Chapter III: Part 3

_100, Clarendon-road, Notting-hill, January 29, 1872._

NATURAL COLOURS IN PHOTOGRAPHY.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—Last night, as “I lay a-thinking,” the subject of obtaining photographic colour suddenly occurred to me, and the question arose as to whether the differences in the colours of the light reflected from the surfaces of different-coloured flowers (as red, blue, and yellow) was due to differences in the constitution of their juices, or of the solid matter of which they are formed. If on examination it proved to be of the juices, a second question arose as to whether it would not be possible to take advantage of this in the preparation of plates, as suggested by me in an article which you inserted in THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY for October 27, 1865 (No. 286, vol. xii.). Then, supposing that by this or any other means the three monochromic plates were obtainable, would coloured glasses placed in front of the lens help to stop off the colours not to be represented on the plate? Thus, with a plate sensitive to blue only, the interposition of a blue glass would prevent the transmission of the yellow and red rays, a red glass those of the blue and yellow rays, and a yellow glass that of the blue and red rays to the plates sensitive to the blue, red, and yellow rays respectively.

I have evidence that so early as 1842 the late Sir John Herschel obtained variously-coloured photographs on paper, as he gave me several, and I have still one a good blue, one a fair red, and two purple. The letter accompanying them describes the two latter as produced by the use of the juice of the red poppy; but many of them have faded away entirely. My impression is that others of them were from vegetable juices, but I am not sure that this was the case. There can be no doubt, however, that his published papers will give an account of the numerous experiments he made on this subject.

These suggestions may, or may not, be of value in forwarding the realisation of the great _desideratum_ of photographic colour; but I cannot be far wrong in mentioning them as they occur to me, especially as my former communication, in 1865, was thought to be worth consideration by experimentalists.

That the great end will be attained before a very long period has elapsed, and the prediction of M. Niepce be verified, that “one day a photographic picture will be produced such as one sees in a looking-glass,” is the hope and wish of—Yours, &c.,

HENRY COLLEN.

_Milford, Godalming, January 29, 1872._

THE PHOTOGRAPHIC DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—The notice which the direction of the International Exhibition has sent to your Journal is sufficiently unsatisfactory to be discussed a little before the photographic profession commits itself to the mercies of that institution for another such display as we had last year.

It seems to some of us that the least the management could do, if the leading photographers are expected to contribute, would be to put some one on the photographic committee whom they are accustomed to regard as identified in a high degree with the interests of the art, or whose interest in it they feel assured of. We should have imagined that one of the presidents of the photographic societies, or at least one of those eminent amateurs who have really contributed to the advancement of photographic science, and shown a disinterested devotion to it in its present condition, would have had the selection, or, at least, a voice in the selection, of the pictures to be exhibited.

As it is, we have Dr. Diamond, who was, in years gone by, interested in photography, and who is understood to be in the present combination a passive member; Mr. Thompson, of whom most of us know nothing; and Col. Stuart Wortley, whom some of the profession do not accept as an authority, and in whose position, as having a commercial interest in photography in no way identified with that of the profession at large, they find excellent reasons why he should not be put forward as the judge and spokesman of it. If a professional photographer is to be assigned this position, Col. Wortley’s place is not sufficiently high to justify his selection. If an outsider must be selected, he is disqualified, as being commercially interested on the one hand and a disputed authority on the other, or one at least to whom few good professionals will defer.—I am, yours, &c.,

HYPO.

_London, January, 29, 1872._

[Endorsing all that is said about the two jurors first mentioned, we ask our correspondent if he can, after due consideration, indicate any photographer, professional or amateur, in whom a greater degree of confidence would be placed than in Col. Wortley?—EDS.]

COMBLIKE MARKINGS ON THE NEGATIVE.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—Perhaps the following may explain the defect “J. H. M.” speaks of:—During the hot weather last summer, while photographing an engine in the open air, every plate showed comblike marks at one side of the plate. After two days’ trial, and filtering the bath, changing the collodion, &c., it struck me that the cause might be the partial drying of the film. A piece of wet blotting-paper at the back of each plate at once remedied the defect, and all came right. I now always place wet paper at the back under similar circumstances.—I am, yours, &c.,

GEO. SPENCER.

_77, Cannon-street, E.C., January 26, 1872._

AMMONIA FUMING.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—In your useful little ALMANAC for the present year there is an article by Mr. A. L. Henderson, enthusiastically written, in favour of fuming.

Now, in accordance with his recommendation, I have tried the said fuming; but my first essay has certainly not impressed me very strongly as regards its favourable results—whether from my own defective manipulation or not I cannot say.

I found that the paper—especially some of Marion’s thick Saxe—assumed a most disagreeable yellow colour after fuming, and it maintained that colour through all subsequent operations—as a matter of course, spoiling the prints. Another sample of (Rive) paper procured from another dealer was not quite so faulty in this respect; still, in neither case was the brilliancy of the prints enhanced—rather deteriorated, I thought—although Mr. Henderson maintains so stoutly the advantages of fuming in this respect. Again: instead of the toning being quicker and more regular in action, as Mr. Henderson states, I found it much the reverse.

I think that I must be wrong somewhere in my working, and I wish to ask your opinion or Mr. Henderson’s on the best mode of proceeding—assuming it to be really worth while to adopt fuming. I used an oblong box about two feet in length by one foot in breadth, placing at the bottom a narrow-necked bottle containing about two ounces of liquor ammonia, fuming two quarter-sheets of paper for about ten minutes, with the result above stated.

Have I omitted any necessary addition? or have I proceeded wrongly?—I am, yours, &c.,

AMMONIA FUMING.

_Leeds, January 29, 1872._

A CORRECTION.
_To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—In my communication to the Journal last week, at page 37, under heading _Using the Substratum_, there is an omission which would prevent the successful coating of the plates.

The strength of the albumen there given is that of the stock solution, to use which _add two ounces of distilled water to every half-drachm required_, half-a-drachm thus diluted being amply sufficient to coat fifty plates.—I am, yours, &c.,

ALECK. A. INGLIS.

_Edinburgh, January 30, 1872._

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Miscellanea.

TRADE IN OBSCENE PHOTOGRAPHS.—A man named Benjamin Smith, _alias_ Martin Stanley, living at Oil Mill Folds, or Alma-place, Westgate, Rotherham, was charged at Rotherham, on Thursday, the 25th ult., with publishing and selling photographs of a kind to debase and scandalise human nature. The West Riding constabulary received information from various sources that photographs of a most disgusting character were being circulated throughout the United Kingdom, and even in other countries, by a man living at Rotherham, who had inserted an advertisement in several London and provincial papers, in the name of Smith and Stanley, stating that he was prepared on receipt of postage stamps to forward portraits of French girls of a highly novel and exciting nature. A trap to catch the prisoner was accordingly laid by the Rotherham police, an inspector sending to him letters signed with an assumed name, and purporting to come from a place some distance from Rotherham. Stamps were enclosed, and in return a number of photographs of a most filthy and disgusting nature were obtained. At length some postage stamps, bearing a private mark, were sent in a letter to the prisoner, and the inspector of police watched the postman deliver it. He then entered the house, and found his own letter containing the marked stamps, together with a number of other letters, in possession of the prisoner. On the house being searched another beastly photograph was found, whereupon the prisoner told the officer that he would find no more there, as he kept them at a house he mentioned at Sheffield. This house was accordingly searched by two officers of the Sheffield police force, and there they found a number of most filthy photographs, together with printed lists describing what the prisoner had for sale. The prisoner was apprehended on the 14th of January, and since that time nearly a hundred letters from all parts of England, Scotland, and Ireland have arrived at the Rotherham post office directed to him. The police obtained the permission of Her Majesty’s Secretary of State and of the Postmaster-General to receive and open these letters, and they found, on doing so, that great numbers of postage stamps were enclosed, and some filthy photographs and books. The prisoner was committed for trial, and on application being made the magistrates intimated that they should require the prisoner to be bound in the sum of £200, and two sureties of £100 each to be found.

CAMPHOR IN THE PRINTING BATH.—Mr. John R. Clemons gives in _Mosaics_ some of his experience with camphor in the printing press. He says:—After the positive printing bath has been used some time it becomes more or less charged with albumen. If, when the solution is poured from the dish into the filter, frothy bubbles appear on the surface, it is in the condition named, and is unfit for use in sensitising albumen paper. The reason is obvious. When an albumen sheet is floated upon a silver solution thus charged with albumen, a secondary film of albumen, or albumenate of silver, is imparted to it, which deprives it of its lustre, and it is impossible to secure a good tone upon it. The difference will be readily seen by floating one-half of a sheet of paper on the used solution, and the other half on a fresh solution, and comparing the results. The effect of silvering on such a solution is similar to that of using doubly-albumenised paper. In both cases the silver will penetrate both films, even if silvered on the back, and very good prints apparently may be made on paper so treated; but when you proceed to tone them, you will find that the double film of albumen resists the action of the gold, and renders it impossible to get rich tones. I have already recommended the addition of alcohol to a bath thus charged with albumen, and then burning it out, in order to cleanse the bath, but since have sought for a less expensive method, and have found camphor to be just what is needed. Besides being less expensive, it is also more expeditious; for in five minutes an eighty-ounce bath can be cleansed of all impurities by its use, as directed below. Make a saturated solution of camphor, viz.:—

Camphor 1 ounce.
Alcohol 6 ounces.

To cleanse a bath which is considerably fouled by the albumen, add two and a-half ounces of this camphor solution. A greasy appearance will be presented on the surface of the bath. Shake well, when the greasiness will disappear. Then filter, never using the same filter twice. If, after filtration, the solution turns dark, add a couple of drops of permanganate of potash, and it will immediately clear. This turning dark is owing to long usage of the silver solution. It is a fact that the bath is daily impregnated more or less with the albumen, therefore a slight addition of camphor daily is recommended. This will avoid the addition of the permanganate, which rather decreases the sensitiveness. As a quick and ready corrective agent, camphor will be found of great advantage. It will impart a camphory smell to the solution, but in no way deteriorates the quality of the prints.

TO COPY OIL PORTRAITS.—Mr. B. Frank Saylor, in _Photographic Mosaics_, says on this subject:—As I have never seen anything from which I have derived any material aid in the copying of oil portraits, and especially old ones, I propose simply to give our _modus operandi_, feeling confident that those who do not proceed in like manner may successfully copy oil paintings, and especially old portraits. We first, with a clean sponge and water, partially wash the old portrait, and then pour perhaps an ounce of glycerine on it, and with the same sponge brush the glycerine crosswise over the entire picture until it presents a uniform surface; or, should a greasy appearance be presented, something like a negative plate when partially coated, rub gently with the palm of the hand crosswise, and it is ready for copying. We copy under the skylight, about where we should place the sitter for the same lighted picture, directing the camera to about the centre of the picture, and as nearly level as may be. On our camera we use a quarter-size tube inverted—that is, turn it end for end—with a diaphragm of about six-eighths of an inch aperture, placing the picture square to the front of the camera. After making the necessary adjustments as to size, &c., we coat the plate with the same collodion which we use for our regular portrait negatives, and when it is properly coated expose fully—that is, neither over- nor under-expose. The success, however, depends on the manipulation _during the exposure_. We take a piece of backboard, say six inches wide and about three feet long, and with it shade all the top of the portrait above the head, standing by the side of the portrait and holding the backboard in the hand, moving it up and down as though it were hinged on the top of the portrait, but not allowing its shadow to come down over the forehead or face, except those parts should be improved thereby. We produce the same effect on the sides of the portrait by occasionally moving our body at the same time over portions of the background, taking care not to remain perfectly still or too long in the same place, nor yet to allow any shadow from our person or anything else to cover any portion of the figure. Thus, with a little care and attention, a very satisfactory background is obtained, even admitting of desirable variation, thereby avoiding the necessity of a double-printed background and the like, and producing from a single negative and printing duplicates to equal, if not to surpass, the original, and every print alike. Lastly: we develope with the usual iron developer, using six ounces of iron to sixty-four of water; this, however, we again dilute with water, adding alcohol, more or less acetic acid, according to the detail and density we wish to obtain.

-------

_Now Ready, Crown 8vo., Price 1s.; Free by Post, 1s. 2d._

THE BRITISH JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC AND PHOTOGRAPHER’S DAILY COMPANION FOR 1872. Edited by J. T. TAYLOR.—The volume embraces every subject that can be of any use to the Amateur and Professional Photographer. The Editor has been assisted by numerous _collaborateurs_, embracing nearly all the leading writers connected with the Art-Science of Photography. Some idea may be formed of the large body of interesting and important information brought together within the compass of this Volume from the fact that upwards of Sixty practical workers in Photography have contributed original articles to this issue of THE BRITISH JOURNAL PHOTOGRAPHIC ALMANAC.

London: HENRY GREENWOOD, publisher, 2, York-street, Covent-garden, W.C.

EXCHANGE COLUMN.

No charge is made for inserting these announcements; but in no case do we insert any article merely _offered for sale_, that being done at the small cost of one shilling in our advertising pages. This column is devoted to exchanges only. It is imperative that the name of the person proposing the exchange be given (although not necessarily for publication, if a _nom de plume_ be thought desirable), otherwise the notice will not appear.

I will exchange a Marion’s embossing press for cameo _cartes_, cost £4
10s., for anything useful in photography. Offers invited.—Address, T.
KAY, Lark Hill House, Bolton.

A very superior 36-inch photographer’s bicycle will be exchanged for a
fine collection of lantern slides, revolving stereoscope, or other
photographic materials. Offers solicited. Photograph and particulars
on application.—Address, H. ROGERSON, 10, Springcliff, Bradford.

I wish to exchange an exterior background, by Bull, cabinet size, for
another, or anything useful for the studio; it was new last June, and
cost 37s. 6d. Offers also wanted for a single half-plate view lens, by
Home and Thornthwaite. Photographs exchanged.—Address, Photographic
Institute, Portmadoc.

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

-------

☞ _Correspondents should never write on both sides of the paper._

-------

JAMES TULLEY.—Received. In our next.

GEO. DANIEL.—Professor Wheatstone was the inventor of the reflecting
stereoscope. An account of his invention was published in 1838 in the
_Philosophical Transactions_.

H. W.—The _carte_ enclosed is a very pretty one, both in respect of the
subject and the treatment. Had the oval been omitted and the dome
alone used the effect would have been better.

PHOTO.—Let the south side of the studio be glazed—not with clear but
with ground glass. Should this not be procurable in your town, use
plain glass, and dab it over with putty.

CRAWDON.—India-rubber finger-stalls will prove an effectual means of
keeping fingers clean. We do not use them ourselves; but we know
several gentlemen who do. They cost about threepence each.

EAST ANGLICAN.—There is no remedy for the spots in the paper except more
care in the selection. The spots are owing to minute particles of
metal introduced into the paper when in a state of pulp.

T. M. (Newcastle-on-Tyne).—So far as we know, the only house in the
photographic trade from which you can obtain what is wanted is that of
Mr. F. W. Hart, 8, Kingsland-green. The other matter shall receive
attention.

W. W.—1. A vessel made of gutta-percha will both destroy and eventually
be destroyed by a solution of nitrate of silver.—2. Slate does not
appear to affect a nitrate bath.—3. Bees’ wax is not decomposed by
this solution.

PIETRO CONSTANTINO REMONDINI (Genoa).—Enclosure received with thanks.
The ALMANAC was posted on the 22nd January.

G. W. H.—It is quite impossible from such slender data us that supplied
by you to obtain the information desired, but from the nature of the
subject we are strongly of opinion that it would be dangerous for you
to follow out your proposed intention.

INQUISITIVE READER.—You are mistaken in your supposition concerning the
author of the article. He is not an amateur, but a professional of
high standing, who, for certain reasons, prefers the adoption of a
_nom de plume_ to giving his own name.

INQUIRER.—We could not in this column give you a proper idea of
polarised light. The “three words” into which you would like the
information compressed would have to be extended to many more before
we gave you or our readers a clear idea of the nature and properties
of polarised light.

PHOTOLITHO.—We are aware that Mr. Woodbury has so altered his process as
to get rid of the necessity for using a preliminary coating of
collodion. He now prints on the bare gelatine, and after exposure
mounts the film, sensitive side downwards, on a plate of glass coated
with gelatine and chrome alum.

PORTRAITS BY THE MAGNESIUM LIGHT.—Mr. W. G. Lewis has sent us some
_carte_ portraits taken at night by the magnesium light, which show
that in his hands this neglected branch of photography is very
successfully managed. The faces are full of delicate half-tone. The
time of exposure was three times that required in ordinary daylight.

GEORGE THOMPSON.—1. Although we do not esteem the maker of your lens as
one of the best, he has, for all that, a fair reputation in his own
country; and we know that he has made some good lenses. We have not,
however, heard of him for several years past.—2. Dr. Monckhoven is a
dealer in apparatus—not a manufacturer of lenses.

F. C. S.—Ideas often run in parallel grooves. For several weeks past we
have been using our note-book very freely in the collection of
materials for such a series of articles as that suggested by you. Some
of the information required to render the series of the greatest
possible value is only procurable with much difficulty and at no
little expense; still, such progress in the compilation has been made
as will warrant the indulgence of a hope that we may be able to
introduce the subject at no distant date.

ERRATUM.—In Mr. Coote’s article in our last number, page 38, second
column, eleventh line from top, for “you are apt to hurry and _free_
the development,” _read_ “FORCE the development.” Mr. Coote also
informs us that in the middle paragraph of the first column in the
same page, a sentence there in which he gave his reason for
discontinuing the use of the salt bath for washing the plates will
read better and more correctly as follows:—“Firstly: I found the extra
salt bath and long washing required after it to considerably lengthen
an already sufficiently tedious method of preparation.”

SUBSCRIBER.—Excuse plain speaking, but your pictures are by no means
good—in fact, they are _very_ bad. We are at a loss as to what to
attribute their special qualities—whether to want of care or want of
knowledge and experience. Carelessness, to all appearance, has had
much to do with the matter; for the plate has been badly coated and is
torn, and the developer has not flowed smoothly over the surface.
After you have acquired some more experience and dexterity in
manipulation write again, enclosing a specimen. You need not entertain
any fear of your name and address being divulged.

W. K.—No more easy and expeditious method of collecting oxygen in a bag
can be adopted than that which has so often been described in our
Almanacs and Journals, viz., connecting the bag with the washing
bottle by means of an india-rubber tube, the bottle being in turn
connected with the retort in which the oxygen is generated. The method
of making oxygen from chlorate of potash and black oxide of manganese
is the simplest, cheapest, and best to adopt when only a small
quantity is required. By a small quantity we here mean such a quantity
as will be required by a professional enlarger of photographs in full
practice.

SAM WELLER says—“1. Can you inform me what the method is for enlarging
designs for calico or zinc plates to be engraved for the purpose of
tracing from by pentagraph?—2. Also as to the manner of building a
suitable glass house, and kind of light—north or south?—3. Also, if a
cheap condenser for the solar camera may be made by cementing a clock
glass to a plate of sheet glass and filling it with water?”——We
reply:—1. A design can be placed upon a zinc plate by the combination
of enlarging and photolithography, or by transferring a carbon
enlargement.—2. A north light is better than a south; for the rest, it
will be necessary to consult an architect.—3. This query is answered
with some degree of minuteness in the first paragraph of page 30 of
our ALMANAC for the present year.

OLD HARRY asks—“What is a pistolgram?” We are to some extent ashamed of
the definition we are about to give, but we can offer no other. It is
a small picture taken by a _pistolgraph_, and this, in turn, is a
small camera introduced by Mr. Thomas Skaife, by which photographs
might be taken with a very rapid exposure. We strongly suspect that
“Old Harry” knows more of the subject than he wishes us to believe,
otherwise why put the question concerning the greater angularity of
aperture that is possible to be obtained with a short than with a
long-focus lens? and to which we reply that, without at present
speculating on the cause, the effect is just as he states it to be.
The same principle applies to the object-glasses of microscopes, and
it is an important element in the recognition of object-glasses of the
highest quality.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONTENTS.

PAGE

A CHARACTER OF CERTAIN PRESERVATIVE FILMS 47

A SHELLAC VARNISH 47

BLISTERING OF ALBUMEN SURFACES. By F. W. HART, 47
F.C.S.

COLLODIO-BROMIDE. By J. W. GOUGH 48

THE FADING OF MERCURY-TONED TRANSPARENCIES. By 48
DON QUIXOTE

NOTES ON PASSING EVENTS. By A PERIPATETIC 49
PHOTOGRAPHER

TRANSALPINE PHOTOGRAPHY. By P. LE NEVE FOSTER, M.A 49

THE EARS AND THUMBS OF CONTENTION 50

MEETINGS OF SOCIETIES 53

CORRESPONDENCE 53

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS, &c. 58

------------------------------------------------------------------------

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).