Volltext Seite (XML)
MAY 14, 1869.] THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 285" Sentence was deferred upon Lawrence, but Coleman was discharged upon bis own recognizance. Subsequently, Lawrence was called up for judgment, and sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour. Alleged Incorrect REGISTRATION. At the sittings in Banco before the Lord Chief Justice and Justices Lush and Hannen, May 8, Mr. Underwood moved, on behalf of G. B. Walker, now under sentence for having pirated certain photographs, the property of Mr. Graves, the eminent publisher, for a rule calling upon Mr. Graves to show cause why certain entries of copyright in the books at Stationer’s Hall should not be expunged, on the ground that Mr. Graves had no legal right or property in them. The Copyright Act states that any person who believed himself to be aggrieved should have power to dispute the right of the person registered ; and the question was whether Walker, who was now confined in one of the cells of the Surrey prison under sentence for piracy, was a person aggrieved within the meaning of the statue. The Lord Chief Justice said it had been held—and very pro perly so—that a person aggrieved under this Act was one whose title conflicted with the registered owner. The applicant was a pirate, and had no interest in the work. It might be that the registration was imperfect, but it was quite clear that Wal ker had no interest in it. Ur. Underwood said Mr. Graves employed a man to photo graph the engravings of the paintings of the old masters, and then registered them, and claimed to have a copyright in them, when it was clear ho could not comply with the requirements of the Copyright Act. He could have no assignment from the author. Mr. Justice Lush.—Your client is not aggrieved by that. Mr. Underwo id.—Wo are put in prison. Mr. Justice Lush.—And properly so (laughter). The Lord Chief Justice said it was only nt the instance of the party aggrieved that this Court could bo put in motion. That had been properly hold to be a person who had a conflict ing title, and not a person who speculated on the possibility of showing that this regisiration was imperfect. Huie refused. Oorrespouence. TONING COLLOD1O-CHLORIDE PRINTS. Sir,—In your columns of a fortnight or three weeks ago I found a formula for toning Obernetter's paper prints. It consisted of carb, soda and chloride of gold, &c. I tried it with fair success, but found that the following (an old friend when I used albuminized paper) gave better results :— Carb, soda 1} grains Chlor, lime ... ... ... 1 j „ Pure chlor, gold ... ... ... 1} „ Hot water ... 10 oz. This, used when hot, gives a beautiful purple-black tone, which is retained after fixing, and the bath may be used till the gold is exhausted. 1 have found with this bath, how ever—as with all others I have tried—that a certain amount of over printing is requisite. The print loses this in the toning bath, and not in fixing. A composition of equal parts of pure white wax and oil of lavender (mixed when the former is melting) applied to the surface of the finished print, and rubbed well in with cotton wool, causes an ad hesion to the paper of the film which is well-nigh perfect. I find the paper everything I can desire. The finest details of the negative put in an appearance which escaped the grasp of the albuminized surface. For an amateur I believe it removes a mountain from the path to success.—I am, sir, &c., W. DE W. Abney, Lieut., R.E. NEW AND OLD IRON DEVELOPERS. Sir,—Adopting, as I do, your own and Mr. Carey Lea’s opinions (1), that persulphate of iron in the developer acts a8 a restrainer, and (2) that, cateris paribus, the higher the proportion of restrainer in a developer the greater will b the contrast in the negative, nevertheless I do not think that the use of an old iron developer should be entirely con demned, as" Mr. Lea has condemned it in the number of the Pliiladelphiq. Photographer from which you quoted in the News of April 23. He there says :—“Those who cannot manage'their baths, and tend to foggy pictures, will always like old developers, because these enhance the brightness of the picture ; those who keep their baths in first-rate order will like a nearly new developer, on account of the better distribution of silver which it gives, and the greater har mony of effect.” A few years ago there was a great deal of excitement about the use of gelatine in the developer, the effect of which was said to be that, by a single application of the iron solution, the negative might be brought up to any required density without subsequent strengthening, and a much more harmonious picture thereby secured, than could be done if pyro and silver were afterwards employed. For my own part, I never used gelatine, and for a very simple reason: 1 could almost always obtain the necessary strength, even for carbon printing, by a single application of an ordinary iron developer, of a strength varying from 15 to 50 grains of iron per ounce; and at the same time the nega tives were so soft and so full of half-tone, that when I submitted them to a well-known landscape photographer, mentioning that they were produced by a single application of the developer, he, naturally supposing that I had used gelatine, wrote at once to express his pleasure at seeing such fine results from his favourite process. From that time to the beginning of this year I never was able to ascertain why I had obtained the right density so easily and so quickly ; but when I saw your leading article upon an extract from a contemporary, it at once occurred to me that I was at that time in the habit of keeping my developer a considerable time before I used it. In the same or the following number of the News to that which con tained your article, was a letter from a photographer ex plaining a plan by which he obtained, by a single develop ment, portraits of sufficient density for printing ; and it was evident that in his case, as in mine, success depended upon the presence of persulphate of iron in the solution. With every respect, therefore, for Mr. Carey Lea’s high authority, I venture to submit that at least as soft, and equally bril liant pictures may be obtained by the proper use of an old as of a new developer. “ But,” I shall be asked, “ if persulphate of iron gives a more brilliant, will it not also give a harder picture ? and how is the softness to be obtained ?” The answer appears to me very simple. It is found that, cceteris paribus, a harder picture will be the result; but the persulphate, act ing as a restrainer, enables us to expose the plate for a longer time than would be practicable with a new developer, and thus we give the details in the shadows of the landscape time to impress themselves upon the sensitive film sufficiently- to enable them to come out in proper gradation on the nega tive, the hardening property of the restrainer being thus counterbalanced by the softening effect of the longer expo sure, and we gain the great advantage of obtaining the necessary strength without a re-development, which must always, to some extent, bury detail and produce hardness. I had hoped to make some comparative experiments, to assure myself of the correctness of my views, before writing to you, but as I am not likely to have an opportunity ot doing so at present, and as your readers can so easily make them for themselves, it seems better that I should at once, while the question is fresh in their minds, state the grounds for my opinion that in some cases an old developer is better than a new one, even when all the chemicals used are in the best possible condition. Of course, for instantaneous pic tures, and in all cases where it is essential to give the short est possible exposure, a new developer must be used. 1 am, sir, your obedient servant, Amateur. Switzerland, May 4th, 1869.
