438
year obtained satisfactory portraits. His 1840 portrait of
his sister is considered one of the oldest in existence.
In early 1840 Draper teamed up with painter-inventor
Samuel Morse, creating a portrait studio on the roof of
New York University. He was also the fi rst American,
in 1840, to photograph the moon. In later years, Draper
left practical photography for theoretical studies on
light, photochemistry, and spectrum analysis, a fi eld in
which he was seconded and eventually succeeded by
his son Henry; he also wrote on intellectual history and
American history.
François Brunet
DRY PLATE NEGATIVES: GELATINE
The 1871 paper by Richard Leach Maddox “An Experi-
ment with Gelatino-Bromide” (Maddox, 1871, 422) is
generally seen as the event that led to the introduction
of fast gelatine dry plates. However, it made little
immediate impact on contemporary photographers.
In the search for what seemed like the Holy Grail of
photography—dry plates that matched the qualities of
wet collodion plates—the announcement of promising
dry processes that ultimately disappointed had become
a regular feature of the photographic press. Gelatine as
a substitute for collodion was well known to photog-
raphers and at least two workers, W.H. Harrison and
Thomas Sutton, had recognised the potential of gelatine
bromide emulsions. And as Maddox himself recalled,
his paper was “hurriedly written and fragmentary” and
“compared with collodion, the gelatine was slower”
(W.J. Harrison, 1888, 131–132). Almost two years
passed before it emerged that Maddox’s paper had not
gone completely unnoticed.
In July 1873 John Burgess, a London Photographer,
advertised a bottled emulsion which enabled a photog-
rapher to “prepare dry plates equal in sensitiveness and
superior in many respects to the best wet plates” (W.J.
Harrison, 1888, 63). Burgess did not disclose the nature
of his emulsion but it was soon revealed to be gelatine
bromide. Although it received an early welcome from
the photographic press, it was found to decompose
readily and exposure times did not match those of wet
collodion. It was not a commercial success. Undaunted,
Burgess soon offered pre-coated dry plates for sale. They
too were imperfect and a market failure but did impress
some photographers. In a glimpse of the future, John
Beattie reported in Photographic News how he thought
they could be useful to “a professional artist who may be
called from home to photograph some special domestic
occurrence, such as the fi rst family wedding;” (Beattie,
1873, 526).
Some of the problems with Burgess’s emulsion was
caused by a build-up of soluble salts, which could by
remedied by a washing-out process independently advo-
cated in November 1873 by Joshua King and J. Johnston.
Richard Kennett claimed an earlier interest in gelatine
emulsions was revived when Burgess announced his
products. (Kennett, 1874, 290–292). On 20th November
1873 Kennett patented a dried gelatine silver bromide
emulsion, which he called a pellicle. When marketed,
the user was directed to dissolve the pellicle in water
and warm before pouring onto a glass plate. Kennett’s
pellicle received a mixed reception from photographers.
There were enthusiastic advocates who claimed the
process to be superior to other dry processes and wet
collodion but also many sceptics. Ultimately, neither the
pellicle nor the prepared plates Kennett later introduced
were a commercial success. Of the pellicle, John Werge
claimed “It gave excellent results, but preparing the
plates was a messy and sticky operation, which I feared
would be prejudicial to its usefulness and success.”
(Werge 1890, 96). It also seems that most photographers
could not come to terms with the sensitivity of Kennett’s
emulsion and regularly over-exposed.
Despite the market failure of the products outlined
above, refi nements, such as W.B. Bolton’s incremental
method of adding gelatine, J. Johnston’s use of ammonia
and Charles Bennett’s hot ripening technique, led to
improved plates of more consistent quality. Most impor-
tantly, exposure times measured in fractions of seconds
were now possible. Further commercial exploitation be-
came inevitable. The fi rst business to produce dry plates
in large quantities was the Liverpool Dry Plate Company
established in the1860s to market Tannin plates and later,
collodio-bromide plates. In 1876 it introduced Kennett’s
gelatine plates and in 1878, Bennett’s more sensitive
plates. The business was not outstandingly successful
but it showed the way. In 1879, when Alfred Harmen
set up his Britannia Works Company to manufacture dry
plates there were over twenty brands of pre-prepared dry
plates on the market. Alfred Harmen’s business began
with staff coating plates by hand with emulsion from
a teapot. Within a few years dry plate companies had
introduced machines coating 12,000 plates a day. By
1891 Alfred Harmen’s company was claiming to be the
largest manufacturer of dry plates in the world. Ten years
later it adopted the name that was to become one of the
most famous in photography, Ilford, Limited.
The development of gelatine dry plates was primarily
a British concern. Most early users were amateurs; pro-
fessional photographers were complacent and conserva-
tive. Werge described how in 1878 he visited Messrs.
Elliot and Fry to promote rapid gelatine dry plates but
was mockingly accused by an incredulous Fry of being
“an enthusiast.” (Werge, 1890, 96–7). It was only in
the 1880s that professional photographers began using
gelatine dry plates in large numbers. Even then, one
writer visiting Messrs. Window and Grove found them
using gelatine during the dark winter months but was