THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY
No. 765. VOL. XXII.- JANUARY 1 , 1875
SOME NEW LIGHT THROWN UPON THE EARLY
HISTORY OF THE WET COLLODION PROCESS
To the question, Who discovered the wet collodion process? The reply commonly given in England is to the following effect: - "Archer was the first to publish it, and priority of publication entitles a man, in questions of this sort, to be considered the discoverer."
But it is quite possible that a man may rush into print with a process which is not his own, but another man's. If, in such a case, that other man should assert most solemnly, during the last moments of his life and when his last illness was upon him, that he was himself the real discoverer, we are bound to listen to his tale, and, in the cause of historical truth, weigh its probability.
Now this is just what has happened in the case of the wet collodion process. The question of its discovery lies between Archer and Bingham, who both experimented at it together in Archer's dark room. Bingham has asserted that he discovered every step of the process from first to last, whilst Archer was a mere looker- on and aide- de-camp; that, having done this, the latter published the process in the Chemist without his knowledge or consent. This is the tale the probability of which I call on my readers to consider. I made Mr. Bingham's acquaintance in Paris a few months before his death, and when he was already in the jaws of the disease which carried him off; and the substance of the tale which he told me respecting himself and Archer was what I have stated above. I promised him that I would one day make it known, and the proper time for doing so seems now to have arrived. Both he and Archer are in the cold grave, and the question as to which of them was the true discoverer may now be freely discussed, as a matter of history, on such evidence as remains to us. I have thought it right to defer bringing the matter forward until now from obvious motives of delicacy ; but death is always busy amongst us, and it must be deferred no longer.
Before going more minutely into the details of Bingham's story, let me recal to the mind of the reader what was the state of the collodion process at a time anterior to that when Archer's name appeared in connection with it. Bingham had already written a work entitled Photogenic Manipulation, which was published by Knight, of Foster-lane. In that work he had described some experiments of his own in which collodion was the vehicle for the iodide of silver, and gallic acid the developer; and he intimated his intention to go on with his experiments in this direction. He appears to have allowed the collodion film, containing a soluble iodide, to get dry and hard before he excited it in a nitrate bath. Of course, this plan did not reveal the wonderful powers of the process, and it remained to modify it -first, by exciting the film whilst it was still in a moist state; and, secondly, by developing the image with pyrogallic instead of gallic acid. The question, then, for us to consider is -whether it is probable that Bingham himself put the finishing touches to his own process -as he declared to me that he did -or whether these were put by Archer. The two men were friends, and worked together at the process in the dark room of the latter. We have no other evidence as to which of them put the finishing touches to the process but their own bare assertions ; and the question is-Which of these two men's word is to be believed ? All we know for certain is that Archer rushed into print with the process, and, in consequence, has carried off all the honour of its discovery.
Being a question of probability , and not of direct evidence, we must compare the characters of the two men and their attainments, and refer, not only to their antecedents, but to their subsequent career. We must consider which of the two possessed the most knowledge of photography, which of them was the better chemist and the better manipulator, and which of them seemed to possess the larger amount of inventive genius and practical sense. All this we shall be able to get at from what is known of their respective careers. The balance of probability, as to which of them was the true discoverer of the wet collodion process, will then turn in favour of him who was the more clever and practical man of the two.
Bingham had already brought the process, by his own unaided exertions, up to an advanced stage, and it required but little to perfect it. His treatise had already proved him to be a clever writer , a man of education, and well versed in the history of photography. He was also well known as a good daguerreotypist and calotypist; and he was a good chemist, having been a public lecturer on chemistry at the London Institution, Finsbury. Subsequently to the discovery of the collodion process, he set up a photographic studio in Paris, and quickly rose to the very top of his profession. No photographer was more celebrated than he as a successful reproducer of modern paintings. During the last year or two of his life he took up with carbon painting, and also purchased the French patent for the Woodbury process; but being to ill for experimenting he sold the latter
to MM. Goupil. From first to last his career in connectionwith photography was a brilliant one. As a photographic writer, artist, and chemist, he stood in the very first rank. We never heard of his making unwise , random experiments, taking out foolish patents, muddling away his money, and living in the midst of dirt , debt , and destitution. He was one of those sagacious, practical men who succeed. Now all this being matter of history about which no doubt exists, is it not likely that such a man would, when experimenting with his own collodion process, so vary it as to excite the film whilst still moist instead of allowing it to get dry, and, from his knowledge of chemistry, substitute pyrogallic for gallic acid in the developer? Was there anything beyond the reach of his attainments or the sketch of his gen genius in doing this ? He solemnly assured me that he did do it. Are we, then , to believe his word, or not ? did do it. Are we, then , to believe his word, or not ?
On the other hand, what were the attainments, the antecedents, and the subsequent career of Archer ? Were these such as to induce us to believe that he was the more likely man of the two to have perfected Bingham's process ? I regret that I cannot answer these questions so fully as I would wish. I did not know Archer personally, never visited him in his sanctum, never saw any of his productions, and never worked in his patent dark box. But what I have heard about him does not give me an exalted idea either of his scientific attainments or his practical sense. When he was left to run alone in experimenting he seems to have dabbled in optics in a foolish way which led to nothing, and to have lived in a general muddle, in the midst of which he died, leaving his family destitute. On the whole, therefore, when comparing the two men's characters and career, so far as I know of them, I prefer to take the word of Bingham than that of Archer respecting the discovery of the final steps in Bingham's collodion process.
But now comes the question-Why did Bingham, if he were the real discoverer, not protest at once against Archer's claim to be so. and publicly state his own case ? This I put to him, and his reply was that he did not at first consider the collodion process of so much practical value as to make it worth his while to kick up a row about it. Although it had its charms it seemed to be full of caprices, and he did not at first suppose that it was likely to have any great commercial value. It did not , therefore, seem worth his while to put himself in a passion with his friend for what he had done in publishing it without his consent. Afterwards, when the process began to assume more importance , it was too late. Nevertheless, lie he had frequently told personal friends the same story which he told me. There may be some truth in all this ; for, in the first place, we can easily imagine how coquettish the new process must have been in its earliest infancy from our own experience of it in its youth; and, in the second place, we know how very averse some men are to engaging in an angry public discussion, particularly with an old friend . Besides which, Bingham would have no direct evidence to advance in support of his claim, and nothing but a belief in his own bare assertion to trust to. If this were not accepted he would be involved in ridicule. So, onthe whole, perhaps his silence was a proof of wisdom.
I now leave the matter with the reader. I have fulfilled my promise to the dead, and have stated frankly my own impressions with respect to the truth of the story which was told me. I have no interest in supporting the tardy claim of Bingham to the discovery of the wet collodion process, for he was not an intimate personal friend of mine, as I have only met him once -that is to say, on the occasion referred to. But in the cause of historical truth the probability of his statement should be weighed impartially.
Amongst those who read these lines there will probably be some who can throw more light upon the subject, and, if so, I conjure them to do so . If it can be shown that Bingham's claim is an entiremyth, andhis statementsdevoid of truth, then let the future historian of our art accord to Archer the full credit which may be his due. Otherwise, let the two men at least be bracketted as joint discoverers ; forwe must not ignore the fact that Archer was the first to publish the process.
I would observe that the question -Who first used collodion in photography ? is not that which we are nowdiscussing. That is one which seems to lie between Bingham and Le Gray.
THOMAS SUTTON, B.A.
PDF Page 17
No. 766. VOL. XXII . JANUARY 8 , 1875
ARCHER
In deference to the wishes of our well - known contributor, Mr. Sutton, we last week allowed him the unrestrained use of our columns in order to fulfill the promise he made to the late Mr. Bingham respecting the publicity he desired to give to certain claims advanced by that gentleman in connection with the discovery of the collodion process. But, having done this, it is now our duty -a duty the fulfillment of which was last week rendered impossible by severe pressure on our time -to make such comments on Mr. Sutton's narrative as, we think, will compel the reader to conclude that no foundation exists for either the implied, if not plainly expressed, imputations against Archer on the one hand, or the claims now for the first time presented on behalf of Bingham on the other . We cannot imagine that Mr. Sutton would really desire to act unfairly towards either of these gentlemen, and hence we conclude that his article was merely the result of imperfect information, and that his detraction from the claims of Archer arises rather from an impulsive desire to serve the memory of a deceased friend than from a deliberate intention to injure the character of the former.
Equally with Mr. Sutton would we feel bound to listen to the utterances of a man upon whom the hand of death was firmly laid; but in doing so we must not allow mere sentiment to assert a claim over both probability and recorded facts . We all know that at such a time reason is apt to become beclouded; and statements made under the circumstances must be received only for what they are worth.
We have weighed the probabilities of the statements made by Mr. Sutton on behalf of Bingham, and have been compelled to reject them as quite untenable; and in this we are borne out by published records whiclı emanated from Bingham himself. For a considerable period after Archer had produced many charming pictures by the collodion process, Bingham had apparently failed to grasp that process; for in one of his manuals of photography published two or three years subsequent to Archer's publication of his beautiful process Bingham only alluded to collodion, in juxtaposition with spirit varnish, as a vehicle that might be employed, although he at that time was aware of the peculiar advantages of Archer's pyrogallic acid developer. But as to Bingham having had at that time any practical acquaintance with the collodion process no evidence what-everexists, but much probable evidence to the contrary. It must be remembered that Archer's first publication was made in March, 1851 , and that a year afterwards he published a manual of his process (the exact date being March 14 , 1852 ) . In that manual he speaks of having previously tried many substances as substitutes for paper in which to impress the negative image, among these being "starch, paper pulp, tanno - gelatine solutions, and several combinations of albumen " -each of which had its turn; but, after repeated experiments in numerous ways, he eventually decided on collodion as being the most valuable substitute for paper. It is really too late in the day to make prior claims on behalf of one who, in preparing a manual of photography two years after that, spoke of collodion in such connection and in such manner as to carry the conviction that he was, to a large extent, unacquainted with it as a main adjunct to a new process. In another page Mr. Dawson has given such a résumé of the relative parts played in this discovery by Archer and Bingham as to render it unnecessary for us to pursue it further. Hence we pass to another charge brought by Mr. Sutton against Archer.
Confessing that he never saw any of Archer's productions, never visited him, and did not even know him, Mr. Sutton yet, on confessedly mere "hearsay , " takes occasion to say severalharsh and, as we shall show, quite unjust things respecting Archer's attainments. The hackneyed axiom, " de mortuis nil nisi bonum, " ought not to be allowed to bias one's feelings in estimating the character and attainments of any man who has ceased to exist; but neither ought the antithesis of the aphorism be allowed to sway the judgment.
Mr. Sutton says :-" When he " ( Archer) " was left to run alone in experimenting he seems to have dabbled in optics in a foolish way which led to nothing, and to have lived in a general muddle, in the midst of which he died, leaving his family destitute." Passing over the fact that if there be one thing better known than another in connection with the history of inventors and discoverers it is that few of them have died wealthy, and that their not doing so does not entail any reproach on their memories , we proceed to make a few remarks on Archer's alleged "dabbling in optics."
It happens that we are in a position, from personal knowledge, to narrate what resulted from this "dabbling " which Mr. Sutton couples with the adjective "foolish." Two inventions resulted which, whether they were " foolish" or not, were both afterwards re- invented , in a modified form, by Mr. Sutton himself . The latter gentleman had not , probably ,been aware of them at the time ; but with such inventions he is , if we rightly understand the tenor of what our friend has at various times written, by no means disinclined to have his name associated. One of these is the triple combination , the other being an achromatic doublet composed of menisci the crown elements of which are plano -convex. That Mr. Sutton certainly attached much importance at one time to this form we know on the best of all evidence -an article written by himself several years back ; but thatArcher made several doublets on this principle we are also well aware, one of them, made and sold about 1853, being now before us.
Archer , in the early days of his invention, made a speciality of portrait lenses in which there was no flint glass, the correcting power of this kind of glass being obtained by the substitution of fluid possessing a certain degree of dispersion. Showing one ofArcher's "fluid lenses" in our possession to an optician of great eminence, he exclaimed, after testing it-" What wonderfully good correction Archer has been able to obtain!" Another of equal eminence said- "It is singularly ingenious , and must work well ; that man has taken immense pains with his lenses." That the principle of using fluids in the construction of photographic lenses was not considered by Mr. Sutton as very objectionable maybe deduced from the fact of his taking out a patent himself for a fluid lens, although differing in form from that ofArcher, long previously in existence.
Further : in Archer's triple combination the central lens was a plano - concave, plane side towards the front . That this is neither aform nor a method of placing such a lens as to warrant its original introducer to have the epithet " foolish " connected with his optical pursuits may be presumed when we say that it is a form and position patented by one of the two leading London firms of opticians, and a form and position adopted in practice by the other of these firms, and, let us say it with bated breath, not considered unworthy of Mr. Sutton's own special claim on his own behalf -a claim the existence of which is well known to readers of photographic literature of the last few years.
On the whole we are not sorry that Mr. Sutton, by his unexpected attack upon Archer, has afforded the opportunity for giving what we know to be a few simple facts connected with the inventions of the late Mr. Scott Archer.
PDF Page 26
BINGHAM VERSUS ARCHER
To the EDITORS
GENTLEMEN, -With your permission I will now offer a few more words on the Bingham versus Archer controversy, which I hope maybe the last ona by no means pleasant subject.
When I wrote my former letter Istated from memory what I believed to be Bingham's collodion process, published in his work entitled Photogenic Manipulation, before Archer's name was heard of in connection with photography. I have now a copy of that work before me, and I find that my version of the process was not quite correct in some minor particulars. It turns out that Bingham's collodion process much more closely resembles that which we now use than I had supposed. His work was published in January, 1850, and therefore fourteen months before Archer published his celebrated article in the Chemist, in March, 1851, upon which is based his claim to the discovery of the collodion process. Bingham's collodion process is as follows : -Iodised collodion spread upon a glass plate ; the film excited in a nitrate bath; the plate exposed at once, wet, in the camera : the image developed by a proto-salt of iron; the negative fixed by hyposulphite of soda . Let me repeat this was published fourteen months before Archer's process!
I will now give an extract from the work, which proves my assertion. The process is first described with isinglass as the vehicle for the chemicals ; and we are then told that collodion may be used instead and answers moderately well : -
"Obtain some very clear and good isinglass, pour on it a little hot water, so as to produce a thick jelly ; while still warm and fluid mix it with a few drops of a strong solution of the proto-iodide of iron ; pour a little of this mixture over a piece of glass, and drain off the excess at one corner; allow this to get perfectly dry and hard, then suddenly immerse it in a solution of nitrate of silver containing 100 grains in two ounces of distilled water. It is now sensitive to the action of light, and should be at once placed in the camera. Avery slight picture will, perhaps, only be visible; but it may be fully developed by putting it into a solution of the proto- acetate of iron containing a small excess of acetic acid. As soon as the picture is fully developed it should be rinsed in a little water and fixed by the hyposulphite of soda as in the preceding process.
"We may, in place of the gelatine ( isinglass), employ a number of other substances to form an adherent film upon the glass. The following are a few of those we have experimented with and found to answer moderately well: - Vegetable gluten dissolved in acetic acid forms a very tenacious coating and difficult to remove. Collodion (gun-cotton dissolved in ether), " &c. , &c.
And then he adds:-" The method of applying the solutions may be varied in & number of ways, and opens & wide field for experiment. When starch is used as & him upon the glass the iodine and bromine requisite for converting the nitrate of silver into the iodide or bromide may be advantageously applied in the state of vapour," &c.
The only point in which Bingham's collodion process of 1850 differs from that of today consists in his iodizing his collodion with the iodide of iron instead of with the iodide of cadmium or ammonium. Archer's collodion process of 185l the collodion is iodized with iodide of potassium, and the image developed with pyrogallic acid instead of with a salt of iron.
I have now proved that Archer's collodion process was not a discovery, but only & slight modification of one which had been published fourteen months before, while the collodion process of the present day is an equal departure from them both. For what, then, are we indebted to Archer? That I will now endeavour to point out, for I feel that I did him some injustice in my former lotter, if what I have since heard about him be correct.
He preserved with the process for several years, took some good pictures by it, and was very good-natured in demonstrating it to brother photographers. If it had not been for him the process might have been consigned to the limbo of many other good suggestions and have lain there until now. Bingham does not appear at first to have had much fuith in it, for in the tenth edition of his work, published in 1853, he never praises it nor alludes in any way to Archer. He was a perfect master of the calotype, the daguerreotype, and the albumen processes, and, probably, found these sufficient for all his purposes. Many leading photographerg-for instauce, Claudet, Willams, and others of note--ignored the collodion process as long as they could and thought lightly of it at first.
With respect to what I said about Archer's optical attainments, I knew nothing but what had been published, and wrote accordingly. It has since transpired that he did things in optics which were not so foolish as I supposed.
On the whole, then, although I cannot regard Archer as the discoverer of the collodion process, yet I am now quite willing to honour him as one of the useful and intelligent pioneers of our art.—I am, yours, &c.,
THOMAS SUTTON, B.A.
March 5, 1875.
[We have merely to say, by way of append to Mr. Sutton's com-munication, that if he can see in Bingham's crude experiments with isinglass the discovery of Archer's collodion process we cannot wonder at the discovery made by another of our correspondents, namely, that Mr. Sutton himself is not entitled to any credit in connection with hig "moist process," because Mesers. Crookes and Spiller, many years ago, tried to keep films moist by means of nitrate of zine! As respects Mr. Sutton's statement concerning Archer's optical attainments, and that he wrote only aocording to what had been published, we must be permitted to say that, with one other exception, no one published anything detrimental to the claims made on behalf of Archer as an optician except our worthy correspondent himself. At this stage we think it would be wise and in good taste to allow the whole matter to now rest.-Eds.]
PDF Page 144
THE ARCHER- BINGHAM CONTROVERSY.
To the EDITORS.
GENTLEMEN, -Although not desirous of reopening the controversy as
to the origin of the collodion process, as one of the editors of the
Chemist, inwhich journal the late Mr. ScottArcher's process was first
published, I trust that you will kindly permit me to make a few
remarks upon the subject which at the present time may not be out of
season. My object is solely to place Archer's title to be considered the
originator of the collodion process in a fair light.
It is true that Bingham suggested that collodion amongst other
things might be employed in photography; but I do not know that the suggestion took the form of a well- defined process. Archer, on the
contrary , communicated to the Chemist a perfectly practical process
which he had found to be successful, and it was this, with the pyro-
gallic acid developer, that at once rendered the process popular. Archer
did not dignify his process by the exalted title " discovery ;" he merely
said " I find that collodion , when properly prepared, is admirably
adapted for photographic purposes as a substitute for paper. " He had
long been engaged in experiments with albumen, gelatine, &c. , with a
view to obtain a more favourable surface than that of paper for
receiving the photographic image; and, with his mind directed to
transparent media which would produce a film upon glass, the idea of
trying collodion would, one might imagine , readily occur to the experi-
mentalist without any prior knowledge that such asubstance had been
appliedby others working in the same direction.
It is well known that Spencer , of Liverpool, and Professor Jacobi, of
St. Petersburg. discovered the electrotype process at or about the same
time - each discoverer, nodoubt, taking advantage of the deposit of pure
copper in the then new Daniell's battery. It is equally probable, there-
fore , thatArcher -who, though an artist by profession , was an enthusi.
astic experimentalist-discovered ( I may use the term now in his defence),
while in search of a transparent medium to form a film upon glass, that
collodion was the most suitable substance.
Having satisfied himself by repeated experiment that he had at last
found asuccessful substitute for paper he lost no time in making it
known; and the marvellous rapidity with which the process was
circulated and taken advantage of thronghout the whole civilised world
must, I think, entitle the late Scott Archer to the full credit of being the
originator of the collodion process commonly so called.
That Mr. Bingham deserved credit for having suggested collodion no
one will for amoment deny; but its practical application to photographic
purposes was, I submit, established by Archer, and it is to his labours
andtheir free communication to the world that we owe adebt of gratitude
tohis memory which can never be paid. -I am, yours, &c. , ALEXANDER WATT
PDF Page 169