It was an expensive one, bought of one of the principal houses for the supply of photographic apparatus, &c.
[Some of the best specimens of these tints were forwarded to us by Mr. Pumphrey, accompanying the description of his process, printed in our eighth volume, p. 349.—Ed. "N. & Q.">[
Cameras.—The note of Lux in Camera has brought in more than one letter of thanks; and a valued correspondent has written to us, suggesting "That the attention of the Photographic Society, who have as yet done far less than they might have done to advance the Art, should be at once turned, and that seriously and earnestly, to the production of a light, portable, and effective camera for field purposes; one which, at the same time that it has the advantages of lightness and portability, should be capable of resisting our variable climate." Our correspondent throws out a hint which possibly may be adopted with advantage,
that papier maché has many of the requisites desired, being very firm, light, and impervious to wet.
Progress of Photography.—As a farther contribution to the History of Photography, we have been favoured with the following copy of a letter from a well-known amateur, which details in a graphic manner his early photographic experiences.
"As there is a sort of reflux of the tide to Mr. Fox Talbot's plan, and different people have succeeded best in different ways, it may amuse you to hear how I used to work, with better luck than I have had since.
"Mr. Talbot's sensitive wash was very strong, so he floated his paper upon distilled water immediately after its application.
"Mr. G. S. Cundell, of Finsbury Circus, diluted the sensitive wash with water, instead of floating the paper. Amateurs date their success from the time Mr. Cundell published this simple modification of the original process.
"Mr. William Hunt, of Yarmouth, was my first friend and instructor in the art; and if there be any merit in the pictures I did before I knew you, the credit is due to him entirely.
"The first paper we tried was Whatman's ivory post, very thick and hard, and yet it gave good negatives. We afterwards got a thinner paper, but always stuck to Whatman. Neither were we troubled with that porosity in the skies of which you complain in the more recently-made papers of that manufacturer.