Our History Scrapbook: George W. Stigleman, Another Early Photographer, Recalled. Old stereoscopic views of Richmond are being sought for reproduction in this column. Readers are invited to make them available to The Palladium-Item. Editor's Note: Following is another in a series of articles about the settlement and development of Richmond and Wayne county. No. 933 By Luther M. Feeger George W. Stigleman, with a studio on the southwest corner of Main and Marion (Sixth) streets, was listed as photographer in the City Directory of 1870-1871. Ten years later the City Directory said he was a "photographer and patentee of the 'retouched solar picture " His studio was at 587 Main street. Other photographers, whose names appeared in the 1881-1882 City Directory, were the Mote brothers, J. Harry S w a i n e, George W. Stigleman and William K. Young. Stigleman can be classed with early photographers of Richmond. The "Historical Business Review of Richmond," which is part of the 1881-1882 City Directory, said that he was a native of Wayne county who "commenced business in this city about 14 years ago (1867)." The account continues: "Many years of experience made him a first class photographer and brought a large and lucrative business. "In 1873 he began working on an apparatus designed for the preparation of photographic negatives, and on Mar. 5, 1878, had it patented, having filed his application on Feb. 16, 1877. Valuable Discovery "This process is unquestionably the most valuable thing discovered for many years. An unlimited number of photographs may be printed from a negative prepared by this process, not one of which will need the slightest retouching in India ink. "Mr. Stigleman has by his ppnius contributed no little to the art of photography and is deserving of credit for the success of his invention. "Quite a number of unprincipled photographers have infringed on this patent, but have failed to make public their so-called invention for fear of exposure. "Stigleman's photograph parlors, at 527 Main street, are fitted up handsomely and equal to any in this portion of the state. "Quite a number of excellent examples of the work done by this new process are on exhibition here, some of which are almost life size; the collection is probably the finest on exhibition in the West. "Mr. Stigleman is a native of Wayne county, learned his profession in this city, and has been a resident of Richmond many years. His house stands at the head of the art, with a trade in all parts of this state and western Ohio." Many Richmond photographers of the period between 1870 and 1890 not only maintained studios i L but also' took pictures of scenic spots, stores, factories and outside views. Stigleman was no exception and although Elisha J. and William Alden Mote seemed to be most widely known for their stereoscopic pictures, Stigleman had a large number of customers for his outside views.

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (70 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties. العربية ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ українська ∙ 简体中文 ∙ 繁體中文 ∙ +/−

Works copyrighted before 1964 had to have the copyright renewed sometime in the 28th year. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is in the public domain. No renewal notice was found for this periodical for issues published in this year. For instance, the first New York Times issue renewed was from April 1, 1928. Some publications may have renewed an individual article from an earlier time, for instance the New York Times renewed at least one article published on January 9, 1927. If you find any contrary evidence, or the renewal database has been updated, please notify me. No renewal notices have been found for articles supplied by the Associated Press to subscribing newspapers.