I think this a very great pity, for I hold the opinion that the lantern furnishes the most enjoyable and, in some cases, the most perfect of all means of showing good photographic pictures. Many prints from excellent negatives which may be passed over in an album without provoking a remark will, if printed as transparencies and thrown on the screen, call forth expressions of the warmest admiration; and justly so, for no paper print can do that full justice to a really good negative which a transparency does. This difference is more conspicuous in these days of dry gelatine plates and handy photographic apparatus, when many of our most interesting negatives are taken on quarter or 5 x 4 plates the small size of which frequently involves a crowding of detail, much of which will be invisible in a paper print, but which, when unraveled or opened out, as it were, by means of the lantern, enhances the beauty of the pictures immensely. When I last had the pleasure of bringing this subject before the members of our society, it may be remembered that I demonstrated the ease and simplicity with which those beautiful results maybe obtained, by printing in an ordinary printing frame by the light of my petroleum developing lamp, raising one of its panes of ruby glass for the purpose for five seconds, and then developing by ferrous oxalate until I got the amount of intensity requisite. On that evening, in the course of a very just criticism by one of our members, Mr. J. V. Robinson, he pointed out what was undoubtedly a defect, viz., a slightly opalescent veiling of the high lights, which should range from absolutely bare glass in the highest points. He showed that, in consequence of this veiling, the light was sensibly diminished all over the picture. This veiling of the high lights was a serious disadvantage in another important particular, inasmuch as it lessened the contrast between the lights and shadows of the picture, thereby robbing it of some of its charm and deteriorating its quality.