Erotic Daguerreotypes The history of the implementation of the daguerreotype erotic purposes has been a very neglected and rarely historians of photography pioneers make any mention of the phenomenon of erotic daguerreotype and when they do, their references are insufficient, scornful and slightly embarrassed. Historians have underestimated the quality and importance of this photographic production. This is due to three factors. First, access to the originals has been very limited, and second, it was assumed in the best that they imitated work painting techniques and at worst were vulgar and immoral commercial productions, thirdly the traditional moral standards and prohibit their exposure discussion. In recent times, the intellectual interest in the history of erotic photography has begun to develop with the proliferation of illustrated publications about nudity in photography, research and collecting.Questions of style, authorship and influence can begin to be raised and debated as never before. In 1848, in France, a period of economic prosperity favored the trade of all types and create a cultural environment that produced significant changes in the arts and crafts. This cultural event and the introduction of the stereograph, coincided with the evolution of technical maturity and the painting of the daguerreotype, a culture medium in which the erotic bloom daguerreotype. Moulin was one of the earliest daguerreotypes that specialized in the production of erotic images of all kinds. The marketing was a major factor in the production of erotic photography. There was already a market and a taste for such images provided by lithography. Paris provided the world of such images. Despite the lofty goals of official art, the circumstances of life in Paris feed sexual thoughts of a more worldly and less glorious.It created a society filled with sexual thoughts and acts, rather different to life in mainstream society. In these daguerreotypes stereographic three-dimensional effect produced by the binocular vision was further highlighted with the definition and detail of the daguerreotype. This “peep-show” gave his own immense pleasure and delight. The intimacy, the experience of individual vision, the visual illusion and psychological truth of reality offered by the daguerreotype marked a breakthrough in the genre. A good daguerreotype stereographic, manufactured by few and expensive, had its value set in the world in relation to the value of average weekly wage joint professional man. However, this technique does not lend itself to applications such as did the engraving or drawing. The metal plate was highly reflective, the need to view the image under special lighting conditions and the tiny scale of the image, did anything but easy to handle, observe and be copied.The photograph on paper, achievement provide the artist with a very usable tool and was feasible in the 1850s. Therefore, gender had probably existed in little production, with little impact on art and less on society, had it not been for the introduction and the resulting fury of the stereographic daguerreotypes. In 1848, Brewster, developed this technique to see pictures with three-dimensional illusion of depth. The stereoscopic viewer from the era of daguerreotype strongly resembled, to a pair of opera binoculars. It was argued before the eyes, actively looking for them for a target or subject of interest. Parisian theaters were places for those looking for erotic adventures. The men swept the boxes at the theater with opera binoculars, looking for all sorts of visual delights, even more enjoyable by the clandestine nature of this activity. The daguerreotype, produced exactly the same feeling.The need to also use amagnifying lens and approach was ideal for the daguerreotype. Remove all limits on small scale of the image and lighting provided ideal circumstances to view it optimally. The popularity of the novelty was in the upper classes, who were more than willing to pay a high price for having lavish productions of the best optical and photographic studios. The pictures were sold more or less publicly, optical houses, where he had an air of scientific legitimacy. Pornography was not legal in France and should be careful to avoid persecution, despite the general air of tolerance. Therefore, the majority of daguerreotypes not bear the name of its director, the labels are just some of the houses of optics. In general, the images were objected to were too “natural” and “real.” There is no doubt that the marketing was a major factor in the production of erotic photography.