609
dated rural buildings or ancient ruins occupying pride
of place. Benjamin Brecknell Turner produced pictur-
esque calotypes of English scenes throughout the 1850s;
Llewelyn continued making picturesque views of Wales;
Diamond, Edward Kater, George Shadboldt and others
worked in this mode. Not all picturesque photography
was conducted by amateurs: Edward Fox—“Landscape
and Architectural Photographer”—worked in Brighton
and Sussex; James Mudd, a portrait and industrial pho-
tographer, had a sideline in picturesque scenes of the
Lake District. In the late 1850s Francis Bedford made
an extensive record of picturesque Britain; Fenton was
also particularly active in producing picturesque and
topographical photographs throughout the mainland.
Even during this period the hegemony of amateurs was
incomplete. Commercial portraitists were involved in
the Society and Fenton’s Crimean war pictures of 1855,
or Frith’s tours of Egypt and the Holy Land, from 1856,
were commercial speculations. In 1853 prominent early
‘amateurs’ founded the Photographic Institution, trading
in photographic equipment, selling photographs and
charging for lessons; Fenton and others temporarily
left the Society to found the (unsuccessful) commercial
Photographic Institution in 1856. Robert Howlett, one
of the Institution’s partners, documented the making
of the Great Eastern steam ship in 1857. Unusual in
capturing the industrial transformation of Britain, nine
engravings from this series of pictures were published in
The Illustrated Times in 1858. Philip Delamotte was one
who made the successful transition from amateur to pro-
fessional photographer, producing among other things,
pictures of the rebuilding of the Crystal Place in Syden-
ham. By the later 1850s the trade in views—British and
foreign—had become a viable business. In 1859 Frith
opened an establishment to produce albumen prints,
which expanded to become an extensive photographic
emporium (in 1862 he purchased Fenton’s archive).
George Washington Wilson also ran a signifi cant studio
trading in Scottish scenes, producing an estimated 400
prints a day. While he continued to issue picturesque
Scottish subjects, his business developed into a merchant
house distributing views.
However, during this period the predominant ac-
counts of photographic pictures did not come from
professional photographers. Sir William J. Newton,
Elizabeth Eastlake and William Lake Price who all
tried to account for the new image were artists or, in
Eastlake’s case, closely associated with Fine Art; they
rejected the idea of “art-photography.” In the fi rst issue
of the Journal of the Photographic Society Newton ar-
gued that photographs were more ‘artistic’ when taken
a little out of focus, he had in mind studies for artists,
not independent photographic pictures. Subsequently,
a debate raged on this subject with the men of science
advocating optical sharpness while artists supported
Newton: neither side imagined they were addressing
artworks. In her much cited 1857 review of photography
and political economy, Eastlake championed, what she
called Newton’s “heresy.” She insisted that photography
was not a fi ne art, but a “new medium” that could serve
artists. Price’s essays “On Composition and Chiaroscu-
ro,” which appeared in 1860, were among the most sig-
nifi cant assessments of photography during this period.
His account drew on the ideas of Academic artists like
Reynolds, while refusing to sanction the photograph as
independent artwork. The Academic tradition stressed
idealisation and the importance of following artistic
rules, rather than imitating nature’s particularities. While
he was certainly not alone, Price played an important
role in introducing the antimonies of the Academic
tradition into photographic discourse: hands and minds,
mechanical and liberal, workers/slaves/servants and
gentlemen, details and broad effects and low and high
genres. Copies and copyists were ‘base,’ ‘servile,’ and
‘mechanical.’ He believed photographers must impose
their intellect on the subject, rather than imitate it. This
account cast a long shadow over the medium.
Photography really developed as a signifi cant pro-
fession when the carte-de-visite arrived from France.
Cartes probably appeared during the mid-1850s, but the
carte craze dates from 1859. There were a mere 66 pho-
tographic fi rms in London in 1855; by 1864 this number
had shot up to 284. Proportional increases are seen in
most major cities. Estimates vary, but one suggests that
between 1861 and 1867 some 300 to 400 million cartes
were sold in Britain (Darrah, 4). Carte portraits usually
sold at half a crown a dozen, and while the format re-
sulted in virtually interchangeable images they extended
portraits to the middle class. The carte trade operated
in very different ‘economies.’ Camille Silvy, Oliver
Sarony, J.J.E. Mayall and Williams catered to the luxury
trade. Operating from lavish studies, they employed a
range of assistants: receptionists, printers, colourists,
even an operator who took the photograph. It was a mark
of Silvy’s distinction that he arranged poses and oper-
ated the camera. Nevertheless, his establishment was a
portrait factory employing 50 people; Andrew Wynter
suggested that by 1862 Silvy had produced 700,000
carte portraits (Wynter, 173). However, the main body of
photographers were petit-bourgeois traders who owned
some capital, but worked in the business, sometimes
alongside family members and perhaps an assistant.
Then there were the “cheap workers” who scandalised
the champions of photography. The photographic press
was full of stories of “photographic dens” employing
“touts” in Bermondsey, Cheapside, the New-Cut, and
Whitechapel. The pictures made in these studios could
be rudimentary.
In addition, celebrity cartes featuring Royalty, cler-
gymen, politicians and actresses became a lucrative