HF The History of Photography 600pág

144 The early years of photography
Pl 32
•
would form an admirable drapery, but this is an artistic liberty which ladies are
very loath to submit to . ...
We wish ladies would be a little less prim on such occasions. It is quite melancholy
to see the care they take to brush their hair, and apply that abomination
fixiture [sic], to make it 'look nice' ; whereas if a good breeze had broken it up
into a hundred waves, the effect in the daguerreotype would have been infinitely
more beautiful. And let them by all means abjure the system of making up a face
for the occasion. The effect is painfully transparent. The mouth, so expressive in
all faces, in these portraits is nearly always alike; and for the simple reason, that
we put its muscles into attitudes which are not at all natural to it-we substitute
a voluntary for an involuntary action; and of course stiffness is the result. If ladies
however, must study for a bit of effect, we will give them a recipe for a pretty
expression of mouth-let them place it as if they were going to say 'prunes'.53
Among the many distinguished people whom Claudet photographed about this
period were the inventors of photography, Talbot (1844) and Daguerre (1846), the
Dowager Queen Adelaide and the Duke of Wellington (both in 1845), the Duke and
Duchess of Northumberland, and the Duke of Richmond. The Duke of Wellington's
portrait-the only photograph for which he ever sat-was by general consent the best
likeness of him, and this portrait was subsequently copied in innumerable engravings
and miniatures.
On 5 April 184 7 Claudet opened another portrait studio at the Colosseum in
Regent's Park. This building, reopened in 1844 with a panorama of London, 400 ft
long x IOO ft high, by E. T. Parris, and a permanent exhibition of sculpture, became
within a short time one of the focal points of attraction in London, and was therefore
a most favourable situation for a portrait studio. Claudet noticed an additional
advantage-'the atmosphere of that locality being free from smoke will greatly
facilitate the photographic operations'.
We have already referred to the retarding effect on the progress of photography
caused by Beard's and Talbot's patents, which lasted for fourteen years from the date
of issue. It is difficult to describe the general resentment these patents caused. Many
people were tempted to take up photography without a licence, claiming that these
processes had only become practicable and profitable through the many improvements
of later investigators, and that the processes as practised in, say, 1843 or 1844
by then resembled the specifications of the original patent only in their fundamental
principles.
Richard Beard-like Fox Talbot-brought several lawsuits against infringers of his
patent. From time to time he published warnings threatening with immediate legal
proceedings any person not duly licensed, adding, 'Information, with necessary
proofs, relating to infringement, will be liberally rewarded', and since it was not
always easy to prove infringement, Beard tried to get evidence by employing an
agent-provocateur.
The most important case is that of Beard v. John Egerton of Temple Street, W'hitefriars,
which occupied the courts on and off for five and a half years, and is the longest
lawsuit in the history of British photography.
Egerton was an agent for Daguerre's and Claudet's cameras, and for Voigtlander's
and Lerebours's lenses, and became known for his English translation of Lerebours's
Treatise on Photography (1843). Co-defendants in the case were Egerton's brother
Jeremiah and Charles Bates, of the same address, who were described as plumbers
and painters.