What if Kepler popularizes the camera lucida?

A camera lucida is an optical device used as a drawing aid by artists. The camera lucida performs an optical superimposition of the subject being viewed upon the surface upon which the artist is drawing. The artist sees both scene and drawing surface simultaneously, as in a photographic double exposure. This allows the artist to duplicate key points of the scene on the drawing surface, thus aiding in the accurate rendering of perspective.

The basic optics were described by Johannes Kepler in his Dioptrice (1611), but there is no evidence he or his contemporaries constructed a working camera lucida. By the 19th century, Kepler’s description had totally fallen into oblivion. The term "camera lucida" stems from the Latin "light room" as opposed to camera obscura "dark room".


camera-lucida-11.jpg


It could be used in the way above to potray objects, or people but was also portable enough to create "photos" of landscapes. While on honeymoon in Italy in 1833, the photographic pioneer William Fox Talbot used a camera lucida as a sketching aid. He later recorded that it was a disappointment with his resulting efforts which encouraged him to seek a means to "cause these natural images to imprint themselves durably".

Still, it was good enough to become a hobby. So lets say that Kepler acutally builds and refines a camera lucida. Lets even go further and imagine the invention becomes popular enough to be well known. How would this affect things ?
 

Thande

Donor
Interesting idea. It does, of course, raise the controversy over the role of the camera obscura on artwork in the intervening centuries in OTL. To my mind one of the major impacts of this might be on surveying, as when I think of sketches from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries they tend to depict people well but are often iffy on perspective when, for example, depicting an enemy fortress at an oblique angle to illustrate a siege.
 
Top