Niépce correspondance et papiers

1164 C ORRESPONDANCE ET PAPIERS metal paper glass or other substances // and even of etching from th[e]se. This process he modified & improved & being himself a man of retired habits & living generally in a pro- vincial town, he in 1829 associated himself with Daguerre whom he discribed [sic] as a cle- ver, active pushing man of the world (of which he has the appearance). This contract still exists. In 1833 Mr Niepce senior died & subsequently to that, Daguerre discovered a new process or modification of the former one ; which Mr N. does not attempt to deny // to be a most important one, so important that he Mr N. agreed to give up all claim to the title of the invention under his father’s name in order to share the profits of the discovery. This new bargain was made, & the practical difference is this that whereas the original process requi- red 5 or 6 hours & the lights consequently changed or were lost ; the new one producing the same effect in 5 minutes. Mr N. is at present associated with M. Daguerre as regards any profit &c arising from the concern. He shewed me specimens of his // father’s art both on silver plates & on glass 1 . It could be applied to paper which he says Daguerre’s certainly could not. Daguerre has possessed his secret and considerable perfection for 3 years at least ; I saw one of his pictures of that date he has certainly improved upon it since. He has also improved the camera obscura. In Niepce’s landscape the details were very imperfect except in the centre 2 . Some of Niepces (all by the old process) of still life on glass were // very good 3 . M. Niepce thinks it unlikely that either process should be discovered — but especially Daguerre’s which judging also from what Arago said is a very curious one. I examined the pictures very minutely. The substance is acknowledged to be silver plated on copper - Arago hinted that the metal produced some galvanic effect - but evi- dently the surface has most to do with it — perhaps the indestructibility. The etching pro- cess is peculiar to Niepce’s old plan & his son possesses // it. Both Niepces & Daguerres drawings have this very singular peculiarity that the parts which are dark & therefore unaltered have a simply metallic aspect & in those on glass the glass appears wholly uncoa- ted. Therefore either the substance when applied is wholly transparent like varnish & whi- tens somewhat like chilled varnish on exposure to light, or what is more probable, the unchanged parts of the composition have been subsequently chemically removed. Perhaps it is this process // which [destroys] paper. The consequence of this is that if you look along any of these plates so as to get a specular reflexion the picture is reversed, the light being dark as in Talbot’s process 4 . I am inclined to think that the composition which remains is easily soluble at least in Niepces process for he shewed me a blot made by a touch of the finger where a bunch of flowers should have been 5 . 1833 1839 1 De l’été 1833 jusqu’à l’automne 1839 1. On notera qu’Isidore Niépce possédait des images sur argent et sur verre, deux supports qui manquent parmi les œuvres de Niépce conservées actuellement. 2. Ces paysages dont le centre était parfait ne pouvaient être que des vues à la chambre obscure. Que sont- elles devenues ? 3. Cette mention de nature morte est unique parmi tous les documents que nous connaissons. Notons plu- sieurs détails importants : il y en avait plusieurs, elles étaient sur verre et de très bonne qualité. 4. Nous avons ici une description assez précise des images sur verre qui nous permet de comprendre qu’il s’agis- sait de physautotypes. Pour une étude détaillée de cet extrait du journal de Forbes, v. App. XXIV. 5. Je suis enclin à penser que la composition qui reste [sur la plaque] est facilement soluble au moins dans le pro- cédé de Niépce car il m’a montré une tache provoquée par un coup de doigt là où aurait dû être un bou- quet de fleurs . Cette phrase nous a permis (J.L.M. p. 485) d’identifier ici l’image dite de « la table servie » et donc de l’attribuer à Nicéphore Niépce. En effet, on observera sur la reproduction de cette image que le bouquet de fleurs, à gauche, a été grossièrement retouché afin de masquer une trace de doigt dont on dis- tingue la fin du mouvement par des stries fines et parallèles laissées dans la substance blanche de ce phy- sautotype sur verre. Pour plus de détails, v. App. XXIV.