| Abstract: | Abstract Put yourself in the place of an amateur taking up photography in the spring of 1854, just as the light of early summer begins to tempt. Last year you read that the Photographic Society had been formed in London, and, on visiting their first exhibition a few months ago, the quality and beauty of the prints captured your attention. You found the tonality and rendering of prints made from paper negatives more to your aesthetic taste than those printed from wet collodion negatives and the exhibition catalogue revealed that almost half the photographs on display had been originated in this way.1 You decide that paper negatives offer all you could wish for in terms of cost, portability, and general facility. On looking through the latest manuals and handbooks, however, you are faced with a bewildering array of choices, all offering some guarantee of success, but also ominously warning that with such rapid progress, one ‘must expect great improvements daily’. 2 Having only a limited knowledge, you turn to the photographic journals for advice, and discover that almost every month brings forth new recipes, hints, and manipulations. Without an understanding of photographic chemistry, how can you decide between the methods of Philip Delamotte and Dr Hugh Diamond? Would the choice of French or British paper affect your results? Could the simple formula of William Crookes work as well as the more complex recipes of most others? More generally, could one process really be better than another, and if so, how? |
