“SPIRIT PHOTOGRAPHY,” WITH REMARKS ON FLUORESCENCE.[3]
By J. Traill Taylor.
The presence of smoke may be considered as implying the existence of flame. Spirit photography, so called, has of late been asserting its existence in such a manner and to such an extent as to warrant competent men making an investigation, conducted under stringent test conditions, into the circumstances under which such photographs are produced, and exposing the fraud, should it prove to be such, instead of pooh-poohing it as insensate because we do not understand how it can be otherwise—a position that scarcely commends itself as intelligent or philosophical. If in what follows I call it “spirit photography” instead of psychic photography, it is only in deference to a nomenclature that extensively prevails, and not as offering a surmise from any knowledge of my own as to what is matter and what spirit, or the distinction between mind, spirit, and matter, for in truth I don’t know. I approach the subject merely as a photographer.
Before I proceed, a few words on the origin of spirit photography may not be out of place. In March, 1861, W. H. Mumler, the principal engraver in the employ of Bigelow Bros. & Kennard, the leading jewellers of Boston, when whiling away an idle hour as an amateur photographer, had a form other than that of any one present developed on his collodion plate. He surmised that it arose from an image having been previously on the plate, and its having been imperfectly cleaned off. Subjected to a more thorough cleaning, the form again appeared more strongly marked than before, and he could offer no other explanation than the one given. It got noised abroad through the press that a spirit had been photographed, and although Mumler strove to suppress the misrepresentation, as he regarded it, yet he eventually succumbed to popular demand, and took two hours a day from his regular work, devoting them to photography. This he had to extend to the whole of each day, entirely discarding his regular profession. Many men of eminence sat to him, most of whom he did not know at the time. He seems to have encouraged his sitters in the adoption of such test conditions as they deemed satisfactory. The figures that usually appeared on the plate with the sitters were, if I rightly infer, those on whom the sitters’ minds had been set. That eminent portrait photographer, Mr. Wm. Black, of Boston, so well known all over the world as the inventor of the acid nitrate bath, undertook to investigate the bonâ fides of Mumler’s methods. Through a friend who had just previously sat and obtained a figure, Black offered fifty dollars if Mumler would operate in his presence and obtain a picture. Invited to come, the acute Black critically examined camera, plate, dipper, and bath, and had his eye on the plate from the moment its preparation began until it was sensitised and locked in the dark slide, removing it himself from the camera, and carrying it into the dark room, where, on development, a figure of a man was seen leaning on B.’s shoulder. Black was wonder-stricken, and got away the negative, no charge whatever having been made. Mumler now claimed publicly to be a spirit-portrait photographer, and as such he eventually opened a studio in New York, having previously satisfied Silver, Gurney, and other photographers as to the genuineness of his claims, never hesitating to operate in their galleries if required, and with their apparatus and chemicals. Mumler was arrested in New York; whether on the ground of witchcraft or of endeavouring to obtain money under false pretences, I am at present uncertain, but his trial was the sensation of the day, and numerous witnesses were examined. He was honourably acquitted.
In this country, several who are amateur photographers have investigated this subject with more or less success. These include some F.R.S.’s, scientists, artists, and others. I question whether any have so persistently done so as the late Mr. John Beattie, of Clifton, and his friend, Dr. Thompson. Mr. Beattie was a skilled professional photographer of the highest eminence who, some time prior to his death, had adopted the views of the spiritualistic school. The figures he obtained on his plates were much blurred in outline, some being misty in the extreme. I possess some two or three dozen of these, taken by or in the presence of, Mr. Beattie, whose intelligence, honesty, and powers of observation no one would venture to doubt. Many such photographs are claimed to have been produced by Hudson, a professional photographer, formerly of the Holloway Road, and I submit for examination a work by the late Miss Houghton, containing fifty-four of Hudson’s spirit photographs.
There are many ways by which, assuming the genuineness of only one of all spirit photographs hitherto produced, the spurious article may be made even better than any alleged real ones I have yet seen. A plate secretly impressed previous or subsequent to being placed in the camera fulfils the condition; so does one at the back of which is placed a phosphorescent tablet in the dark slide. Pressure on the surface, such as by that of a Woodbury relief film, also causes a developable image; in short, trickery in a whole variety of forms may, and has been, impressed into the service.
The higher department of fluorescence may with success be employed. Here is something to which believers in the visibility of spirit forms to a camera are quite welcome. At the time, and àpropos of the Mumler trial in New York, I wrote that a good many absurd things have been said pro and con on the subject; but a writer in the latter category, who asserted that anything that is visible to the eye of the camera, and thus capable of being depicted by photography, must therefore necessarily be visible to the human eye, was surely ignorant of that important branch of physics popularly known as fluorescence. Many things are capable of being photographed which to the physical eye are utterly invisible. Why, for that matter, a room (visually dark) may be full of the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum, and a photograph may be taken in that dark light. Objects in a room so lighted would be plainly visible to the lens of the camera—at any rate, they could be reproduced on the sensitive plate, while, at the same time, not an atom of luminousness could be perceived in the room by any person possessing ordinary or normal vision. Hence the photographing of an invisible image, whether it be of a spirit or a lump of matter is not scientifically impossible. If it reflect only the ultra-violet rays of the spectrum, it will be easily photographed, although quite invisible to the sharpest eye.
Again, Cromwell F. Varley, F.R.S., well known as one of the most eminent of electricians, says (Electric, June, 1871), when passing a current of electricity through a vacuum tube, the results of which were indicated by touches of light about the poles:—“In one instance, although the experiment was carried on in a dark room, this light was so feeble that it could not be seen, and the operators doubted if the current were passing. But photography was at work, and in thirty minutes a very good picture was produced of what had taken place. This,” he says, “is a remarkable fact; indeed, it borders on the wonderful, that a phenomenon invisible to the human eye should have been, so to speak, seen by the photographic lens, and a record thereof kept by chemical agency. It is highly suggestive, and we may anticipate that it will be turned to good account by practical philosophers.”
Some very striking phenomena in photographing the invisible may be produced by the agency of fluorescence. Figures depicted upon a background by one or other of certain substances I shall presently name, although invisible to the eye, may become visible to the camera. Of these, the best known, although not the most effective, is disulphate of quinine. Such a solution, although to the eye it is colourless like water, is to the camera as black as ink. Fill three phials respectively with water, quinine, and common writing ink, and you have two whites and one black; but photograph them, and you have two blacks and one white. The camera has reduced the transparent quinine solution to the colour of the ink. Those of you who may care to experiment in this direction, please take notice that the quinine must be acidulated with sulphuric acid, and that hydrochloric acid, even a small trace, will destroy this property. Among other substances that are fluorescent, or that change the refrangibility of rays of light, are mineral uranite, certain salts of uranium, canary glass, alcoholic solution of chlorophyll, æsculine, tincture of stramonium seeds, and of turmeric. There are others known to be still better, but my experiments in this direction are yet too incomplete to warrant my even indicating them.
Let me for a moment enter the realm of speculation, and assume that there are really spirits invisible to the eye but visible to the camera and to certain persons called seers or clairvoyants only. Might we not suggest that there is some fluorescent compound in the eyes of such persons not present in those whose eyes are normal, and that it is to this they owe their seeing powers? Some of you may probably be aware that Dr. Bence Jones and other philosophers have actually established the fact of such fluorescent substances being found in some eyes. May this throw any light upon the recognised fact of certain animals being able to see in the dark?