HF The History of Photography 600pág

Direct positives on paper 8 5
been obtained upon paper by the aid of the camera, and which have been produced
by a process other than that of M. Daguerre. These specimens are a good augury ;
if they do not reproduce the colours of objects, if they leave something to desire
in the matter of perspective, they indicate at least that the reflecting operation
invented by M. Bayard should be susceptible of rapid improvement, and people
are already astonished at the truth of the reduced forms presented, in a subdued
light, by the objects transferred to the paper.
These facts prove Bayard's complete independence of Talbot's and Daguerre's
methods. Bayard deserves a more prominent position as an independent inventor
of photography than is generally accorded to him. One wonders at his reticence in
not publishing his method ; the reason for this silence apparently lies in Arago's request
to refrain from making his invention public, in order not to prejudice the success
of Daguerre's. A second similar invention would undoubtedly have dimmed the
blaze of glory which Arago was then engaged in directing on to Daguerre. This fad:,
of which Bayard later bitterly complained, 1 was not made known until after Arago's
death.2 Credence may well be given to this story, in view of the zeal with which
Arago pushed his protege's invention ; moreover we cannot acquit him of some
double-dealing in hypocritically presenting the daguerreotype 'as a gift to the entire
world' when he must have known that Daguerre had patented it in England five
days earlier. It was probably through Arago's influence that Duchatel, Minister of the
Interior, in June I839, gave Bayard 600 francs (then worth about £25) for the purpose
of buying a better camera and lens3 and to subsidize further experiments, and
this official gesture seems to have persuaded the timid inventor to fall in with Arago's
wishes.
After the publication of Daguerre's method on I9 August I839, however, Bayard
persuaded the Academie des Beaux-Arts to take up his cause, and they instructed
Raoul Rochette to draw up a report on the process, which was read at their meeting
on 2 November.4 Raoul Rochette stressed the ease of manipulation of Bayard's process
and its convenience for travellers, as compared with the daguerreotype. He
mentioned that the paper could be kept sensitive in a portfolio for a month, and
though the exposure was longer than Daguerre's-lasting nearly half an hour-this
was compensated by the other advantages. Under-exposed pictures would be useful
for artists as a base to paint on. Compared with the results of Talbot who, he wrongly
assumed, had so far only been able to produce facsimiles (contre-calques) in which
black and white were reversed, Bayard's photographs gave the positive effect
(l'ejfet positif) of the subject, and were only laterally reversed. Following this the
Academie declared the artistic superiority of paper over metal for photography, and
recommended Bayard 'to the interest and generosity of the Government'.
A brief mention was made at the Academie des Sciences on 28 October that a
communication had been received from Bayard relative to an arrangement he had
invented to facilitate the reproduction of enlarged images of objects in the solar
microscope by means of photography, but this was not printed in the Comptes
Rendus and there is consequently no indication of the procedure Bayard had adopted.
Possibly it was the same as that contained in a sealed packet which Bayard deposited
with the Academie on II November I839, and which was opened at his request at
the session of 8 February I841. Bayard described therein, and included pictures by,
a process he had invented in October I839. With this he had obtained negatives in
I 8 minutes, the latent image being made visible by subsequent treatment with
mercury vapour.