HF The History of Photography 600pág

164 The early years of photography
to the finest miniatures that have ever been painted', but this was only one of many
fallacious statements on artistic matters, about which this eminent scientist knew
little. 'The artistic effect in these representations is susceptible of being much heightened
by the brush, and the defects of expression might be removed, and the likeness
in consequence greatly improved, by one or more subsequent sittings.'11 To human
vanity, straightforward photographs, untouched by the artist's pencil or brush,
appear mechanical and lacking in artistic feeling. The chief propagators of this idea
were, in the first place, miniaturists and minor painters whose very livelihood seemed
threatened by the new art. However, while delicate tinting of daguerreotypes had
perhaps some justification because portraits on polished silvered plates were difficult
to see, and the taste of the time considered them to have 'a ghastly, corpse-like hue',
retouching (a thing impossible on daguerreotypes, and introduced by Collen on
paper photographs) will always be objected to by purists because it constitutes a most
injudicious mixture of two diametrically opposed artistic media.
In spite of the praise bestowed upon Collen's calotype miniatures, they were
apparently no match for daguerreotype portraits, on account of the grain of the
paper, which precluded fine detail and after a little more than a year he returned to
miniature painting.
Ironically, the few photographs which have survived out of Collen's total output
of about one thousand portraits12 have largely faded, and it is only his pen and brush
strokes which give substance to the ghost-like portrait.
Thereupon (October 1842) Talbot tried to persuade Claudet, the acknowledged
master of daguerreotype portraiture, to adopt the calotype at the Adelaide Gallery.
Talbot stipulated that he should receive 25% of the takings on calotype portraits (the
price of which was to be r guinea, and 5s. for extra copies), and that he should be free
to grant other licences in London should his share fall below £400 in one year. This
latter point proved a stumbling-block, and negotiations dragged on for eighteen
months.13 Eventually in July 1844 Claudet bought a licence and was instructed in
the process by Henneman, Talbot's ex-valet and assistant. For nearly two years
Claudet produced calotype or daguerreotype portraits, according to the wish of the
sitter. The price of a portrait 'on a half sheet of letter paper' (4-i- in. x 6t in.) was r
guinea, and of every subsequent copy 7s. 6d. On a quarter sheet of paper the charge
was half a guinea, and 5s. for each additional print. Incidentally, it was Claudet (and
not Sir David Brewster, as is often stated) who first publicly suggested-at the time
of taking out his licence-that the calotype 'may more justly be named Talbotype,
from the same feeling which has caused the name of Daguerre to be given to his
valuable discovery'.14 However, calotype portraiture was not a commercial success.
THOMAS WY A TT, secretary of the Birmingham Society of Artists, and portrait
painter of some reputation in the Midlands, was induced by the novelty and success
of the calotype process to pay its inventor a considerable sum in the mid-184os for
the sole right of practising the art in Manchester and surrounding districts. This
proved a most unfortunate speculation, for Wyatt received no adequate return for
his investment, and after struggling on for several years he died a pauper.15
Though no patent restrictions hampered the calotype in Scotland, mn's AND
ADAMSON'S studio in EDINBURGH was the only professional calotype establishment
north of the Border.
A number of Scottish scientists, foremost among them SIR DA vrn BREWSTER and
DR JOHN ADAMSON, both of St Andrews University, experimented with Talbot's
process, and the first calotype portrait in Scotland-if not in the world-was taken by
Pl 67 Dr Adamson in May r 84r. Both negative and positive of this portrait are preserved