I will first exhibit a very simple but instructive composite effect. I drew on a square card a circle of about 2-1/2 inches in diameter, and two cross lines through its centre, cutting one another at right angles. Round each of the four points, 90° apart, where the cross cuts the circle, I drew small circles of the size of wafers and gummed upon each a disc of different tint. Finally I made a single black dot half-way between two of the arms of the cross. I then made a composite of the four positions of the card, as it was placed successively with each of its sides downwards. The result is a photograph having a sharply-defined cross surrounded by four discs of precisely uniform tint, and between each pair of arms of the cross there is a very faint dot. This photograph shows many things. The fact of its being a composite is shown by the four faint dots. The equality of the successive periods of exposure is shown by the equal tint of the four dots. The accuracy of adjustment is shown by the sharpness of the cross being as great in the composite as in the original card. We see the smallness of the effect produced by any trait, such as the dot, when it appears in the same place in only one of the components: if this effect be so small in a series of only four components, it would certainly be imperceptible in a much larger series. Thirdly, the uniformity of resulting tint in the composite wafer is quite irrespective of the order of exposure. Let us call the four component wafers A, B, C, D, respectively, and the four composite wafers 1, 2, 3, 4; then we see, by the diagram, that the order of exposure has differed in each case, yet the result is identical. Therefore the order of exposure has no effect on the result. |----------+------------------------------------| |Composite.|Successive places of the Components.| | 1 2 | A B | D A | C D | B C | | 4 3 | D C | C B | B A | A D | |===============================================| In 1 it has been A, D, C, B, " 2 " B, A, D, C, " 3 " C, B, A, D, " 4 " D, C, B, A, I will next show a series consisting of two portraits considerably unlike to one another, and yet not so very discordant as to refuse to conform, and of two intermediate composites. In making one of the composites I gave two-thirds of the total time of exposure to the first portrait, and one-third to the second portrait. In making the other composite, I did the converse. It will be seen how good is the result in both cases, and how the likeness of the longest exposed portrait always predominates.