These films never frill, being made of emulsion which has been made insoluble.  Compare the respective weights of the two substances—­one plate weighing more than a dozen films of the same size.

Again, on comparing a stripping film negative with one on glass of the same exposure and subject, it will be found there is a greater sharpness or clearness in the detail, owing, I am of opinion, to the paper absorbing the light immediately it has penetrated the emulsion, the result being a brilliant negative.  Landscapes on stripped films can be retouched or printed from on either side, and the advantage in this respect for carbon or mechanical printing is enormous.  Now, imagine the tourist working with glass, and compare him to another working with films.  The one works in harness, tugging, probably, a half hundredweight of glass with him from place to place, paying extra carriage, extra tips, and in a continual state of anxiety as to possible breakage, difficulty of packing, and having to be continually on the lookout for a dark place to change the plates, and, perhaps, on his return finds numbers of his plates damaged owing to friction on the surface; while the disciple of films, lightly burdened with only camera and slide, and his (say two hundred) films in his pockets, for they lie so compact together.  Then the advantages to the tourists abroad, their name is “legion,” not the least being the ease of guarding your exposed pictures from the custom house officials, who almost always seek to make matters disagreeable in this respect, and lastly, though not least, the ease with which the negatives can be stowed away in envelopes or albums, etc., when reference to them is easy in the extreme.

Now, having come (rightly, I think, you will admit) to the conclusion that films have these advantages, you naturally ask, What are their disadvantages?  Remembering, then, that I am only advocating stripping films, I consider they have but two disadvantages:  First, they entail some additional outlay in the way of apparatus, etc.  Second, they are a little more trouble to finish than the glass negatives, which sink into insignificance when the manifold advantages are considered.

In order to deal effectively with the second objection I mentioned, viz., the extra trouble and perseverance, I propose, with your permission, to carry a negative through the different stages from exposure to completion, and in so doing I shall endeavor to make the process clear to you, and hope to enlist your attention.

The developer I use is slightly different to that of the Eastman company, and is as follows: 

A.
Sulphite of soda. 4 ounces.

To be dissolved in 8 ounces of hot distilled water, then rendered slightly acid with citric acid, then add—­

Pyrogallic acid. 1 ounce. 
Water to make up to 10 ounces.

B.
Pure carbonate of soda. 1 ounce. 
Water to make up in all to 10 ounces.