166 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER AND COUNTRY GENTLEMAN, December 15, 1857. 
separately—of a very pretty pink colour, about an inch and a 
quarter in diameter,—-and from six to a dozen flowers open at 
a time on each plant. They very much resemble the Aphelexis 
flower, and retain their colour and substance after being 
gathered for a length of time. They are, in fact, some of the 
“ Everlasting Flowers.”— W, Reeve. 
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS. 
I *w desirous of making a few remarks upon Mr. Copland s 
“ prefatory” observations on ‘‘Photography for the Many 
not with a wish to say anything antagonistic to his .useful 
instructions, but because I think in his desire to simplify the 
subject, and render its pursuit more economical, he has made 
a mis-statement which is sure to lead to disappointment. 
He says, “ The thanks of all photographers are due to Sir 
David Brewster. He has exploded the old theory of expensh c. 
lenses with broad diaphragms. He has proved that a more 
correct portrait may be produced by a lens costing but two 
shillings, than by a double achromatic, value fifty pounds. 
Now, no one in his senses ever supposed for one moment 
that a portrait lens with a “ broad diaphragm ,” or, rather, 
no diaphragm at all, could produce a large un(listoi ted 
picture. And, most assuredly, Sir D. Brewster never did 
prove that a good three-inch portrait lens would not take a 
correct picture ; much less that a lens costing two shillings 
would produce one more correct than a large achromatic 
costing 50/. The supposition is absurd. "W ould not any 
one imagine, upon reading this assertion of Mr. Copland, that 
; expensive lenses had been discarded altogether ? Would not 
he be surprised to learn that the contrary is the fact; that 
the best portraits are still (and ever will be), taken by the 
largest and most expensive lenses ? 
As I have ha<k sime experience in photography, and am 
tolerably conversant with practical optics, I will venture to 
illustrate the matter as simply as I can. An amateur, A., 
following Mr. Copland’s advice, purchases a cheap lens for 
portraits, price two shillings ; for that sum it cannot be made 
i achromatic (it is a meniscus , or a crossed lens); consequently 
it must be made of long focus, otherwise the distortion of the 
: linage will be very great; and even then, to render the picture 
perfectly free from distortion, a stop must be applied, which 
will cut off two-thirds of the light passing through it; and 
he will find that the required time of exposure, even in a good 
light out of doors, null average a minute and a half, or more. 
A. then pays a visit to his photographic friend B., to com¬ 
pare notes on their favourite pursuit. His friend B. has a 
large double achromatic, which cost him 12/. 12s., and is 
j three inches aperture, a little larger than his own. He sees 
i at once that B.’s portraits are better defined than his own, 
which, for some reason or other, he never can get perfectly 
i sharp; and, moreover, that they are more forcible, and are 
i also larger. He is not long in accounting for the greater dis¬ 
tinctness he so envies, for B. does not require more than from 
one to four seconds exposure for a portrait; whereas he 
cannot do with less that ninety, with the same collodion. It 
strikes liim that his sitter cannot remain still for that length 
: of time. Moreover, he owns reluctantly that he must give a 
still longer exposure, if he wishes for portraits as large as 
j those of his friend B. 
After his visit, A. becomes discontented with his productions, 
I and is told that he can do nothing without an achromatic lens ; 
• accordingly he does now what he ought to have done at first 
! —purchases a small achromatic of about one inch and a half 
aperture, and two inches and a half, or three inches and a half, 
in focus, with a suitable stop, like that of a landscape lens. 
He now finds that he can take portraits quite as quickly, and 
quite as well-defined as those of his friend B., taken with his 
large and expensive apparatus. The only difference now be¬ 
tween their production is, that B.’s portraits are larger; and 
the result of his experience is as follo ws: — 
A small, cheap, achromatic lens costing about 25s., will 
give perfectly correct portraits on plates four inches square; 
but, owing to the deep curvature of the lens, the sitter must 
not be within a certain distance, and the portrait must bo 
small; while an expensive three-inch portrait lens will give 
perfectly correct portraits on plates five inches square ; but, 
owing to the shallow curve of the lens and long focus, the 
head of the portrait may be made to cover, without the least 
distortion, a superficies of four times the extent of t he other; 
and when the same portrait is taken, of the same size , by the 
two lenses, the larger of the two will require much shorter 
exposure, and will tako a good portrait in an amount oi 
fight in which tlio smaller would give but a very indifferent 
picture. _ . 
My earnest advice, then, to a beginner, is this the most 
important part of your apparatus is your lens ; if that be bad, 
every picture you take must be bad. Have nothing to do 
with cheap lenses, not achromatic ; it will be found in the end 
to be the very worst economy. Go to the expense of twenty 
to thirty shillings for a small, short-focussed achromat ic, such 
as are now made for stereoscopic pictures, which will give 
pictures four inches or four inches and a half square; and you 
will have one that will be, for small portraits and landscapes, 
everything you could wish. For larger pictures a more ex¬ 
pensive apparatus is required; indeed, the price advances in 
direct ratio with the size of the picture. 
In speaking of the performance of large portrait lenses, I 
must be understood as speaking only of such lenses as are 
absolutely perfect as works of art; the production, for in¬ 
stance, of such men as Messrs. Powell and Lealand, or Mr. 
Ross, A bad double achromatic portrait lens is not worth 
26', And, so far, I agree with Mr. Copland,—II. C. IC. 
[“H. Q. K.” is thanked for his communication. If all 
practical men did their best to expose what they believe to be 
error, much real knowledge would be the result. 
But we believe “ II. C. K.” to be partially in error. Sir 
David Brewster, may, no doubt, be considered “ up to ” the 
mark as to the optical principles of photographic art. 
Sir D. Brewster states, that “ the photographic camera is 
utterly unfit, from the size of its lenses alone , to give accurate 
representations of living beings.” 
He takes the case of a lens three niches in diameter (similar 
to “H. C. Iv.’s” B. lens) with it: he says, “ the photographic 
picture is a combination of 130 pictures of the sitter , talcen 
from 130 different points of sight /” 
Sir D. Brewster further says:—“ In order to obtain perfect 
portraits of persons, landscapes, buildings, or machinery, we 
must use lenses of small aperture, not exceeding a quarter of 
an inch.”.“With a rock-crystal lens, five-eights 
of an inch in diameter, we have obtained portraits in sixty 
seconds, which, though not so sharp as those taken by the 
usual cameras, have been pronounced by competent judges 
to be better likenesses, and finer photographs.” 
Another practical writer says, that large lenses “ not only 
are unnecessary , but even injurious , we can assert from re¬ 
peated experiments.” 
“ That large and expensive lenses are not necessary, is 
illustrated by the fact, that a beautiful portrait of an illustrious 
savant was recently taken by an artist in Edinburgh, with a 
spectacle-eye of rock-crystal, stopped down to half-an-incb, 
and for which the sum of one shilling would be charged. 
This portrait we had the pleasure of examining, and of com¬ 
paring with another likeness of the same individual taken with 
large lenses by a first-rate artist, to which it was manifestly 
superior, both in point of expression and resemblance.” 
The only advantage a large achromatic lens has over a com¬ 
mon meniscus, is rapidity of action; correctness as to separate 
details , not correctness as a whole . In the supposed cases, 
though A.’s picture is not so sharp as B.’s, it is a more pleasing 
and correct likeness. The system adopted by some photo¬ 
graphers of placing a sheet of even-textured paper between a 
sharp negative and the prepared paper, was introduced for 
the very purpose of getting rid of this extreme sharpness 
admired by “ II. C. K.” 
B.’s portraits no doubt, evince more optical perfection, than 
those of A. They bear the same relation as does an architect’s 
elevational drawing of an edifice, to an oil painting of the 
same by an artist. The former, though more pei’fect in its 
details , is not so truthful a representation of the building as 
the latter in the eyes of “ the many,” 
B.’s pictures are also larger than A’s. But the age of 
monster portraits is gone by. If such a likeness be desired, 
it is produced from the small lens negative bv means of the 
photographic pantograph. A. only requires a more sensitive 
process to be in all respects superior to B.’s: (as it is, with 
