1076
In the same journal (vol. 5, 1859, 109 and 132), there
is a reprint of another paper by Pretsch on “Photography
subject to the Press,” in which he gives his reasons for
abandoning the etching methods of photo-engraving
used by Talbot in favor of the photo-galvanographic
and gave a short sketch of his method, stating that the
granulation was a distinctive feature of it, and was in-
dispensable for the reproduction of any tint by a printing
plate. There is another paper on “Photo-galvanography,
or Nature’s Engraving” (vol. 6, 1959, 1) illustrating with
a plate from a negative by O.G. Rejlander, “I pays,”
which is interesting not only as a good specimen of the
process, but also because it is an early example of the
process of aciérage, by which the electrotyped plate was
coated with iron and so was made capable of yielding
the large number of copies required (3,000) instead of
having to prepare a number of duplicate plates or make a
transfer to stone for inferior photolithographic results. A
description of the aciérage process is given by F. Joubert,
the inventor, in the same number of the journal.
Notwithstanding Pretsch’s remarkable skills and
inventions, much of his career, and the progress of
photography and photomechanical printing in general,
were harmed by W.H.F. Talbot’s intransigence when it
came to negotiating the licensing of his patents. A study
of Talbot’s correspondence, now made possible thanks
to Larry J Schaaff’s The Correspondence of William
Henry Fox Talbot project, reveals a dark side to this
otherwise well regarded inventor as we see him display-
ing an incredible level of greed and lack of respect for
Pretsch’s efforts. In early 1857 Pretsch was forced to
abandon his publishing activities with the photogalvanic
process following a lawsuit by Talbot. Despite this he
kept improving his processes, notably for relief (block)
printing, and maintained contact with Talbot, sending
him specimens of his new methods and begging him for
permission to exploit his new inventions. The following,
from a letter Pretsch sent to Talbot, June 1, 1861, shows
the level of desperation facing the Austrian inventor.
Sir,
I have been informed by Mr. Hogarth that you intend to
postpone the conclusion and settlement of our affairs
till your return from the Continent. I must confess that
this would be too much for my means which are now
utterly exhausted;—the transactions with yourself and
Mr. Hogarth have been carried out since February (four
months), and before that time since several years I have
been living on my own resources, but which are now
perfectly exhausted, and at an end without any hopes of
being renewed. I do not suppose that it is your intention,
to torture me;—I think I have not deserved such degrading
pains for my hard labour and unceasing skillfull work.
I have therefore to request most urgently the favour of
you, that you may make your decision at once, whatever
it may be.—Last Friday night has been forwarded to you
the draft draught of the indenture with suggestions foryour approval. I beg therefore to send your reply to this
as soon as possible, and I rely at least in this instance on
your reasonableness and impartial kindness.
I enclose the impressions of two blocks which I have
latterly fi nished. Both of them are absolutely untouched
by the graver.
Expecting very soon your kind reply, permit me to
remain_Sir_Your very obedt. Servt
Paul Pretsch
Despite many such efforts, his plea was not met
favorably.
At the Exhibition of 1862, in London, he exhibited
half-tone photogalvanographic plates in intaglio and in
relief, and obtained the only medal awarded for that class
of work. He did a good deal of work in illustrating the
Journal of the British Museum, but found it, however,
diffi cult to get on in London, and after a serious illness
he returned to Vienna in 1863. He was taken on again
in the Imperial State Printing Offi ce, but his health had
broken down and he made no further progress in perfect-
ing his methods. In 1873 he died of cholera.
Others improved photogalvanography under the
names of helioplasty, leimtype photo-electrotype,
swelled gelatin and wash-out processes. It was employed
in England almost exclusively by A. & C. Dawson, who
styled themselves otherwise the Typographic Etching
Company. It was in all essentials identical with the
original Pretsch process. It had considerable merit, but
was hopelessly expensive and slow compared with the
other methods.
Luis Nadeau
See also: Pretsch, Paul.Further Reading
Eder, Joseph Maria, History of Photography, 581–590, Dover:
New York: Columbia University Press, 1978, originally
published 1945.
Fritz, G., Festschrift zur Enthüllungsfeier der Gedenktafel für
Paul Pretsch, Vienna, 1888.
Leopold, Joseph, Phot. Korr., 1874, 180. [The most detailed
account of Pretsch’s process of intaglio photo-galvanogra-
phy.]
Pretsch, Paul: “Photo-galvanography, or Engraving by Light and
Electricity.” Phot. J. 3 (1854): 58.
——, “Photo-galvanography, or Nature’s Engraving.” Phot. J.
6 (1859): 1.
Volkmer, Ottomar, Die Photo-Galvanographie zur Hertsellung
von Kupferdruck-ud Buchdruckplatten nebst den dazu nöthi-
gen Vor-und Nebenarbeiten,. Halle: Knapp 1894.
Waterhouse, J., “Paul Pretsch and Photo-galvanography,” Penrose
Annual 16 (1910–1911): 137–142.PHOTOGENIC DRAWING NEGATIVE
In 1834, William Henry Fox Talbot invented a light-
sensitive paper that he named “photogenic drawing