Volltext Seite (XML)
526 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [August 17, 1883. My invention has for its object to produce a means by which to press photographic pictures, so as to assume a concave shape, and to imitate in appearance the porcelain plaque; and. it consists of the novel devices and combination of devices herein after described and specifically claimed. In the accompanying drawings, Fig. 1 represents a perspective view of a picture as produced by my device ; Fig. 2, a cross- What I claim is— The device herein described for producing photographic plaques, and consisting of the metal frame A, rubber plate B, extended across said frame A and central rubber block C, when used in combination with any common press substantially in the manner set forth. section of the dies as placed together and before being com pressed, and Fig. 3 a similar view of the dies after compression. Corresponding letters in the several figures of the drawings designate like parts. A denotes a metal frame that is provided with smooth edges and surfaces, and the opening in which is to be of the exact size and shape, corresponding with the outline, the picture is to have —that is, to be pressed—which may be circular, oval, square, or octagon. B is the rubber plate that is to be of corresponding shape and has bevelled edges, which are to overlap the frame A a sufficient width; and C is a small rubber block or plate, having chamfered edges. F is the photographic picture that is to be made concave. This, while yet slightly damp, is placed with its face downwards upon the rubber plate B, and the metal frame A is placed on top of it, while the rubber block C is placed centrally under plate B, and thus combined, the entire apparatus is brought between the base D and follower E of any common hand-press, when on being compressed, the rubber plate B will assume a convex shape inside of frame A, and while the edges or margin of the photograph are rigidly held between such frame A and plate B, such photograph will be bulged out to assume a corresponding shape, and will be kept perfectly smooth during and after the manipulation. After the photograph has remained in the press long enough to be perfectly dry it is removed, and another one is put in in the same manner. This device, as will be noticed, is very simple, and will have the advantage of not only enabling a photographic plaque being produced of any circumferential shape, but it also permits the concavation of a picture to any desired degree by pressing the rubber plate B more or less into the frame A. I am aware that dies for embossing pictures have been con structed with a non-elastic metal bed-plate, having a convex shaped metallic boss, and a rigid concave-shaped die-plate with elastic cushions interposed between such members ; but I am not aware of any device where the photograph is compressed within the opening in the forming-frame by means of a rubber plate extending entirely across said opening and a central rubber block, which on the descent of the follower E, will be will be caused to press the rubber plate and the picture thereon within the opening in the forming-plate A to any desired extent or degree, depending upon the amount of pressure exerted by the follower. By my arrangement I am enabled to impart to pictures a concavity more or less pronounced without changing the apparatus, which result could not be attained by the use of metallic die-plates, and to my knowledge has not heretofore been obtainable in so simple and effective a manner as by my present nvention. Eoxxespondence. AMOUNT OF GELATINE AND QUALITY OF NEGATIVE. Sib,—In reply to Mr. G. J. Dobbs’ question, which appeared in your impression ®f the 10th inst., 1 beg to say that the statement that “ thirty-six dozen quarter-plates were coated with 200 grains of nitrate of silver,” is no mis print. With regard to his request for a definite formula, I have to inform him that when I made that statement, I promised to give it later on, when my experiments were more complete. Mr. Haddon, of Greenwich College, has made some im portant discoveries in connection with bromide of silver (I believe shortly to be published), which throw a great deal of light upon the most sensitive form of bromide of silver, and I think this will assist me in my experiments. From the hints which 1 threw out, several emulsion makers have taken the cue, and worked them ont successfully as far as I have done myself.—I remain, yours respectfully, A. L. Henderson. PHOTOGRAPHIC COPYRIGHT. SI,—May I venture a few remarks upon the article on “ Photographic Copyright ” which appears in your issue of last week ? First of all, as to the decision itself, I would say that whether or not it is accepted as final by the London Stereoscopic Company and the other large firms who are understood to have been associated together in Jackson’s and other recent “ piracy ” cases, it is a judgment which the Court arrived at with much difficulty and doubt. During the argument, indeed, the Master of the Rolls ridi culed the notion of the operator being the author, and Lord Justice Bowen playfully asked whether it could not be as well contended that the cabman who conveyed the apparatus to Kennington Oval was the author? Lord Justice Cotton was, however, throughout in favour of the opinion which, in the result, prevailed—a narrow and illiberal interpretation of the Act, as I venture to submit, and one contrary even to the intention of the unfortunate draftsman upon whose work the Master of the Rolls was so cynically severe. The report of the recent Copyright Commission draws special attention to the essential differ ence between paintings and photographs, and compares the latter to engravings, in the case of which, as is well known, copyright is given to the person who produces the work, or causes it to be produced. The argument as to limited liability companies not being capable of author ship is simply an anachronism. At the time the Fine Arts Copyright Act was passed, no limited companies existed; so how could the framer of the Act have thought of them? Judges ought really to remember dates more clearly. With reference to the practical result of the decision, I think, sir, that in common with other writers in the public press who have commented upon the case, you do not accurately enunciate the law in saying that “ if a principal does not concern himself with studio work, then a clear bargain with his assistants is perforce necessary.’’ Do you not overlook the words of the Act, which pro vide that where a photograph is made for or on behalf of another person for a good or valuable consideration (e. g., a salary), the copyright shall belong, not to the person making the photograph (i. e., the operator), but to the per-