Extracts of several mails to/from the British Journal of Photography and Albert Levy. Found at
http://archive.org/stream/britishjournalof40londuoft/britishjournalof40londuoft_djvu.txt
Letter 1:
tried hot water without any good. I did not try boiling water, as, however an amateur can use it, it is rather out of the (luestion for a toning of over 100 10 X 8 or 12 X 10 prints. I have tried borax in hypo with some fair results for some short time, but then found it only a cure for very small blisters, but not for large ones.
I was told a few drops ot ammonia in hypo would cure ; but no. The
only good result was obtained with the new methylated spirit. 1. Now
what I want to asl; you is. Do you not tliink that this methylated spirit may in time act injuriously to the print ? The smell remains even after the print is mounted, and then another trouble sets in. When dry there appears on some partx of the print some very dirty marks, a kind of skim (or scum) as if touched with very dirty hands. These marks disappear almost altogether when rubbed oft very hard with the hand. 2. What is it? 3. Will it injure the print?— I am, yours, (Sc, A.Levy.
4, Areniic Pinel, Asnieres (Seine), January 29, 1893
Letter 2:
PHOTOGKAPHING AT THE CHICAGO EXHIBITION.
To the Editor.
Sir, — Yonr always valuable and welcome Jocrnai, came to hand, and
as you are always trying to keep your readers well posted, you should
add a P.S. to Mr. S. A. Crawford's letter (p. 78) to the effect that Mr. Official Photographer, C. D. Arnold by name (very glad to take pictures, Ac, against pay, Ac), does not even answer my inquiry to effect.
Personally I have written three times to him without being able to obtain an answer, my first letter dating November 12 last. The above may prove interesting to other parties who may be tempted to ask Mr.
C. D. A. for any reference or negatives.
By the way, Mr. Editor, what do you say to the American generosity
towards allowing photographers on the Exhibition grounds ? You were
at tiie time very hard against French meanness in 1889. Let me remind
you of the rules that existed then. Twenty francs, or 10»., for one day's work, and no restriction to sizes or cameras — permission renewed if weather unfavourable, or 300 francs {121.) for the whole time the Exhibition was open. — I am, yours, &c., Albert Levy.
4, Avenue I'inel, Asnieres, Seine.
P.S. — Is there any practical and easy way to wash film negatives after hypo, say, one dozen at a time, same as glass plates ?
Letter 3:
BLISTEIIS.
To the Editor.
Sn;, — Your correapondent, Mr. A. Levy, seems troubled with, the use of the new methylated spirit as a prophylactic in the case of blistere.
Before 1 Rave up the use of albnmenised paper I was now and again
troubled with them, until the cure— so far as the brand of paper I was
then using was concerned — came to me by chance. Whilst toning I
found I Iwd no hypo prepared. I hastily got some ready by suspending
a muslin bagful in some very hot water, and by the time I required to
put my prints in it was still quite warm. No blisters rose. I tried repeatedly afterwards, waiming my hypo, and never had another blister.
I should be glad if this method may bring Mr. Levy and others relief. —
I am, yours, itc, J. Cirtkk BnowNB, D.D.
Thuriiing Rectory, Oumlle, Feb. 6, 18!)3.
Letter 4:
WASHING CUT FILMS— BLISTERS.
To the Editor.
Sir, — Allow me to thank yon and your correspondents, Mr. J. E. Hodd
and Dr. J. Carter Browne, for their kind answers to my inquiries as published in your most valuable Journal. I will try the suggestion for
washing films, but I am afraid that for 12 x 10 plates the suction will not hold, especially when the washing water falls edgeways on the plate. I have used the following way, which I think very good. I drill on the smallest edge two small holes with a drill, and hang up the films to a oross wire over top of washing tank with an S-shaped wire of suitable length, and then let the water run. This may prove useful to other users of the films, and if the manufacturers of films could drill the holes before- liand so much the better.
Next I will answer in regard to blisters. Having used, since I wrote to jou, pure alcohol and not the methylated stuff, I find I am always
iiaving the same trouble of scum after mounting, but iw blisters. I am
not positive of it as yet, but I think this scum comes simply from the tint with which the albumen'paper is covered — pink, mauve, or whatever it is — being dissolved by the alcohol unevenly, and remaining on top through all ultimate washings without hurting it, otherwise than when dry. I will try white paper and then see the results.
As regards blisters and a warm hypo bath I must say that I cannot agree with Dr. J. C. Browne, having tried long ago hypo at any degree of heat, from 40° to perhaps 100' Fahr., and have generally found the higher the temperature the more blisters and the larger ones. Alcohol I have found the only sure remedy. Nevertheless, I am very much obliged to these gentlemen for their kind suggestions. — I am, yours, &c.,
4, Avenue Pinel, AsnUres, Seine, February 25, 1893. Albert Levy.
Letter 5:
AET IN PHOTOGEAPHY.
To the Editor.
SiK,— Referring to your note signed " F. B.," page 269, 1 should have
thought that you would have long ago discarded the idea of mixing oil
with water. Art in photography is about as vexatious as amateurs and
professionals. The first one (artist) will not admit in his exclusiveness that any art is at all possible without him, and the second one (amateur) that any improvement is possible without liim also. The only difference is that the artist is educated to the art, while the amateur is born so ; that is, at least, the reasons given to the lower class of mortals that do not understand what they so well try to impress upon the few or many un- initiated. From all the articles on art in photography as against art in paiiiting that have been published I have gleaned the following :— An artist, however poor in art he may be, will never turn out anything but there will and must be in it some artistical merit. Bad design, bad colours,
bad posing, bad everything, yet artistic. Now, a photographer, however
well chosen the subject, well lighted and well finished the result, is
never artistic— at least, from an educated artist's views. Why not let
this matter rest a while now ? I, for one, would rather (uneducated as I am) have a fine photograph than a poor painting. I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure that, however educated an artist may be, he mil not average in taking photographs more than one real fine view out of a dozen, and ditto the artistic photographer. Of course, they may not
admit this readily ; but, nevertheless, they will sliow you always very few of the results of their work, carefully omitting mistakes and failmes.
It is human nature only, after all. They all do it.
I have tried several makes of films lately, and, as you object generally to giving names, I do not think that the results obtained would be very interesting to your readers. With one English firm I have always very fine results, while with the others I have uneven ones, such as frilling, no intensity, and disagreeable lifting of the gelatine whUe printing. I have also tried lately some American films, which have a rough or ground back to them. Having given what I think a correct exposure, I found the picture come up pretty quick ; but the film (developed with pyro) was fearfully stained yellow, and the back of it same way, so that it takes a whole day in full sun, and with this fair weather, to get one print. I tt wish you could tell me how to get rid of this yellow stain, if possible.
41, T^?*^ ^?" ^""^ """^ *^° '° regard to the Exhibition at Chicago, and the failure I met witli in regard to obtaining an answer from the head of
► the photographing department. Do you know of any one that has met
J with better success ? and if so, please let me know how he managed it, so
» 1 may do the same.— I am, yours, <tc.,
Asniires, Seiiu, May 1, 1893.
Letter 6:
DEPRESSION IN PHOTOGRAPHY.
To the Editor.
Sir,— I am really sorry to see you printing so many letters on depression in photographic business, such as those written by Messrs. T. S. Hicks,
Another Pro., and many others, losing in so doing such valuable space in your independent British Journal of Photography, specially since
" Amateur," page 398, answers so well all points. He gives the remedy
in a few words, a kind of universal panacea, and without recourse to law orN.A.P.P., or any convention. All that is needed is to enlarge the amateur agglomeration, and then reduce all the professionals in larger cities to six or less first-class ones, these to be selected, of course, by a committee of amateurs. Any of these will do for that purpose, they being all superior beings, to which (as is well known now) all that is known in photography up to date is due.
Mr. Editor, in your modesty you have never given us a list of what
we owe to the amateur. Allow me, therefore, to ciuote a few of the
improvements they have made, or, more modestly, brought about, and to
quote in rotation let me refer to page 280, over Mr. W. D. Welford's
signature : 1. Increasing speed of plates (never thought of before the
amateur came with his hand camera). 2. Improving apparatus generally
(same remark as above). 3. Causing greater attention to small work
(ditto). 4. Increasing the number of photographers (amateur wants them, singularly, reduced). 5. Naturalness of posing (ditto as above No. 1). C. Aiding journalism and study of life (this is true). 7 Improving mental (?) and physical action (certainly around the chin, especially, to brag about all amateur achievements). Then Mr. Amateur comes in by stating that this particular class takes up chemistry, composition, and lighting, and. what is a new addition, optics, which I think was left up to date to specialists, only. What next ?
Mr. Amateur must have an exceptional lot of first-class amateur
acquaintances Jwho throw away all pcor negatives snJ prints. My
experience so far has been that, if amateurs were to act in such a radical way, they are not likely to find glass too heavy and bulky to store away and want films instead. Oh dear, no !
To return to the poor professional, I would say that the amateur does
him more harm by his talk than by actual work. The amateur tells
how much one plate costs him and the paper to print on, and maybe the
small outlay for a piece of cardboard. From this the uninitiated counts up the difference asked by the professional without adding anything for work, failures, chemicals, rent, taxes, retouching, living, help, dull times, instruments, repairs, &c., all things Mr. Amateur knows very little about, and never speaks of to others. He has one outfit and one lens, generally one that does for all work, good or bad, principally the latter. He takes views and portraits, interiors and churches, buildings, and reproductions of engravings, all with one lens, and instantaneous too. If it is bad, the plate or chemicals are at fault. If it turns out good, believe me, it is nine times out of ten a mere chance. Exceptions, Mr. Amateur, prove the rule. There are better and worse photographers the same as in any trade, wliichever you take, linen, clotli. machinery, tailors, milliners, &c., photography is no exception.
The British Journal of Photography tries hard to improve the standard ; but, it there are only six good ones in larger towns, the others may have some good reasons to complain, even if they are a little inferior.
Remember, please, Mr. Amateur, that superiority is only possible among
amateurs, and be more generous towards the poor professional that only
wants to make a living.
One word more and I am through. I know of a great many amateurs
whose only library consists of a sheet of paper with a formula on it and a few circulars of cheap outfits and plates, and, maybe, paper and card- board, but no books or journals. — I am, yours, A'c. , A. Levy.
Letter 7:
of dark room, as the principal views to be taken in the windy city are
«moko and black buildings, and may bo an endless perspective of flat
lands on one side and a lake on the other. Perhaps next winter an
exhibition <if all views taken by amateurs will be interesting, especially those of Chicago, which, if superposed, as is sometimes done with portraits to get a family type, will probably be very successful to show Chicago as it is week days, with so much smoke and dirt that going out fiesli and clean ot eight a.m. you can return at six p.m. to play minstrel
without cork, and linen to match. — I am, yours &c., A. Levy.
July 3, 1893.
Letter 8:
To the Editor.
Sir,— Mr. A. Levy, of Paris, I notice has contributed a letter on the
good old amateur question to the last number of The British Jocrnal
OF Photography. In it he says (speaking of the amateur), " Why, with
their knowledge and (superior to all) ingenuity, can they not make up
anything portable to change their plates in, lic. ?" I should not like to accuse this gentleman of ignorance, but I should certainly say that at the time he wrote it he must jiuve been labouring under a condition of tem- porary absent-mindedness, or he would most certainly have known what ' most beginners know, viz., that there are at the present moment plenty of portable changing bags on the maiket, most of them the inventions of amateurs. So much for the first paragraph of his letter. The next paragraph I havenodoulit lie con-iJers unanswerable, and he is perfectly correct. Vituperation, however fals>; .and acrid, is never worth any one's while to answer, and the chief aigament(?), namely, that in former years amateurs used to use tripnds for instantaneous work, and now do not, and hence they are unworthy of all con«ideration, is altogether puerile. There is a certain amount of reason in the next paragraph about amateurs paying for the use of dark rooms (by the way, I have never used one yet that I not been charged for), hut even here our friend makes another great mistake. He siys that he (the amateur) " will find it as natural to pay for it as he does when he uses a wash room, or asks the advice of
a doctor or lawyer." Perhaps it is natural in America to pay the abovementioned people (and I conclude from his letter that your correspondent is an American), but in England things are different. In England a doctor, even if he has saved your life, is never considered to have an absolute right to any fee, certainly not as much as the grocer, or baker, or chimneysweep. The last paragraph of this effusion does not, as far as I can see, concern the amateur question at all. — I am, yours, *c.,
London, July 25, 1893. " " "
KOREKT J. HiLLIEE.
