IN NATURE, vol. x. p. 245, Mr. W. C. Crofts adds his experience to those previously given in your journal, and gives his conclusion as opposed to that of Mr. Aitken (vol. x. p. 185). Like most conclusions based on incomplete evidence, it does not conclude anything. The fact is as I have stated it in my previous note (vol. x. p. 205) on the subject, and when I return to England I will be most happy to demonstrate it to anyone who cares to examine the question thoroughly. Mr. Crofts' experience with the Liverpool dry plates agrees with my own, for these plates are prepared with a pyroxyline which gives a minimum of irradiation when “backed,” and give the best quality of image for scientific purposes attainable with a bromide film; but certain qualities of pyroxyline prepared in precisely the same way will show irradiation that nothing can cure, even when used for making transparencies by contact, where, of course, there can be no question of influence of any optical detects. The unquestionable fact that a collodioalbumen film acts in so totally different a manner from one of bromized collodion should prove that the lens has next to nothing to do with it.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
STILLMAN, W. Photographic Irradiation. Nature 10, 381 (1874). https://doi.org/10.1038/010381a0
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.