AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY. 



429 



NOT STEREOSCOPIC. 



I enclose 2 double views, made with East- 

 man's No. 2 Bull's Eye, on films 2>/ 2 x $y 2 . 

 Are they not truly stereoscopic? View No. 

 1 was made October 15, '98, and shows 

 part of the mill pond, waste weir and fish 

 chute at this place. And by the way I 

 worked 6 years, with petitions to the differ- 

 ent boards of supervisors of this township 

 before I succeeded in getting the chute put 

 in. I also succeeded in getting one put in, 

 in the mill dam, at Tompkins Center, on the 

 same stream last spring. 



View No. 2 was taken from the bridge, at 

 Alpena, Mich., December 1, '98. 



These views were made from the same 

 negative in each case and are simply 2 prints 

 from each, mounted side by side. They 

 were printed on solio paper, and toned by 

 the gold bath. They were not taken for 

 the purpose of making stereoscope views. 



I am deeply interested in amateur photog- 

 raphy, and would like to see Recreation's 

 photo department grow to 10 times its pres- 

 ent size. If all will contribute a little, we 

 can soon make it as large and as interesting 

 as are the hunting or fishing departments. 



I did some flash light work last winter, 

 with good results. Have a number of un- 

 mounted 3^2 x 3V2 views taken here, and 

 some taken while hunting last fall, that I 

 should be glad to exchange with other ama- 

 teurs. Am using a No. 4 Eastman's kodak 

 and like it very much. Shall surely enter 

 Recreation's amateur photo contest this 

 year. Success to Recreation in all of its 

 departments. It is the best magazine in 

 existence. H. T. W., Minard, Mich. 



ANSWER. 



No; the photos are not stereoscopic. 

 Nothing is stereoscopic when seen through 

 one eye or one lense. The 2 lenses must be 

 about as far apart as are the ordinary hu- 

 man eyes, in order to make a picture stereo- 

 scopic. In other words the 2 prints must 

 show the scene from slightly different points 

 on the same parallel plane. — Editor. 



MIX BRAINS with your developer. 



He handed me a plate that was as black 

 and thick as one's hat. 



" What's the matter with that plate, Jack? 

 Do you know, I can't understand it ; nearly 

 all my plates turn out that way. No, I am 

 sure I have not over-timed them, for some 

 of them were snap shots. How about the 

 developer? Well, I use metol in the regula- 

 tion proportions. The room is absolutely 

 dark, and the lamp an ordinary ruby lamp." 



" I'll go over to the house with you and 

 develop one in your room and see the re- 

 sult." 



We go in the dark room and lock the 

 door. I light the ruby lamp and then look 

 for white light, but find none. Then I place 

 the lamp away from the developing tray, 

 into the opposite side of the room, 



" Why do you place it over there. How 

 can you see what you are doing? " 



" Did you develop those plates with that 

 light streaming on them through the whole 

 process? " I asked. 



" Sure. It's a ruby light. Is it not all 

 right?" 



By this time the plate was developed in 

 almost total darkness, only an occasional 

 inspection before the ruby light, but always 

 some distance away. The result was we 

 had almost a perfect plate. 



My friend now turns out good work and 

 is ever pouring this advice into the ears of 

 other beginners : 



Never hold the plate too near the light 

 when starting development. Very few 

 lamps are good enough not to fog a plate, if 

 held close. Keep as far away as you can. 

 Look at the image only when necessary, and 

 when looking, don't put the glass side close 

 to the light; for, although the developer will 

 slightly protect the top of the film, the glass 

 does not protect the back. 



Try the 2 ways and notice the brilliancy 

 in the one you have kept in the dark, or 

 some distance from the light. 



G. R. C, New York City. 



HELP YOURSELVES. 



As an amateur photographer please allow 

 me to register a kick. I find in Recreation 

 73 pages given to the gun, to fishing, hunt- 

 ing and roasting game hogs ; while amateur 

 photographers are given but 2 pages. I 

 feel hurt to see so little attention paid to 

 photography, especially as I subscribed for 

 Recreation to get information along those 

 lines. I would suggest, 



1st. That you give amateur photography 

 a more prominent place. 



2d. That you exchange with some good 

 photographic magazines and copy, giving 

 them credit. 



3d. That you should remember amateur 

 photographers are human and the camera 

 is, to them, as dear as a gun to the marks- 

 man. 



I wish you every success with your fourth 

 annual competition, and with Recreation 

 in general. Ed. Doran, Winnepeg, Can. 



I should be only to glad to enlarge this 

 department, if the amateur photographers 

 would contribute to it as liberally as sports- 

 men do to the other departments in Rec- 

 reation. Even at the present length of the 

 " Game Fields," " Fishing " and " Guns and 

 Ammunition " departments, I get 3 times 

 as much for each department, each month, 

 as I can use; yet it is exceedingly difficult 

 to get enough photo matter to fill 2 pages. 



I do exchange with a number of photo- 

 graphic magazines and clip liberally from 

 them, as you see, giving credit in each 

 case. I should, however, much rather have 

 original matter from my readers, and. al- 

 though I have frequently urged them to 



