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