* * * * *
ASTRONOMICAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
During the last few years, or rather decades of years, it has become rather a trite saying that to advance far in any branch of physical research a fair proficiency in no inconsiderable number of the sister sciences is an absolute necessity. But if this is true in general, none, I think, will question the assertion that a proficient in any of the physical sciences must be fairly conversant with photography as a science, or at least as an art. If we take for example a science which has of late years made rapid strides both in Europe and America, the science of astronomy, we shall not have far to go to find convincing proof that a great portion of the best work that is being done by its votaries is effected by the aid of photography. One eminent astronomer has quite lately gone so far as to declare that we no longer require observers of the heavens, but that their place can be better supplied by the gelatine plate of the photographer; and his words have been echoed by others not less able than himself. “Abolish the observer, and substitute the sensitive plate,” is a sensational form of expressing the revolution in observational astronomy that is taking place under our eyes; but, although it suggests a vast amount of truth, it might leave upon the mind an exaggerated impression inimical to the best interests of science.
The award of the highest distinction in astronomy, the gold medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, two years in succession, to those who have been most successful in celestial photography is no doubtful sign of the great value attached to such work. Last year it was Mr. Common who received the highest testimony of the merit due to his splendid photographs of the nebula of Orion; and this year Dr. Huggins, who has drawn much attention to celestial photography, by his successful attempts to picture the solar corona in full daylight, has received a similar acknowledgment of his labors in photographing the spectra of stars and comets and nebulae.