Volltext Seite (XML)
June 5, 1863.] THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 273 nature. They most aptly illustrate many a line of poetry which is ofttimes offered at exhibitions. One cannot be surprised that many painters should be found to decry the new art that has destroyed the practice of all second and third rate artists, whatever may be Mr. Clark’s opinion. Mr. Clark says, “ The world generally estimates the value of any pursuit in proportion to the intellectual effort employed in it.” If this be the case, I am unable to see why photography should come off second best. I absolutely deny Mr. Clark’s statements about, the facility with which photographic excellence is acquired. On the contrary, it tkes the experience of years to become anything like proficient. Let Mr. Clark take a few names of those who do the best pictures, and he will find that, without exception, they have been a considerable number of years. Of course, all know that certain results can be produced at first starting, but cannot the painter also do this? and shall we say that one and not the other can be learnt in a very short time? Mr. Clark is singularly unfortunate in his comparison of the pictures of the Holy Land and Egypt. The very same occurrence has happened in my presence that he describes, and where the result was totally different. Those who had travelled in the East immediately re linquishing Mr. Roberts’s lovely pictures in favour of Mr. Frith’s photographs. Mr. Clark says, “ In figure sub jects, photography can only copy, it cannot invent.” This proposition appears like a formal denial that a photographer can be an artist in the true sense of the term. What is there to prevent a photographer arranging his models with as much skill as a painter ? Of course the camera cannot invent, but, surely, he who uses it can. Those painters and sculptors who are alive to their own best interests, use photography largely. A group now in the Royal Academy has absolutely the same positions, accessories, and expressions on the face as the photographer secured,, although the painter was not even present. Mr. W . D. Clark s erratic and exceedingly crude remarks should be a caution to those who consider themselves qualified to act as a “ guide, philosopher, or friend ” to the artistic world in general, and photographers in particular. SANUEL, Fry. 83, Gracechurch Street, E.C. MR. BROOKES ON THE ACTION OF THE BLUE RAY. Dear Sir,—There were two points in the paper I read last Tuesday before the Photographic Society of London, upon which I seemed to be misunderstood. During the preparation of that paper, one of the knuckles of my right hand was so inflamed that I could not hold a pen, and had to obtain the assistance of a second person to copy from my rough jottings down. This copy I had not time to alter, and, whilst reading it before the meeting, discovered, besides numerous mistakes, whole pages left out. The first mistake I wish to correct is in regard to that por tion relating to “ Ether.” The impression I wished to convey was that as phosphorus held in solution by ether decomposes the ’iodide film when only the invisible fumes reach its surface, so that element held invisible in the atmosphere likewise decomposes the iodide film when brought in contact with the ’’ays of solar light. , Secondly in respect to “ Phosphorus and Phosphorescence I am well aware that the latter term is applied to that light, ■which organic and inorganic bodies have the power of emitting after insolation to solar light. If I were understood to imply that this light is phosphorus, it was owing to my unfortunate lack of the ability of expressing my thoughts and ideas by speech. I ho following is what I meantThat silver, whether in combination with iodine, chlorine, or bromine (and not simply these, but other bodies also), induce phosphorescence from light. (It mat ters not whether this is termed invisible phosphorescence ); but, in this case, instead of giving back the light it has received from the sun, as in the Bologna stone and other phosphorescent bodies, enters into combination with the iodine or the silver. For the fumes or vapour of phosphorus being the slow combus tion of that element in contact with the oxygen of the atmo ¬ sphere, and this vapour decomposing iodide of silver, which, according to Mr. Malone’s statement, forms phosphate of silver; so the decomposition effected by phosphorescent rays of solar light upon iodide of silver, may be, identical to the similar displacement caused by the phosphorescent rays emitted by ordinary phosphorus. It was this I wished to explain both by the paper and verbally; in endeavouring to do so by the latter means, I know “ 1 jumped from the frying-pan into the fire;" and until I can read the paper in print, I cannot tell to what extent I was misunder- - stood, as I have no copy in my possession to refer to; but the above is what I still believe to be the cause of the decomposition of the iodide film, &c., and I hope, at some future period, to be able to prove such to be the fact by evident experiments. Apologizing for occupying your valuable space with what ought to have been distinctly explained by me at the time, I am, dear sir, yours truly, E. T. Brooks. Newbury, June Zrd, 1863. • Aroreedmgs of Societies. London PHOTOGEAPHIC Society. The last meeting before the recess of the Society was held at King’s College, on the evening of Tuesday, the 2nd inst., Mr. C. B. Vignoles, F.R.S., in the Chair. The minutes of a previous meeting having been read and confirmed, Mr. Mason, of Blackheath, was elected a member of the Society. The Secretary read a letter from Mr. Ross calling attention to a portfolio of photographs which accompanied it. They were taken with his triple lens; some with a lens of 84 inches back focus intended to cover 8 by 4}, were taken on 12 by 10 plates: others on the same sized plates taken with the lens intended for 10 by 8 plates, the focus being 15 inches. He also sent a brilliant, well defined negative taken with a new portrait lens for medallion pictures, the focus being 14 inches and the diameter &ths of an inch. The Secretary also read a letter from Mr. Dallmeyer calling attention to a magnificent copying camera and equip ment for plates 18 by 18, which he had just completed for the Italian Government. Also to some interiors of the bridal apart ments at Osborne by Mr. Hughes, taken with his No. 1 triple, of 8 inches equivalent focus, on plates 10 inches square; and to some portraits of different members of the Royal Family, taken at Windsor with his No. 2 card lens, by Mr. Mayall. The Secretary then explained that Mr. Smith, who it was hoped would have been present to exhibit and give the history of the photographs supposed to be taken by James Watt or Matthew Bolton in the latter half of the 18th century, was unable to enter into the subject at present, but would do so when he had further completed the history of the matter. Ho had, however, prevailed upon Mr. Smith to allow him to bring one of the paper pictures for the examination of the meeting. After some conversation on the propriety of entering into any discussion of the subject in the absence of full details. The Chairman expressed a conviction that it was quite competent for members to discuss the matter so far as it was before them, confining themselves chiefly to the question, was the picture before then a photograph or not; was it produced by the hand of man, or the pencil of nature. Mr. Shadbolt said that Mr. Smith having communicated to him various points of evidence in confidence, his mouth was sealed as to details, but he had no hesitation in expressing his conviction that the picture before them was a photograph and that James Watt was the inventor of photography in this country. The Secretary asked Mr. Shadbolt if he did not mean Mr Bolton. Mr. Shadbolt was inclined to the opinion they were by James Watt. The Chairman referred to the partnership of Bolton and Watt, saying that although the former was an excellent man he was more properly the man of capital and Watt the man of brains. As an engineer himself he should prefer to think it was he who invented this art 70 or 80 years ago. After some further conversation on the subject, Mr. G. Wbarton Simpson said ho was afraid that the sub-