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

514 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [October 24,1862. rence, as the following symbol may prove. The results of this union and disunion may be rendered thus : HC1 + NaO = HO and Na Cl (without naming the various atoms, the meaning is this: hydrochloric acid, in contact with soda decomposing, forming water and common salt). We have reason to believe that gold separates from the chlorine more tardily, and if the soda is saturated with chlorine produced from another source, the .gold is left untouched. Professor Hyme has proved this fact by his interesting discovery. He has shown, that if, by reason of an excess of soda, a bath refuses to act, although abundantly supplied with gold, by acidifying with hydrochloric acid, and again rendering alkaline with soda, toning proceeds with renewed vigour. How is this change brought about? A large excess of soda rapidly deprives the gold of its chlorine; with but just sufficient of this agent to prevent total decomposition, it remains inert, and when the acid before named is added, it takes its fill of chlorine; but no action ensues, because the sodium is also saturated. Having' dismissed its late com panions in favour of chlorine, it has now become a new substance, viz., Na Cl. By once more adding soda in suffi cient quantity, chlorine again tardily removes from gold, and toning recommences. An objection here suggests itself : if an excess of soda deprives the gold of the greater portion of its chlorine, why does it not at once take posses sion of the whole ? In the first place, the soda loses power in proportion to the quantity of chlorine it has absorbed; the gold, on the contrary, acquires power in proportion to the amount of chlorine it has lost; therefore, as a sub chloride, it is enabled to resist, for a considerable time, the power exercised by the remaining small portion of unde composed soda. But this agent finally proves the conquerer. The gold, released from its last tie, decomposes, and no doctoring can revive its exhausted powers. I shall conclude this part of my subject next week.—Yours respectfully, A PnOrOGRAPIIER’s Assistant. IS MR. J. W. OSBORNE AN INVENTOR OF A PHOTO. LITHOGRAPHIC PROCESS. Sir,—It may be of interest to you to know how Mr. J. W. Osborne’s so-called discovery of a photolithographic process, was received by photographers and others, at Melbourne. As soon as Mr. Osborne announced, by advertisement, his intention to apply for a patent, Mr. G. W. Perry (a highly respected gentle man, and the best photographer in the colony) doubting the originality of the process, went, accompanied by a friend, to the office where the specifications of patents are kept, to learn what Mr. Osborne claimed as bis own discovery or invention, intend ing, if there were sufficient grounds for so doing, to oppose the granting of the patent. They were not allowed to see the speci fication; and not knowing what Mr. Osborne claimed, they felt that it would be a waste of time and money to oppose him. In due time the patent was granted. Having thus secured the exclusive right to the use of photolithography in the colony of Victoria, Mr. Osborne was still far from satisfied. Backed by his friends, particularly by the Surveyor General, such represen tations were made to the Government as to induce the Treasurer to put down in the estimates a thousand pounds as a reward or recompense to Mr. Osborne, on account of bis (?) great invention of a photolithogrophic process. Mr. Perry again took action, for having then read the specification of Mr. Osborne’s patent, he (Mr. Perry) knew that Mr. Osborne’s process was the same in principle as M. Asser’s, of Amsterdam, a notice of which having arrived in the colony before Mr. Osborne advertised his intention of applying for a patent, convinced Mr. Perry that M. Asser’s principle had been adopted by Mr Osborne, and that he was, therefore, not entitled to the honours and rewards of an indepen dent discovery. Mr. Perry wrote to the colonial Treasurer, and to other influential gentlemen, and was the means of having the grant of money delayed, and ultimately of havinga Boardappoint- edtoenquireinto the ad vantages the public service was likely to de- rivefrom photolithography, and, also,into “themerits,originality, and value of Mr. Osborne’s invention.” Mr. Perry then called a public meeting of photographers, lithographers, and others, which was numerously attended. After hearing a lengthy statement from Mr. Perry,the meeting unanimously resolved that, in its opinion,Mr. Osborne was not an original discoverer, and that the time had come for the formation of a photographic society, in order that photographers in a body might be ready at all times to resist all such false claims to originality as that put forth by Mr. Osborne. Mr. Perry also received full powers to act for the newly- formed society, as he might think fit, in resisting and exposing Mr. Osborne’s claims as a discoverer, before the Board. I may remark here, that it is known too well that Government Boards and Commissions are not the best of modes of getting at the truth. They too frequently know at the beginning of their labours what verdict they have to return at the close of them. This Board was no exception, for, ostensibly appointed by the Presi dent of the Board of Land Works, but really by the Surveyor General (Mr. Osborne’s particular friend and patron), consisted mostly of persons holding Government situations, and others who were more or less predisposed in Mr. Osborne’s favour. Of course such a Board reportedin Mr. Osborne’s favour, and recommended the Government to give him a thousand pounds. The Legislative Assembly, on being told by the Treasurer that Mr. Osborne's process would be the means of saving a large sum anuually to the Surveyor-General’s department, by Photolithography, at once voted the money—not caring at all whether he was the in ventor of the process, or merely the introducer. Mr. Osborne saved the country’s money—that was enough for honourable members—he was worthy of reward on that account. In reading the Report of the Board, no one can fail to see by the substance of the questions put to the witnesses for and against Mr. Osborne, that the Board knew they had to return a favourable report. The manner of some of the Board towards some of the witnesses (especially towards Mr. Perry), was at times neither courteous nor civil. Now, sir, as you have the Report before you, I shall not quote much from it. Although I believe it to be impossible to prove absolulely that Mr. Osborne is not the original inventor of the Photolithographic process he has patented, yet, on such kind of evidence as has often hung men in the absence of real proof (I disclaim any desire to hang Mr. Osborne on any kind of evidence or proof), I think that I can show that there exists strong presumptive proof that he is not the inventor. In all the papers Mr. Osborne lias written on the subject of his Patent, and in his evidence before the Board, lie has much to say about Mr. Poi- tevin’s process, which differs from his; but of M. Asser’s, which is the same in principle as Mr. Osborne’s, he says but very little. Indeed, I believe Mr. Osborne kept a profound silence about M. Asser’s process, until the sitting of the Board, when being ques tioned thereupon, he answered in an off-hand sort of way {tide question and answer No. 19, of the Report), and said as little as possible. Is it not strange, is it not suspicious, that Mr. Osborod when reviewing in his published papers, what had been done prior to, or contemporaneously with his own discovery, should have omitted all mention of a process, of which Mr. Hardwich says (“Photographic Chemistry,” sixth edit., p. 252) : it (M. Asser’s) “in its essential features resembles that of Mr. Osborne?” For some months, Mr. Osborne was prosecuting experiments in Photo-galvanography, trying to work out the process from the particulars of it scattered throughout the various journals and books. His endeavours led to no other result than to familiarise him with such experiments, the great value of which he would probably feel on taking up M. Poitevin’s Photolithographic processes, for his success therein seems to have been very rapid. It is necessary now to pay particular attention to the dates. Mr. Osborne says, that on the 8th of August 1859, he first turned his attention to Photolithography, and that on the 19th he pro- duced his first result with the transfer paper; so that he would have us believe that in eleven days he worked out M. Poitevin’s processes, found out their great defect, and supplanted them by the invention of the transfer, which you are aware is the important part of his process. Quick work, that! He declares positively that the accounts of M. Poitevin’s processes did not suggest the idea of a transfer to him. Strange, that Poitevin’s processes should suggest the idea of a transfer to others and not to M. Os borne, for the following extract from the Report, will show that another gentleman at Melbourne, did, by Poitevin’s processes and the transfer, produce a Photolithograph contemporaneously with Mr. Osborne’s first announcing his intention to applyjfora patent. Mr. Perry is the gentleman under examination, and he is asked, Question : “ 1097. You do not know that Poitevin’s processes have been done in the way that Mr. Osborne’s process is, that is, taki the picture on bi-chromate of potash paper, and transferring it to te stone—arc you aware of that being done? Yes. “ 1098. By Poitevin ?—By Poitevin’s process. ' OCTOB ! “1099. 'mment “1100. Apt. 185 re an in tmmunic berery si (kcussion en any Im if he । 'idly nc 4, and ti I. I know Herest lay tw the i«t) whi M at th. ‘ans ofk N M. Po and i • less me ^fer fr< Besses; Sne idea M incred Nt from t 3 is rci > a pa kn? an ■*"? it t , hint al "Btessfull; Nas his Sleast 0 “beend C™ for S b , d 1 , Asst "the r< "see th: t’Ppeai A wel Q, the "rne sa Bit arri been iN’Beded i kofthe iBnbrou Whick of ,0tmnal pr HpSof V oitevin :?°uld s. 3etratel Q hk ’ for ha-ansfen : 'li ? elev "Braphi Ill^d a 1 i.Athers, "BBare o if he i U8nst, *in‘s I Behave > F"Fiment 30′8 sidles \,Nds. n exp 3,ons w sc hima V >d t “htfor