The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 35.1891
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1891
• 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-id1780948042-189100009
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18910000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18910000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

570 authorities was employed by Mr. Leng when he said that “ it was extremely inconsistent on the part of the Government to grant large sums on the one hand for technical education, and then, on the other, to tax those who were technically educated and were turning their technical education to good account ” ; and we are quite ready to endorse his statement that “ instead of our Patent Office being a helpful promoter of inven tions, it was a hard, niggardly, unsympathising tax collector, bent on screwing all it could out of the poor inventor, while aiding him as little as possible.” The seconder of the motion also did well to point out that inventors as a class are poor men, and too often, in their difficulty in paying these heavy fees, they place themselves in the hands of richer members of the com munity, who eventually reap all the profits which may result. Now, what answer have the Government to make to these charges of extortion ? Very little, we fear, which will bring any comfort to the poor inventor. The President of the Board of Trade does not think that the country ought to look upon the Patent Office as a permanent source of income. This is certainly a hopeful statement as far as it goes. And, in his view, they should consider whether a reduction might not be made in the fees charged in the interval between four years and eight years, so as to extend the chief protection given for four years to a longer period. This is also a move in the right direction, but there is no present intention of making the entire sum charged more in accordance with the fees payable in other countries. The estimated surplus of the Patent Office for the current year is estimated at £116,000, and we are told that the Government contemplate a large expenditure for the benefit of the service generally. This will take the form of new buildings in place of the inconvenient place which at present exists, and the improvement will more than swallow up the sum just quoted. This is the most favourable part of the speech for the defendants, and is a way of spending the inventors’ fees which few will cavil at. But the assertion that the much-required more rapid issue of abridgments of specifications will involve further expenditure is ridicu lous, for the work can very well be done, and kept up to date, by a couple of extra clerks. Even this expense would be avoided if each applicant were required to furnish with his specification an abridgment of the same. In this way the work would cost the Govern ment nothing, and it would probably be very much better done than it would by those who are not interested in its correct performance. We have reverted to this important subject of patent fees because photographers are as much interested in the matter as any other class of the community. It is only by calling attention again and again to any abuse which exists that there is a chance of remedying it, and this is one which cries aloud for fresh legislation. The Meisenbach Company (limited) have removed their City office to 188, Fleet Street. Many improvements which have recently been introduced have brought their process to the highest point of perfection. PERSPECTIVE DRAWING AND VISION. BY W. E. DEBENHAM. In a characteristically insolent effusion—characteristic at least of one of the signatories—wherein Mr. Chapman Jones is advised “ to study an elementary treatise on per spective and take some elementary lessons in drawing,” my own “intellectural powers” are, by the help of mis quotation, held up to ridicule, and “ untrained and rash persons ” are entreated not to make it necessary for the writers to waste time in educating them—Dr. P. H. Emerson and Mr. T. F. Goodall profess to reply to the criticisms which have been called forth by their theories concerning perspective and vision. If the intellectual powers of either party in the discussion were the matter in dispute, the judicious reader would probably take into consideration which side had, in default of argument, supplied its place by impertinence, bluster, and misquota tion. Mr. Chapman Jones may, for all that has been shown to the contrary, be at least as well acquainted with the rules of perspective as the writers who so contemptu ously assume him to be ignorant of them. Mr. Sutcliffe alone receives the doubtful compliment of being the only one capable of understanding Messrs. Emerson and Goodall. If any further illustration were required of the loose and inexact character of Messrs. Emerson and Goodall’s so-called “ proofs,” it may be found in the fact that the only two persons, so far as I am aware, who have supported their pretensions in public discussion—Mr. P. Everitt and Mr. T. R. Dallmeyer—have each found one of their proofs to operate in the reverse direction from that indicated by the authors. Mr. Dallmeyer says that pillars, to look vertical, should not be inclined inwards at the top, as stated by them, but the other way; Mr. Everitt finds that the door looks narrower instead of wider towards the top. Such a difference may be expected when the loose ness of the direction is remembered. The observer is to look at the middle of a doorway. Now, according as the doorway is high or low, or the observer is sitting or standing, the line of vision, when looking at the middle, may be upward or downward. It has before been pointed out that, to obtain results at all comparable, that part of the door level with the eye, and not the middle, should have been directed. Mr. Everitt, however, though observing this more precise direction, still found the “proof” to work contrary to Messrs. Emerson and Goodall’s assumption. Messrs. Emerson and Goodall say that my demon strations with the coin experiments were vitiated by the use of an eyehole, the effect of which is to cut off the portion of the field of vision causing the phenomenon to be observed. This is not the fact. The eyehole was made of such a size as to allow all the coins concerned to be seen at one view, and the verdict of the members of the Society present, with the exception of Mr. Everitt, was that the upper and lower coins appeared equal to each other. With the notched stick repetition of the experiment, as the upper and lower pennies are not in view simultaneously for comparison, and as no means are indicated for insuring equality of angle above and below, for which the eyehole provides, varying effects may easily be produced or imagined. The introduction of the question of binocular vision is only calculated to mystify the matter. The difference of outlines to the two eyes of objects at such distances as are