BOYLE, KIEPCE, TALBOT, DAGUERRE So thoroughly has photography, the art of drawing by light, entered into our every-day life that it is difficult for us in the present clay to realise how recently it has come to be. So accustomed are we to have scenes and persons represented to us by its means, to become as familiar with the features of our statesmen and famous men and women of all classes as we are with those of our own near relations, and to depend upon the art as a means of truthfully recording almost all of our scien tific observations, that it is difficult for us to conceive how our forefathers managed without it. Yet half a century ago the very rich only could possess portraits of their friends or relations, the features of our great men were unknown to the mass of the people, the architectural and other beauties of foreign states and towns were conveyed only by the fallible pencil of the draughtsman, records of scientific observations were for the most part the result of weary watching.
A tale of threescore years ago is told of a certain Frenchman. We do not guarantee its truth, but give it as showing, better than long description could, the state of knowledge of the time.
The camera obscura was then known. The beautiful image which it would give of surroimding objects, in which colour seemed to be even more vivid than in the objects themselves, had been admired by many, and some had sighed for the discovery of a means of fixing the fleeting image so that it might become a lasting record.
A woman called at the house of one of the greatest French scientists of that time and explained that her husband had, in spite of the discouragement of his friends, got fixed in his mind the idea that the image could be made permanent. He was spending all his time in vain experimenting, and she wished to know if such infatuation might be considered as a symptom of lunacy, or if there was really hope in the work he was carrying on.
The scientist replied that, in his opinion, there was no hope ; but that the infatuation of the lady's husband could scarcely alone be considered as itself a proof of insanity.
The woman was the wife of Daguerre ; the time was fourteen years before the date of the publication of the process known as Daguerreotype.
A brief sketch we must give of the history of photo graphy. It is usual in so doing to attribute the invention of the art to some one of the earlier experimenters in it. This we think is a mistake ; seldom does it occur that one single man invents or discovers entirely by himself a great scientific theory or fact. There is no new thing under the sun. It will generally be found that the so-called discoverer or inventor but improved on what went before, or put in a practical shape what had been floating in men's minds as hypothetical truth. A step is made which may be greater or smaller. The steam-engine was not invented by Watt, nor the locomotive by Stephen son. These both took the materials which were at hand and improved upon them.
So it is in photography. We look in vain to find who first discovered the fact that certain chemical substances were changed in appearance by light. The credit of the discovery is generally given to Boyle, who lived about two htuadred years ago.
From this we may take a great stride, to the time when the first camera picture was produced ;—to the time when the much-admired picture of the camera obscura was, in fact, caused to leave behind it some more or less lasting trace of its beauties.
In 1816 Nicephore Niepce describes most accurately in letters to his brother the taking of camera pictures. These were, however, hut imperfect. They were in negative. Every shade of nature was reversed, and, moreover, the pictures, such as they were, very soon faded. Nevertheless, the letters referred to show wonderful penetration, and a kimwledge in advance of the time in which the experimenter worked. To those who feel an interest in the matter we recommend a perusal of Mr. H. Baden Pritchard's interesting little book, About Photography and Photographers. Although experiments made by Niepce were interesting and in structing, and might., had they been carried farther, have led to great results, we hear nothing further of them than what is contained in the aforementioned letters, until we hear the name of Niepce coupled with that of Daguerre.