Part 5

According to Dr. Sansom carbolic acid is readily taken up by air, so that 159.44 cubic inches of air, at 60° Fah., contain one grain of carbolic acid. Air thus _carbolised_ (currents excluded) entirely annuls putrefaction and fungoid manifestation on the surface of putrescible fluids, and such carbolised air is more permanently efficacious than air charged with the fumes of chloride of lime or sulphurous acid, and it may be breathed with impunity by mammifers.

These few observations will, I think, satisfy your readers that Mr. Sutton’s remarks are erroneous and without foundation. I shall be glad to learn that photographers have tried carbolic acid in the preservative solution for dry plates, and would recommend them to make a solution of carbolic acid, one part to one thousand parts of water, and then add their albumen to this solution to the strength they require it. Above all things it is essential that the carbolic acid be of good quality for photographic purposes; and I would recommend them to use an acid such as Calvert’s No. 1 (gilt label) carbolic acid.—I am, yours, &c.,

REGINALD LE NEVE FOSTER.

_Bradford, near Manchester, January 27, 1872._

THE TEST FOR ALBUMEN. _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—It is over two years since I devised the carbolic mixture for detecting traces of albumen. At the time I did not think it of sufficient photographic interest to occupy your space in detailing experiments on the subject; but, as you do not remember the author’s name, I beg to remind you that I am the author. It was published, I believe, as a note by a friend of mine—an eminent chemist and toxicologist—in a medical work.

On one occasion we were talking over the means of detecting albumen, and having experimented with phenol or “carbolic acid” for about eight years, many times in connection with albumen, I knew its properties well, and, on my attention being directed to a test for albumen, I commenced experiments with a mixture of phenol and acetic acid, then with the addition of alcohol, and finally with phenol and alcohol, equal parts by weight. My friend and self then went through a comparative set of experiments side by side—my friend taking his old nitric acid test and I my new phenol mixture—the result being that my test indicated albumen both in plain water and urine, diluted one in ten after the nitric acid failed to indicate any further.—I am, yours, &c.,

F. W. HART.

_8, Kingsland Green, January 29, 1872._

SUGGESTION FOR A PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION. _To the_ EDITORS.

GENTLEMEN,—The continued complaints which one heard from people after the close of our photographic exhibition, that they had not seen it, did not know when it opened or when it had closed, and the strong interest they felt in it, induce me to believe that a comprehensive exhibition of photography in all its shapes—the new processes, the landscape and humanity of different countries, &c., &c.—might be made of very great interest, and to pay its way as well.

In the spring, and even now, London is filled with collections of paintings, which make photographs look tame. In the International Exhibition they are equally put out; and if they are to be seen and judged properly they must be in an exhibition by themselves. No intelligent collector hangs works in colour with photographs or engravings; and exhibition goers, passing from a gallery of pictures, will not stop to look at photographs. If, therefore, we could, under the direction of the photographic societies, make in October a collection of cosmopolitan photography, and connect with it a display and comparison of lenses of all makers, we should enable the art to claim its just consideration.

Colonel Stuart Wortley’s suggestion as to contributions of negatives would give a photographic exhibition, if adopted, a special technical interest; and we might in this include examples of negatives by the dry processes.

The question of retouching might be decided without difference of opinion by having two classes of works—one touched on the negative, and the other in which no touching other than stopping out pinholes should be permitted. If awards are made—and in this I recall Colonel Wortley’s mention of the medal of the Photographic Society—no award should be made for a touched negative unless a print from it before touching should be submitted _to the judges_ at the same time, but not necessarily for exhibition.

It is clear that when we talk of excellence in photography we mean something other than what a draughtsman may do in the way of supplementing photography. Works which do not enter for an award may omit mention of the distinction I have indicated.

I believe that such an exhibition would excite a very general interest, and do more to improve the knowledge of photographers on practical details than years of casual acquaintance of what other men do.

I am, to a certain extent, an outsider, and cannot do more than suggest; but I hope that some of the influential masters of the camera will take up the question.—I am, yours, &c.,

W. J. STILLMAN.

_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.