portrait negatives, which it would have been difficult to distinguish
from prints on double albumenized paper.]

I have already spoken of the great ease and facility with which an
argentic enlargement may be made as compared with a collodion transfer,
for instance; but there is another and more important point to be
considered between the two, and that is, their durability and
permanence. Now with regard to a collodion transfer, unless most
particular care be taken in the washing of it (and those who have made
them will well know what a delicate, not to say difficult, job it is to
get them thoroughly freed from the hypo, and at the same time preserve
the film intact), there is no permanence in a collodion transfer, and
that practically in nine cases out of ten they have the elements of
decay in them from the first day of their existence. I know, at least in
Glasgow, where an enormous business has been done within the last few
years by certain firms in the club picture trade (the club picture being
a collodion transfer tinted in oil or varnish colors), there are
literally thousands of pictures for which thirty shillings or more has
been paid, and of which the bare frame is all that remains at the
present day; the gilt of the frames has vanished, and the picture in
disgust, perhaps, has followed it. In short, I believe a collodion
transfer cannot be made even comparatively permanent, unless an amount
of care be taken in the making of it which is neither compatible nor
consistent with the popular price and extensive output. How now stands
the case with an argentic enlargement? Of course it may be said that
there is scarcely time yet to make a fair comparison--that the argentic
enlargements are still only on their trial.

I will give you my own experience. I mentioned at the outset that seven
or eight years ago I had tried Kennet's pellicle and failed, but got one