> “These innovations were sometimes misguided, occasionally obsessive, periodically dangerous, and perpetually fascinating,” [Burgess writes]
> Susan Sontag once called [them] “the clever, the wealthy, and the obsessed.”
> “were exposed to toxic mercury and iodine vapors every time they made an image,” Burgess writes
> flash powder advertised as “the most powerful light under the sun” was the cause of multiple fatal explosions in Philadelphia
Expensive, wasteful, "tech bros".
Yet we wouldn't do without photos, would we?
The technology turned out to be more good than bad:
> As photographs became more accessible — and more commercialized — they introduced “notions about celebrity culture, self-imaging, authenticity, ownership, and representation that are deeply resonant today.”
> Charles Dickens that described the appeal of the fad in surprisingly recognizable terms, marveling at the excitement of “distributing yourself among your friends, and letting them see you in your favorite attitude, and with your favorite expression. And then you get into those wonderful books which everybody possesses, and strangers see you there in good society, and ask who that very striking-looking person is?”