Information and discussion on all aspects of British photographic history
Tags:
There were no restrictions, Frederick Scott Archer did not patent the collodion process.
Regards,
John.
Thank you John. According to A. Linkman it wasn't Frederick Scott Archer who had a problem but Fox Talbot who delayed its widespread use by claiming that Archer's process was covered by his (Talbot's) own patent, threatening to prosecute any photographer selling a collodion (spelt with an o) portrait without obtaining a license from himself. A test case involving a London photographer, Martin Sylvester Laroche, found against Talbot in December 1854, thereby resolving this issue.
Since this statement is all that I've been able to discover about the earliest British ambrotypes, I had hoped that other members may have come across firm evidence that other photographers were in fact using the process for portraits prior to 1854/5. I can only asssume that some did, though I haven't seen any dated examples.
Jayne
John Brewer said:There were no restrictions, Frederick Scott Archer did not patent the collodion process.
Regards,
John.
Hi Jayne,
I take your point. I wonder why Fox Talbot didn't take on Archer in the courts or Horne, Thornthwaite, and Wood who were selling 'Archer's Prepared Collodion', with directions for use in 1851. It seems there were at least two other photographers who Fox Talbot threatened, unsuccessfully, before the Laroche test case. I wonder if he realised he was on thin ice.
Regards,
John.
Jayne Shrimpton said:Thank you John. According to A. Linkman it wasn't Frederick Scott Archer who had a problem but Fox Talbot who delayed its widespread use by claiming that Archer's process was covered by his (Talbot's) own patent, threatening to prosecute any photographer selling a collodion (spelt with an o) portrait without obtaining a license from himself. A test case involving a London photographer, Martin Sylvester Laroche, found against Talbot in December 1854, thereby resolving this issue.
Since this statement is all that I've been able to discover about the earliest British ambrotypes, I had hoped that other members may have come across firm evidence that other photographers were in fact using the process for portraits prior to 1854/5. I can only asssume that some did, though I haven't seen any dated examples.
Jayne
John Brewer said:There were no restrictions, Frederick Scott Archer did not patent the collodion process.
Regards,
John.
Hello again John
Yes, I had wondered too about why Fox Talbot didn't direct his concerns towards Archer in the first place. Your mention of Horne et al apparently getting away with it and yet other photographers being threatened by Fox Talbot is interesting. Perhaps the situation was more complex back then than it appears to us now - maybe a degree of personal rivalry as well as commercial interest? As you say, he must have realised that he wasn't really getting anywhere, but I wonder if the potentially difficult situation did deter some photographers in the early days of the ambrotype: the rapid rise in the number of portrait photography studios during the second half of the 1850s may be significant.
I was wondering whether you have made many discoveries by investigating individual photographers' records, or have you found that much has been published? Audrey Linkman seems to have used used some original sources and also some 1980s articles in her book but that was in 1993: it would be good to know whether more progress has been made recently. For my purposes (dating portrait photographs in different formats) I would like to see a concise list of who was doing what when, and where but I expect that's asking too much!
Regards
Jayne
John Brewer said:Hi Jayne,
I take your point. I wonder why Fox Talbot didn't take on Archer in the courts or Horne, Thornthwaite, and Wood who were selling 'Archer's Prepared Collodion', with directions for use in 1851. It seems there were at least two other photographers who Fox Talbot threatened, unsuccessfully, before the Laroche test case. I wonder if he realised he was on thin ice.
Regards,
John.
Jayne Shrimpton said:Thank you John. According to A. Linkman it wasn't Frederick Scott Archer who had a problem but Fox Talbot who delayed its widespread use by claiming that Archer's process was covered by his (Talbot's) own patent, threatening to prosecute any photographer selling a collodion (spelt with an o) portrait without obtaining a license from himself. A test case involving a London photographer, Martin Sylvester Laroche, found against Talbot in December 1854, thereby resolving this issue.
Since this statement is all that I've been able to discover about the earliest British ambrotypes, I had hoped that other members may have come across firm evidence that other photographers were in fact using the process for portraits prior to 1854/5. I can only asssume that some did, though I haven't seen any dated examples.
Jayne
John Brewer said:There were no restrictions, Frederick Scott Archer did not patent the collodion process.
Regards,
John.
Hi Jayne,
I am, and have been doing research on Archer for some time. I've just found in my notes a photocopy from a modern text but I think it's a quote from an historical text, although I'm not sure which one without digging about. I think you may find it interesting:
'In 1851, after the collodion process of Frederick Scott Archer, Talbot discovered a method by which instantaneous pictures could be taken, and in 1852 a method of photographic engraving. About 1854 he secured a gloss on photographic prints by means of albumen. All these inventions were patented; but in 1852, at the solicitations of the presidents of the Royal Society and the Royal Academy, he consented to throw open his discoveries, with the sole exception of 'portrait-taking for sale to the public.'
Best,
John.
Jayne Shrimpton said:Hello again John
Yes, I had wondered too about why Fox Talbot didn't direct his concerns towards Archer in the first place. Your mention of Horne et al apparently getting away with it and yet other photographers being threatened by Fox Talbot is interesting. Perhaps the situation was more complex back then than it appears to us now - maybe a degree of personal rivalry as well as commercial interest? As you say, he must have realised that he wasn't really getting anywhere, but I wonder if the potentially difficult situation did deter some photographers in the early days of the ambrotype: the rapid rise in the number of portrait photography studios during the second half of the 1850s may be significant.
I was wondering whether you have made many discoveries by investigating individual photographers' records, or have you found that much has been published? Audrey Linkman seems to have used used some original sources and also some 1980s articles in her book but that was in 1993: it would be good to know whether more progress has been made recently. For my purposes (dating portrait photographs in different formats) I would like to see a concise list of who was doing what when, and where but I expect that's asking too much!
Regards
Jayne
John Brewer said:Hi Jayne,
I take your point. I wonder why Fox Talbot didn't take on Archer in the courts or Horne, Thornthwaite, and Wood who were selling 'Archer's Prepared Collodion', with directions for use in 1851. It seems there were at least two other photographers who Fox Talbot threatened, unsuccessfully, before the Laroche test case. I wonder if he realised he was on thin ice.
Regards,
John.
Jayne Shrimpton said:Thank you John. According to A. Linkman it wasn't Frederick Scott Archer who had a problem but Fox Talbot who delayed its widespread use by claiming that Archer's process was covered by his (Talbot's) own patent, threatening to prosecute any photographer selling a collodion (spelt with an o) portrait without obtaining a license from himself. A test case involving a London photographer, Martin Sylvester Laroche, found against Talbot in December 1854, thereby resolving this issue.
Since this statement is all that I've been able to discover about the earliest British ambrotypes, I had hoped that other members may have come across firm evidence that other photographers were in fact using the process for portraits prior to 1854/5. I can only asssume that some did, though I haven't seen any dated examples.
Jayne
John Brewer said:There were no restrictions, Frederick Scott Archer did not patent the collodion process.
Regards,
John.
Hi Jayne
Yes, I do hope to publish my findings but information is difficult to find. A shame he didn't keep a diary, or if he did I guess it's long gone.
I wonder if you don't see many ambrotypes because they were one off images. If people had portraits taken they might want several copies and get better value for money for the cost of the sitting. I've only seen one positive image made by Archer in the national collection in Bradford, and that was when he was experimenting with collodion, all the rest were albumen prints.
Regards,
John.
Dear Jayne and John
Having looked for the history of the ambrotype across the Asia-Pacific region ( www.nga.gov.au/pictureparadise I am curious about why the ambrotype in general was not more popular everywhere. It is curiously absent in Asia until the flourish in Japan in the late 19th century of portraits in Kiri wood cases.
If you could make wet-plates and albumen prints surely ambrotypes were also relatively easy? They seem tp be endless advertised in photographer's notices in newspapers but the surviving numbers dont seem quite to match up.Uniqueness for example did not dent the massive numbers of daguerreotypes in America. It might be worth perusing early advertisements from 1851-55 to see glass positives/ambrotypes were advertised in Britain.
Gael Newton
Dear Jayne and John
Having looked for the history of the ambrotype across the Asia-Pacific region ( www.nga.gov.au/pictureparadise I am curious about why the ambrotype in general was not more popular everywhere. It is curiously absent in Asia until the flourish in Japan in the late 19th century of portraits in Kiri wood cases.
If you could make wet-plates and albumen prints surely ambrotypes were also relatively easy? They seem tp be endless advertised in photographer's notices in newspapers but the surviving numbers dont seem quite to match up.Uniqueness for example did not dent the massive numbers of daguerreotypes in America. It might be worth perusing early advertisements from 1851-55 to see glass positives/ambrotypes were advertised in Britain.
Gael Newton
Victoria and Albert Museum's photography collection
National Science and Media Museum
RPS Journal 1853-2012 online and searchable
Photographic History Research Centre, Leicester
Birkbeck History and Theory of Photography Research Centre
William Henry Fox Talbot Catalogue Raisonné
British Photography. The Hyman Collection
The Press Photo History Project Mapping the photo agencies and photographers of Fleet Street and the UK
The correspondence of William Henry Fox Talbot
Historic England Archive
UAL Photography and Photography and the Archive Research Centre
Royal Photographic Society's Historical Group
www.londonstereo.com London Stereoscopic Company / T. R. Williams
www.earlyphotography.co.uk British camera makers and companies
Fox Talbot Museum, Lacock.
National Portrait Gallery, London
http://www.freewebs.com/jb3d/
Alfred Seaman and the Photographic Convention
Frederick Scott Archer
© 2023 Created by Michael Pritchard.
Powered by