The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 6.1862
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1862
• Sprache: Englisch
• Signatur: F 135
• Vorlage: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Rechtehinweis: Public Domain Mark 1.0
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id1780948042-186200003
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18620000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18620000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Bemerkung: Seite 1-72 fehlen in der Vorlage. Vorlagebedingter Textverlust.
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

August 8,1862.] THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 383 “Bath, July 28th, 1862. GEORGE Dawson. up, but Uorrespondence “ Vice-President of the North London Photographic Society.” [To enable our readers to attach its right value to this letter, we print the letter to which reference has been made, and in doing so we appeal from Mr. Dawson with a purpose to serve, to Mr. Dawson free from such influence. Our “ urgent letter ” to which he refers was one making application for copy of a paper he had read at the North London Society. Here is his reply, which being a private letter wo do not publish without his per mission :— * We suppress the name of the gentleman here mentioned, as it is un necessary to drag him into the controversy. 11 King's College, Tuesday. " My dear Simpson,—I have not got any copy of the paper I read at the North London last Wednesday, but I daresay sinco you don’t anticipate the journal, Mr. Shadbolt will have no ob jections to send you a proof. I have none.—Very truly yours, “ GEo. Dawson. “ P.S.—I have sent him also a short paper on the bromide question, on which I have formed opinions rather different from those usually entertained. I also attack ® rather mildly. “ G. D.” I t We leave our readers to form their own opinion as to the in tention of the postscript of this letter, calling our attention to the fact that the writer was about to take part in a friendly controversy then existing between the editor of the Photo graphic Notes and ourselves. As a fresh comer into tho contro versy we gave his remarks with every possible acknowledg ment before we commented upon them. The quibble as to “ threatening ” or “ promising ” is unworthy of Mr. Dawson, as a promise could only be regarded as a threat if he felt his article unworthy of increased publicity. Mr. Dawson drags in the North London Society and his position as chairman. We carefully avoided mentioning tho name of any society in tho matter, and should have preferred to continue doing so; and, we take leave now to doubt his right to enter without authority into this matter officially. We remember Mr. Dawson once to have been chairman at one of these meetings, in which capacity he neither granted nor refused us the paper, since he was never asked; he could not, then, by any possibility construe our remarks as referring to himself. As to his real opinion of our right to copies of papers, we refer to this note, in which it will be seen that there is not one word denying it, but an evident conviction that a proof should bo furnished. We have never asked to anticipate the Journal, but simply to have facilities for coincident, or early sub sequent publication. It is unnecessary here to enter further into the question of how far societies subserve the object of their existence, by becoming parties to narrowness and exclusiveness. We are happy to know that few of their members endorse such opinions, much less enter into a “ compact ” to aid and abet such a course.—Ed.] Now, as I have occasion sometimes to read papers and act as chairman at the society referred to, and have constantly de clined furnishing copies to any but the British Journal of Photography, I do not consider myself guilty of discourtesy, but am simply doing my duty to the society, in declining to furnish to others what is specially meant for publication in our own journal. In truth, the papers read at the meetings are the property of the society, and it has made arrangements with tho proprietor of that journal, in consideration of certain advan tages, of which its members all reap the benefit, to give him the right of prior publication. Reporters are allowed to be present, and are offered every facility for their work, as you must admit. They may record aud publish as much or as little of the paper read as they please; but the bona fide copy is, as I have said, to be disposed of as the society sees fit. Any member, therefore, of the North London Photographic Society, who forwards a paper read there, to any other than the British Journal of Photography, may be doing a courteous act to that other journal, but certainly a very dishonest one to his own, in deliberately breaking a compact to which ho is himself a party. “ My esteem for yourself personally, and a desire to set tho matter in its true light, have prompted these short explanations in reply to a most sweeping charge of discourtesy, applicable to me as well as to others, and which I am sure your sense of justice must now at once admit, could only have been made through a misapprehension of the facts of the case.—Your, &c., OUR LIVERPOOL CONTEMPORARY. Oh L ® Must apologise to our readers and correspondents, for 60 ling them with a long letter from one of “ the staff” of our dinamporary, on a subject in reference to which we have de- *° publish complimentary letters from our own friends, ieh a case we prefer to strain courtesy a little, and allow iPavyson to make his explanation, although he accompanies tei, comments and opinions which we feel sure our readers qdder endorse nor care about. We print his letter, however, Subjoin one or two remarks illustrative of its value.] "R - bpB—In your last week's article on ‘ Our Liverpool Con- “0rary ’ you have, I think, in your zeal to retaliate and *a ? o ne somewhat beyond the bounds of ordinary courtesy I BS58Cretion. Leaving the Editor of the British Journal of to digest the rest of your article, I notice two 38es affecting myself, which I cannot let pass without a Be0rtwo of explanation. You say ‘ The especial article we with quoting, without due acknowledgment, was N Mr. Dawson on Bromides. Now, weeks before that A Was published our attention had been specially called to V* Private letter from Mr. Dawson, and we, in another i ad promised to extract it when it appeared.’ This t"nt would seem to imply an intention and object on my Bvvich I am sure I was far from entertaining. If my ", Serves 1110 right, these are the simple facts of tho case. was in tho publisher’s hands, I, in replying to Bont note of yours on another subject, incidentally men- at I had prepared for publication in the British Journal ongTaphy' an article on the bromides, in which my con- W 2.Materially differed from yours. This is all I stated, Gf atoo incidentally, as I have said; and if you, in reply, ‘600 not recollect, threatened or promised, as you call it, o•eito‛my article, that was no business of mine, for it had i,A Mbe my property the moment it passed into the bands Banitoblisher. Whether it was extracted with a proper hle oten 18 also no business of mine. ' lilies passage, more indirectly referring to me, to which, 88 ’ hqtto myself, I am bound to allude, is this statement — sBof o ens, that at 0110 of the photographic societies, tho M,Sity ur contemporary is tho constant chairman: in this SNhe 1 takes charge of, and systematically refuses to our- B at it permission to copy or make abstracts of the papers * of mimeetings. It generally happens that wo receive c h papers from tho gentlemen who read them, &c.’ and improve on my results. To Mr. II. T. Anthony all the credit is due fur this simple and valuable discovery. I will not close without adding a few words about the resin process. It has every possible quality, and but one fault, and that fault, I hope, can be removed. The plates aro often filled With small round spots which do not develop, and cause black spots on the positive. As tho plates I obtained from tho collo- dion, but one day after the resin had been added, did not possess that fault to the same extent as those prepared with the same collodlion a few days after, I am inclined to believe that there Sa period, and a short one, during which the resinified collo- feu is just suited for the purpose. I only used one-quarter Emin of common resin to ounce of collodion, and that such a Sall quantity should render an ordinary bromo-iodized collo- very sensitive dry, indicates that the action of resin is Povrerful, likely constant, and probably unfitting the collodion use after a certain time. I do not hesitate to say that if this ejection is removed, it will render that process the most valu- Mle of dry processes so far known. The film possesses a re- Writable toughness, which I cannot better illustrate than by latingthat while wet, before fixing, and after development, it 32 be rubbed gently with the fingers with impunity. Tho plates # merely washed thoroughly, after being sensitized, and let "spontaneously. I have not tested their keeping qualities vjwd ten days. The silver bath used is the acidified forty- bath I use for tannin plates, the result everything that Sbe desired in softness, details, &c.—all, but the provoking be round transparent spots. Who will come to tho rescue, and "usthe resin process perfect? I have not given it more at it, tho sooner it will be conquered. ^wdside, July 8th, 1862.