One of the most remarkable stereoscopes ever produced commercially was the Ives Kromskop (Patent #531,040, Dec 18, 1894). In it, three stereoscopic glass positives made from negatives exposed through red, green, and blue filters are optically superimposed to give a full color image of remarkable quality. It was more than ten years prior to the introduction of relatively crude full color plates such as the Autochrome.

This viewer and a complementary one-shot color camera were inspired by Frederic Eugene Ives (1856–1937), a pioneer in the field of halftone printing where he held many important patents. The reproduction of nature in full color was his other absorbing interest. It occupied so much of his time that he founded a company at 1324 Chestnut Street in Philadelphia that remained in business over forty years even though mass acceptance of any of his ideas never came to pass. A New York showroom was also established at 18W. 33rd St.

Early attempts

In 1861, James Maxwell, the British Physicist, showed that by projecting superimposed red, green, and blue images, a full color image could be produced. Lack of color sensitive (panchromatic) film in those days was a serious drawback, and some thirty years passed before the emulsions existed which Ives used in making his color separations.

Ives’ first color patent #672,573 (July22,1890) described the basic three color (additive)process and the use of three positive images in a special triple lantern to produce a full color image on the screen (Fig. 1). He also covered the use of negatives in the production of printed color images using the halftone process. The printing colors then become cyan, magenta and yellow, the complementary (subtractive) colors for red, green, and blue. Announcement of his achievement led to an invitation to England in 1892 which lasted for two full years as he “captured crowded audiences at a series of lectures:’

He returned to America in April 1894 and set about putting his ideas into commercial form. This led to the invention of a viewing device first known as the Photochromscope. He was back in England little more than a year later both to promote his halftone process and to introduce the perfected viewer now named the Kromskop. In 1896, the British Kromskop Syndicate was formed to exploit this invention, but it was never successful and the project was terminated in 1898 when Ives returned to Philadelphia. His long sojourn and great promotional activity in England and on the Continent help to explain the relative abundance of these rare viewers on the overseas market.

The real challenge was to find a practical way for optically combining six images to produce a color stereo image. The first images were made on a single glass plate, side by side to fit conveniently in the triple lantern projector. The same three images in the original Ives Photochromscope viewer, although only monocular, required seven reflectors, six lenses, plus the three color screens. The stereo Kromskop finally reached the market with only two tinted transparent mirrors, an external reflector for distribution of illumination, two additional color filters, and the viewing lenses.

The problem had been tackled by other inventors without success. In Fig. 2 a simple arrangement dating back at least twenty years is shown, using a mirror C and two plain glass reflectors A and 8. The three separations are placed ahead of the appropriate color filters and the distance from the viewing lens is constant. There are two basic problems. The optical path is too long, making the picture very small. Also, the glass mirrors, which both transmit and reflect, create annoying double images.

Final form

Ives’ ingenious solution is diagramed in Fig. 3. The original mirror C is eliminated to shorten the optical path. A green transmitting reflector is used for the blue image, and blue for the red image. The green reflector also serves as the color filter for that image. When the red or blue images are reflected from these tinted mirrors, the annoying secondary image that normally bounces off the back side of the glass is absorbed by the complementary color in the glass.

Initial alignment of the viewer is accomplished by the angle and squareness of the two transmitting reflectors shown in Fig. 4. The glasses are spring loaded against rotatable triangular stops to allow a small change in inclination. Through this adjustment, the red or blue images can be raised or lowered independently with respect to the green. The base support for the mirrors can be rotated for initial horizontal alignment. These are normally factory adjustments, but they sometimes have been tampered with and it is not easy to bring back proper alignment. In the early versions, these adjustments were crude. Later versions have threaded verniers that are a great help if things are truly out of line.

The block on which the reflectors are mounted fits slidably into the instrument, coming to rest against a small eccentric wheel. Turning a knob on the outside of the viewer moves the assembly back and forth a small amount. This simultaneously raises and lowers the red and blue images to line them up with the green. In a later design, a threaded screw at the right front of the viewer provides the same function in a more positive manner.

Commercial product

The commercial product, (Patent #531,040, Dec. 18, 1894) is illustrated in Fig. 5. It is a precision device of polished mahogany and brass most likely made in England with final assembly and calibration in Philadelphia. When properly aligned and illuminated, the results are quite spectacular. Superimposing six 2″ by 2″ quality images virtually eliminates grain. The three pairs are precision mounted in masks and held loosely together by silk tapes and are fan-folded for storage (Fig. 6). The positive green image slips into a slot at the rear and is non-adjustable. The blue image lies horizontally on the first step in two-point contact with a factory aligned brass plate. Only a very small horizontal adjustment is possible. The red image mounts similarly at the top, with the addition of a vernier screw at the left for precise horizontal adjustment only. The spacer card between the red and blue images bears the title.

A complete Kromogram unfolded on a light box with the left images filtered to show the color which would be provided and combined by a Kromskop viewer. Except for the green, the images are inverted and reversed for viewing in the transmitting reflectors shown in figure 4. Kromogram windows are exactly 2″ wide with a three-sixteenth inch septum and only 55mm center to center. The mounts are 5.25″ wide.

Notes on use

In use, the viewer is always tipped up to improve illumination, to ensure that the red and blue images lie against the stops, and to make the vernier on the reflectors operate properly.

Proper illumination is most important. A daylight diffuser (Fig. 7) was standard equipment, but it is generally missing. It was of opal glass, mahogany edged, and rested on the two pins at the back of the reflector. A chain permits it to be swung to the rear for changing slides. Ground glass is not a suitable substitute. Normal illumination was by skylight. At night the “Kromskop Night Illuminator” was available for $12 (Fig.8). Two Welsbach gas burners were used and the exterior housing was of polished mahogany and brass.

The reflector at the rear of the viewer sends light through the “green” image. In some instruments, the mirror is tinted green, but it can be a more neutral color such as yellow since the true spectral filter is a transparent mirror inside the viewer. By sliding out the block containing the mirrors, the viewer becomes an ordinary stereoscope for viewing specially mounted glass stereograms or for looking at the “green” image as a black and white positive.

The design just described introduces a small error in registration due to the fact that the green image passes through two slanted transparent mirrors which slightly compress the image vertically. The blue image passes through just one. In compensation, a plain glass (double the thickness of the mirrors) is placed at the same angle just below the “red” image (Fig. 3). This brings the important red and green images into correct register, leaving a small error in the blue which in practice is not noticeable.

Taking pictures

The pictures were generally taken on a single glass plate. For still lifes, a multiple back was sold to use vertically split 5″ by 7″ plates (Fig. 9). A stereo version of this back was also produced using the full plate. Positives made by contact printing were reversed right to left unless a reversing mirror of prism was fitted in the lenses. Glass plates, mounting frames and other supplies plus a mounting service were available. The positives are ready for cutting and mounting directly on the Kromogram frames, but nothing is said about the requirement for great accuracy. Register is on the same order as that used today for lap dissolve pairs.

For instantaneous photographs an ingenious “one shot” camera was produced. In the diagram (Fig. 10) the prisms F and G are placed so that their inner front edges partially cover a rectangular aperture in the lens system. The double internal reflection leaves the two images unreversed, and the greater refractive index of the glass compensates for the longer light path. The camera required exposures on the order of five to ten seconds in bright sunlight. It was priced at $75 with the stereo version projected at something less than double that price. In making single views for the lantern Kromskop, the camera was used in the horizontal position. The later stereo version pared the cameras vertically, allowing a “normal” lens separation.

Available picture series

The Kromskop came with eight Kromograms for $50. A large selection of Kromograms was available, the “A” Series priced at $1 ($10 per dozen) and the “B” Series at $1.50 ($15 per dozen). One 12-page price list covers almost 400 subjects.

While perhaps not a major factor in the failure to achieve commercial success, the pictures as a whole are disappointing. Exposure, general print quality, and color rendition are excellent, but the photography was by people with little or no understanding of good stereo composition.

Outdoor scenes were particularly poor. A group of people including Ives visited Paris in 1897–98 proceeding on to Switzerland, and about three dozen views were published as a result. Scarcely one has a foreground object within 100 feet of the camera, and the need for near perfect registration makes them generally disappointing in the viewer. Even more remarkable was the promotion of upwards of 100stereo pictures of paintings from the National Gallery in London! Still lifes were casually set up with little regard for esthetics. Some thought was given to choosing subjects that demonstrated nuances in color. Some of the flower arrangements are very good, primarily because of the excellent color reproduction.

A special set of medical views was produced in the hope that the medical profession would recognize the great benefits of full color 3‑D. Views were offered from Paris, London, Philadelphia, Niagara Falls and Washington DC. A series of still life subjects and a small number of portraits were an important part of the listings. A portrait of Mrs. McKinley in the White House Conservatory was taken at the same time as the widely distributed Underwood and Underwood view card.

Conclusion

In summary – if you own a Kromskop and have some fine examples to show, treat them with care and be chary about acquiring additional ones which may be mediocre examples from the published lists or even poorer amateur efforts.

No information is available on the number of views produced. Design variations suggest that several small production runs were made, with sales of the last units spread out over a number of years.

Proper illumination and register of the views was a serious drawback. The expense and relatively poor quality of the commercial views must have been a factor. Making Kromograms demanded more skill than the average amateur could give to it. It all added up to failure in spite of the enthusiasm of the professional critics.

At least one competitive system appeared briefly around 1900.It was known as the “Kromaz”. A single lens camera using mirrors made two exposures, and the resulting four images, one red, two green and one blue were optically combined in a viewer.

In the meantime, other inventors, notably the Lumière brothers, were working towards direct color transparencies based on the additive color process. In 1907they began marketing Autochrome plates (including stereo sizes), the first commercially successful color process. It wasn’t until 1935that the superior subtractive color process to be known as Kodachrome virtually put an end to efforts using the familiar red, green, and blue filters.

The Kromskop is seldom mentioned today. Relatively few people have had the opportunity to see properly illuminated views in a Kromskop. These reproductions are the first ever done in 3‑D. They are a reminder of the tremendous achievement of this great inventor.

The author wishes to thank George Eastman House and the International Museum of Photography in Rochester, NY for their help with images and information in this article.

account_circle

Paul Wing (Hingham, Massachusetts, USA)

Paul Wing was born in Sandwich, Massachusetts on March 9, 1913. Paul was first intrigued with stereocards in the early 1920s and by the time he finished high school during the Great Depression he was making “cha cha,” stereo photographs using side-step with a [2D] Kodak Brownie camera. In the 1940s, Paul met Dr. Philip Batchelder, a stereo collector and a member of the American Branch of the Stereoscopic Society of Great Britain. “It opened a New World,” Paul wrote in the foreword to his book on stereoscopes.
The importance of Paul Wing in contemporary stereography cannot be overstated. Paul was a veteran of more than a half century of stereoscopy and was one of only four Lifetime Members in the Stereoscopic Society of America (SSA). Member number 385 in the SSA, Paul was an internationally recognized master stereographer and the author of “Stereoscopes: The First One Hundred Years,” (Transition Publishing: 1996), the definitive history on the subject and one which will undoubtedly remain so for a long time to come.
He passed away on March 7, 2002 two days before his 89th birthday.

Full text: 3D Legends

Notes by Pascal Martiné: This article was first published 35 years ago. It is thanks to David Starkman’s presentation for the Virtual Stereoscopic Community that this article is now available to a wider audience. Transferring a print layout to a digital medium requires to pay attention to multiple aspects. That’s why I have allowed myself to re-arrange the pictures within the text and to optimize the graphics. Therefore, I replaced some pictures with newly taken digital photos of my own Kromskop, optimized all graphics and gently sharpened the pictures of Paul Wing’s Kromograms (without changing the color appearance). Finally, because it has become common practice with blog posts, I added subheadings.

Der Beitrag The Ives Kromskop erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Introduction

My stereophotography and stereoview collection are two sides of the same coin for me and have a common origin story. Travel back with me to May 2014 — London. A chance encounter on a canal boat. A question asked. An answer given. My life… transformed.

I had boarded a canal boat in Little Venice, not far from the Paddington train station. The area is crowded and full of cheer. It is the annual Canal Cavalcade. Little do I realize that during this short boat trip I will be transformed from a 2D photographer to a 3D one. On the boat I saw another photographer taking pictures too but with what looked like a pair of binoculars attached to his camera. Curious, I asked him what it was. He said he was shooting 3D.

I immediately realized that creating my own 3D images would give a “being there” immersiveness to my photographs and be easy to share with others. As I began learning this new photographic skill I also researched what was done in the past. It was then that I began to discover that the biggest stereoview companies had created box sets in addition to individual cards.

Brief history of box sets

The box sets were an innovation of the Underwood & Underwood Company beginning around 1900 and were a radical departure from what had been done previously. Instead of selling cards individually or as part of a genre series they sold groups of images together that were contained in a box that resembled a book on a shelf.

The images and textual descriptions at times contain cultural biases and prejudices that today sound very offensive. But they also provide cultural insights in their own right about the photographers and the publishers of these images. I often wonder if the subjects of these photos would agree with how their story was getting told?

Some of these sets also had a companion book that provided even more detail about each image in the set. For me they read like I am there on that trip too. My tour guide explains what I am seeing with each image and points out things of interest I might not have first noticed. Specific aspects of the culture are highlighted such as clothing or aspects of occupations and even songs. Things that are outside of the view of the stereocard are also pointed out.

Just by looking at the location where each image in the set was taken the viewer can map out the photographer’s route. What stands out for me when I’ve done that was how arduous and how much time was spent on these journeys to create the images in some of these box sets. In a time before traveling by plane or car existed the photographers had to rely on ships to arrive at their destinations and for local travel as well. Where trains existed they were used. Presumably, horses or other animal transport with wagons was used for overland travel. The photographer had to transport along these routes heavy cameras and the fragile and precious glass plates used for capturing the images of these remote areas.

James Ricalton, shown in this image, was a primary photographer for Underwood and Underwood. During his 20 years working for them he traveled completely around the world 6 times with no fewer than 43 crossings of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. He took tens of thousands of images for the company depicting notable places, the local population and their customs, and front-line views of war. He often took the least traveled routes identifying himself as a traveller and not a tourist.

Before working for them Ricalton had already traveled extensively including an 800 mile solo walk through northern Russia in 1886. His travels came to the attention of Thomas Edison, who hired him in 1888 to travel around the world to help with his research to create an incandescent lamp.

In 1891, at the age of 47, Ricalton began a new career as a full-time traveling photographer for Underwood and Underwood which included being a war correspondent on the front lines during the Boer War,…

…the Spanish-American War, where this image shows a real battle scene and is not a re-creation of one,…

…the Boxer Uprising in China, where this image seems designed to produce outrage at atrocities committed by the Boxers against children…

…and the Russian-Japanese War. Ricalton became world famous for his stereoimage of the firing of a Japanese artillery cannon and capturing its projectile in flight from the weapon. He did this even as his position was under heavy fire from Russian artillery.

Sometimes the companion books for the box sets contained maps utilizing a system developed specifically for them. The location of where each photograph was taken was provided as well as the direction the photographer was facing. The circled 11 at the bottom shows from where Image 11 was taken. The area between the two lines, extending from it, shows the scene captured on the card.

The scale of production by Underwood & Underwood was tremendous. By 1901 they were publishing 25,000 stereoviews per day which translates to more than 7 million a year. The sets were sold door to door by salesmen.

The success of Underwood and Underwood with their box sets resulted in other publishers of stereoviews starting to create their own box sets. However, by 1915 the Keystone View Company had bought out most of these competitors. When Underwood & Underwood sold their negatives to Keystone between 1921 and 1923 Keystone was left as essentially the only major publisher of stereoviews in the world.

In 1933 Keystone began producing what were called “Keystone Junior” sets. Instead of having 2 photo images affixed to a thick curved card these cards were smaller sized photo prints with the sets containing 25 views.

Keystone ended its regular production of stereocards in 1939 though it continued to produce optometry-related sets under the name “Keystone Eye Comfort Series.” These sets were prescribed by doctors for patients who were having difficulty with the coordination of their two eyes working together interfering with their ability to read and other close up work. They provided different exercises to restore the ability of the eyes to coordinate. This card is from their Beta Unit. I also have the Alpha, Gamma, Delta and Epsilon series and the stereoscope made for these exercises.

I have box sets created by each of the major stereoview companies of the time: that is, Underwood & Underwood, Keystone, HC White and the Stereo-Travel Company. Each set varies in size. My largest has 100 cards. But, Keystone created even larger collections for its Tour of the World set with the most common version having 600 cards and the largest having 1200 cards. I have the smallest version with 72 cards.

Some box sets were updated with new images to replace old images with better ones, to expand the geographic scope of a box set or to keep them current. This one shows President Theodore Roosevelt and is Card 11 of the United States box set.

Card 11 was updated when William Howard Taft became the next United States president.

Continents and countries

Some of the box sets in my collection cover entire continents like:

South America,

Autralia,

Africa.

Other sets are country specific like:

The United States,

Canada,

Ireland,

France,

Germany,

Norway,

Russia,

Italy,

Egypt,

Burma,

Japan.

Subsets

Other sets have subsets like the Jaffa to Jerusalem subset of the Palestine set, …

…the Berne and the Bernese Alps subset of the Switzerland set…

…or one of my newest acquisitions the Bombay to Cashmere subset of the India set.

Themes and sites

I have other box sets that are thematic and site specific. This one is about Real children in many lands.

This set is about Niagara Falls (notice that this card was hand tinted and is not black and white).

The Cowboys box set shows cowboys at work, cowboys doing entertainment and cowboys in rodeos.

This Famous English Cathedrals set shows them from both the outside and the inside.

This box set about Birds was one of the biggest surprises for me. Not only are the cards in this set hand tinted but much to my surprise they are living birds not preserved models.

I think this Geometry set shows the greater clarity that viewing things in 3D can bring.

Conclusion

I am fascinated by how these different publishers chose to portray each of these places and the resulting mental portrait these images and words created for their viewers. But, they prompt questions for me, too.

Why did the photographer go to certain places? Why did the photographer choose to photograph what he did? Why did he think there would be an audience who would want to see those specific places and find them interesting? What do these choices say about the photographer, the viewing audience, their values etc.? What agenda existed for this whole thing beyond giving a tour of foreign places (for example, did they reinforce a cultural superiority)? What did the people in these images think of this foreigner amongst them? Were they curious? Antagonistic?

And the photographers who traveled the world to bring us these remarkable images are essentially anonymous — their names unknown.

They traveled to places where they almost surely didn’t know the language and customs. Possessing a limited amount of photographic glass plates they were entrusted with capturing the essence of each place, a single image at a time, to a viewing audience who might spend their entire lives in the town of their birth.

The danger these anonymous photographers were willing to put themselves in to get a compelling image was sometimes obvious:

Other images seem uneventful but the seeming quiet masks the perilousness of the situation for the photographer.

After spending a year in the Philippines photographing the Spanish-American War James Ricalton, the Underwood photographer, traveled to China in 1900 when the anti-foreigner Boxer Rebellion broke out. He photographed throughout China for a year. Many of the images document the ravages of war and the fear felt by European refugees escaping anti-foreigner attacks. Undeterred, Ricalton traveled by small boat into China’s interior. At one stopping point he describes the harrowing experience of being unable to take the image he intended because a mob of the local population gathered and began attacking him and his traveling companions. They were forced to hurriedly retreat to their boat as the crowd threw mud and lumps of clay at them. Ricalton and his comrades were grateful that there were no rocks at hand for the crowd to throw at them. Once safely back at their boat they got their guns and frightened the crowd back. Then Ricalton gave his gun to a colleague, and marched back with his camera to where he had wanted to take the photo before the attack. He hurriedly took his photo. They then fled for their lives.

After all of our travels to the far corners of the world at the end of the day there’s still no place like home.

My modern adaption

For those of you who have seen my Instagram posts you know that many of my stereoimages are travel-related. I have also had several articles published in the International Stereoscopic Union’s journal Stereoscopy. My articles have a travelogue quality to them that resembles the text of the companion books for the box sets.

The reason why I photograph in 3D is the same as why I collect what I do and which inspires my 3D photography in turn.

I always envisioned creating my own stereocards and have at last begun to think my cards are coming closer to my creative aspirations for them.

This is the back of the card. The type of text I added to the back is intended to convey the sense of being there that I so admire in the companion books of the box sets.

I have always wanted to include a map with very precise GPS coordinates for the depicted image. It came from my frustration of trying to find places listed in guidebooks. You can see this carried through in my inclusion of a map of where I took the photo and GPS coordinates on the back of my card. If you type the coordinates into a mapping app (especially in Satellite mode) you will see exactly where I took the photo.

Der Beitrag My Stereoview Box Set Collection and 3D Photography erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Today, it is commonly known (at least for those interested in stereoscopy) that our vision consists of two images. Our brain fuses these two images into one and lets us perceive a sense of depth caused by slight differences between the two images.

Back in the 19th century the concept of binocular vision had not yet been explored or written about anywhere. It was a scientist in his mid 30s who not only described the phenomenon later called stereopsis but also constructed a device to view two flat images in 3D which he called a stereoscope. This is especially remarkable as photography was not invented until one year later. Charles Wheatstone’s observations were based only on drawings. Most of these drawings are based on horizontal mirroring which is why we call them mirror stereos today.

Wheatstone’s paper, presented to the Royal Society of London on June 21st 1838, is organized in 16 paragraphs and is therefore quite extensive. But even if the improvements by Sir David Brewster replaced Wheatstone’s stereoscope about ten years later, his observations can still be considered as the birth of Stereoscopy. Therefore, I want to give my full recommendation to read this source entirely. Do you remember your first time looking through a stereoscope? Well, put yourself into the mindset that nothing about it is known. After a talk about binocular vision that you followed with more or less interest, you are presented with a strange-looking optical mirror toy and some hand drawings. But looking through it completely blows your mind…

If you got more interested in the theory of stereoscopy afterwards, you might also want to read David Kuntz’ articles about the baseline and the stereo window or my article about hyper stereos. I’ve also created an interactive version of the graphic in paragraph 15 which can be accessed here.

§1 §2 §3 §4 §5 §6 §7 §8 §9 §10 §11 §12 §13 §14 §15 §16

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 128, pp. 371 — 394

Contributions to the Physiology of Vision. — Part the First.
On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, Phenomena of Binocular Vision.

By CHARLES WHEATSTONE, F.R.S., Professor of Experimental Philosophy in King’s College, London.

Received and Read June 21, 1838.

§ 1.

WHEN an object is viewed at so great a distance that the optic axes of both eyes are sensibly parallel when directed towards it, the perspective projections of it, seen by each eye separately, are similar, and the appearance to the two eyes is precisely the same as when the object is seen by one eye only. There is, in such case, no difference between the visual appearance of an object in relief and its perspective projection on a plane surface; and hence pictorial representations of distant objects, when those circumstances which would prevent or disturb the illusion are carefully excluded, may be rendered such perfect resemblances of the objects they are intended to represent as to be mistaken for them; the Diorama is an instance of this. But this similarity no longer exists when the object is placed so near the eyes that to view it the optic axes must converge; under these conditions a different perspective projection of it is seen by each eye, and these perspectives are more dissimilar as the convergence of the optic axes becomes greater. This fact may be easily verified by placing any figure of three dimensions, an outline cube for instance, at a moderate distance before the eyes, and while the head is kept perfectly steady, viewing it with each eye successively while the other is closed. Plate XI. fig. 13. represents the two perspective projections of a cube; b is that seen by the right eye, and a that presented to the left eye; the figure being supposed to be placed about seven inches immediately before the spectator.

The appearances, which are by this simple experiment rendered so obvious, may be easily inferred from the established laws of perspective; for the same object in relief is, when viewed by a different eye, seen from two points of sight at a distance from each other equal to the line joining the two eyes. Yet they seem to have escaped the attention of every philosopher and artist who has treated of the subjects of vision and perspective. I can ascribe this inattention to a phenomenon leading to the important and curious consequences, which will form the subject of the present communication, only to this circumstance; that the results being contrary to a principle which was very generally maintained by optical writers, viz. that objects can be seen single only when their images fall on corresponding points of the two retinæ, an hypothesis which will be hereafter discussed, if the consideration ever arose in their minds, it was hastily discarded under the conviction, that if the pictures presented to the two eyes are under certain circumstances dissimilar, their differences must be so small that they need not be taken into account.

It will now be obvious why it is impossible for the artist to give a faithful representation of any near solid object, that is, to produce a painting which shall not be distinguished in the mind from the object itself. When the painting and the object are seen with both eyes, in the case of the painting two similar pictures are projected on the retinæ, in the case of the solid object the pictures are dissimilar; there is therefore an essential difference between the impressions on the organs of sensation in the two cases, and consequently between the perceptions formed in the mind; the painting therefore cannot be confounded with the solid object.

After looking over the works of many authors who might be expected to have made some remarks relating to this subject, I have been able to find but one, which is in the Trattato della Pittura of LEONARDO DA VINCI¹. This great artist and ingenious philosopher observes, “that a painting, though conducted with the greatest art and finished to the last perfection, both with regard to its contours, its lights, its shadows and its colours, can never show a relievo equal to that of the natural objects, unless these be viewed at a distance and with a single eye. For,” says he, “if an object C (Plate X. fig. 1.) be viewed by a single eye at A, all objects in the space behind it, included as it were in a shadow E C F cast by a candle at A, are invisible to the eye at A; but when the other eye at B is opened, part of these objects become visible to it; those only being hid from both eyes that are included, as it were, in the double shadow C D, cast by two lights at A and B, and terminated in D, the angular space E D G beyond D being always visible to both eyes. And the hidden space C D is so much the shorter, as the object C is smaller and nearer to the eyes. Thus the object C seen with both eyes becomes, as it were, transparent, according to the usual definition of a transparent thing; namely, that which hides nothing beyond it. But this cannot happen when an object, whose breadth is bigger than that of the pupil, is viewed by a single eye. The truth of this observation is therefore evident, because a painted figure intercepts all the space behind its apparent place, so as to preclude the eyes from the sight of every part of the imaginary ground behind it.”

(back to top)

§ 2.

It being thus established that the mind perceives an object of three dimensions by means of the two dissimilar pictures projected by it on the two retinæ, the following question occurs: What would be the visual effect of simultaneously presenting to each eye, instead of the object itself, its projection on a plane surface as it appears to that eye? To pursue this inquiry it is necessary that means should be contrived to make the two pictures, which must necessarily occupy different places, fall on similar parts of both retinæ. Under the ordinary circumstances of vision the object is seen at the concourse of the optic axes, and its images consequently are projected on similar parts of the two retinæ; but it is also evident that two exactly similar objects may be made to fall on similar parts of the two retinæ, if they are placed one in the direction of each optic axis, at equal distances before or beyond their intersection.

Fig. 2. represents the usual situation of an object at the intersection of the optic axes. In fig. 3. the similar objects are placed in the direction of the optic axes before their intersection, and in fig. 4. beyond it. In all these three cases the mind perceives but a single object, and refers it to the place where the optic axes meet. It will be observed, that when the eyes converge beyond the objects, as in fig. 3., the right hand object is seen by the right eye, and the left hand object by the left eye; while when the axes converge nearer than the Objects, the right hand object is seen by the left eye, and conversely. As both of these modes of vision are forced and unnatural, eyes unaccustomed to such experiments require some artificial assistance.

If the eyes are to converge beyond the objects, this may be afforded by a pair of tubes (fig. 5.) capable of being inclined towards each other at various angles, so as to correspond with the different convergences of the optic axes. If the eyes are to converge at a nearer distance than that at which the objects are placed, a box (fig. 6.) may be conveniently employed; the objects a a’ are placed distant from each other, on a stand capable of being moved nearer the eyes if required, and the optic axes being directed towards them will cross at c, the aperture b b’ allowing the visual rays front the right hand object to reach the left eye, and those from the left hand object to fall on the right eye; the coincidence of the images may be facilitated by placing the point of a needle at the point of intersection of the optic axes c, and fixing the eyes upon it. In both these instruments (figs. 5. and 6.) the lateral images are hidden from view, and much less difficulty occurs in making the images unite than when the naked eyes are employed.

Now if, instead of placing two exactly similar objects to be viewed by the eyes in either of the modes above described, the two perspective projections of the same solid object be so disposed, the mind will still perceive the object to be single, but instead of a representation on a plane surface, as each drawing appears to be when separately viewed by that eye which is directed towards it, the observer will perceive a figure of three dimensions, the exact counterpart of the object from which the drawings were made. To make this matter clear I will mention one or two of the most simple cases.

If two vertical lines near each other, but at different distances from the spectator, be regarded first with one eye and then with the other, the distance between them when referred to the same plane will appear different; if the left hand line be nearer to the eyes the distance as seen by the left eye will be less than the distance as seen by the right eye; fig. 7. will render this evident; a a’ are vertical sections of the two original lines, and b b’ the plane to which their projections are referred. Now if the two lines be drawn on two pieces of card, at the respective distances at which they appear to each eye, and these cards be afterwards viewed by either of the means above directed, the observer will no longer see two lines on a plane surface, as each card separately shows ; but two lines will appear, one nearer to him than the other, precisely as the original vertical lines themselves. Again, if a straight wire be held before the eyes in such a position that one of its ends shall be nearer to the observer than the other is, each eye separately referring it to a plane perpendicular to the common axis, will see a line differently inclined ; and then if lines having the same apparent inclinations be drawn on two pieces of card. and be presented to the eyes as before directed, the real position of the original line will be correctly perceived by the mind.

In the same manner the most complex figures of three dimensions may be accurately represented to the mind, by presenting their two perspective projections to the two retinæ. But I shall defer these more perfect experiments until I describe an instrument which will enable any person to observe all the phenomena in question with the greatest ease and certainty.

In the instruments above described the optic axes converge to some point in a plane before or beyond that in which the objects to be seen are situated. The adaptation of the eye, which enables us to see distinctly at different distances, and which habitually accompanies every different degree of convergence of the optic axes, does not immediately adjust itself to tIme new and unusual condition ; and to persons not accustomed to experiments of this kind, the pictures will either not readily unite, or will appear dim and confused. Besides this, no object can be viewed according to either mode when the drawings exceed in breadth the distance of the two points of the optic axes in which their centres are placed.

These inconveniences are removed by the instrument I am about to describe; the two pictures (or rather their reflected images) are placed in it at the true concourse of the optic axes, the focal adaptation of the eye preserves its usual adjustment, the appearance of lateral images is entirely avoided, and a large field of view for each eye is obtained. The frequent reference I shall have occasion to make to this instrument, will render it convenient to give it a specific name, I therefore propose that it be called a stereoscope, to indicate its property of representing solid figures.

(back to top)

§ 3.

The stereoscope is represented by figs. 8. and 9; the former being a front view, and the latter a plan of the instrument. A A’ are two plane mirrors, about four inches square, inserted in frames, and so adjusted that their backs form an angle of 90° with each other; these mirrors are fixed by their common edge against an upright B, or which was less easy to represent in the drawing, against the middle line of a vertical board, cut away in such manner as to allow the eyes to be placed before the two mirrors. C C’ are two sliding boards, to which are attached the upright boards D D’, which may thus be removed to different distances from the mirrors. In most of the experiments hereafter to be detailed, it is necessary that each upright board shall be at the same distance from the mirror which is opposite to it. To facilitate this double adjustment, I employ a right and a left-handed wooden screw, r l; the two ends of this compound screw pass through the nuts e e’, which are fixed to the lower parts of the upright boards D D’, so that by turning the screw pin p one way the two boards will approach, and by turning it the other they will recede from each other, one always preserving the same distance as the other from the middle line f. E E’ are pannels, to which the pictures are fixed in such manner that their corresponding horizontal lines shall be on the same level: these pannels are capable of sliding backwards and forwards in grooves on the upright boards D D’. The apparatus having been described, it flow remains to explain the manner of using it. The observer must place his eyes as near as possible to the mirrors, the right eye before the right hand mirror, and the left eye before the left hand mirror, and he must move the sliding pannels E E’ to or from him until the two reflected images coincide at the intersection of the optic axes, and form an image of the same apparent magnitude as each of the component pictures. The pictures will indeed coincide when the sliding pannels are in a variety of different positions, and consequently when viewed under different inclinations of the optic axes; but there is only one position in which the binocular image will be immediately seen single, of its proper magnitude, and without fatigue to the eyes, because in this position only the ordinary relations between the magnitude of the pictures on the retina, the inclination of the optic axes, and the adaptation of the eye to distinct vision at different distances are preserved. The alteration in the apparent magnitude of the binocular images, when these usual relations are disturbed, will be discussed in another paper of this series, with a variety of remarkable phenomena depending thereon. In all the experiments detailed in the present memoir I shall suppose these relations to remain undisturbed, and the optic axes to converge about six or eight inches before the eyes.

If the pictures are all drawn to be seen with the same inclination of the optic axes, the apparatus may be simplified by omitting the screw r 1 and fixing the upright boards D D’ at the proper distances. The sliding pannels may also be dispensed with, and the drawings themselves be made to slide in the grooves.

(back to top)

§ 4.

A few of outline figures, calculated to give rise to the perception of objects of three dimensions when placed in the stereoscope in the manner described, are represented from figs. 10. to 20. They are one half the linear size of the figures actually employed. As the drawings are reversed by reflection in the mirrors, I will suppose these figures to be the reflected images to which the eyes are directed in the apparatus; those marked b being seen by the right eye, and those marked a by the left eye. The drawings, it has been already explained, are two different projections of the same object seen from two points of sight, the distance between which is equal to the interval between the eyes of the observer; this interval is generally about 2½ inches.

a and b, fig. 10. will, when viewed in the stereoscope, present to the mind a line in the vertical plane, with its lower end inclined towards the observer. If the two component lines be caused to turn round their centres equally in opposite directions, the resultant line will, while it appears to assume every degree of inclination to the referent plane, still seem to remain in the same vertical plane.

Fig. 11. A series of points all in the same horizontal plane, but each towards the right hand successively nearer the observer.

Fig. 12. A curved line intersecting the referent plane, and having its convexity towards the observer.

Fig. 13. A cube.

Fig. 14. A cone, having its axis perpendicular to the referent plane, and its vertex towards the observer.

Fig. 15. The frustum of a square pyramid; its axis perpendicular to the referent plane, and its base furthest from the eye.

Fig. 16. Two circles at different distances from the eyes, their centres in the same perpendicular, forming the outline of the frustum of a cone.

The other figures require no observation.

For the purposes of illustration I have employed only outline figures, for had either shading or colouring been introduced it might be supposed that the effect was wholly or in part due to these circumstances, whereas by leaving them out of consideration no room is left to doubt that the entire effect of relief is owing to the simultaneous perception of the two monocular projections, one on each retina. But if it be required to obtain the most faithful resemblances of real objects, shadowing and colouring may properly be employed to heighten the effects. Careful attention would enable an artist to draw and paint the two component pictures, so as to present to the mind of the observer, in the resultant perception, perfect identity with the object represented. Flowers, crystals, busts, vases, instruments of various kinds, &c., might thus be represented so as not to be distinguished by sight from the real objects themselves.

It is worthy of remark, that the process by which we thus become acquainted with the real forms of solid objects, is precisely that which is employed in descriptive geometry, an important science we owe to the genius of MONGE, but which is little studied or known in this country. In this science, the position of a point, a right line or a curve, and consequently of any figure whatever, is completely determined by assigning its projections on two fixed planes, the situations of which are known, and which are not parallel to each other. In the problems of descriptive geometry the two referent planes are generally assumed to be at right angles to each other, but in binocular vision the inclination of these planes is less according as the angle made at the concourse of the optic axes is less ; thus the same solid object is represented to the mind by different pairs of monocular pictures, according as they are placed at a different distance before the eyes, and the perception of these differences (though we seem to be unconscious of them) may assist in suggesting to the mind the distance of the object. The more inclined to each other the referent planes are, with the greater accuracy are the various points of the projections referred to their proper places; and it appears to be a useful provision that the real forms of those objects which are nearest to us are thus more determinately apprehended than those which are more distant.

(back to top)

§ 5.

A very singular effect is produced when the drawing originally intended to be seen by the right eye is placed at the left hand sidle of the stereoscope, and that designed to be seen by the left eye is placed on its right hand side. A figure of three dimensions, as bold in relief as before, is perceived, but it has a different form from that which is seen when the drawings are in their proper places. There is a certain relation between the proper figure and this, which I shall call its converse figure. Those points which are nearest the observer in the proper figure are the most remote from him in the converse figure, and vice versâ, so that the figure is, as it were, inverted; but it is not an exact inversion, for the near parts of the converse figure appear smaller, and the remote parts larger than the same parts before the inversion. Hence the drawings which, properly placed, occasion a cube to be perceived, when changed in the manner described, represent the frustum of a square pyramid with its base remote from the eye: the cause of this is easy to understand.

This conversion of relief may be shown by all the pairs of drawings from fig. 10. to 19. In the case of simple figures like these the converse figure is as readily apprehended as the original one, because it is generally a figure of as frequent occurrence; hut in the vase of a more complicated figure, an architectural design, for instance, the mind, unaccustomed to perceive its converse, because it never occurs in nature, can find no meaning in it.

(back to top)

§ 6.

The same image is depicted on the retina by an object of three dimensions as by its projection on a plane surface, provided the point of sight remain in both cases the same. There should be, therefore, no difference in the binocular appearance of two drawings, one presented to each eye, and of two real objects so presented to the two eyes that their projections on the retina shall be the same as those arising from the drawings. The following experiments will prove the justness of this inference.

I procured several pairs of skeleton figures, i. e. outline figures of three dimensions, formed either of iron wire or of ebony beading about one tenth of an inch in thickness. The pair I most frequently employed consisted of two cubes, whose sides were three inches in length. When I placed these skeleton figures on stands before the two mirrors of the stereoscope, the following effects were produced, according as their relative positions were changed. 1st. When they were so placed that the pictures which their reflected images projected on the two retinæ were precisely the same as those which would have been projected by a cube placed at the concourse of the optic axes, a cube in relief appeared before the eyes. 2ndly. When they were so placed that their reflected images projected exactly similar pictures on the two retinæ, all effect of relief was destroyed, and the compound appearance was that of an outline representation on a plane surface. 3rdly. When the cubes were so placed that the reflected image of one projected on the left retina the same picture as in the first case was projected on the right retina, and conversely, the converse figure in relief appeared.

(back to top)

§7.

If a symmetrical object, that is one whose right and left sides are exactly similar to each other but inverted, be placed so that any point in the plane which divides it into these two halves is equally distant from the two eyes, its two monocular projections are, it is easy to see, inverted facsimiles of each other. Thus fig. 15, a and b are symmetrical monocular projections of the frustum of a four-sided pyramid, and figs. 13. 14. 16. are corresponding projections of other symmetrical objects. This being kept in view, I will describe an experiment which, had it been casually observed previous to the knowledge of the principles developed in this paper, would have appeared an inexplicable optical illusion.

M and M’ (fig. 21.) are two mirrors, inclined so that their faces form an angle of 90° with each other. Between them in the bisecting plane is placed a plane outline figure, such as fig. 15 a, made of card all parts but the lines being cut away, or of wire. A reflected image of this outline, placed at A, will appear behind each mirror at B and B’, and one of these images will be the inversion of the other. If the eyes be made to converge at C, it is obvious that these two reflected images will fall on corresponding parts of the two retinæ, and a figure of three dimensions will be perceived; if the outline placed in the bisecting plane be reversed, the converse skeleton form will appear; in both these experiments we have the singular phenomenon of the conversion of a single plane outline into a figure of three dimensions. To render the binocular object more distinct, concave lenses may be applied to the eyes; and to prevent the two lateral images from being seen, screens may be placed at D and D’.

(back to top)

§ 8.

An effect of binocular perspective may be remarked in a plate of metal, the surface of which has been made smooth by turning it in a lathe. When a single candle is brought near such a plate, a line of light appears standing out from it, one half being above, and the other half below the surface; the position and inclination of this line chances with the situation of the light and of the observer, but it always passes through the centre of the plate. On closing the left eye the relief disappears, and the luminous line coincides with one of the diameters of the plate; on closing the right eye the line appears equally in the plane of the surface, but coincides with another diameter; on opening both eyes it instantly starts into relief². The case here is exactly analogous to the vision of two inclined lines (fig. 10.) when each is presented to a different eye in the stereoscope. It is curious, that an effect like this, which it must have been seen thousands of times, should never have attracted sufficient attention to have been made the subject of philosophic observation. It was one of the earliest facts which drew my attention to the subject I am now treating.

Dr. SMITH³ was very much puzzled by an effect of binocular perspective which he observed, but was unable to explain. He opened a pair of compasses, and while he held the joint in his hand, and the points outwards and equidistant from his eyes, and somewhat higher than the joint, he looked at a more distant point ; the compasses appeared double. He then compressed the legs until the two inner points coincided; having done this the two inner legs also entirely coincided, and bisected the angle formed by the outward ones, appearing longer and thicker than they did, and reaching from the hand to the remotest object in view. The explanation offered by Dr. SMITH accounts only for the coincidence of the points of the compasses, not for that of the entire leg. The effect in question is best seen by employing a pair of straight wires, about a foot in length. A similar observation, made with two flat rulers, and afterwards with silk threads, induced Dr. WELLS to propose a new theory of visible direction in order to explain it, so inexplicable did it seem to him by any of the received theories.

(back to top)

§ 9.

The preceding experiments render it evident that there is an essential difference in the appearance of objects when seen with two eyes, and when only one eye is employed, and that the most vivid belief of the solidity of an object of three dimensions arises from two different perspective projections of it being simultaneously presented to the mind. How happens it then, it may be asked, that persons who see with only one eye form correct notions of solid objects, and never mistake them for pictures? and how happens it also, that a person having the perfect use of both eyes, perceives no difference in objects around him when he shuts one of them? To explain these apparent difficulties, it must be kept in mind, that although the simultaneous vision of two dissimilar pictures suggests the relief of objects in the most vivid manner, yet there are other signs which suggest the same ideas to the mind, which, though more ambiguous than the former, become less liable to lead the judgment astray in proportion to the extent of our previous experience. The vividness of relief arising from the projection of two dissimilar pictures, one on each retina, becomes less and less as the object is seen at a greater distance before the eyes, and entirely ceases when it is so distant that the optic axes are parallel while regarding it. We see with both eyes all objects beyond this distance precisely as we see near objects with a single eye; for the pictures on the two retinæ are then exactly similar, and the mind appreciates no difference whether two identical pictures fall on corresponding parts of the two retinæ, or whether one eye is impressed with only one of these pictures. A person deprived of the sight of one eye sees therefore all external objects, near and remote, as a person with both eyes sees remote objects only, but that vivid effect arising from the binocular vision of near objects is not perceived by the former; to supply this deficiency he has recourse unconsciously to other means of acquiring more accurate information. The motion of the head is the principal means he employs. That the required knowledge may be thus obtained will be evident from the following considerations. The mind associates with the idea of a solid object every different projection of it which experience has hitherto afforded; a single projection may be ambiguous, from its being also one of the projections of a picture, or of a different solid object; but when different projections of the same object are successively presented, they cannot all belong to another object, and the form to which they belong is completely characterized. While the object remains fixed, at every movement of the head it is viewed from a different point of sight, and the picture on the retina consequently continually changes.

Every one must be aware how greatly the perspective effect of a picture is enhanced by looking at it with only one eye, especially when a tube is employed to exclude the vision of adjacent objects, whose presence might disturb the illusion. Seen under such circumstances from the proper point of sight, the picture projects the same lines, shades and colours on the retina, as the more distant scene which it represents would do were it substituted for it. The appearance which would make us certain that it is a picture is excluded from the sight, and the imagination has room to be active. Several of the older writers erroneously attributed this apparent superiority of monocular vision to the concentration of the visual power in a single eye⁴.

There is a well-known and very striking illusion of perspective which deserves a passing remark, because the reason of the effect does not appear to be generally understood. When a perspective of a building is projected on a horizontal plane, so that the point of sight is in a line greatly inclined towards the plane, the building appears to a single eye placed at the point of sight to be in bold relief, and the illusion is almost as perfect as in the binocular experiments described in §§ 2, 3, 4. This effect wholly arises from the unusual projection, which suggests to the mind more readily the object itself than the drawing of it; for we are accustomed to see real objects in almost every point of view, but perspective representations being generally made in a vertical plane with the point of sight in a line perpendicular to the plane of projection, we are less familiar with the appearance of other projections. Any other unusual projection will produce the same effect.

(back to top)

§ 10.

If we look with a single eye at the drawing of a solid geometrical figure, it may be imagined to be the representation of either of two dissimilar solid figures, the figure intended to be represented, or its converse figure (§ 5.). If the former is a very usual, and the latter a very unusual figure, the imagination will fix itself on the original without wandering to the converse figure; but if both are of ordinary occurrence, which is generally the case with regard to simple forms, a singular phenomenon takes place; it is perceived at one time distinctly as one of these figures, at another time as the other, and while one figure continues it is not in the power of the will to change it immediately.

The same phenomenon takes place, though less decidedly, when the drawing is seen with both eyes. Many of my readers will call to mind the puzzling effect of some of the diagrams annexed to the problems of the eleventh book of Euclid; which, when they were attentively looked at, changed in an arbitrary manner from one solid figure to another, and would obstinately continue to present the converse figures when the real figures alone were wanted. This perplexing illusion must be of coimmon occurrence, but I have only found one recorded observation relating to the subject. It is by Professor NECKER of Geneva, and I shall quote it in his own words from the Philosophical Magazine, Third Series, vol. i. p. 337.

“The object I have now to call your attention to is an observation which has often occurred to me while examining figures and engraved plates of crystalline forms; I mean a sudden and involuntary change in the apparent position of a crystal or solid represented in an engraved figure. What I mean will be more easily understood from the figure annexed (fig. 22.). The rhomboid A X is drawn so that the solid angle A should be seen the nearest to the spectator, and the solid angle X the farthest from him, and that the face A C D B should be the foremost, while the face X D C is behind. But in looking repeatedly at the same figure, you will perceive that at times the apparent position of the rhomboid is so changed that the solid angle X will appear the nearest, and the solid angle A the farthest; and that the face A C D B will recede behind the face X D C, which will come forward, which effect gives to the whole solid a quite contrary apparent inclination.”

Professor NECKER attributes this alteration of appearance, not to a mental operation, but to an involuntary change in the adjustment of the eye for obtaining distinct vision. He supposed that whenever the point of distinct vision on the retina is directed on the angle A, for instance, this angle seen more distinctly than the others is naturally supposed to be nearer and foremost, while the other angles seen indistinctly are supposed to be farther and behind, and that the reverse takes place when the point of distinct vision is brought to bear on the angle X.

That this is not the true explanation, is evident from three circumstances: in the first place, the two points A and X being both at the same distance from the eyes, the same alteration of adjustment which would make one of them indistinct would make the other so ; secondly, the figure will undergo the same changes whether the focal distance of the eye be adjusted to a point before or beyond the plane in which the figure is drawn; and thirdly, the change of figure frequently occurs while the eye continues to look at the same angle. The effect seems entirely to depend on our mental contemplation of the figure intended to be represented, or of its converse. By following the lines with the eye with a clear idea of the solid figure we are describing, it may be fixed for any length of time; but it requires practice to do this or to change the figure at will. As I have before observed, these effects are far more obvious when the figures are regarded with one eye only.

No illusion of this kind can take place when an object of three dimensions is seen with both eyes while the optic axes make a sensible angle with each other, because the appearance of the two dissimilar images, one to each eye, prevents the possibility of mistake. But if we regard an object at such a distance that its two projections are sensibly identical, and if this projection be capable of a double interpretation, the illusion may occur. Thus a placard on a pole carried in the streets, with one of its sides inclined towards the observer, will, when he is distant from it, frequently appear inclined in a contrary direction. Many analogous instances might be adduced, but this will suffice to call others to mind ; it must however be observed, that when shadows, or other means capable of determining the judgement are present, these fallacies do not arise.

(back to top)

§ 11.

The same indetermination of judgement which causes a drawing to be perceived by the mind at different times as two different figures, frequently gives rise to a false perception when objects in relief are regarded with a single eye. The apparent conversion of a cameo into an intaglio, and of an intaglio into a cameo, is a well-known instance of this fallacy in vision; but the fact does not appear to me to have been correctly explained, nor the conditions under which it occurs to have been properly stated.

This curious illusion, which has been the subject of much attention, was first observed at one of the early meetings of the Royal Society⁵. Several of the members looking through a compound microscope of a new construction at a guinea, some of them imagined the image to be depressed, while others thought it to be embossed, as it really was. Professor GMELIN, of Wurtemburg, published a paper on the same subject in the Philosophical Transactions for 1745 ; his experiments were made with telescopes and compound microscopes which inverted the images; and he observed that the conversion of relief appeared in some cases and not in others, at some times and not at others, and to some eyes also and not to others. He endeavoured to ascertain some of the conditions of the two appearances; “but why these things should so happen,” says he, “I do not pretend to determine.”

Sir DAVID BREWSTER accounts for the fallacy in the following manner:⁶ — “A hollow seal being illuminated by a window or a candle, its shaded side is of course on the same side with the light. If we now invert the seal with one or more lenses, so that it may look in the opposite direction, it will appear to the eye with the shaded side furthest from the window. But as we know that the window is still on our left hand, and as every body with its shaded side furthest from the light must necessarily be convex or protuberant, we immediately believe that the hollow seal is now a cameo or bas-relief. The proof which the eye thus receives of the seal being raised, overcomes the evidence of its being hollow, derived from our actual knowledge and from the sense of touch. In this experiment the deception takes place from our knowing the real direction of the light which falls on the seal ; for if the place of the window, with respect to the seal, had been inverted as well as the seal itself, the illusion could not have taken place. The illusion, therefore, under our consideration is the result of an operation of our own minds, whereby we judge of the forms of bodies by the knowledge we have acquired of light and shadow. Hence the illusion depends on the accuracy and extent of our knowledge on this subject; and while some persons are under its influence, others are entirely insensible to it.”

These considerations do not fully explain the phenomenon, for they suppose that the image must be inverted, and that the light must fall in a particular direction but the conversion of relief will still take place when the object is viewed through an open tube without any lenses to invert it, and also when it is equally illuminated in all parts. The true explanation I believe to be the following. If we suppose a cameo and an intaglio of the same object, the elevations of the one corresponding exactly to the depressions of the other; it is easy to show that the projection of either on the retina is sensibly the same. When the cameo or the intaglio is seen with both eyes, it is impossible to mistake an elevation for a depression, for reasons which have been already amply explained; but when either is seen with one eye only, the most certain guide of our judgement, viz. the presentation of a different picture to each eye, is wanting; the imagination therefore supplies the deficiency, and we conceive the object to be raised or depressed according to the dictates of this faculty. No doubt in such cases our judgement is in a great degree influenced by accessory circumstances, and the intaglio or the relief may sometimes present itself according to our previous knowledge of the direction in which the shadows ought to appear; but the real cause of the phenomenon is to be found in the indetermination of the judgement arising from our more perfect means of judging being absent.

Observers with the microscope must be particularly on their guard against illusions of this kind. RASPAIL observes⁷ that the hollow pyramidal arrangement of the crystals of muriate of soda appears, when seen through a microscope, like a striated pyramid in relief. He recommends two modes of correcting the illusion. The first is to bring successively to the focus of the instrument the different parts of the crystal; if the pyramid be in relief, the point will arrive at the focus sooner than the base will; if the pyramid be hollow, the contrary will take place. The second mode is to project a strong light on the pyramid in the field of view of the microscope, and to observe which sides of the crystal are illuminated, taking however the inversion of the image into consideration if a compound microscope be employed.

The inversion of relief is very striking when a skeleton cube is looked at with one eye, and the following singular results may in this case be observed. So long as the mind perceives the cube, however the figure be turned about, its various appearances will be but different representations of the same object, and the same primitive form will be suggested to the mind by all of them: but it is not so if the converse figure fixes the attention; the series of successive projections cannot then be referred to any figure to which they are all common, and the skeleton figure will appear to be continually undergoing a change of shape.

(back to top)

§ 12.

I have given ample proof that objects whose pictures do not fall on corresponding points of the two retinæ may still appear single. I will now adduce an experiment which proves that similar pictures falling on corresponding points of the two retinæ may appear double and in different places.

Present, in the stereoscope, to the right eye a vertical line, and to the left eye a line inclined some degrees from the perpendicular (fig. 23.); the observer will then perceive, as formerly explained, a line, the extremities of which appear at different distances before the eyes. Draw on the left hand figure a faint vertical line exactly corresponding in position and length to that presented to the right eye; and let the two lines of this left hand figure intersect each other at their centres. Looking now at these two drawings in the stereoscope, the two strong lines, each seen by a different eye, will coincide, and the resultant perspective line will appear to occupy the same place as before; but the faint line which now falls on a line of the left retina, which corresponds with the line of the might retina on which one of the coinciding strong lines, viz. the vertical one, falls, appears in a different place. The place this faint line apparently occupies is the intersection of that plane of visual direction of the left eye in which it is situated, with the plane of visual direction of the right eye, which contains the strong vertical line.

This experiment affords another proof that there is no necessary physiological connection between the corresponding points of the two retinæ,—a doctrine which has been maintained by so many authors.

(back to top)

§ 13. 

Binocular Vision of Images of different Magnitudes.

We will now inquire what effect results from presenting similar images, differing only in magnitude, to analogous parts of the two retinæ. For this purpose two squares or circles, differing obviously but not extravagantly in size, may be drawn on two separate pieces of paper, and placed in the stereoscope so that the reflected image of each shall he equally distant from the eye by which it is regarded. It will then be seen that, notwithstanding this difference, they coalesce and occasion a single resultant perception. The limit of the difference of size within which the single appearance subsists may be ascertained by employing two images of equal magnitude, and causing one of them to recede from the eye while the other remains at a constant distance ; this is effected merely by pulling out the sliding board C (fig. 8.) while the other C’ remains fixed, the screw having previously been removed.

Though the single appearance of two images of different size is by this experiment demonstrated, the observer is unable to perceive what difference exists between the apparent magnitude of the binocular image and that of the two monocular images to determine this point the stereoscope must be dispensed with, and the experiment so arranged that all three shall be simultaneously seen ; which may be done in the following manner:—The two drawings being placed side by side on a plane before the eyes, the optic axes must be made to converge to a nearer point as at fig. 4., or to a more distant one as at fig. 3., until the three images are seen at the same time, the binocular image in the middle, and the monocular images at each side. It will thus be seen that the binocular image is apparently intermediate in size between the two monocular ones.

If the pictures be too unequal in magnitude, the binocular coincidence does not take place. It appears that if the inequality of the pictures be greater than the difference which exists between the two projections of the same object when seen in the most oblique position of the eyes (i. e. both turned to the extreme right or to the extreme left), ordinarily employed, they do not coalesce. Were it not for the binocular coincidence of two images of different magnitude, objects would appear single only when the optic axes converge immediately forwards; for it is only when the converging visual lines form equal angles with the visual base (the line joining the centres of the two eyes) as at fig. 2., that the two pictures can be of equal magnitude; but when they form different angles with it, as at fig. 24., the distance from the object to each eye is different, and consequently the picture projected on each retina has a different magnitude. If a piece of money be held in the position a, (fig. 24.) while the optic axes converge to a nearer point c, it will appear double, and that seen by the left eye will be evidently smaller than the other.

(back to top)

§ 14. 

Phenomena which are observed when objects of different forms are simultaneously presented to corresponding parts of the two retinæ.

If we regard a picture with the right eye alone for a considerable length of time it will be constantly perceived; if we look at another and dissimilar picture with the left eye alone its effect will be equally permanent; it might therefore be expected, that if each of these pictures were presented to its corresponding eye at the same time the two would appear permanently superposed on each other. This, however, contrary to expectation, is not the case.

If a and b (fig. 25.) are each presented at the same time to a different eye, the common border will remain constant, while the letter within it will change alternately from that which would be perceived by the right eye alone to that which would be perceived by the left eye alone. At the moment of change the letter which has just been seen breaks into fragments, while fragments of the letter which is about to appear mingle with them, and are immediately after replaced by the entire letter. It does not appear to be in the power of the will to determine the appearance of either of the letters, but the duration of the appearance seems to depend on causes which are under our control: thus if the two pictures be equally illuminated, the alternations appear in general of equal duration; but if one picture be in ore illuminated than the other, that which is less so will be perceived during a shorter time. I have generally made this experiment with the apparatus, fig. 6. When complex pictures are employed in the stereoscope, various parts of them alternate differently.

There are some facts intimately connected with the subject of the present article which have already been frequently observed. I allude to the experiments, first made by DU TOUR, in which two different colours are presented to corresponding parts of the two retinæ. If a blue disc be presented to the right eye and a yellow disc to the corresponding part of the left eye, instead of a green disc which would appear if these two colours had mingled before their arrival at a single eye, the mind will perceive the two colours distinctly one or the other alternately predominating either partially or wholly over the disc. In the same manner the mind perceives no trace of violet when red is presented to one eye and blue to the other, nor any vestige of orange when red and yellow are separately presented in a similar manner. These experiments may be conveniently repeated by placing the coloured discs in the stereoscope, but they have been most usually made by looking at a white object through differently coloured glasses, one applied to each eye.

In some authors we find it stated, contrary to fact, that if similar objects of different colour be presented one to each eye, the appearance will be that compounded of the two colours. Dr. REID⁸ and JANIN are among the writers who have fallen into this inconsiderate error, which arose no doubt from their deciding according to previous notions, instead of ascertaining by experiment what actually does happen.

(back to top)

§ 15.

No question relating to vision has been so much debated as the cause of the single appearance of objects seen by both eyes. I shall in the present section give a slight review of the various theories which have been advanced by philosophers to account for this phenomenon, in order that the remarks I have to make in the succeeding section may be properly understood.

The law of visible direction for monocular vision has been variously stated by different optical writers. Some have maintained with Dr’s. REID and PORTERFIELD, that every external point is seen in the direction of a line passing from its picture on the retina through the centre of the eye; while others have supposed with Dr. SMITH that the visible direction of an object coincides with the visual ray, or the principal ray of the pencil which flows from it to the eye. D’ALEMBERT, furnished with imperfect data respecting the refractive densities of the humours of the eye, calculated that the apparent magnitudes of objects would differ widely on the two suppositions, and concluded that the visible point of an object was not seen in either of these directions, but sensibly in the direction of a line joining the point itself and its image on the retina; but he acknowledged that he could assign no reason for this law. Sir DAVID BREWSTER, provided with more accurate data, has shown that these three lines so nearly coincide with each other, that “at an inclination of 30°, a line perpendicular to the point of impression on the retina passes through the common centre, and does not deviate from the real line of visible direction more than half a degree, a quantity too small to interfere with the purposes of vision.” We may, therefore, assume in all our future reasonings the truth of the following definition given by this eminent philosopher :—“ As the interior eye-ball is as nearly as possible a perfect sphere, lines perpendicular to the surface of the retina must all pass through one single point, namely the centre of its spherical surface. This one point may be called the centre of visible direction, because every point of a visible object will be seen in the direction of a line drawn from this centre to the visible point.”

It is obvious, that the result of any attempt to explain the single appearance of objects to both eyes, or, in other words, the law of visible direction for binocular vision, ought to contain nothing inconsistent with the law of visible direction for monocular vision.

It was the opinion of AGUILONIUS, that all objects seen at the same glance with both eyes appear to be in the plane of the horopter. The horopter he defines to be a line drawn through the point of intersection of the optic axes, and parallel to the line joining the centres of the two eyes; the plane of the horopter to be a plane passing through this line at right angles to that of the optic axes. All objects which are in this plane, must, according to him, appear single because the lines of direction in which any point of an object is seen coincide only in this plane and nowhere else; and as these lines can meet each other only in one point, it follows from the hypothesis, that all objects not in the plane of the horopter must appear double, because their lines of direction intersect each other, either before or after they pass through it. This opinion was also maintained by DECHALES and PORTERFIELD. That it is erroneous, I have given, I think, sufficient proof, in showing that, when the optic axes converge to any point, objects before or beyond the plane of the horopter are under certain circumstances equally seen single as those in that plane.

Dr. WELLS’S “new theory of visible direction” was a modification of the preceding hypothesis. This acute writer held with AGUILONIUS, that objects are seen single only when they are in the plane of the horopter, and consequently that they appear double when they are either before or beyond it; but he attempted to make this single appearance of objects only in the plane of the horopter to depend on other principles, from which he deduced, contrary to AGUILONIUS, that the objects which are doubled do not appear in the plane of the horopter, but in other places which are determined by these principles. Dr. WELLS was led to his new theory by a fact which he accidentally observed, and which he could not reconcile with any existing theory of visible direction ; this fact had, though he was unaware of it, been previously noticed by Dr. SMITH; it is already mentioned in § 8., and is the only instance of binocular vision of relief which I have found recorded previous to my own investigations. So little does Dr. WELLS’S theory appear to have been understood, that no subsequent writer has attempted either to confirm or disprove his opinions. It would be useless here to discuss the principles of this theory, which was framed to account for an anomalous individual fact, since it is inconsistent with the general rules on which that fact has been now shown to depend. Notwithstanding these erroneous views, the “essay upon single vision with two eyes” contains many valuable experiments and remarks, the truth of which are independent of the theory they were intended to illustrate.

The theory which has obtained greatest currency is that which assumes that an object is seen single because its pictures fall on corresponding points of the two retinæ, that is on points which are similarly situated with respect to the two centres both in distance and position. This theory supposes that the pictures projected on the retinæ are exactly similar to each other, corresponding points of the two pictures falling on corresponding points of the two retinæ. Authors who agree with regard to this property, differ widely in explaining why objects are seen in the same place, or single, according to this law. Dr. SMITH makes it to depend entirely on custom, and explains why the eyes are habitually directed towards an object so that its pictures fall on corresponding parts in the following manner:—“ When we view an object steadily, we have acquired a habit of directing the optic axes to the point in view; because its pictures falling upon the middle points of the retinas, are then distincter than if they fell upon any other places; and since the pictures of the whole object are equal to one another, and are both inverted with respect to the optic axes, it follows that the pictures of any collateral point are painted upon corresponding points of the retinas.”

Dr. REID, after a long dissertation on the subject, concludes, “that by an original property of human eyes, objects painted upon the centres of the two retinæ, or upon points similarly situated with regard to the centres, appear in the same visible place; that the most plausible attempts to account for this property of the eyes have been unsuccessful ; and therefore, that it must be either a primary law of our constitution, or the consequence of some more general law which is not yet discovered.”

Other writers who have admitted this principle have regarded it as arising from anatomical structure and dependent on connexion of nervous fibres; among these stand the names of GALEN, Dr. BRIGGS, Sir ISAAC NEWTON, ROHAULT, Dr. HARTLEY, Dr. WOLLASTON and Professor MÜLLER.

Many of the supporters of the theory of corresponding points have thought, or rather have admitted, without thinking, that it was not inconsistent with the law of AGUILONIUS; but very little reflection will show that both cannot be maintained together; for corresponding lines of visible direction, that is, lines terminating in corresponding points of the two retinæ, cannot meet in the plane of the horopter unless the optic axes be parallel, and the plane be at an infinite distance before the eyes. Some of the modern German writers⁹ have inquired what is the curve in which objects appear single while the optic axes are directed to a given point, on the hypothesis that objects are seen single only when they fall on corresponding points of the two retinæ. An elegant proposition has resulted from their investigations, which I shall need no apology for introducing in this place, since it has not yet been mentioned in any English work.

R and L (fig. 26.) are the two eyes; C A, C’ A the optic axes converging to the point A; and C A B C’ is a circle drawn through the point of convergence A and the centres of visible direction C C’. If any point be taken in the circumference of this circle, and lines be drawn from it through the centres of the two eyes C C’, these lines will fall on corresponding points of the two retinæ D D’; for the angles A C B, A C’ B being equal, the angles D C E, D C’ E are also equal; therefore any point placed in the circumference of the circle C A B C’ will, according to the hypothesis, appear single while the optic axes are directed to A, or any other part in it.

I will mention two other properties of this binocular circle: 1st. The arc subtended by two points on its circumference contains double the number of degrees of the arc subtended by the pictures of these points on either retina, so that objects which occupy 180° of the supposed circle of single vision are painted on a portion of the retina extended over 90° only; for the angle D C E or D C’ E being at the centre, and the angle B C A or B C’ A at the circumference of a circle, this consequence follows. 2ndly. To whatever point of the circumference of the circle the optic axes be made to converge, they will form the same angle with each other; for the angles C A C’, C B C are equal.

In the eye itself, the centre of visible direction, or the point at which the principal rays cross each other, is, according to Dr. YOUNG and other eminent optical writers, at the same time the centre of the spherical surface of the retina, and that of the lesser spherical surface of the cornea; in the diagram (fig. 26.), to simplify the consideration of the problem, R and L represent only the circle of curvature of the bottom of the retina, but the reasoning is equally true in both cases.

The same reasons, founded on the experiments in this memoir, which disprove the theory of AGUILONIUS, induce me to reject the law of corresponding points as an accurate expression of the phenomena of single vision. According to the former, objects can appear single only in the plane of the horopter; according to the latter, only when they are in the circle of single vision; both positions are inconsistent with the binocular vision of objects in relief, the points of which they consist appearing single though they are at different distances before the eyes. I have already proved that the assumption made by all the maintainers of the theory of corresponding points, namely that the two pictures projected by any object in the retinæ are exactly similar, is quite contrary to fact in every case except that in which the optic axes are parallel.

GASSENDUS, PORTA, TACQUET and GALL maintained, that we see with only one eye at a time though both remain open, one according to them being relaxed and inattentive to objects while the other is upon the stretch. It is a sufficient refutation of this hypothesis, that we see an object double when one of the optic axes is displaced either by squinting or by pressure on the eye-ball with the finger; if we saw with only one eye, one object only should under such circumstances be seen. Again, in many cases which I have already explained, the simultaneous affection of the two retinæ excites a different idea in the mind to that consequent on either of the single impressions, the latter giving rise to the idea of a representation on a plane surface, the former to that of an object in relief; these things could not occur did we see with only one eye at a time.

Du TOUR¹⁰ held that though we might occasionally see at the same time with both eyes, yet the mind cannot be affected simultaneously by two corresponding points of the two images. He was led to this opinion by the curious facts alluded to in § 14. It would be difficult to disprove this conjecture by experiment; but all that the experiments adduced in its favour, and others relating to the disappearance of objects to one eye really proves, is, that the mind is inattentive to impressions made on one retina when it cannot combine the impressions on the two retinæ together so as to resemble the perception of some external objects; but they afford no ground whatever for supposing that the mind cannot under any circumstances attend to impressions made simultaneously on points of the two retinæ, when they harmonize with each other in suggesting to the mind the same idea.

A perfectly original theory has been recently advanced by M. LEHOT¹¹, who has endeavoured to prove, that instead of pictures on the retinæ, images of three dimensions are formed in the vitreous humour which we perceive by means of nervous filaments extended thence from the retina. This theory would account for the single appearance to both eyes of objects in relief, but it would be quite insufficient to explain why we perceive an object of three dimensions when two pictures of it are presented to the eyes; according to it, also, no difference should be perceived in the relief of objects when seen by one or both eyes, which is contrary to what really happens. The proofs, besides, that we perceive external objects by means of pictures on the retinæ are so numerous and convincing, that a contrary conjecture cannot be entertained for a moment. On this account it will suffice merely to mention two other theories which place the seat of vision in the vitreous humour. VALLEE¹², without denying the existence of pictures on the retina, has advocated that we see the relief of objects by means of anterior foci on the hyaloid membrane; and RASPAIL¹³ has developed at considerable length the strange hypothesis, that images are neither formed in the vitreous humour nor painted on the retina, but are immediately perceived at the focus of the lenticular system of which the eye is formed.

(back to top)

§ 16.

It now remains to examine why two dissimilar pictures projected on the two retinaæ give rise to the perception of an object in relief. I will not attempt at present to give the complete solution of this question, which is far from being so easy as at a first glance it may appear to be, and is indeed one of great complexity. I shall in this place merely consider the most obvious explanations which might be offered, and show their insufficiency to explain the whole of the phenomena.

It may be supposed that we see but one point of an object distinctly at the same instant, the one namely to which the optic axes are directed, while all other points are seen so indistinctly, that the mind does not recognize them to be either single or double, and that the figure is appreciated by successively directing the point of convergence of the optic axes successively to a sufficient number of its points to enable us to judge accurately of its form.

That there is a degree of indistinctness in those parts of the field of view to which the eyes are not immediately directed, and which increases with the distance from that point, cannot be doubted, and it is also true that the objects thus obscurely seen are frequently doubled. It may be said, this indistinctness and duplicity is not attended to, because the eyes shifting continually from point to point, every part of the object is successively rendered distinct; and the perception of the object is not the consequence of a single glance, during which only a small part of it is seen distinctly, but is formed from a comparison of all the pictures successively seen while the eyes are changing from one point of the object to another.

All this is in some degree true; but were it entirely so, no appearance of relief should present itself when the eyes remain intently fixed on one point of a binocular image in the stereoscope. But on performing the experiment carefully, it will be found, provided the pictures do not extend too far beyond the centres of distinct vision, that the image is still seen single and in relief when this condition is fulfilled. Were the theory of corresponding points true, the appearance should be that of the superposition of the two drawings, to which, however, it has not the slightest similitude. The following experiment is equally decisive against this theory.

Draw two lines inclined towards each other, as in Plate XIX. fig. 10, on a sheet of paper, and having caused them to coincide by converging the optic axes to a point nearer than the paper; look intently on the upper end of the resultant line, without allowing the eyes to wander from it for a moment. The entire line will appear single and in its proper relief, and a pin or a piece of straight wire may without the least difficulty be made to coincide exactly in position with it; or, if while the optic axes continue to be directed to the upper and nearer end, the point of a pin be made to coincide with the lower and further end or with any intermediate point of the resultant line, the coincidence will remain exactly the same when the optic axes are moved and meet there. The eyes sometimes become fatigued, which causes the line to appear double at those parts to which the optic axes are not fixed, but in such case all appearance of relief vanishes.. The same experiment may be tried with more complex figures, but the pictures should not extend too far beyond the centres of the retinæ.

Another and a beautiful proof that the appearance of relief in binocular vision is an effect independent of the motions of the eyes, may be obtained by impressing on the retinal ocular spectra of the component figures. For this purpose the drawings should be formed of broad coloured lines on a ground of the complementary colour, for instance red lines on a green ground, and be viewed either in the stereoscope or in the apparatus, fig. 6, as the ordinary figures are, taking care, however, to fix the eyes only to a single point of the compound figure; the drawings must be strongly illuminated, and after a sufficient time has elapsed to impress the spectra on the retinæ, the eyes must be carefully covered to exclude all external light. A spectrum of the object in relief will then appear before the closed eyes. It is well known that a spectrum impressed on a single eye and seen in the dark, frequently alternately appears and disappears: these alternations do not correspond in the spectra impressed on the two retinæ, and hence a curious effect arises; sometimes the right-eye spectrum will be seen alone, sometimes that of the left eye, and at those moments when the two appear together, the binocular spectrum will present itself in bold relief. As in this case the pictures cannot shift their places on the retina in whatever manner the eyes be moved about, the optic axes can during the experiment only correspond with a single point of each.

When an object, or a part of an object, thus appears in relief while the optic axes are directed to a single binocular point, it is easy to see that each point of the figure that appears single is seen at the intersection of the two lines of visible direction in which it is seen by each eye separately, whether these lines of visible direction terminate at corresponding points of the two retinæ or not.

But if we were to infer the converse of this, viz. that every point of an object in relief is seen by a single glance at the intersection of the lines of visible direction in which it is seen by each eye singly, we should be in error. On this supposition, objects before or beyond the intersection of the optic axes should never appear double, and we have abundant evidence that they do. The determination of the points which shall appear single seems to depend in no small degree on previous knowledge of the form we are regarding. No doubt, some law or rule of vision may be discovered which shall include all the circumstances under which single vision by means of non-corresponding points occurs and is limited. I have made numerous experiments for the purpose of attaining this end, and have ascertained some of the conditions on which single and double vision depend, the consideration of which, however, must at present be deferred.

Sufficient, however, has been shown to prove that the laws of binocular visible position hitherto laid down are too restricted to be true. The law of Aguilonius assumes that objects in the plane of the horopter are alone seen single; and the law of corresponding points carried to its necessary consequences, though these consequences were unforeseen by its first advocates, many of whom thought that it was consistent with the law of Aguilonius, leads to the conclusion that no object appears single unless it is seen in a circle passing through the centres of visible direction in each eye and the point of convergence of the optic axes. Both of these are inconsistent with the single vision of objects whose points lie out of the plane in one case and the circle in the other; and that objects do appear single under circumstances that cannot be explained by these laws, has, I think, been placed beyond doubt by the experiments I have brought forward. Should it be hereafter proved, that all points in the plane or in the circle above mentioned are seen single, and from the great indistinctness of lateral images it will be difficult to give this proof, the law must be qualified by the admission that points out of them do not always appear double.   

(back to top)

1. See also a Treatise of Painting, p. 178. London, 1721; and Dr. SMITH’S Complete System of Optics, vol. ii. r. 244, where the passage is quoted. ↑
2. The luminous line seen by a single eye arises from the reflection of the light from each of the concentric circles produced in the operation of turning; when the plate is not large the arrangement of these successive reflections does not differ from a straight line. ↑
3. System of Optics, vol. ii. p. 388. and r. 526. ↑
4. “We see more exquisitely with one eye shut than with both, because the vital spirits thus unite themselves the more, and become the stronger: for we may find by looking in a glass whilst we shut one eye, that the pupil of the other dilates.” — Lord BACON’S Works, Sylva Sylvarum, art. Vision. ↑
5. BIRCH’S History, vol. ii. p. 348. ↑
6. Natural Magic, p. 100. ↑
7. Nouveau Système de Chimie Organique, 2me edit. t. 1. p. 333. ↑
8. Enquiry, Sect. xiii. ↑
9. Tortual, die Sinne des Menschen. Münster, 1827. Bartels, Beitrage zur Physiologie der Gesichtssinnes. Berlin, 1834. ↑
10. Act. Par. 1743. M. p. 334. ↑
11. Nouvelle Théorie de la Vision, Par. 1823. ↑
12. Traité de la Science du Dessein, Par. 1821, p. 270. ↑
13. Nouveau Système de Chimie Organique, t. 2. p. 329. ↑

Der Beitrag The birth of Stereoscopy: Wheatstone on Binocular Vision 1838, original source erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Alfred Silvester’s 1857 series of stereoviews entitled ‘Declaration of Love’ begins with a scene depicting a young woman seated at the piano in a smartly decorated room with elaborate wallpaper and plasterwork and what appears to be a fitted carpet, as opposed to the rugs on a wooden floor that you see in many Victorian interiors. The young woman is wearing an off-the-shoulder lacy top with a corseted waist, a full skirt and crinoline. A young man is standing close beside her, leaning over to turn the pages of her music. The door is open to the next room where a family can be seen sitting around a table, chatting and playing cards, while a little girl in her best party dress is peeping round the door, listening to the music and perhaps hoping to see what her sister and the young man are up to. It is a scene typical of the ‘Evenings at Home’ style also favoured by Silvester’s rival James Elliott, and the ‘Evening Music’ of the Gaudin Brothers, offering a glimpse into the lives of a prosperous upper middle class family.

A number of variants of the scene exist, with the camera in the same position but the figures positioned differently, allowing one to read a sequence into the events though, as they are not numbered, it is not clear whether that was intentional. I choose to place them as follows.

The young woman has finished playing her music and has risen to her feet. The young man seizes the opportunity and kneels at her feet, taking her hands in his and kissing them fervently, declaring his love. The little girl in the doorway is a witness.

In a variant of the scene, the little girl is not present so I imagine that she has gone next door to tell Papa that her sister has received a proposal.

In the final variant of the scene I have found to date, the young man is on his feet, still holding his beloved’s hand and looking imploringly in her direction while she moves towards the next room. Her expression is noncommittal but the little girl is smiling as are the people in the next room, so we trust that this declaration of love will meet with approval all round.

As the older reader knows, the male heart does not cease to beat faster in the presence of a beautiful young woman as we pass middle age, and Alfred Silvester used the same title ‘Declaration of Love’ for another set up showing a young woman at the piano but this time accompanied by an older gentleman with white hair, side whiskers and a receding hairline. He stands attentively beside her as she plays, holding her fan for her in one hand and a bouquet of flowers in the other.

In a variant of the scene, the young lady is standing, holding her fan and looking modestly away as the gentleman proffers the bouquet and declares his love for her. We do not know how she feels but her body language suggests that this proposal is not entirely welcome.

‘Declaration of Love’ is also the title of the following stereoview, presumably photographed on a separate occasion, as while the gentleman appears to be the same one, the young lady is dressed differently. They have moved away from the piano, which can be seen in the background, and the young lady is seated on a high backed chair while the gentleman kneels awkwardly beside her, pressing her hand to his lips. In this scene there is no doubt of her reaction as she turns away from him her hand raised to conceal the expression of amused disbelief. She clearly finds this proposal absurd and one hopes she has the kindness to let the old chap down lightly (and perhaps help him to his feet).

Under his pseudonym of ‘Phiz’, used at times of financial difficulty (he was a serial bankrupt), Silvester issued a variant of this scene entitled ‘May and December’ in which the (seated) old gentleman can again be seen declaring his love for a young woman whose likely response can be seen on the face she hides behind a fan. The ‘skeleton leaves’ we can see under a glass dome on the table beside him draw attention to his decrepit condition while the title clearly expresses the disparity of age between one in the Spring of their life and the other in its Winter. A more cruel title might be “No Fool Like an Old Fool’.

So, to any of you considering making a Declaration of Love this St Valentine’s Day, may this be a cautionary tale and I hope that your beloved is a worthy, and suitable, object of affection.

Der Beitrag A Declaration of Love erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Ladies and Gentlemen, please fasten your seatbelts because we are going to embark on a trip to the Underworld! This is a series of “Modern Diableries” inspired by the original French Tissue stereo cards. But what are those? French Tissues are a type of stereo card that, when viewed from the front, appear in plain black & white or sepia, like any standard stereo card. However, when illuminated from behind it magically shows brilliant colours and special effects, such as glowing red eyes through tiny pin-holes, and flames created with tiny cuts.

The Diableries, very popular in the 1860s (Habert and Hennetier were the most famous authors), depict life in Hell: from walking skeletons with glowing red eyes, to ghouls, and even the Devil himself! At the time of Napoleon III, these stereo views were a strong political and social tool bound to analyse and criticize the French society. And even if some scenes would look quite amusing, they would also hide a deep meaning behind it.

While most of the time the original Diableries were intended to be scary, my approach and interpretation on such Devilments is mostly cheerful and entertaining – we’ll see the skeletons dancing, having parties and taking on various adventures. The models for these stereos are not made from clay as in Victorian times, but tiny plastic skeletons paired with tiny props coming from a dollhouse shop. The background to such scenes is usually cardboard, adorned differently on each occasion.

DISCO INFERNO

This is what a dance floor would look like in Hell. The skeletons are dancing under the disco ball (a Christmas ornament) and they’re truly having the time of their after-life. 

JOYEUX HALLOWEEN

A Halloween-themed scene featuring a spooky pumpkin in the same style of the Diableries. If you look closely, you’ll notice one of them got so excited he even lost his head! 

LE CARNIVAL DES DIABLERIES

Carnival is a very popular holiday in Italy so I wanted to pay homage to it. The skeletons are wearing colourful masks and top hats I made from paper. 

LEÇON D’ASTRONOMIE

We’re attending an interesting lesson of astronomy; someone is raising his hand to ask a question. The crescent moon was made out of an old CD, and the stars in the background are rhinestones. 

MUSIQUE INFERNALE

A hellish concert is happening here, and the two stars are being applauded by a small audience. 

QUAND LA FÊTE EST FINIE

This is a New Year’s Eve party and the skeletons are quite drunk! A tiny bottle of champagne can be spotted amongst the confetti. 

THÉ EN APRÈS-MIDI

A fancy tea party in an exclusive club. These skeletons must be British! 

Der Beitrag A Trip to the Underworld erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

What kind of entertainment would you have as a Soviet kid growing up in the 1980s? A couple of dolls, clothes, and rags for the dolls’ dresses; metallic constructor sets, the vinyl recordings of children’s stories; some cassettes with popular Russian songs, and a bunch of filmstrips (a 35 mm film with still images and captions to be projected on a wall – no movement or sound!). These things were in almost everyone’s possession – at least, that’s how I remember my friend’s toys. However, I had something very special – a set of stereo cards, along with a simple stereoscope that looked like binoculars. 

Of course, back then I knew nothing about stereoscopy, as well as the story behind those slides, other than the fact that they were produced in East Germany.  Each card featured six stereo pairs, and to view them, you had to slide it into a viewer, and go from bottom to top – from the beginning to the end of a particular story. In my early years I had only two cards. However later my little collection grew, and eventually I ended up having 14 sets of stereo slide cards. Many of them were Brothers Grimm tales (Snow White, Rumpelstiltskin, Hansel and Gretel, Little Red Riding Hood, etc.); I also had a series featuring Teddy Bears and their adventures – how they go to school, hike, exercise, climb mountains, or even go to space! Out of the whole collection, I loved the Teddies slides most of all, and in a way, they influenced my own tastes and likes. Space Teddies made me fall in love with the sci-fi stories; the card showing them climbing mountains made me dream about the distant places I have never seen. And in general, these cards broadened my imagination. We all know that many chidren created their own imaginary worlds. Thanks to these stereo images, mine were almost tangible. 

For many years, these cards remained my only exposure to stereoscopy. I had no idea that it existed beyond this format. Of course, after I started taking my own stereos, I realized that these slides were popular around the world, as a part of more global process. I learned that people from outside of the Soviet Union (and the Eastern Bloc countries) are rarely aware of these East German stereo slides.

In the rest of the world everyone knows the View-Master Reels. After doing some research on my cards, I found out that my stereo viewer, named Stereomat, was produced in Kamenz (East Germany) in the 1970s. Organized into thematic series, each of the cards had a code marking a certain subject (for example, TS ‘Teddie Serie’ for Teddy Bears stereos, ZS ‘Zoo Serie’ for the stereo photos of animals, MS ‘Märchen Serie’ for the fairy tales, etc.). 

According to one of Russian collectors (https://cccp.livejournal.com/24777.html), TS and MS series circulated widely in the Soviet Union, while others were less well-known. My collection consisted almost entirely of these series, with the exception of one ZS card. This was actually one of the first cards I had ever had, with the stereo images of animals from the Berlin Zoo. You can see that these slides were viewed (and handled) by a little kid, and therefore, their quality is not the best. 

Another card from my initial set featured a story of a naughty mouse, who, after stealing a piece of ham, is chased, and eventually captured by his buddy. This example demonstrates how elaborate these stereos were! Now, as a stereo enthusiast, I can see how well the sense of depth was used, and how interesting and original the settings of this story were. 

Interestingly, when I got more stereo slides as a gift several years later, I found another card that evidently told the same story, only this time, the little thief manages to escape. However, his greediness is punished by an upset stomach, and the story culminates in more didactic ending. 

The Brothers Grimm tales were extremely popular among Russian kids, and therefore, immediately recognizable.  No wonder that this series was extensively represented in my personal collection! I would like to share a couple of stereo pairs from Rumpelstiltskin, the story of a miller’s daughter that became a queen, a vicious gnome whose name nobody can guess, and an evil deal.

I also have a card that does not really match any of the categories. It is about a day in the life of a driving school’s students and instructors, starting from the moment that they come to the class, to the moment when they pass their tests. My guess is that, since this card is from the MS series, it is probably based on a children’s story or an animation film. Unfortunately, I could not find the source of these slides. 

Finally, here are my most favorite cards, featuring the adventures of Teddy Bears (the TS series). Again, I do not know if this series was written and staged specifically for the stereo slides, or the creators based it on some existing stories. I think that these are breathtaking examples of how masterful the Stereomat team was. From the carefully designed settings to the use of depth, from the cute and lovable teddies to the amazing lighting. Back then, when I was a kid, I firmly believed that these beautiful scenes indeed existed somewhere across the sea, and my dream was to climb these mountains, and maybe even go into space one day. 

Der Beitrag My Magic Cards erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

It’s probably safe to assume that most people were introduced to 3D images via View-Master. Introduced at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, the handheld 3D viewer was a very popular format that sold literally billions of products from the 1940s right on through the 2000s. Here you’ll find a brief history of View-Master, some images from my collection and key content categories that may be of interest to those looking to start or grow their collections. 

View-Master was invented by William Gruber in the 1930s, working with Sawyer’s Inc of Portland, Oregon. Sawyers was then called Sawyer’s Photo Finishing Service and was one of the world’s largest producers of scenic postcards. 

The View-Master was introduced at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, just a couple of years after the invention of Kodachrome film. View-Master used Kodachrome exclusively until the late 1970s, and because of this, the vast majority of View-master transparencies retain their color and vibrancy over time. 

View-Master was originally marketed as an exciting alternative to scenic postcards. The reels were most often sold at photography stores, gift shops at scenic attractions, and via mail order. When I first started collecting, that era was my primary focus. It gave me the opportunity to view these little time capsules, to take a quick vacation to the past.

As my collection grew, so, too did the geographic span of images. View-Master was truly trying to capture photos from every corner of the globe they could get to. There are many reels of far-flung festivals and lots of artisans and people at work, including a man carving ivory in Hong Kong, a woman making filigree silver jewelry in Yucatan, Mexico, a man carving a boat in Panama. There are photos from life on every continent and most major cities, even Russia during the cold war. 

There are also many U.S. communities of people represented including Native Americans, Creole and Gullah. Globally, there are groups of people and even entire places that no longer exist. There’s an entire packet dedicated to Zuiderzee, a fishing village in The Netherlands that existed before they built the dams that put the city under water. 

I’ve learned a lot about the world and the past through View-Master. And that’s by design.

William Gruber and the folks at Sawyer’s truly believed in this product as an educational tool. There are many examples of educational reels over the years. Notably, in the 1940s, the U.S. military purchased around 100k viewers and several million reels. From range estimators to in-air identification, these tools were used in training. Other educational reels produced included mushroom identification, flower identification, a sweeping history of Chinese art and medical reels dedicated to body dissection.

The educational reels overlap with another key component of Saywer’s View-Master business that was there from the beginning: the production of commissioned commercial reels. Commercial reels sold just about anything you could name, from bourbon to toothpaste to farm animals. Movie preview reels are some of the most sought-after by collectors. They were used exclusively in movie theaters as a way to promote upcoming movies during the 3D movie craze of the 1950s. 

Also in the 1950s, Sawyer’s purchased Tru-Vue, the company’s main competitor. While this wiped out the competition, it also captured the licensing rights to Walt Disney Studios. Four years later, Disneyland would open, and the rest is history. It was a wildly successful partnership for both brands that spanned many decades. There in many who just collect View-Master’s Disney items and that’s probably enough to keep a person busy for years. 

Another area for collectors and a big thing for Sawyer’s in the 1950s, involved their end-to-end service for personal reels. They sold a View-Master personal stereo camera, film cutter and mounting supplies. The even sold a 3D projector called the Stereo-Matic 500 that required a silver screen and polarized glasses. A budding photographer could do everything themselves from start to finish, but if you didn’t want to make your own reels, the fine folks at Sawyer’s would do it for you via their mail-in service. 

The Toy Shelf

Most people associate View-Master with cartoons and pop culture. And that’s partly because, in the 1960s, GAF Corporation purchased View-Master. They leaned heavily into pop culture and kids reels. And, while they saw success, by the late 1970s, cost cutting measures led to GAF switching to lesser film stocks and quality overall dropped. View-Master changed hands a couple more times but by the late 1990s was owned by Mattel and nestled under the Fisher-Price brand, placing it firmly in the preschooler toy aisle. 

While that outcome is a bummer for those who don’t care about cartoons and other kids programming, one neat thing about VM is that it’s from literally everyone’s childhood. Any viewer can show you any reel, from 1939 on. So, everybody — from grandma to a modern preschooler — enjoyed the same tactile experience. 

There’s something profound in these shared childhood touchpoints. 

Many collectors start out by acquiring things they had and loved in childhood. If you were a kid in the 1960s, you might want the Monkees set; in the 1970s, Eight is Enough; in the 1980s, Knight Rider. If you love sci-fi, there’s everything from a visually stunning Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea diorama set to scenes from the set of Dune in 1984. Numerous space-race and NASA-themed reels exist. And many major pop culture franchises are represented including Marvel, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park and Harry Potter. 

In terms of reels directed at children, it seems the diorama reels in particular hold a special place in the hearts of collectors. The scenes created by Florence Thomas, Joe Liptak and other sculptors who worked at View-Master has had a lasting impact. I know this because I started an Instagram account in the fall of 2020 to share images from my View-Master collection, and I was happily surprised to find so many people who love View-Master. Many of my followers are themselves artists — cartoonists, illustrators, puppeteers and painters — who have told me that View-Master serves as inspiration in their own work today. It’s not hard to understand why.

The sculptors did incredible work, and the diorama reels are well worth seeking out. And those of you with an interest in stereoscopic photography should definitely check them out. The tabletop 3D photography produced for these reels is unparalleled. 

Semiotics — Who’s Here and Who’s Not

Of course, it would be ridiculous to not mention that the past is a decidedly problematic place.

With a degree in film studies, I can’t help but think about the meanings and symbols found in compelling images from the past. What did the images say to people at the time? Who did they include? And, sometimes, more importantly, who did they leave out? 

Erasure is probably the neatest trick VM ever pulled — it’s something that the dominant cultural narrative excels at. Black adult Americans are often absent from reels though smiling children are represented semi-regularly. The state tour packets often include a few surprises and regular people of all races and classes working regular jobs. Many of the reels produced by the View-Master factory in Belgium include incredible glimpses into places it would be difficult to see otherwise, from cheese being made at an abbey in the 1940s in Switzerland to how tea was made in India in the 1950s. The educational components and the desire to share images from every corner of the globe was sincere at Sawyer’s, and I find the farther from home I get in View-Master reels, the more I learn. 

And, for me, that’s one of the key elements of collecting: The thrill of discovery. While I love to see places and people I would otherwise never see, there’s a special place in my heart for the weirder stuff. 

I enjoy images of tourists traps, of festivals and kitschy events — like drunken revelers at Mardi Gras or Rio’s Carnival in the 1940s. 

A few more weird things I’ve found and loved: There are two entire commercial reels dedicated to Hereford Ranch’s Heifer sale of 1953. Each cow looks alike unless you know something about buying livestock. 

The Paris packet is fantastic and includes this image with the caption “tramps live under the bridges of Paris.” I just don’t think they ever would have included such an image in a reel about the United States. 

A bizarre FBI packet features a made-up kidnapping plot but takes place at the real FBI headquarters and feautres a 3D photo of J. Edgar Hoover. 

And even though kids reels are somewhat outside my wheelhouse, there are many fun ones to be found. I just recently discovered these creepy-hilarious Hugga Bunch reels from 1985. 

This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to View-Master content categories. One of the best things about View-Master is that it covered so many subjects that, as my personal interests have evolved, so, too, has my collection. 

Der Beitrag Nostalgia, Semiotics & Weird Stuff: A Guide to Collecting View-Master erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

At a recent meeting of the VSC, someone asked if there are stereo views of true crime. I’m not a big true crime fan or a stereo scholar, but this seemed like a fun pandemic online research project. What is meant by true crime? It’s a nonfiction genre having to do with actual crimes, usually murder. It’s popular now, but it was popular in the 19th century too‒just think of the penny press and the National Police Gazette. As the joke says, “Crime may not pay, but it sells!”. I was curious to see if it made its way into stereo cards, too.

Almost all the material I found was for Americans. The images you’ll see come only from online sources, mostly the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library. I had never heard of any of these murderers, but amazingly, two of them have their own Wikipedia articles and I was easily able to find some material on the rest also. Conversely, I was unable to find material connected to some murderers who are still household names in the U.S., like Lizzie Borden or Alferd G. Packer.

In what follows, I’ve tried to provide a thumbnail sketch of each crime. Accounts from the time often vary, so I’ve tried to present a composite set of the facts which I think are the most likely.

Please note: Most of these stereos are G‑rated, but there are a few which may be disturbing to some people. Specifically, there are two hangings (both shown before the trapdoor opened) and one dead body. Also some of the descriptions of the crimes may be disturbing. These are images of murder and capital punishment, and they’re not pretty.

Assassinations

The first thing that comes to mind for true crime in stereo was Eadweard Muybridge, but more about him later. The second thing was the assassinations of three US presidents: Abraham Lincoln in 1865, James Garfield in 1881, and William McKinley in 1901. This stereo memorializes all 3, in true maudlin turn-of-the-century style, but with great stereoscopic depth!

Lincoln Assassination

This is the only stereo I could find of John Wilkes Booth, who shot Lincoln. It’s an accidental stereo, assembled by John J. Richter from two carte-de-visite images where Booth moved a little between exposures. As a result, the depth is a bit exaggerated.

On April 26, 1865, Boston Corbett’s regiment had surrounded Booth and one of his accomplices in a tobacco shed in Virginia. They were under orders to take Booth alive, but somebody shot him anyway. There are doubts about whether it was Corbett, but he took the credit (or blame). He was to have been court-marshalled, but the Secretary of War intervened.

The assassination of Lincoln was part of a broader conspiracy. Booth isn’t in this photo, having already been killed. The hanged were: David Herold, who helped Booth escape, Lewis Powell, who tried to kill Secretary of War Seward, George Azterodt, who was supposed to kill Vice President Andrew Johnson but lost his nerve, and Mary Surratt, who owned the boarding house where the conspirators met, and who was the first woman to be executed by the U.S. government.

Garfield Assassination

This is the old DC jail where Charles Guiteau, who shot President James Garfield, was held and eventually hanged. While he was held here, two attempts were made to shoot Guiteau, including one by one of his guards. People took up a collection for the guard‒that’s how popular Guiteau was.

It took Garfield almost 3 months to die after being shot, so in court Guiteau claimed, “The doctors killed Garfield ‒ I just shot him!”. He’s usually described as a “disappointed office seeker”, but I don’t think that fully captures his weirdness. He literally danced to the gallows, and then recited a poem he had written, titled, I am going to the Lordy. Both he and Booth are characters in the musical Assassins by Stephen Sondheim and John Weidman, parts of which are available on YouTube.

Plain Old Murders

Gaius Jenkins, Lawrence, Kansas Territory, 1858

There was a plenty of shooting in Kansas Territory in 1858 (the photo was taken some years later), over whether the state-to-be would have legal slavery. In this case, though, both men were Free Staters. What they couldn’t agree on was the ownership of a certain piece of land in Lawrence, including the well you see here (the wellhouse is at the far left).

On June 3, 1858, Gaius Jenkins, carrying a revolver, came to get water from the well which both he and Jim Lane claimed. Lane met him with a shotgun. A man with Jenkins shot Lane in the leg, and Lane shot and killed Jenkins. Lane was acquitted at trial and went on to become one of the two first U.S. Senators from Kansas, and overlapping his Senate service, a Union Civil War general, trading atrocities with the Confederates on the Kanas/Missouri border. In 1866 he became depressed and committed suicide.

Thomas Brown and Wife, Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, 1868

Josiah L. Pike murdered Thomas Brown and his wife, a couple in their 70’s, at Hampton Falls, New Hampshire, on May 8, 1868, with an axe. He stole $500 and an overcoat. He doesn’t look at all sorry in this photo. I haven’t found Mrs. Brown’s name mentioned anywhere, so far. A local church group seems to have been determined to save Pike’s soul by showering him with love, and they held his hand, brought him flowers, and had a choir sing to him. Mark Twain, disgusted by this, wrote a short but very snarky essay called Lionizing Murderers.

Jonathan Lunger and Marie Lunger, Ulysses, New York, 1870

You are looking at the remains of a cabin near Ulysses, New York, which was burned to the ground on March 20, 1870. Two bodies, almost completely reduced to ashes, were found inside.

Jonathan Lunger and his daughter had been awakened by a sharp noise. Lunger found his arm covered in his wife Marie’s blood, and standing over her, holding an axe, was Mike Ferguson, a man who hung around near his cabin and whom he sometimes hired. After a short conversation, Ferguson stove in Lunger’s skull with the axe. Ferguson took Lunger’s watch and rifle and their little money and burned the cabin to the ground. He forced 14-year-old Anna to come with him.

Ferguson was caught and Anna was freed and testified at the trial. Ferguson was hanged at Ithaca in 1871. His motive for the crime was never clear.

Georgiana Lovering, Northwood, New Hampshire, 1872

Franklin B. Evans had set some snares for the birds in the woods outside Northwood, New Hampshire. On September 25 of 1872, he asked his 14-year-old niece, Georgiana Lovering, to check his snares, claiming that he had to work. He hid, then followed her into the forest, then raped her, strangled her, and extensively mutilated her body with a knife.

Evans came up with a couple of stories about a mysterious stranger who had run off with the girl, but Sheriff Henry Drew spent a day with Evans driving from town to town to check the story as it changed. Finally, after they had returned to the sheriff’s house, Sheriff Drew locked eyes with Evans and asked him if Georgie were alive or dead. After some seconds, Evans broke and admitted that she was dead. At midnight, he led the sheriff through a swamp to the body. On viewing the body, the sheriff demanded to know where certain body parts had gone to, and Evans led him to a spot where he had buried them under a rock.

Before his execution on February 18, 1874, Evans confessed to another murder and mutilation of a child which he had committed in 1850. He was suspected of committing several others, but denied his guilt in those. He requested that his body be sold to the Dartmouth College medical school for dissection, with the money to go to his son. And that is where we see him here.

Karen and Anethe Christensen, Smuttynose Island, Maine, 1873

Louis H. F. Wagner is the fellow on the left. The position of his hands suggests that he’s trying to hide shackles. Unfortunately, this “stereo” view is really two copies of the same photo, so it has no depth.

On March 5, 1873, Norwegian immigrants Maren Hontvet and her sister Karen and sister-in-law Anethe Christensen were asleep in a house on Smuttynose Island, one of the Isles of Shoals off the coasts of New Hampshire and Maine. Wagner had found out that Maren’s husband John was staying on the mainland that night, and he thought that John had saved up $600 for a new fishing boat. He also knew the house well, having lived there at one time. Breaking into the house, he blundered into Karen, who was sleeping in the kitchen. He beat her with a chair, but Maren managed to drag her into a bedroom and shut the door. Maren screamed to Anethe, in the next room, to run, and Anethe left by her window, but Wagner grabbed an axe and followed, and cut her down. When he came back into the house, Maren tried to get Karen to flee with her, but the badly-beaten Karen didn’t have the strength. Maren went out the window and ran, hearing Karen’s last cries behind her. Wagner searched the house and found $16, then made himself a meal, before rowing back to the mainland.

Wagner escaped from prison but was caught 3 days after in New Hampshire. He was hanged at Thomaston, Maine in 1875, more than 2 years after the crime. The murders were the subject of A Memorable Murder, which appears in many true-crime anthologies. The recent novel and movie, The Weight of Water also involve these murders.

Thomas and Simeon Sturtevant, Halifax, Massachusetts, 1874

William Sturtevant was in debt and thought his grand-uncles had money. On February 15, 1874, he grabbed a long wooden stake and headed to this, their house. Grand-Uncle Thomas was on his way to the barn to feed his cows when William bludgeoned him. He then went into the house and bludgeoned his bedridden Great Uncle Simeon. He rifled the house for money, and on his way out the door he killed the housekeeper, Mary Buckley.

The interest in his execution was so great that tickets had to be issued. Interestingly, Historic New England says that the photographer worked for the county. It would be interesting to know the county asked for stereo photos, or whether he took them to sell for his own business.

Russell and John Allison, Putnam County, Tennessee, 1875

Joseph and George Brassel were brothers who murdered Russell Allison in Putnam County, Tennessee, on November 29, 1875, in the course of an attempted robbery. When a posse came to arrest them, they killed John Allison in the fight. He was Russell Allison’s brother. While in jail, they tried to poison their guards with arsenic which had been smuggled in to them. Then they broke their shackle chains by twisting them back and forth for many hours. Later they tried crawling out under the floorboards, but there wasn’t enough space. Near the end, they converted to the Methodist church. They dictated an account of their lives, which they thought they could sell. It included a list of their other crimes, some quite vicious.

At their hanging, they were allowed to speak to the crowd, and warned them of the evils of alcohol. A long ballad was written about their crimes and execution.

Afterward

I know there are more true crime stereos out there, based on listings in library and historical-society catalogs. As far as I can tell, though, they don’t form a particularly common stereo genre.

For more stereo true crime, see Richard C. Ryder’s article Murder, Madness, Muybridge, and Gull in Stereo World; those issues are available online (Part 1, Part 2). Eadweard Muybridge was not only a proto-cinema pioneer, but also a great stereographer, and a murderer. Philip Glass wrote an opera about him, called The Photographer. Ryder also proposes a possible connection to Jack the Ripper.

Der Beitrag True Crime in Old Stereographs erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Introduction

When I started to take my first own stereo photos I soon realized that I can kind of adjust the amount of depth by shifting the camera more or less between the two shots. Like most of us it took me quite a while to develop the right feeling and reduce the amount of stereo pairs that were not really satisfying. But capturing landscapes was still a challenge when I first heard of so called hyper stereo photos. After my personal discovery of stereoscopy this opened a whole new world once more. During the summer of 2020 I had the long awaited opportunity to take stereo photos with a drone. But to tell you all about the magic of hyper stereos it’s best to start soon after the birth of stereoscopic photography.

While stereoscopic photography always had more technical requirements, including the camera as well as viewing devices, the viewing experience surpassed that of mono photography. This may not apply on portraits but does certainly on travel photography, where you could step right into the scene depicted in a stereo view.

But when it comes to wide and distant landscapes their flatness is an undeniable drawback for the stereoscopic effect when a stereo camera with lenses spaced at the same distance as human eyes is used. Watching the following slides through a Brewster stereoscope would offer a little more depth than free viewing them. Nevertheless, one can see that the lack of 3D is already quite boring compared to the two stereo slides shown above.

If you ever took your own stereo photos and referred to the distance of your eyes when shifting the camera between the two shots you may have encountered that all distant objects appear as one single flat background. The same effect explains why we cannot estimate the different distances of clouds when we look to the sky.

Stereopsis

To understand why this is not possible we need to consult some theory. The ability of extracting depth information from our binocular vision is called Stereopsis. One of its conditions is related to the fact that our eyes have a certain distance to each other. Now, if we look at an object (F) both our eyes will immediately turn towards the object, leading to a vision of the object right in the center of both retinas, resulting in one single vision for both eyes (Fig. 1).

The vertical orange line represents the distance between us and the object. The horizontal orange line is called baseline in the context of stereoscopy, i.e. the distance between our eyes, or the distance between the two camera lenses.

One could assume that every object which is as far away from us as object F would cause such a single vision. But this is not true. If you would draw two rays from equal points on both retinas through the two lenses you would find out that their intersections rather create a circle. This circle is called Horopter (Fig. 2).

Note that this is only the theoretical horopter. There also exists an empirical horopter and a certain neuronal tolerance, summarized in the so called Panum’s fusional area. But we will now focus on stereopsis again.

If an object O (red) is closer than the horopter its vision will have different positions on each retina (Fig. 3). Those different positions on the retinas cause a double vision which enables our brain to sense the distances of objects. We also use additional techniques such as comparison of size, movement, etc. to enhance that sense, but we can ignore that for the discussion of stereopsis.

Let’s take a closer look at Fig. 3. For the right eye, the red object will hide point 3. This means that there will be no vision of point 3 on the retina of the right eye, i.e. it would not appear at all on the right image of a stereo photo. But this does not happen on the retina of the left eye. Moreover, it’s shifted even beyond the vision of point 4. If you would place an object behind the horopter you could easily find out that you would have the same result vice versa.

Unfortunately, the double vision method works only for close objects. Here’s why:

Fig. 4 shows what happens if you increase the distance between us or the camera and the object we are looking at (vertical orange line). The baseline and the distance between the horopter and the closer object are the same as in the previous figure. It’s just like you were stepping back to take a look from further away. As you can see, the left vision of the red object moves closer to the vision of point 3. Ultimately, this is what happens:

The former double vision of the red object transforms into a single vision. This means stereopsis is not possible anymore and we are thus not able to sense the different distances of the two objects — we are just too far away now.

This problem affects stereoscopic photography even more. If you want to take a photo of something that is just too large to fit entirely on your lens — like a building, a mountain, a landscape or a city panorama — the only way is to get farther away from the subject and loose the stereo effect. Furthermore, we sometimes wish to get closer to particular object but we can’t — like a ship on the sea, an animal or the clouds mentioned above.

Wait! Didn’t we conclude that it’s just impossible to sense depth in distant clouds? Yes, that’s true on one hand, but obviously clouds are also as three dimensional as a mountain. Luckily, we are not only able to bring back the depth, we are also able to make it visible in a way that we have never seen it before. That’s why the title of this article speaks of magic.

While magicians work with illusions or distractions we will actually not do anything more than revealing reality. That means making stereopsis possible for distant objects. In theory it’s quite simple to bring the double vision back. All you have to do is increase the baseline (Fig. 6).

If you want to examine the effects between distance and baseline on your own you can access this figure as an interactive GeoGebra file online here.

The effect might seem poor in the example above because the double vision on the last figure is far less than on the first. But as I said you will use that technique for large buildings rather than for a still life on a table. So, if you increase the distance to your subjects, their inner distances will grow likewise (while the distance between the red object and the horopter remained the same through all figures).

Historical hyper stereos

It’s time to leave theory behind to prove that the technique works. And how it works! When I looked through my collection of glass slides I can easily conclude that hyper stereoscopic photography is no new discovery, but was used for the same purpose as today as it was in the 19th century:

Typical settings

There are a few requirements to take satisfying hyper stereos such as an empty foreground, equal ground, and space to move sideways. This results in typical situations suitable to take hyper stereos:

Walk along the riverside

Walk over bridges

Look down from large buildings

Take photos while you’re in a moving vehicle, …

… a plane or watching a movie.

Don’t move at all, but let the scenery move.

In my experience, it does not matter if your baseline is a little too big — at least in most cases I don’t have time to calculate, or I just don’t know the distance between the camera and the subject. That’s why I always shoot a horizontal sequence of 4 to 7 photos, and choose the final stereo pair afterwards. If I take simultaneous stereo photos I leave one camera where it is and increase the distance to the other camera multiple times. That way I can choose the best pair afterwards as well. For more information about how to choose the baseline I recommend David Kuntz’s article Getting the Right Depth in 3D Photography.

Hyper stereos taken by a drone

A few years ago, a great possibility for stereoscopic pictures went rather unnoticed when drones became available for everyone at a moderate price level. Here are a few examples that I took together with Ihab Zaidan who flew the drone:

Castle Waldthausen, Mainz, Germany

Russian Orthodox Church, Wiesbaden, Germany

Flying high obviously enables you to have an empty foreground wherever you are, and lets you choose the perfect perspective. But one of the most important benefits is that the remote control allows you to move exactly sideways — no slope of a road, no accidental circular movement.

Of course, there are also drawbacks and limitations such as strong wind, flight restricted areas, and the battery of the drone. The conditions of sequential stereo photos also affect drone stereos – but since you are quite far away and can move rather quickly this is not a big problem. I would say it has never been easier to take satisfying hyper stereos than with a drone.

A series of more drone stereo photos can be found in the corresponding gallery Castles along the Rhine.

Der Beitrag The Magic of Hyper Stereos erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

The story of 21 stereo glass negatives from the early stages of The Great War in Nevers, France.

The images in this post are anaglyphs and are best viewed by using 3D glasses.

The finding of a treasure

Last year, my attention was drawn to a collection of stereo negatives offered on eBay. It concerned 24 glass plate negatives in the format 8 x 18 cm (3.2 x 7.1 inches). The negatives show images of the mobilisation during the First World War in the city of Nevers in France.

The slides were offered individually, and I managed to get 21 out of 24. Unfortunately I was outbid on three slides, and that’s a shame because such a collection should stay together. But that’s part of the game. You win some and you loose some on eBay.

Two cardboard boxes with descriptions were also shown, but these were not part of the auction. Afterwards I’ve contacted the seller and asked if I could buy the boxes or possibly get a high resolution scan, because I suspected they contained valuable information about the negatives. The seller was kind enough to send the boxes for free because I bought most of the negatives.

The boxes

The two boxes are numbered with the numbers 30 and 31 in Roman numbers. According to the boxes, the total collection consisted of 34 negatives, of which 4 slides from box 31 are probably not related to the war, and were added to the box later.

24 glass plates were offered on eBay, so the collection was no longer complete when it was auctioned.

Of special note is that each negative is numbered, and the number relates to the descriptions on the box. The descriptions contain the subject, place and the exact date, which makes the collection historically significant. 

Stereoviews of the First World War were booming after the war, but those that were published in large volumes by publishers such as La Stéréoscopie Universelle or Brentano’s lack this kind of detailed information, or the information is simply not accurate.

About Nevers

The photos were taken on and around the railway station of Nevers. Nevers is located in the centre of France. It has a large railway station and was a logistically important hub for the French army. POW camps and several hospitals were built in and around Nevers during the conflict, which emphasises the importance of Nevers.

Some historic background

The negatives show images of the mobilisation of the French army. The First World War started on July 28, 1914. The direct cause was the assassination of archduke Frans Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary, but the real causes were lying deeper. The assassination triggered a chain reaction, causing all European powers to be at war with each other in a short time.

Germany had declared war on France on August 3, 1914. The photos of the collection were taken in August and October 1914. The first photo dates from August 9, so the war was less than a week old for the French. This makes it very special because images from the early stages of the conflict are rare. Most images date from 1915 to 1918.

In 1914 the war was welcomed by all participating countries, and the horrors of the trenches were still far away in those first weeks. Every country thought it would be victorious, and that all soldiers would be back home by Christmas.

This sentiment is clearly reflected in the photos. The atmosphere is patriotic and relaxed, with smiling soldiers.

What about the photographer?

The name of the photographer is unknown, but I guess it was a professional photographer. Stereo photography in France was dominated in the early 20th century by compact stereo cameras for the 45 x 107mm and 6 x 13cm formats. These formats were introduced by Jules Richard in 1893. He revived stereo photography in France, and his compact formats made photography accessible to amateurs.

Our photographer’s large 8 x 18cm negatives required a large, expensive camera and the skills to operate it, which is less obvious to an amateur. In addition, all negatives are accurately indexed and preserved, which indicates the work of a professional.

More negatives from the same photographer were offered by the seller on eBay. These did not contain images of the war, but were all numbered and indexed in the same way.

I suspect the photographer was from Nevers or the surrounding area, as the photos were taken on different days in August and October. A local photographer could be on site quickly.

My conclusion

I think the photographer was hired by the French army. Most of the photos are staged, which indicates that the photographer had permission to shoot, as photography was censored by the army during the war.

The First World War was the first major conflict in which photography played an important role. In May 1915 the French army founded its own photography section,  It was called La Section Photography de l’Armée. This section produced 120,000 photos during the conflict, including 20,000 stereo photos and a large collection of autochrome color images.

Before the creation of the SPA, the French Army simply hired professional photographers. This probably included our photographer, who had to capture the mobilisation for documentation, propaganda purposes, or to inform the public by newspapers. This also explains the accurate descriptions.

Why stereos?

Why did the photographer use a stereo camera? Stereos were primarily intended for entertainment and not necessarily for publication in albums or newspapers. My best guess is that this was just the only camera the photographer had, and the size of the negatives made it possible to use half stereos for printing without any problems. 

Special images

In September 1914, the German advance in France had come to a halt during the Battle of the Marne. From that moment, the Western Front turned into a horrible trench warfare that would last until November 1918. So no soldier would be at home for Christmas…

Der Beitrag The Nevers Collection erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

Michael Burr was one of the most prolific photographers of staged genre stereoviews in the Victorian era. Following in the footsteps of masters like James Elliott and Alfred Silvester and frequently adapting the themes of other popular photographers, this Birmingham based entrepreneur created a catalogue estimated at over 1,000 images during a period from 1862  to the mid 1870s and evidently sold his work in large quantities as there are so many of his stereoviews still surviving.

Like most photographers Burr had his favourite models who make regular appearances in his tableaux, and in the 300 or so of his works in my collection I have identified one who appears over 40 times. Many of the models in genre photography have the appearance of character actors and it would be interesting to find out if any had successful careers on the stage, turning to modelling work when they were ‘resting’.  We know that photographers like C.E.Goodman and Martin Laroche photographed actors from current theatre productions and many genre scenes look like stage sets though they were actually constructed in photographers’ studios for the sole purpose of creating stereoviews. However the identity of most of the actors/models in genre scenes remains unknown so I do not have a name to give to the actress who will be the main protagonist of this story. She will just be Our Heroine.

One of her best known roles, and perhaps the most relevant to readers of this article, is as the wife of  a stereograph enthusiast who, while her husband is occupied in scrutinising the latest offerings from the travelling stereo salesman, takes the opportunity to flirt with the top-hatted purveyor of 3D delights.

An Optical Delusion – Things seen and Things Not Seen

‘An Optical Delusion – Things seen and Things Not Seen’ card is an early example of a theme that stereoview publishers explored until the turn of the 20th century, promoting the view that travelling salesmen are generally a bad lot and not to be trusted around your womenfolk.

The first image carries a typical Burr label, a small strip pasted to one side of either the back or front of his cards with the title and, just visible here, the word Copyright or Registered. Very few of Burr’s cards have his name on them though occasionally you find one with  an M.Burr blindstamp. 

I first noticed Michael Burr’s name in a 2003 publication by Tex Treadwell’s Institute for Photographic Research called The English Masters of Genre Stereoviews, but Denis Pellerin and Brian May’s book The Poor Man’s Picture Gallery (which contains a short biography) and the National Stereoscopic Associations listings have opened my eyes to the extent of his output. To begin with I did not value his work as highly as some of his predecessors but it is a considerable achievement.

This variant of An Optical Delusion (an American pirate copy) shows Our Heroine getting a bit more intimate with the slimey salesman and in ‘Where Ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be Wise’ the rustic husband has dropped off in his chair while his wife bids Au Revoir to the salesman, looking like a pantomime villain in his tophat. As always, Burr’s views are filled with enjoyable details, in this case the accoutrements of a country cottage.

At this stage I should say that there is no indication of the sequence in which Burr’s images should be viewed but I have always enjoyed creating a scenario from what were often clearly variants made to maximise the productivity of a day’s work in the studio, and imagining myself behind the camera, directing the actors and rearranging the props.

‘The Cottage Coaxer’ is a case in point. We see the same rustic couple in the same cottage setting but there is no evidence of the stereo salesman’s visit, though the couple have clearly had a row about something and the wife is using her powers of seduction to restore her husband to better humour. This finely tinted copy in excellent condition has a different style of label to the one described above but one that is frequently found on cards produced by Burr and other photographers, so presumably a border that was readily available to printers.

Temptation Tries the Man

The second set of views we are looking at  sees Our Heroine still in a humble cottage setting but, initially at least, in  the virtuous role of a housewife, dozing in her chair after a morning’s chores. A young admirer has crept in while she slept and appears about to pull off her bonnet.

The title, ‘Temptation Tries the Man’ is set in yet another font but one that is quite familiar from other Burr views.

A second view, with the title ‘The Thief Captured’, sees her admirer at her feet with Our Heroine’s hand in his while she holds up her other hand in a gesture which seems to say, channelling Beyoncé   “Put a ring on it”.

A variant of the view, on an unusual yellow mount,  has the young man on his knees while Our Heroine is standing with a coy gesture but a rather pleased expression on her face. Perhaps the offer of a ring was forthcoming?

Both these last two images have labels in another style with a plain sans serif font.

Family Jars

The next three stereographs, all with the title ‘Family Jars’, which presumably means a row or what the British police call a “Domestic”, show Our Heroine in the same rather run down cottage setting,  which is now in a hell of a mess, fending off a man in a carpenter’s hat with just a brush and a pair of bellows as he pokes his head through the door, an evil expression on his face and a sort of cudgel in his hand. She has the kitchen table tilted against the door to keep him out.

The man, incidentally, is played by the same actor who the travelling salesman in the first view of this story was hoping to make a cuckold of.

In the next view the man is through the door but his wife has the better of him and he is flat on his back, tangled up in the table, as she keeps  him down with her broom, shaking her fist at him as if to say “Don’t try that again, Buster!” He holds up his hand submissively in admission of defeat.

In the last Family Jars variant, the couple are reconciled and Our Heroine offers her miscreant husband a glass of stout while he, with his leg up on her knee, smiles back, glad the ruction is over.

A differently titled image, of the same actors in the same setting, is ‘After a Storm cometh a Calm’, and needs no further explanation.

Curiosity Punished

‘Curiosity Punished’ is the title of the next three stereographs, showing Our Heroine and a female companion in slightly nicer surroundings – at least the plaster isn’t falling off the walls  — but being pestered by a young fellow who can’t restrain the urge to get a look at the girls in their déshabille. Men tend to come off the worse in their encounters with Burr’s women and this foolish chap is about to get a soaking.

In the second variant, Our Heroine has the intruder’s head trapped in the door and he doesn’t look at all happy about it. Her booted foot is up against her friend’s chair to give her extra force and the crinoline she is holding looks like it could make a useful net to catch the fool in.

In the third variant, curiosity may not have killed the cat  but it certainly got this chap a good pasting. Our Heroine is whacking him with a hairbrush with one hand while the other has a hold of his hair. Her companion is poised to tip a jug of cold water over him too. “That’ll teach you to spy on us!”

Rustic Music

‘Rustic Foot Bath’ was the name of a popular stereoview first published under the name of Phiz (the pseudonym of Alfred Silvester) c.1858 and reconstructed almost exactly by Michael Burr later, as was his wont. In Burr’s version Our Heroine rocks the same sort of off the shoulder look as in ‘Curiosity Punished’ and has the same female companion as in that series only this time her friend is en travesti, playing the role of a romantic musician, serenading his lady love. In the Phiz version both parts are also played by women but I don’t think there was any Sapphic suggestion intended, just an excuse to show some bare ladies’ legs.

In a variant of the image Our Heroine has her arm around the musician’s shoulders and is gazing at ‘him’ with an adoring look.

Burr, like other Genre photographers, was not one to waste a good set on a single image. After all quite a lot must have been invested in building the scenery, not to mention hiring the costumes and paying the actors. So in the following view, Rustic Music becomes ‘Rustic Foot Bath’ and Our Heroine strikes a rather more raunchy pose, breaking the forth wall with a Fleabag style glance at the viewer and the suggestion that it is not just her feet she is about to wash — her top might be coming off at any moment.

Our Heroine also appears déshabillé in an image entitled simply ‘Evening’ in which she poses with a watering can  and some severely dehydrated pot plants.

Love Below Stairs

In the “Love Below Stairs” series we see her in the role of a domestic servant at a time when followers were not allowed. In other words if you were someone’s cook or housekeeper you were not permitted to entertain gentlemen callers. In this nice sepia stereograph called ‘The Surprise’, Our Heroine is concealing a man  under the kitchen table, having heard her mistress approaching. He is hoping that the little dog does not give the game away, while she is giving us a look as if to say “Don’t breathe a word!”

In a rather grubby variant, the man is discovered and it looks as though the dog is to blame. Our Heroine knows she is in trouble.

Her mistress sends him packing though he twirls his moustache defiantly. Our Heroine’s pleas are to no avail.

Domestic Difficulties

In ‘Domestic Difficulties’ we see her Upstairs in her employers’ breakfast room, clearly involved in some kind of altercation with her mistress, while the man of the house cautions her from behind a raised newspaper. We may assume that he and she have been carrying on and perhaps she feels secure in her position? The pale green mount and the cropping of the images suggest that this is a pirated view.

In this finely tinted variant we see Our Heroine begging her master for help while he denies everything and his wife shakes her fist in rage. We can see that Wifey has snatched off her servant’s cap and is holding it in her left hand. Perhaps it was of too fine a quality for a housekeeper and may have been a gift from her master?

In the final variant of Domestic Difficulties Our Heroine is ordered out of the house, but her master is giving us a look  as if to say “Oh well, it was worth it!”. He is slipping her something, which I assume is some money, and she doesn’t look too put out.

The male character is once again played by the Michael Burr regular who you may recognise as the rustic stereo enthusiast we met earlier and the beleaguered carpenter in Family Jars

What are you all looking at?

Out on the street, Our Heroine joins a crowd with her female companion from Curiosity Punished and a little black boy I recognise from other Burr views. The title of the view is ‘What are you all Looking at?’

To which the answer, according to Ray Norman from worldofstereoviews.com is Donati’s Comet. “First observed on 2 June 1858 from Florence Observatory. Throughout 1858 the comet increased in brilliance until it was closest to Earth on 10 October. It was the first comet to be photographed and was the most brilliant object in the night sky in the 19^thcentury.”

Our Heroine was not confined to playing rustic types or domestic servants and in the next two views we can see her as a lady of fashion on the streets of London in her splendid crinoline. ‘Art in ’60 – Your Likeness & A Shave 6D’ (sixpence) gives us an insight to the photography studios of the time with street hawkers touting for business and enterprising tradesmen like this barber offering photographic portraits in the same premises that you might visit for a shave. The sign above the window reads “Portrait Saloon and Easy Shaving Shop”, with one beside it announcing  “A Little Likeness & a Shave 6D!!! Ladies the Same, With Crinolines Extra” (though I imagine they were not offering to shave any ladies!  We can see some stereoviews displayed in the shop window and in frames outside, alongside portrait photographs in other formats. The hawker has some more portraits in a frame hanging from his neck and there is a sign on the ground which reads “Stop!!! The Latest Out. Crinolines Done Outside.”

In the first view we can see the barber/photographer in the door of his business with a camera on a tripod and a dark slide in one hand with the other raised as if to say “Hold it!”  Our Heroine is seated with a little dog on her lap, watching with amusement as the hawker and a delivery boy (played by the young black actor we saw in the crowd scene) trade insults.

In a variant of the scene we can see that hawkers are persistent types as Our Heroine appears to be declining his sales pitch but he is not prepared to take No for an answer. He has grabbed the hem of her crinoline to stop her moving off, in the process revealing her petticoats. The photographer and the delivery boy are finding the whole performance quite funny.

Crinoline Difficulties

Still dressed in her fashionable crinoline and accompanied by her little dog, Our Heroine next appears in a series called ‘Crinoline Difficulties’, with alternative titles ‘The Dangers and Perplexities of Crinoline’ or just ‘The Dangers of Crinoline’.  All the variants involve her having problems getting through a narrow gateway and variously coming a cropper.

This first one has been in the wars a bit but it is the only one I have seen with the tophatted and monocled gent looking on. It has a W. H. Mason of Brighton blindstamp, as do quite a few cards in my collection, leading to the conclusion that Mason was a retailer and possibly not a photographer himself.

In this one a young labourer is leaning on his shovel and looking on. He has either offered to help or has made some wisecrack about her crinoline but, either way, Our Heroine is fending him off.

However, as we know,  Pride Comes Before a Fall and her crinoline catches on the gatepost and brings her crashing to the ground. She will be glad of the young labourer’s help now.

Unobserved she does no better. That crinoline is just not going to let her get through unscathed.

The storyline certainly serves as a good excuse to show a lot of lacy underwear and provocative amounts of ankle.

This one comes with the title ‘A Stylish Affair’. Our Heroine is well and truly in a pickle and her poor little dog can do nothing to help.  Down she comes with a crash again.

There is nothing left to do put pick herself up, see if she can fix her crinoline and hope she hasn’t sprained her ankle! 

Crinolines were most definitely a gift to photographers and artists with a sense of humour but Our Heroine would doubtless have been glad to take hers off at the end of the day’s shoot.

The Elopement

A series called ‘The Elopement’ sees her in the guise of a young lady running away from her boarding school with her lover, a sailor.  The first  image has the title ‘Is He Coming?’.

She hears him call to her and lets down a rope ladder in readiness for her escape. Her possessions in a bundle and a box tied up with string.

She begins her descent and her lover follows after, holding her wrist to make sure she is safe and carrying her bundle for her.  In my opinion Our Heroine looks more suited to playing the proprietor of a boarding school than one of the pupils  but we can allow Burr a little theatrical license in casting his favourite model once again.

Unfortunately the course of true love never did run smooth and Burr casts the same couple in a view entitled ‘The Sailor’s Adieu’.  He is still wearing his sailor’s uniform while she seems to have walked into a melodrama from another era and is dressed in a corseted velvet gown with a tiara on her head. Our Heroine stands disconsolate, her eyes down cast, a handkerchief  ready to wipe away her tears, while her sailor boy waves goodbye. He probably has a girl in every port. A chessboard on the table shows the game is over.  This scene may have nothing to do with the Elopement series and may well just be an example of Burr making use of two of his actors while they were around, but it is irresistible to try to make the connection.

Some time ago I acquired the following image of Our Heroine looking rather like The Queen with an anxious expression, transplanted into some papier maché cave, and when I saw that the card was titled simply ‘Fear’, I didn’t know what to make of it.

However the following two cards, acquired later,  have the title ‘Haidee and Juan, Canto 2nd’, which denotes a scene from Lord Byron’s poem ‘Don Juan’.

The eponymous hero Juan has survived a shipwreck and is cared for in a cave by a pirate’s daughter Haidée.

Our Heroine looks rather grandly dressed but I suppose if you have a tiara it‘s a shame not to wear it.  It appears that the pirate is also a slave trader so perhaps in the ‘Fear’ image Haidée is frightened that he will find out that she has been sheltering Juan. Who knows?

Anyway, I have now shared most of the images of this anonymous actress from my collection of Michael Burr stereographs with you and would like to end with one with this simple title:

It shows Our Heroine isolated in a cave, but dressed to kill and holding onto her anchor of Hope  — which seems like quite an inspirational image for The Time of Covid, while writing from London during a period of Tier 4 Lockdown.

I hope to find more images of her in days to come  and maybe to discover her name. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy this story.

Der Beitrag Michael Burr’s Favourite Model erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.

What to do in 2020, these difficult times for passionate collectors? There are no local collectors’ fairs and also trips to cities with promising flea markets are not possible. I try to adapt, deepen my knowledge of individual stereo photographs of my collection and go hunting for new collectibles more often online. On various platforms such as ebay I am looking for new rarities in my field of passion: stereoscopy.

Recently a major lot of Tissues was offered in an online auction that caught my eye. Of the several dozen cards on offer, only 3 were fully displayed, while the others were only seen in a pile next to it.

From the description, which was kept very brief, you could only speculate on the quality of the other “hidden” cards, but the offer appealed to me. I trusted in my collecting instincts and decided to bid. At the last minute I drove the price up a little and in the end I won the auction. An indescribable moment for the collector on the hunt… After that the long days of waiting followed until the cards finally arrived in the mail.

But just looking at a few cards gave me the certainty: A very fruitful acquisition! A large variety of topics and the condition almost consistently good!

What is a “Tissue”?

Before I show a few examples of the cards, I would like to briefly highlight the special features of the “Tissues”. Tissues are black and white photos copied on very thin paper, which appears almost transparent. The back of these thin photos was more or less artistically colored, i.e. painted with colors, so that when looking at them against a light source the photo is presented in color. A tissue is structured like a sandwich. A frame in the front and the back. In between the from behind colored photo and another protective tissue paper.

Now to some examples out of the purchased bundle:

“Surprise” Tissues

Sometimes the scenery of the photo is submerged in a completely different light by the special coloration of the back side. As an example observe the day / night Tissues. One of these is this stereo picture of the Place de la Concorde in Paris. (This is composed of two shots taken one after the other.)

If you hold the card up against the light, the scene appears as a night shot with a full moon and artistic, filigree lighting of the square.

In addition to the colored back side every single lamp was marked with a fine needle prick to allow light to shine through the paper. An enormous effort to produce the individual cards.

These stereos with an unexpected visual effect when backlit are called “surprise Tissues “. I will show two more examples later.

Theater tissues

But to stay in Paris, I’ll show two examples from the “Les Théâtrales de Paris” series. These are recreated scenes from then-current performances on the Parisian theater stages. For natural photos, there was simply too little light in the theater itself.

First two scenes from “Voyage dans la Lune” after Jules Verne, which was performed in 1875 in the Théâtre de la Gaîté.

Then two scenes from “Cendrillon” based on a fairy tale by the Brothers Grimm, performed in the Théâtre Impeérial du Chatelet.

What is remarkable about the “Le Lac d’Azur” card is the elaborately “built-in” rain through very fine cuts in the left part of the stereo picture with astonishing effect when viewed stereoscopically.

Genre Scenes

Card by card I enjoy immersing myself in the illustrations to embrace the detailed contents of each image, to classify them in time, as well as to determine their origin. At that time it was uncommon to name the photographer specifically on the card itself.

Sometimes chance can help you. This time it was a recent talk by Denis Pellerin, in which he showed a subject assigned to the Gaudin Frères that, in a slightly different variant, was also found on one of the acquired cards. So I had the crucial clue regarding the photographer.

On another card with a street scene, on closer inspection, you can see the same house facade as in Fig. 12 as a backdrop. Hence the legitimate assumption that this photo was also created by the Gaudin Frères.

I have not yet been able to assign all of the other Tissues. For example: According to the frame of the following stereo photo with the boys in uniform, playing leapfrog, the card was distributed by Adolphe Block. But who is the photographer? Is he hiding behind the embossed initials Ch. D. in the lower left corner of the frame?

Researching such images is very entertaining and sometimes takes me a long way away from the starting point. It’s not uncommon to come across information that leads to a completely different card in your collection.

The Whole World

The virtual journey through this collection led me not only to Paris, but also to other wonderful cities like here, thanks to this special night illusion, to Milano …

… and even as far as Rio de Janeiro …

This preoccupation with Victorian photographs is an extremely exciting activity in times of orderly calm and opens many unknown windows into bygone worlds directly from one’s sofa.

Sometimes, however, all you need to do is to put a bright light on the back of a card to be able to enjoy a very surprising scene on a Tissue.

The cards of this recent purchase will keep me busy for a while and are a wonderful addition to my collection.

Der Beitrag “Tissues” or “The Happiness of the Collector in Collecting” erschien zuerst auf the stereosite.