1357
and direction, permitting the photographer more control
over visual effect.
As late as 1911, in the Encyclopaedia of Photography
(Bernard Jones, Editor), and despite the fact that vari-
ous forms of artifi cial light had been readily available
for more than two decades, the daylight studio is still
given prominence.
The daylight studio, while allowing photographers
considerable control over lighting effects, limited the
hours they could work. On dull winter days, low light
levels resulted in over-long exposures. Several portrait
photographers in the 1860s and 1870s advertised their
studio opening times as ‘weather permitting.’
With the widespread availability of gelatin dry plates
from about 1880, with their considerably increased sen-
sitivity, exposure times in daylight studios were reduced
to only a few seconds, allowing photographers to refi ne
the lighting techniques they had used for three decades
without unnecessarily inconveniencing their sitters.
Thus the introduction of artifi cial lighting in the
1850s was, at fi rst, not widely taken up by portrait-
ists. For those who did embrace the new technol-
ogy, it considerably extended working hours. John
Moule’s patented ‘Photogen’ light source—burning a
powdery mixture of antimony, sulphur and potassium
nitrate—was advertised in 1857 as a “rival to the sun,”
but was not adopted by many portraitists. Perhaps the
noxious smoke it generated had a signifi cant impact on
its popularity.
Credited with the fi rst successful use of fl ash was
Manchester photographer Alfred Brothers in May
1864, although initially on location rather than in the
studio. By the end of that year, however, he was using
magnesium ribbon to create a sustained high-intensity
light for studio portraiture.
Amongst those to embrace the possibilities of arti-
fi cial lighting were itinerant photographers, who took
their caravan studios to villages, towns and fairgrounds
throughout the country.
A writer for the journal Photographic News (Vol.
30, no.1434, February 26 1886), described such a
photographer’s caravan. Attracted by a notice offering
photographic portraits in fi ve minutes by electric light,
the writer entered the caravan just before the studio’s
closing time of 11pm remarking that “The desire to wit-
ness this astonishing advance in photographic science
could not be resisted.”
So I ascended the wooden steps to the caravan...The stu-
dio was certainly no more than fi ve feet by three. It was
painted a light blue, and in the left-hand corner, fronting
the sitter, was a sort of glass cupboard placed diagonally.
The glass was blue, and its use I was presently to see. The
studio was wholly devoid of “properties; its solitary article
of furniture was a common Windsor chair, behind whichwas a well-worn head-rest...The head-rest was applied
in half-a-second, and in a second more the artist had his
head beneath the focussing cloth, and a camera with
four lenses was protruded towards my face...... ......he
was profoundly indifferent as to my expression...All he
said was: “Now don’t be afraid, it won’t hurt you,” and
up blazed an intense light in the blue-glass cupboard.
I must confess that the sensation of the blinding blaze
was not pleasant. The exposure was probably fi ve or six
seconds.The lighting was generated by a device known as the
Luxorgraph, patented in Britain in 1878 by Alder and
Clark, and described in E. J Wall’s 1897 Dictionary of
Photography (London: Hazell, Watson and Viney) as
‘A large lantern-like device with tissue paper front in
which pyrotechnic or other compounds can be burned
to give artifi cial light for portraiture.’
The photographer stressed that this was not a mag-
nesium wire or ribbon light source (which was covered
by patents), but “Luxorygraph powder.” As to the exact
composition of the powder, he did not elaborate. The
combustible powder was fl ared by a gas jet which was
in turn ignited by an electric spark. The device produced
a very fl at lighting effect especially when used in such
confi ned spaces.
Credited with being the fi rst studio in the United
Kingdom to offer portraits by electric light was that of
Henry Van der Weyde, an American photographer who
had opened premises in London’s Regent Street as early
as 1877. To power what he advertised as “The Van der
Weyde Light” he generated his own electricity using a
gas engine—another fi rst. It was not until the late 1880s,
that portraiture studios generally started to embrace
the new lighting technology, and several changed their
names to incorporate ‘Electric’ or ‘Electric studio’ into
their names. Thus, for example, Thomas Charles Turner,
who had been in business since c.1875, started to ad-
vertise his “electric and daylight” studios in 1891, and
celebrated that fact on the backs of his cartes-de-visite.
Electric lighting came in a variety of forms—gas lamps
as well as acetylene and arc lamps.
Once artifi cial light became commonplace, photog-
raphers were able move their studios from the top fl oors
of buildings to ground fl oor locations, offering easier
access to their customers. Many, however, used electric
light to augment or partly replace daylight, simply ex-
tending their ability to work independently of weather
conditions. Many daylight studios continued in use well
into the twentieth century.
John HannavySee also: Cameron, Julia Margaret; Snelling, Henry
Hunt; Daguerreotype; Wet Collodion Negative; Wet
Collodion Positive Processes; Price, William Lake;