working results. But for those who prefer the blessed comfort of the presence of a little saving bromide, 14 grain per ounce of mixed developer will be found quite enough. By the way for some time past I have found it much more convenient to keep my bromide solution not in 10 per cent. but in a one grain per dram i.e. "I to 60," as I label it. It is altogether a more comfortable and quicker job to measure out 15 minims (= 4 gr.) of this "one in sixty" than it is to count 2 or 3 drops of a 10 per cent.

TEN PER CENT SOLUTIONS.

By the way we have again had the usual annual flutter on the eternal 10 per cent. solution question. If we take an ounce of, let us say, potassium bromide, and dissolve this in 9 ounces of water, we have a total of 10 ounces containing one ounce of solid in solution and we ought to use this by weighing out ten times as much mixture as we required to use of the solid. But the average darkroom worker would have an elegant time weighing out 10 grains of liquid in the darkroom. If on the other hand we dissolve I ounce of the salt in enough water to make 10 fluid ounces total bulk, then I fluid ounce has in solution 1/10 part of a ounce of the salt, Viz. 1/10 of 4371⁄2 grains, i.e. 43.75 grains, which for practical convenience we may call 44 grains in 480 minims, or II grains in 120 minims, or, approximately, I grain in II minims.

But we know quite well that when measuring out small quantities (e.g. 10 minims) of liquid, a drop or two clings to the inside of the measure so that we shall be nearer the mark by filllng up the graduate to the 12 or 13 minim. line if we want a grain of the solid in such a solution.

SKIES IN OIL AND BROMIDE PRINTS.

During the last few months these two processes have been quite the fashion. and I have seen a good many examples. The chief impression they have left on my mind is that these processes have chiefly attracted those workers who are

least capable of employing them; in the sense that nearly all of them have apparently failed to recognize the fundamental fact that the more flexible a process is the more difficult it is not to go astray. To instance but one point only viz., the matter of sky and cloud in landscape. The bottom fact is that the illumination of the land part depends on the sky, including sun, clouds, fog, etc., and also such incidentals as reflections from water, snow, white buildings, wet ground, etc. If then we have a scene in which the foreground shows vigorous light and shade contrast, and this is accompanied by a sky (clouds, etc.) which emphatically proclaim a dark, dull, and stormy state of affairs we have a pictorial absurdity. To make my meaning clear I instance this extreme case, but I can assure the reader it is neither an imaginary or solitary case. The point I wish to make clear is that the very essence of good landscape work in the pictorial sense is truth of tone. Not only must the various solid objects appear in true light and shade relationship, taking into consideration their relative distances and also their position as they affect the light and shade of one another, but fundamentally every part of the picture must be in true tonal relationship to the source of light, viz., the sky, clouds, etc. Whether most of the exponents of these two pigment processes do not know these fundamental conditions, or whether they think the spectator does not know them, or whether they think that any sort of a sandpaper-like smudge will "do" for home-made clouds, etc., I know not, but in essence the majority of the results are by no means commendatory of the process. Beyond doubt these processes are capable of yielding very fine results when a skilful hand obeys an observant mind and keen eye, but just dabbing about on the off chance of something coming out all right is not a game worth playing.. I know there are thousands of blanks but I "ha' ma doots" about any prize at all.

X-RAY ADVANCES.

Those workers who are interested in X-ray work will be further interested to hear what my friend Mr. J. I. Pigg has been doing lately. I have not seen any results but I know that what Mr. Pigg says may be accepted as strictly practical. He reports on the use of a new fluorescent screen called “Sunic.” Under the influence of the X-rays this gives out a blue-violet fluorescence which naturally has a very considerable effect in forming a developable image. This screen is placed in contact with the film of a dry plate which is then turned with its glass side towards the X-ray tube. Thus only rays which pass through the film are entrapped by the Sunic screen which is thereby made fluorescent, and thus the sensitive film is bombarded, as it were, on both sides at once. The obvious consequence is that exposures are very considerably shortened—some six or seven fold. In many medical cases an exposure of, say, half a second would be possible without involuntary moment of the patient where an exposure of 3 to 4 seconds without the Sunic screen would be out of the question.

FILM PENETRATION.

The foregoing note reminds me of a experiment I made some considerable time ago in order to show that a very large proportion of the light which falls

on a plate is not used in image formation. An unexposed half plate was taken from the box and (in the dark) cut with a diamond so that the two halves of the glass could be folded together without breaking the hinge of gelatine film. Thus two films were brought into close contact-sandwiched as it were-between two sheets of glass. They were thus placed in the dark slide and exposed through one of the glasses, then separated, developed, and printed, when it was shown that the light which had passed through the film nearest the glass was amply sufficient to yield a quite good printing negative with the second plate. The experiment is so simple that I think it quite worth other workers repeating if they have any doubt about the matter.

TELEPHOTO EXPOSURES.

The topic of exposure when using a telephoto lens has cropped up again and seems to give a good deal of trouble; therefore, perhaps, I may mention my own plan of estimating exposure, for, of course, each one of us thinks his own plan the best. The reason I think it best is because it is the only one I can remember without any notebook or memoranda. I first focus the scene with the positive lens alone and note two small but well marked objects, say two tree tops, chimneys, etc., which are sure to be included in the enlarged picture. I now lay the edge of a bit of paper on the ground glass and with a pencil point mark between these two objects. The telephoto lens is now focused carefully on the two objects and in like manner their separation is again noted along the edge of the paper. With the aid of a second scrap of paper it is easy to ascertain how many times the first separation (smaller distance) is contained in the second separation (larger distance). By way of example suppose the two trees with the positive lens were one inch apart on the ground glass, while with the telephoto arrangement they were 5 inches apart. Then obviously we are using a magnification of 5 diameters or 5 times 5, i.e. 25 area magnification. Thus the light spread over one square inch of ground glass with the positive lens alone, now occupies 25 square inches with the telephoto lens so that, the same stop being used in both cases, the exposure with the telephoto lens arrangement would be 25 times as long as that when using the positive

lens alone.

Had the magnification been 6 diameters or 36 areas so the exposure would have been increased 36 times that of the positive lens, and so on. Thus all we need remember is that exposures vary with the square of diameter magnification.

Lower picture.-THE EARLIEST STUDIOS AND SUPPLY HOUSES OF MANHATTAN. Upper picture.-SAME LOCATION, SIXTY YEARS AFTER.

Picture reproduced by courtesy Newman Clock Co.

A GLIMPSE AT OLD DAGUERREOTYPE DAYS IN

MANHATTAN.

BY L. LODIAN.

HE earliest studios and supply houses in Manhattan were located around St. Paul's Chapel. Brady, one of the chic artists of the time, was at the corner of Broadway and Fulton, in a squat two-story building. Next door was the sign of E. Anthony, "engravings," and under this was another sign

DAGUERREOTYPE MATERS

Thus the earliest beginnings-with engravings of an historic house.

The sign-painter had miscalculated, and had no space to spell out "materials." This house was 205 Broadway. On the ground-floor was the bookstore of Clark, Austin & Co. At 201 "daguerrian atelier" of (something) & Decker-first nane illegible; and next door, No. 199, was Mark H. Newman & Co., "school-books," etc. This was in 1848. These sordid-looking buildings long since disappeared; the Evening Mail skycrapper is now on most of the site.

What became of them? Brady went to Washington; died in Manhattan, over a score years ago, in extreme poverty. There is still a Clark & Co., booksellers, at 128 West 23d street, Manhattan. Newman, "school-books," rightly judged clocks more renumerative than books and the firm is still in existence to-day, at 178 Fulton, as the Newman Clock Co.

In the region, but not shown in the picture, were the Rockwell and other studios. That is the only name that survives to-day in the studio world in Manhattan which owned then, as now, their own studio; but an employe of those old houses was A. J. Hargrave, since many years in business on his own account in Manhattan. When in a reminiscent mood, he can keep a listener chaired for an hour right off, without ennui, telling of old studio lore and times in lower Manhattan; that is, if the listener has some reverence for the past and of the early pioneers who have brought the art to its present antenna. He has worked at and lived through all the types-daguerreotype, ambrotype, mikatype, fototype.

Mr. Hargrave is still actively engaged in studio work in Manhattan, at 1183 Broadway, and is very much alive indeed. He is the G.O.M. and historian of the trade.

By a singular coincidence, the donator of the earliest volumes of Humphrey's Daguerrian Journal to the Manhattan public library-where they are seeable any day-was also named Hargrave. There is his signature as donor. on the title page. Both Hargraves were co-existant, yet never knew one. another.

These, then, were the earliest beginnings of two supply-houses which