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-01T22:15:14.067Z
In Stack Exchange *anyone* can post answers. The only way readers have to judge the validity of assertions in answers is to follow up with the supporting links and references that support them.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-04-02T08:53:20.020Z
@Uhoh THANK YOU.
Miss Understands
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-31T22:02:17.880Z
2024-03-31T22:15:11.990Z
2024-03-31T22:15:11.990Z
Miss Understands
<p>Researching <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/57317/7982">Who named &quot;the 37 cluster&quot; or at least made that name widely known via writing?</a> I came across the Moneylink September, 9, 2020 article <a href="https://moneyweek.com/336349/9-september-1839-herschel-takes-the-first-glass-plate-photograph" rel="nofollow noreferrer">9 September 1839: Sir John Herschel takes the first glass-plate photograph</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Frenchman Louis Daguerre is famous for inventing the daguerreotype – an early form of photography that used metal plates – in 1839. But on 9 September of that same year, our own Sir John Herschel created a photographic negative on a glass plate, using silver chloride. It is he who introduced the word “photography” into the English language.</p>
<p>Herschel was one of the great Victorian polymaths, happy to turn his hand at almost anything. Besides his pioneering work in photography, he excelled at botany, maths, chemistry and the family hobby: astronomy. <strong>His father was Sir William Herschel</strong>, after whom the space observatory, which blasted off in 2009, is named.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The photograph is of <em>William</em> Herschel's telescope. So there's the photographic plate <s>and a nice big telescope</s> (oops, there's no telescope held within the iconic structure in this photograph), one looking at the other. And yet, the first astronomical photographic image didn't happen until the next year.</p>
<p>From <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/55909/7982">this answer to <em>First photographic image taken with telescopes to produce astronomically useful results? What telescope was used?</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The first astronomical photo was of the moon, taken by John Draper in 1840, using the daguerreotype process itself.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>(side note, Wikipedia's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper" rel="nofollow noreferrer">John William Draper</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In March 1840 Draper became the second person to produce photographs of an astronomical object, the Moon, considered the first astrophotographs.<sup>15</sup></p>
<p><sup>15</sup> Kalfus, Skye (2010). &quot;Across the Spectrum&quot;. <a href="https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/o3vhms3" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chemical Heritage Magazine. 28 (2)</a>. Chemical Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 23 March 2018.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Question:</strong> Since John Herschel was first to make a photograph on a glass plate in 1839 (and it was of an astronomical telescope!), why was the first astronomical photograph not taken until 1840, not with a glass plate (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype" rel="nofollow noreferrer">daguerreotypes</a> used copper substrates), and instead by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper" rel="nofollow noreferrer">John Draper</a>?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/oRc6K.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/oRc6K.jpg" alt="Herschel's 1839 photo of his father's telescope in Slough (Getty, via Moneylink 2022)" /></a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>Herschel's 1839 photo of his father's telescope in Slough (Getty)</p>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T04:04:53.220Z
note that the question asks **both** why the first astronomical photo was not by one of the Herschels, and why it was not on a glass plate.
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T06:33:40.793Z
I don't get the question.  I suppose John never thought of attaching his camera to a telescope.  This is like asking "If touch screen technology existed in 2006 in Korea why didn't Samsung invent the iPhone?"   John probably could have taken a photograph of the moon, but he didn't.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T06:49:28.690Z
@JamesK Wikipedia: [Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1st Baronet KH FRS, 7 March 1792 – 11 May 1871) was an English polymath **active** as a mathematician, **astronomer**, chemist, inventor, and **experimental photographer** who invented the blueprint and did botanical work. Herschel **originated the use of the Julian day system in astronomy. He named seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus – the seventh planet**, discovered by his father Sir William Herschel. **He made many contributions to the science of photography**...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T06:52:46.637Z
@JamesK To such a person, active in both observational astronomy and photography, there must be some reason beyond "he never thought of it". If you have a telescope and a photographic plate, the [barrier to entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry) for placing the plate at the focus of the telescope is a little bit lower than inventing and successfully building and marketing an iPhone. (There I go again with the [understatements](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/57236/automated-and-hopefully-free-systems-i-can-subscribe-to-sending-email-or-sms-t#comment130634_57236))
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T06:54:19.173Z
somewhat related: [Where did Wm. Herschel plan to put their head? Peer over the edge of the famous 40-foot telescope or try to get less off-axis; closer to the center?](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/q/13196/3869)
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T07:21:30.820Z
Well, either he didn't think of it, or he was busy on other things at the time, and someone else happened to do it first.  Perhaps he thought "It's hard enough to get a photograph during the day,  I'll try to improve my method before thinking about night time photography."  I just don't think this requires any explanation.  I don't think there is any "deep" reason, like a belief that the moon was fundamentally unphotographable.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T07:27:41.507Z
@JamesK I never heed "you shouldn't want to know the answer to your question" comments. Imagine if every user said that under every question they found disinteresting! I have a real hunch the answer will be informative and illuminating and my hunches are often (but not always) right. It may be tracking/exposure issues, it may be silver-on-glass vs daguerreotypes, it may be something else. And now that we know Draper's astrophotograph was the 2nd not the 1st maybe Herschel DID try! Let's just wait and see, rather than use the comment space to say "I don't think this is going to be interesting."
uhoh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T07:44:03.847Z
Oh sure, I'm just wondering if you have anything more than a hunch.  My hunch is that this won't get an answer because there is nothing to explain.  We shall see. Perhaps Herschel's laboratory notes are available and they give details of what exactly he was doing in the year 1839-1840.
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T08:16:54.963Z
Daguerre tried photographing the Moon before Draper did, but apparently the result was a blurry failure due to the Moon’s motion. (I think the first astronomically useful photographs were [those made of the Sun](https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/locations/firstphoto.php) from the mid-1840s on.)
Peter Erwin
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-30T14:22:42.927Z
I find it rather astonishing that he was able to do that so early. From his Wikipedia page, just a year before he took portraits that "required the subject to keep his eyes closed due to the bright light."
asdfex
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-03-31T02:15:12.963Z
Daguerreotypes had long exposure times.  There'd be little doubt that he actually tried, but success likely required significant modifications to the instruments.
Greg Miller
<photography><history>
Since John Herschel was first to make a photograph on a glass plate in 1839, why was the first astronomical photograph not taken until 1840 by Draper?
uhoh
# Since John Herschel was first to make a photograph on a glass plate in 1839, why was the first astronomical photograph not taken until 1840 by Draper?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-03-30)

Researching [Who named "the 37 cluster" or at least made that name widely known via writing?](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/q/57317/7982) I came across the Moneylink September, 9, 2020 article [9 September 1839: Sir John Herschel takes the first glass-plate photograph](https://moneyweek.com/336349/9-september-1839-herschel-takes-the-first-glass-plate-photograph)

> Frenchman Louis Daguerre is famous for inventing the daguerreotype – an early form of photography that used metal plates – in 1839. But on 9 September of that same year, our own Sir John Herschel created a photographic negative on a glass plate, using silver chloride. It is he who introduced the word “photography” into the English language.
>
> Herschel was one of the great Victorian polymaths, happy to turn his hand at almost anything. Besides his pioneering work in photography, he excelled at botany, maths, chemistry and the family hobby: astronomy. **His father was Sir William Herschel**, after whom the space observatory, which blasted off in 2009, is named.

The photograph is of *William* Herschel's telescope. So there's the photographic plate ~~and a nice big telescope~~ (oops, there's no telescope held within the iconic structure in this photograph), one looking at the other. And yet, the first astronomical photographic image didn't happen until the next year.

From [this answer to *First photographic image taken with telescopes to produce astronomically useful results? What telescope was used?*](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/55909/7982):

> The first astronomical photo was of the moon, taken by John Draper in 1840, using the daguerreotype process itself.

(side note, Wikipedia's [John William Draper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper) says:

> In March 1840 Draper became the second person to produce photographs of an astronomical object, the Moon, considered the first astrophotographs.15
>
> 15 Kalfus, Skye (2010). "Across the Spectrum". [Chemical Heritage Magazine. 28 (2)](https://digital.sciencehistory.org/works/o3vhms3). Chemical Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 23 March 2018.

**Question:** Since John Herschel was first to make a photograph on a glass plate in 1839 (and it was of an astronomical telescope!), why was the first astronomical photograph not taken until 1840, not with a glass plate ([daguerreotypes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daguerreotype) used copper substrates), and instead by [John Draper](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_William_Draper)?

[![Herschel's 1839 photo of his father's telescope in Slough (Getty, via Moneylink 2022)](https://i.sstatic.net/oRc6K.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/oRc6K.jpg)

> Herschel's 1839 photo of his father's telescope in Slough (Getty)

**Tags:** photography, history
> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: note that the question asks **both** why the first astronomical photo was not by one of the Herschels, and why it was not on a glass plate.  
> **username_1**: I don't get the question.  I suppose John never thought of attaching his camera to a telescope.  This is like asking "If touch screen technology existed in 2006 in Korea why didn't Samsung invent the iPhone?"   John probably could have taken a photograph of the moon, but he didn't.  
> **username_0**: @JamesK Wikipedia: [Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1st Baronet KH FRS, 7 March 1792 – 11 May 1871) was an English polymath **active** as a mathematician, **astronomer**, chemist, inventor, and **experimental photographer** who invented the blueprint and did botanical work. Herschel **originated the use of the Julian day system in astronomy. He named seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus – the seventh planet**, discovered by his father Sir William Herschel. **He made many contributions to the science of photography**...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel)  
> **username_0**: @JamesK To such a person, active in both observational astronomy and photography, there must be some reason beyond "he never thought of it". If you have a telescope and a photographic plate, the [barrier to entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry) for placing the plate at the focus of the telescope is a little bit lower than inventing and successfully building and marketing an iPhone. (There I go again with the [understatements](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/57236/automated-and-hopefully-free-systems-i-can-subscribe-to-sending-email-or-sms-t#comment130634_57236))  
> **username_0**: somewhat related: [Where did Wm. Herschel plan to put their head? Peer over the edge of the famous 40-foot telescope or try to get less off-axis; closer to the center?](https://hsm.stackexchange.com/q/13196/3869)  
> **username_1**: Well, either he didn't think of it, or he was busy on other things at the time, and someone else happened to do it first.  Perhaps he thought "It's hard enough to get a photograph during the day,  I'll try to improve my method before thinking about night time photography."  I just don't think this requires any explanation.  I don't think there is any "deep" reason, like a belief that the moon was fundamentally unphotographable.  
> **username_0**: @JamesK I never heed "you shouldn't want to know the answer to your question" comments. Imagine if every user said that under every question they found disinteresting! I have a real hunch the answer will be informative and illuminating and my hunches are often (but not always) right. It may be tracking/exposure issues, it may be silver-on-glass vs daguerreotypes, it may be something else. And now that we know Draper's astrophotograph was the 2nd not the 1st maybe Herschel DID try! Let's just wait and see, rather than use the comment space to say "I don't think this is going to be interesting."  
> **username_1**: Oh sure, I'm just wondering if you have anything more than a hunch.  My hunch is that this won't get an answer because there is nothing to explain.  We shall see. Perhaps Herschel's laboratory notes are available and they give details of what exactly he was doing in the year 1839-1840.  
> **username_2**: Daguerre tried photographing the Moon before Draper did, but apparently the result was a blurry failure due to the Moon’s motion. (I think the first astronomically useful photographs were [those made of the Sun](https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2006/locations/firstphoto.php) from the mid-1840s on.)  
> **username_3**: I find it rather astonishing that he was able to do that so early. From his Wikipedia page, just a year before he took portraits that "required the subject to keep his eyes closed due to the bright light."  
> **username_4**: Daguerreotypes had long exposure times.  There'd be little doubt that he actually tried, but success likely required significant modifications to the instruments.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-04-01. Score: 4

One possible answer is that Herschel probably understood that the state of the art in photography in 1839-1840 *wasn't astronomically useful*. If you look at [Draper's photograph of the Moon](https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/789162), it's pretty limited in detail. It's basically an uninformative -- if cool -- stunt: you probably wouldn't learn anything new about the Moon from it.

People had been sketching the Moon as seen through telescopes for over two hundred years. There was no general perception that the surface of the Moon was at all variable (aside from the changing phases), so a careful drawing by a competent artist was useful at all times, and probably far more useful than what could be obtained from the photographic technology of the time.

[The Sun makes for an instructive contrast.](https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/snapshots-of-the-sun/) It is, of course *very bright*, so you can feasibly take photographs of it with 1840s technology in a short period of time (1/60 second!), without having to worry about tracking it. Moreover, it has *sunspots*, which come and go and move around, so that a (primitive) photograph of the Sun at a particular moment (potentially) has astronomically unique and useful information that a photograph of the Moon would not. It's maybe relevant that the first serious celestial photographs were in fact of the Sun, starting in 1845, and the first photograph of a solar eclipse was in 1851.

So I would guess that Herschel assumed (correctly) that there was nothing (astronomical) to be gained by trying to photograph the Moon in 1839 or 1840, compared with observing it using the *much* more sensitive dark-adapted human eye. He may have known about [Louis Daguerre's *failed* attempt to photograph the Moon in 1839](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_photography#History), which apparently produced only a featureless blur. (And I get the impression that Herschel's interest in photography was a very general one, based in part on his longstanding interest in chemistry, and not something connected with his interest in astronomy.)

> The first-known attempt at astronomical photography was by Louis Jacques Mandé Daguerre, inventor of the daguerreotype process which bears his name, who attempted in 1839 to photograph the Moon. **Tracking errors in guiding the telescope during the long exposure meant the photograph came out as an indistinct fuzzy spot.**


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2024-03-31. Score: -1

John Herschel took a photo in September and Draper took one the following March. That's only a 6-month interval at a time when photography didn't exist. You're asking why Herschel didn't think of doing everything at once. There is no problem here.

On top of that, John Herschel who took the 1939 photo was a different person than William Herschel, the famous astronomer who discovered Uranus. John's early interest was photography and math, not astronomy.

William Herschel did very important things, but inventing astrophotography wasn't one of them.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Just from Wikipedia [John Herschel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Herschel) "Sir John Frederick William Herschel, 1st Baronet KH FRS... was an English polymath **active** as a mathematician, **astronomer**, chemist, inventor, **and experimental photographer** who invented the blueprint[ and did botanical work. Herschel **originated the use of the Julian day system in astronomy. He named seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus – the seventh planet, discovered by his father Sir William Herschel. He made many contributions to the science of photography**..." He was active.  
> **username_0**: Is it possible to show that *the timing* John's obvious interest in observational astronomy using telescopes did not coincide with his interest in photographing them? The key assertion of your answer is "John's early interest was photography and math, not astronomy" so that needs supporting sources so that we know it's factually correct. I'm assuming that naming seven moons of Saturn and four moons of Uranus happened because he *observed* them as on observational astronomer. Is that incorrect? Or did it happen well after the 1939/40 time frame? *Thanks!*  
> **username_5**: I'm not defending my PhD. And in a search, I skip the wikipedia link. I researched it; that's what I found. My impression was that William was into photography when young. He took a picture of his dad's telescope but he didn't take pictures _through_ it until much  later. That's the extent in my interest in it. I learned at Reddit not to talk to pointlessly angry people because I'm autistic and can't perceive social context,  so I take them seriously.  
> **username_0**: Great! In Stack Exchange, assertions in answer posts should always strive to be supported by authoritative  links, citations, references, etc. "I'm convinced this is true" doesn't count. Right now I simply don't believe what you've written - it looks made-up. If you know this to be factual rather than just your impression, then those facts can be supported. Since you didn't know John Herschel personally, you must have gotten this information somewhere. We can't know how true it is until it's supported. I'm not singling you out, that's how we should always approach SE answers.  
> **username_2**: John Herschel certainly *was* interested in astronomy; he was one of the founders of the Royal Astronomical Society (in 1820, when he was 28 years old), and was its president on three different occasions. He spent four years in South Africa (1834-1838) surveying the southern sky and compiling a catalog of stars and nebulae.  
> **username_0**: In Stack Exchange *anyone* can post answers. The only way readers have to judge the validity of assertions in answers is to follow up with the supporting links and references that support them.  
> **username_5**: @Uhoh THANK YOU.  

---

