SCIENTIFIC SUMMARY. 
Ill 
have a singular passion for pigeons^ and never to photograph a landscape 
until these birds appear in it. Mr. Ayling’s architectural photographs were 
greatly admired. Bedford’s works retain their old supremacy as landscape 
photographs ; and Mr. Faulkner’s pretty little portraits are still in the van. 
We think composition photography,” as it is called, a great mistake in 
the hands of such operators as Mr. H. P. Eohinson, and we hope the 
AthencBum critique on the specimen he exhibited in this collection has at 
length brought conviction to him. As an attempt to deceive and seem 
what it could not possibly be, the specimen called Sleep ” is an utter 
failure, although it proves ]\Ir. Eohinson to be a clever photographer and 
excellent operator. 
The Due de Imjnei Prize. — In the year 1856 the Due de Luynes entrusted 
a Commission with 8,000 francs, to be awarded as a prize to the inventor 
who should produce photographs in printer’s ink, within three years of that 
time. Before the expiration of these three years, Mr. Pouncy claimed the 
reward for a process of producing prints in carbon, and received from the 
Commission 400 francs and a silver medal, in recognition of his progi’ess 
towards the desired end. The Commission then agreed to make their final 
decision in 1864, and before that time arrived, Mr. Pouncy again claimed 
the reward for a process by which photographs were produced in printer’s 
ink 5 but the Commission declined, as Mr. Pouncy tells us, to investigate 
his claim, and have since awarded the prize to M. Poitevin for a process 
which was in existence before the prize was founded, and with which the 
founder must have been familiar. Mr. Pouncy says to the Commissioners : 
Your own decision in 1859 proves that you consider M. Poitevin did not 
merit the prize then j how can he merit it in 1864, without having pro- 
duced any proofs differing from those he exhibited in 1859, the principles of 
which were wrought out before the prize was founded We think our 
countryman’s question fairly entitled to a reply. 
The Lens Award at the Paris Exhibition. — In our last summary we called 
attention to the dissatisfaction publicly expressed by Mr. Eoss, the optician, 
with reference to the manner in which the awards were made for excellence 
in the manufacture of photographic lenses. Out of this has arisen a some- 
what curious controversy. Dr. Diamond, the English Juror in this depart- 
ment, Secretary of the London Photographic Society, and editor of its 
journal, in reply to the assertion made by Mr. Eoss — viz., that the lenses 
were never in any way tested, says : “ We hesitate, of course, to charge 
Mr. Eoss with a wilful misstatement, but his allegation that the awards in 
Class IX. were made without the lenses being examined and tested is alto- 
gether without foundation. All the lenses submitted to the jury fon exami- 
nation were carefully tested by experts called in for that purpose, who worked 
in the CiEQUE National in the presence of the jury. The decisions of the 
jurors in regard to photographic lenses were, in truth, made after an unusually 
careful test of the qualities of the various instruments^ Mr. Eoss, in reply, 
re-asserts that his case of lenses was never opened, and calls upon the gentle- 
man who had charge of the keys to support this statement — and he does so. 
Dr. Diamond then refers Mr. Eoss to the Secretary of the Juries, as a gentle- 
man who can satisfy him as to the truth of his (Dr. Diamond’s) state- 
ments. Mr. Eoss acts upon this advice, and receives the following reply : — 
