Now, having come (rightly, I think, you will admit) to the conclusion that films have these advantages, you naturally ask, What are their disadvantages? Remembering, then, that I am only advocating stripping films, I consider they have but two disadvantages: First, they entail some additional outlay in the way of apparatus, etc. Second, they are a little more trouble to finish than the glass negatives, which sink into insignificance when the manifold advantages are considered. In order to deal effectively with the second objection I mentioned, viz., the extra trouble and perseverance, I propose, with your permission, to carry a negative through the different stages from exposure to completion, and in so doing I shall endeavor to make the process clear to you, and hope to enlist your attention. The developer I use is slightly different to that of the Eastman company, and is as follows: A. Sulphite of soda. 4 ounces. To be dissolved in 8 ounces of hot distilled water, then rendered slightly acid with citric acid, then add-- Pyrogallic acid. 1 ounce. Water to make up to 10 ounces. B. Pure carbonate of soda. 1 ounce. Water to make up in all to 10 ounces. C. Pure carbonate of potash. 1 ounce. Water to make up to 10 ounces. D. Bromide of potassium. 1 ounce. Water to make up to 10 ounces. I have here two half-plate films exposed at 8:30 A.M. to-day, one with five and one with six seconds' exposure, subject chiefly middle distance. I take 90 minims A, 10 minims D, and 90 minims B, and make up to 2 ounces water. I do not soak the films in water. There is no need for it. In fact, it is prejudicial to do so. I place the films face uppermost in the dish, and pour on the developer on the center of the films. You will observe they lie perfectly flat, and are free from air bubbles. Rock the dish continually during development, and when the high lights are out add from 10 to 90 minims C, and finish development and fix. The negatives being complete, I ask you to observe that both are of equal quality, proving the latitude of exposure permissible. I now coat a piece of glass half an inch larger all round than the negative with India rubber solution (see Eastman formula), and squeegee the negative face downward upon the rubber, interposing a sheet of blotting paper and oilskin between the negative and squeegee to prevent injury to the exposed rubber surface, and then place the negative under pressure with blotting paper interposed until moderately dry only.