The Optical Magic Lantern Journal (March 1893)

50 The Optical Magic Lantern Journal and Photographic Enlarger. photography, and Daguerre two thousand franes a year extra, for the revealing of the secret of the diorama. A critical examination of original documents of the time indicates, that Arago, who piloted the whole matter through the legislature, had been misled by Daguerre as to certain matters of fact, consequently unwittingly did injustice by being unwise enough to act upon ex parte statements. In modern popular histories of photography, which are for the most part untrustworthy because of compilation from previous compilations, also untrustworthy, it is usually stated that the French Government awarded four thousand franes a year to Niépce, and six thousand to Daguerre, for the invention of photography alone. The first time that Nicéphore Niépce met Daguerre in Paris, and before they had entered into the partnership for photographic research, Daguerre took him to see the diorama, and the description of it by Niépce, shows how much the display resembled those produced in later years, by the employment of two magic lanterns. A description by Niépce of the effects produced, must be more interesting to photographers and to lanternists, than one by anyone else, so it may be mentioned that in a letter to his son Isidore, dated September 4th, 1827, he stated that nothing in Paris had given him more pleasure than Daguerre’s diorama. ‘lhe interior of St. Peter’s at Rome, painted by Bouton, was perfect in its illusion, and none he said were tiner than two scenes painted by Daguerre, the one of Edinburgh by moonlight at the time of a fire, the other of a Swiss village from the entrance of the main road, and opposite a prodigious mountain covered with eternal snows; the representations were faithful even in the most insignificant details. Nidpce added:—‘‘ The illusion is even so complete that one is tempted to leave one’s seat and cross the plain to clamber to the summit of the mountain. ‘This, I assure you, is not the least cxaggeration on my part. The objects either were, or appeared to be, of their own natural size. They are painted on a canvas or taffeta covered with a varnish, having the drawback of sticking, which necessitates care when these species of decorations have to be rolled for transport, as it is difficult in unrolling to avoid tearing.”’ A few days after writing this letter, Niépce left Paris for England wa Calais, to see his brother Claude, who was then lying dangerously ill at Kew. During this visit he tried to bring the results of his photographic discoveries before the Royal Society, but as he would not state how he obtained them, the Royal Socicty very properly would pay no attention to the results of a secret process. The Society came better out of this business histori cally, than it did out of its rejection of Benjamin Franklin’s paper on lightning conductors. At the diorama, the picture was viewed through a large aperture, nearly the full size of the end of the hall, and at such a distance behind the aperture that it could be lit in front from the roof, through a window of ground glass | which could not be seen by the auditory. The spectators were in comparative darkness. The intervening distance favoured the illusion, so also did the prolongation inwards towards the picture, of the sides of the large aperture, so that the edges of the painting itself were not visible. The exclusion from the eye, by these arrangments, of other objects by which it might form a comparison, added to the force of the representation. A moderate degree of light sufficed to show the painting, and could be increased or diminished at pleasure, ‘‘and that,” says W. H. Leeds, ‘‘so as to represent the change from ordinary daylight to sunshine, and from sunshine to cloudy weather, or to the obscurity of twilight; also the difference of atmospheric tont attending them; all of which variations gave to the diorama a character of nature and reality, beyond that of any other mode of painting.” Some of the changes in lighting, were produced by shifting shutters and curtains in the glazed ceiling; sometimes also, lights from behind shone through the transparent picture, giving brilliavt effects far beyond those of the high lights of a painting on an opaque ground. Altogether, Dagucrre and Bouton had provided the means of producfhg a good variety of sensational displays. 7 Their chief difticulty was one much experienced by photographers in these latter days, before celluloid carne into use, namely, that of obtaining a transparent flexible film or sheet, for their pictures. ‘Che means by which they succecded, also what paints to use, and how to lay them ou, are all described in Daguerre’s book, published in Paris at the end of 1839, so may be seen there by any who wish to go farther into the subject. Thus for seventccn years before practical photography was born into the world, Daguerre with his diorama in Paris, held an analogous position to that held subsequently by Professor Pepper in London, as an exhibitor of popular dissolving views at the Polytechnic; the Jatter, however, produced his effects by means of the magic lantern, and the former deperded alone upon his skill as a theatrical scenic artist. Can any of the readers of these pages inform me who originally invented dissolving views? It has been published that certain men made ‘ dissolvers ’’ and their names have been given, | but fingers may have been used as dissolvers in