THE CAMERA 



227 



not a real lens, is it? And yet that 

 mirrored reflection has in itself the 



lens action." And then I explained 

 what was new to him, and may he so 

 to the reader, that a strange and sur- 

 prising result was obtained in taking 

 a mirror photograph of a Protar lens 

 and shutter, which suggests some inter- 

 esting experiments. The whole lens 

 and shutter are shown herewith (the 

 left part of the cut showing also front 

 and rear lenses). The lens and the 

 shutter were evidently photographed 

 by the lens, the mirror simply reflect- 

 ing back the picture of the lens. Thus 

 a lens photographed itself. 



Hut within that lens is a photograph 

 of the entire camera, and all of the 

 room back of the camera. As all of 

 this view was back of the lens, it is 

 evident that this picture was not pro- 

 duced by the lens in a mirrored reflec- 

 tion, but solely by the reflection of a 

 lens ; that is, the "ghost" lens in the 

 mirror had a lens-like action, yet was 

 not a real lens. So it may be truth- 

 fully stated that here is a photograph 

 taken by a lens not in actual existence 

 as a piece of glass. 



It also was not produced by the real 

 lens by photographing the reflection of 

 the entire room and contents in the 

 mirror, because all that direct reflec- 



tion was far from being in focus when 

 the from of the lens was in focus. A 

 photograph of a reflection in the mir- 

 ror of the room and its contents would 

 be very different in process and results. 

 This then is a much reduced picture 

 of a room, and that reducing was not 

 done bv a real lens, nor were the rays 



- 



focused on the plate by a real lens, but 

 bv the reflection of a lens — that reflec- 

 tion in itself being lens-like in action. 



A PHOTOGRAPH OF A ROOM AND CONTENTS 



"TAKEN" BY THE REFLECTION OF 



A LENS. 



A Skilled Workman With Efficient 

 Tools. 



Our valued contributor. Mr. George 

 W. Kellogg, in the last number of The 

 Guide to Nature (page 182) made the 

 following statement : 



"The editor of The Guide to Nature 

 is to be congratulated because he is the 

 user of lenses of a higher grade than 

 the average of his subscribers and 

 readers can hope to afford. It is his 

 privilege to sing praises to his lenses 

 and the makers thereof as often and as 

 long as he desires. If he feels it to be 

 a duty, let him do that duty well but 

 let him not forget that it is also his 

 duty, if he proposes to teach photo- 

 graphy, to show the less fortunate of 

 his pupils the way to the best results 

 within the limitations of their respec- 

 tive equipments, and without discrim- 

 inating between the poorest who can 

 afford only a dollar outfit, and the 

 most well-to-do to whom hundreds of 

 dollars will not be an obstacle to sep- 

 arate them from the equipment they 

 desire." 



We accept the congratulation but 

 deny the truth of the comparison. The 

 reader can ''hone to afford." That is 

 all I did; and I kept on hoping for 

 about a quarter of a century. I hoped, 

 and I borrowed, and now and then I 

 owned a cheap camera, sold it and 

 bought one a little better. But it was 

 after more than twenty years of using 

 all sorts and sizes with the cheapest 

 of lenses that I saw the light go 

 through an anastigmat to the ground 

 glass. Joy <~)\ all joys: hail, holy light, 

 that shows things as they are. and no 

 longer through a g"lass darkly, and dis- 

 torted, and dish curved. 



