Solution Manual for Social Media Marketing, 3rd Edition, Tracy L. Tuten, Michael R.

Solomon,

Solution Manual for Social Media

Marketing, 3rd Edition, Tracy L. Tuten,
Michael R. Solomon, ISBN-10:
1526423871, ISBN-13: 9781526423870
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankmall.com/dow
nload/solution-manual-for-social-media-marketing-3rd-edition-tracy-l-tuten-michael-r-s
olomon-isbn-10-1526423871-isbn-13-9781526423870/

Visit TestBankMall.com to get complete for all chapters

 Instructor Resource
Tuten, Social Media Marketing, 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2018
© Tracy L. Tuten 2018

Instructor’s Manual to accompany Social Media Marketing, 3e 5

 Instructor Resource
Tuten, Social Media Marketing, 3e
SAGE Publishing, 2018

Instructor Manual
Part I: Overview of Instructor Resources
1. Philosophy Behind the Social Media Marketing Course
2. Text Use for Undergraduate and Graduate Courses
3. Importance of Social Media Marketing Cases
4. Assurance of Learning Exercises
5. Description of the Online Instructor Resources for the Third Edition
• Instructor’s Manual
• PowerPoint Presentations
• Test Item File

1. Philosophy Behind the Social Media Marketing Course

Social media marketing is typically an elective for marketing majors, but it is also among the most
popular electives in the marketing curriculum. Given the importance of digital marketing concepts,
social media marketing provides a strong digital foundation for students.
Social media marketing students learn the theories that underlie strategic decisions for the
use of social media for marketing and study cases and examples that bring the theories to life.
Social media marketing is a challenging and exciting course for students.
Social media marketing is an interesting course to teach because the problems and issues
of social media marketing cover the whole spectrum of marketing. While much of social media
marketing is focused on the promotional mix, it also is used for customer care, research, and more.
Social media marketing is an emerging and rapidly developing discipline. In the time between the
Second and Third editions, substantive changes occurred in industry and academic research. The
field shifted from one focused on the influence of individuals in social channels to one that includes
bots and artificial intelligence. The primary challenge for professors is the struggle to stay current
as there are new developments every single day! Although this poses an instructional challenge,
Instructor’s Manual to accompany Social Media Marketing, 3e 6
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 After endeavouring in vain to induce opticians, both in London
and Birmingham, (where the instrument was exhibited in 1849 to the
British Association,) to construct the lenticular stereoscope, and
photographers to execute binocular pictures for it, I took with me to
Paris, in 1850, a very fine instrument, made by Mr. Loudon in
Dundee, with the binocular drawings and portraits already
mentioned. I shewed the instrument to the Abbé Moigno, the
distinguished author of L’Optique Moderne, to M. Soleil and his son-
in-law, M. Duboscq, the eminent Parisian opticians, and to some
members of the Institute of France. These gentlemen saw at once
the value of the instrument, not merely as one of amusement, but as
an important auxiliary in the arts of portraiture and sculpture. M.
Duboscq immediately began to make the lenticular stereoscope for
sale, and executed a series of the most beautiful binocular
Daguerreotypes of living individuals, statues, bouquets of flowers,
and objects of natural history, which thousands of individuals flocked
to examine and admire. In an interesting article in La Presse,[23] the
Abbé Moigno gave the following account of the introduction of the
instrument into Paris:—
“In his last visit to Paris, Sir David Brewster intrusted the models
of his stereoscope to M. Jules Duboscq, son-in-law and successor of
M. Soleil, and whose intelligence, activity, and affability will extend
the reputation of the distinguished artists of the Rue de l’Odeon, 35.
M. Jules Duboscq has set himself to work with indefatigable ardour.
Without requiring to have recourse to the binocular camera, he has,
with the ordinary Daguerreotype apparatus, procured a great number
of dissimilar pictures of statues, bas-reliefs, and portraits of
celebrated individuals, &c. His stereoscopes are constructed with
more elegance, and even with more perfection, than the original
English (Scotch) instruments, and while he is shewing their
wonderful effects to natural philosophers and amateurs who have
flocked to him in crowds, there is a spontaneous and unanimous cry
of admiration.”
While the lenticular stereoscope was thus exciting much interest
in Paris, not a single instrument had been made in London, and it
was not till a year after its introduction into France that it was
exhibited in England. In the fine collection of philosophical
instruments which M. Duboscq contributed to the Great Exhibition of
1851, and for which he was honoured with a Council medal, he
placed a lenticular stereoscope, with a beautiful set of binocular
Daguerreotypes. This instrument attracted the particular attention of
the Queen, and before the closing of the Crystal Palace, M. Duboscq
executed a beautiful stereoscope, which I presented to Her Majesty
in his name. In consequence of this public exhibition of the
instrument, M. Duboscq received several orders from England, and a
large number of stereoscopes were thus introduced into this country.
The demand, however, became so great, that opticians of all kinds
devoted themselves to the manufacture of the instrument, and
photographers, both in Daguerreotype and Talbotype, found it a most
lucrative branch of their profession, to take binocular portraits of
views to be thrown into relief by the stereoscope. Its application to
sculpture, which I had pointed out, was first made in France, and an
artist in Paris actually copied a statue from the relievo produced by
the stereoscope.
Three years after I had published a description of the lenticular
stereoscope, and after it had been in general use in France and
England, and the reflecting stereoscope forgotten,[24] Mr.
Wheatstone printed, in the Philosophical Transactions for 1852, a
paper on Vision, in which he says that he had previously used “an
apparatus in which prisms were employed to deflect the rays of light
proceeding from the pictures, so as to make them appear to occupy
the same place;” and he adds, “I have called it the refracting
stereoscope.”[25] Now, whatever Mr. Wheatstone may have done
with prisms, and at whatever time he may have done it, I was the
first person who published a description of stereoscopes both with
refracting and reflecting prisms; and during the three years that
elapsed after he had read my paper, he made no claim to the
suggestion of prisms till after the great success of the lenticular
stereoscope. The reason why he then made the claim, and the only
reason why we do not make him a present of the suggestion, will
appear from the following history:—
 In the paper above referred to, Mr. Wheatstone says,—“I
recommend, as a convenient arrangement of the refracting
stereoscope for viewing Daguerreotypes of small dimensions, the
instrument represented, (Fig. 4,) shortened in its length from 8
inches to 5, and lenses 5 inches focal distance, placed before and
close to the prisms.”[26] Although this refracting apparatus, which is
simply a deterioration of the lenticular stereoscope, is recommended
by Mr. Wheatstone, nobody either makes it or uses it. The semi-
lenses or quarter-lenses of the lenticular stereoscope include a
virtual and absolutely perfect prism, and, what is of far more
consequence, each lens is a variable lenticular prism, so that, when
the eye-tubes are placed at different distances, the lenses have
different powers of displacing the pictures. They can thus unite
pictures placed at different distances, which cannot be done by any
combination of whole lenses and prisms.
In the autumn of 1854, after all the facts about the stereoscope
were before the public, and Mr. Wheatstone in full possession of all
the merit of having anticipated Mr. Elliot in the publication of his
stereoscopic apparatus, and of his explanation of the theory of
stereoscopic relief, such as it was, he thought it proper to revive the
controversy by transmitting to the Abbé Moigno, for publication in
Cosmos, an extract of a letter of mine dated 27th September 1838.
This extract was published in the Cosmos of the 15th August 1854,
[27] with the following illogical commentary by the editor.

“Nous avons eu tort mille fois d’accorder à notre

illustre ami, Sir David Brewster, l’invention du
stéréoscope par réfraction. M. Wheatstone, en effet, a
mis entre nos mains une lettre datée, le croirait on, du
27 Septembre 1838, dans lequel nous avons lû ces
mots écrits par l’illustre savant Ecossais: ‘I have also
stated that you promised to order for me your
stereoscope, both with reflectors and prisms. J’ai
aussi dit (à Lord Rosse[28]) que vous aviez promis de
commander pour moi votre stéréoscope, celui avec
réflecteurs et celui avec prismes.’ Le stéréoscope par
réfraction est donc, aussi bien que le stéréoscope par
 réflexion, le stéréoscope de M. Wheatstone, qui l’avait
inventé en 1838, et le faisait construire à cette époque
pour Sir David Brewster lui-même. Ce que Sir David
Brewster a imaginée, et c’est une idée très ingénieuse,
dont M. Wheatstone ne lui disputât jamais la gloire,
c’est de former les deux prismes du stéréoscope par
réfraction avec les deux moitiés d’une même lentille.”
That the reader may form a correct idea of the conduct of Mr.
Wheatstone in making this claim indirectly, and in a foreign journal,
whose editor he has willingly misled, I must remind him that I first
saw the reflecting stereoscope at the meeting of the British
Association at Newcastle, in the middle of August 1838. It is proved
by my letter that he and I then conversed on the subject of prisms,
which at that time he had never thought of. I suggested prisms for
displacing the pictures, and Mr. Wheatstone’s natural reply was, that
they must be achromatic prisms. This fact, if denied, may be proved
by various circumstances. His paper of 1838 contains no reference
to prisms. If he had suggested the use of prisms in August 1838, he
would have inserted his suggestion in that paper, which was then
unpublished; and if he had only once tried a prism stereoscope, he
never would have used another. On my return to Scotland, I ordered
from Mr. Andrew Ross one of the reflecting stereoscopes, and one
made with achromatic prisms; but my words do not imply that Mr.
Wheatstone was the first person who suggested prisms, and still less
that he ever made or used a stereoscope with prisms. But however
this may be, it is a most extraordinary statement, which he allows the
Abbé Moigno to make, and which, though made a year and a half
ago, he has not enabled the Abbé to correct, that a stereoscope with
prisms was made for me (or for any other person) by Mr. Ross. I
never saw such an instrument, or heard of its being constructed: I
supposed that after our conversation Mr. Wheatstone might have
tried achromatic prisms, and in 1848, when I described my single
prism stereoscope, I stated what I now find is not correct, that I
believed Mr. Wheatstone had used two achromatic prisms. The
following letter from Mr. Andrew Ross will prove the main fact that he
never constructed for me, or for Mr. Wheatstone, any refracting
stereoscope:—
 ”2, Featherstone Buildings,
28th September 1854.
“Dear Sir,—In reply to yours of the 11th instant, I
beg to state that I never supplied you with a
stereoscope in which prisms were employed in place
of plane mirrors. I have a perfect recollection of being
called upon either by yourself or Professor
Wheatstone, some fourteen years since, to make
achromatized prisms for the above instrument. I also
recollect that I did not proceed to manufacture them in
consequence of the great bulk of an achromatized
prism, with reference to their power of deviating a ray
of light, and at that period glass sufficiently free from
striæ could not readily be obtained, and was
consequently very high-priced.—I remain, &c. &c.

“Andrew Ross.
“To Sir David Brewster.”

Upon the receipt of this letter I transmitted a copy of it to the

Abbé Moigno, to shew him how he had been misled into the
statement, “that Mr. Wheatstone had caused a stereoscope with
prisms to be constructed for me;” but neither he nor Mr. Wheatstone
have felt it their duty to withdraw that erroneous statement.
In reference to the comments of the Abbé Moigno, it is necessary
to state, that when he wrote them he had in his possession my
printed description of the single-prism, and other stereoscopes,[29] in
which I mention my belief, now proved to be erroneous, that Mr.
Wheatstone had used achromatic prisms, so that he had, on my
express authority, the information which surprised him in my letter.
The Abbé also must bear the responsibility of a glaring
misinterpretation of my letter of 1838. In that letter I say that Mr.
Wheatstone promised to order certain things from Mr. Ross, and the
Abbé declares, contrary to the express terms of the letter, as well as
to fact, that these things were actually constructed for me. The letter,
on the contrary, does not even state that Mr. Wheatstone complied
with my request, and it does not even appear from it that the
reflecting stereoscope was made for me by Mr. Ross.
Such is a brief history of the lenticular stereoscope, of its
introduction into Paris and London, and of its application to
portraiture and sculpture. It is now in general use over the whole
world, and it has been estimated that upwards of half a million of
these instruments have been sold. A Stereoscope Company has
been established in London[30] for the manufacture and sale of the
lenticular stereoscope, and for the production of binocular pictures
for educational and other purposes. Photographers are now
employed in every part of the globe in taking binocular pictures for
the instrument,—among the ruins of Pompeii and Herculaneum—on
the glaciers and in the valleys of Switzerland—among the public
monuments in the Old and the New World—amid the shipping of our
commercial harbours—in the museums of ancient and modern life—
in the sacred precincts of the domestic circle—and among those
scenes of the picturesque and the sublime which are so
affectionately associated with the recollection of our early days, and
amid which, even at the close of life, we renew, with loftier
sentiments and nobler aspirations, the youth of our being, which, in
the worlds of the future, is to be the commencement of a longer and
a happier existence.
 CHAPTER II.
ON MONOCULAR VISION, OR
VISION WITH ONE EYE.

In order to understand the theory and construction of the

stereoscope we must be acquainted with the general structure of the
eye, with the mode in which the images of visible objects are formed
within it, and with the laws of vision by means of which we see those
objects in the position which they occupy, that is, in the direction and
at the distance at which they exist.
Every visible object radiates, or throws out in all directions,
particles or rays of light, by means of which we see them either
directly by the images formed in the eye, or indirectly by looking at
images of them formed by their passing through a small hole, or
through a lens placed in a dark room or camera, at the end of which
is a piece of paper or ground-glass to receive the image.
In order to understand this let h be a very small pin-hole in a
shutter or camera, mn, and let ryb be any object of different colours,
the upper part, r, being red, the middle, y, yellow, and the lower
part, b, blue. If a sheet of white paper, br, is placed behind the hole
h, at the same distance as the object rb is before it, an image, br,
will be formed of the same ray and the same colours as the object
rb. As the particles or rays of light move in straight lines, a red ray
from the middle part of r will pass through the hole h and illuminate
the point r with red light. In like manner, rays from the middle points
of y and b will pass through h and illuminate with yellow and blue
light the points y and b. Every other point of the coloured spaces, r,
y, and b, will, in the same manner, paint itself, as it were, on the
paper, and produce a coloured image, byr, exactly the same in form
and colour as the object ryb. If the hole h is sufficiently small no ray
from any one point of the object will interfere with or mix with any
other ray that falls upon the paper. If the paper is held at half the
distance, at b′y′ for example, a coloured image, b′y′r′, of half the size,
will be formed, and if we hold it at twice the distance, at b″r″ for
example, a coloured image, b″y″r″, of twice the size, will be painted
on the paper.

Fig. 4.
As the hole h is supposed to be so small as to receive only one
ray from every point of the object, the images of the object, viz., br,
b′r′, b″r″, will be very faint. By widening the hole h, so as to admit
more rays from each luminous point of rb, the images would
become brighter, but they would become at the same time indistinct,
as the rays from one point of the object would mix with those from
adjacent points, and at the boundaries of the colours r, y, and b, the
one colour would obliterate the other. In order, therefore, to obtain
sufficiently bright images of visible objects we must use lenses,
which have the property of forming distinct images behind them, at a
point called their focus. If we widen the hole h, and place in it a lens
whose focus is at y, for an object at the same distance, hy, it will
form a bright and distinct image, br, of the same size as the object
rb. If we remove the lens, and place another in h, whose focus is at
y′, for a distance hy, an image, b′r′, half of the size of rb, will be
formed at that point; and if we substitute for this lens another, whose
focus is at y″, a distinct image, b″r″, twice the size of the object, will
be formed, the size of the image being always to that of the object as
their respective distances from the hole or lens at h.
With the aid of these results, which any person may confirm by
making the experiments, we shall easily understand how we see
external objects by means of the images formed in the eye. The
human eye, a section and a front view of which is shewn in Fig. 5, a,
is almost a sphere. Its outer membrane, abcde, or mno, Fig. 5, b,
consists of a tough substance, and is called the sclerotic coat, which
forms the white of the eye, a, seen in the front view. The front part of
the eyeball, cxd, which resembles a small watch-glass, is perfectly
transparent, and is called the cornea. Behind it is the iris, cabe, or c
in the front view, which is a circular disc, with a hole, ab, in its centre,
called the pupil, or black of the eye. It is, as it were, the window of
the eye, through which all the light from visible objects must pass.
The iris has different colours in different persons, black, blue, or
grey; and the pupil, ab, or h, has the power of contracting or
enlarging its size according as the light which enters it is more or
less bright. In sunlight it is very small, and in twilight its size is
considerable. Behind the iris, and close to it, is a doubly convex lens,
df, or ll in Fig. 5, b, called the crystalline lens. It is more convex or
round on the inner side, and it is suspended by the ciliary processes
at lc, lc′, by which it is supposed to be moved towards and from h,
in order to accommodate the eye to different distances, or obtain
distinct vision at these distances. At the back of the eye is a thin
pulpy transparent membrane, rr o rr, or vvv, called the retina, which,
like the ground-glass of a camera obscura, receives the images of
visible objects. This membrane is an expansion of the optic nerve o,
or a in Fig. 5, a, which passes to the brain, and, by a process of
which we are ignorant, gives us vision of the objects whose images
are formed on its expanded surface. The globular form of the eye is
maintained by two fluids which fill it,—the aqueous humour, which
lies between the crystalline lens and the cornea, and the vitreous
humour, zz, which fills the back of the eye.
 Fig. 5, A.

Fig. 5, B.
But though we are ignorant of the manner in which the mind
takes cognizance through the brain of the images on the retina, and
may probably never know it, we can determine experimentally the
laws by which we obtain, through their images on the retina, a
knowledge of the direction, the position, and the form of external
objects.
 If the eye mn consisted only of a hollow ball with a small aperture
h, an inverted image, ab, of any external object ab would be formed
on the retina ror, exactly as in Fig. 4. A ray of light from a passing
through h would strike the retina at a, and one from b would strike
the retina at b. If the hole h is very small the inverted image ab would
be very distinct, but very obscure. If the hole were the size of the
pupil the image would be sufficiently luminous, but very indistinct. To
remedy this the crystalline lens is placed behind the pupil, and gives
distinctness to the image ab formed in its focus. The image,
however, still remains inverted, a ray from the upper part a of the
object necessarily falling on the lower part a of the retina, and a ray
from the lower part b of the object upon the upper part b of the
retina. Now, it has been proved by accurate experiments that in
whatever direction a ray aha falls upon the retina, it gives us the
vision of the point a from which it proceeds, or causes us to see that
point, in a direction perpendicular to the retina at a, the point on
which it falls. It has also been proved that the human eye is nearly
spherical, and that a line drawn perpendicular to the retina from any
point a of the image ab will very nearly pass through the
corresponding point a of the object ab,[31] so that the point a is, in
virtue of this law, which is called the Law of visible direction, seen in
nearly its true direction.
When we look at any object, ab, for example, we see only one
point of it distinctly. In Fig. 5 the point d only is seen distinctly, and
every point from d to a, and from d to b, less distinctly. The point of
distinct vision on the retina is at d, corresponding with the point d of
the object which is seen distinctly. This point d is the centre of the
retina at the extremity of the line aha, called the optical axis of the
eye, passing through the centre of the lens lh, and the centre of the
pupil. The point of distinct vision d corresponds with a small hole in
the retina called the Foramen centrale, or central hole, from its being
in the centre of the membrane. When we wish to see the points a
and b, or any other point of the object, we turn the eye upon them,
so that their image may fall upon the central point d. This is done so
easily and quickly that every point of an object is seen distinctly in an
instant, and we obtain the most perfect knowledge of its form, colour,
and direction. The law of distinct vision may be thus expressed.
Vision is most distinct when it is performed by the central point of the
retina, and the distinctness decreases with the distance from the
central point. It is a curious fact, however, that the most distinct point
d is the least sensitive to light, and that the sensitiveness increases
with the distance from that point. This is proved by the remarkable
fact, that when an astronomer cannot see a very minute star by
looking at it directly along the optical axis dd, he can see it by
looking away from it, and bringing its image upon a more sensitive
part of the retina.
But though we see with one eye the direction in which any object
or point of an object is situated, we do not see its position, or the
distance from the eye at which it is placed. If a small luminous point
or flame is put into a dark room by another person, we cannot with
one eye form anything like a correct estimate of its distance. Even in
good light we cannot with one eye snuff a candle, or pour wine into a
small glass at arm’s length. In monocular vision, we learn from
experience to estimate all distances, but particularly great ones, by
various means, which are called the criteria of distance; but it is only
with both eyes that we can estimate with anything like accuracy the
distance of objects not far from us.
The criteria of distance, by which we are enabled with one eye to
form an approximate estimate of the distance of objects are five in
number.
1. The interposition of numerous objects between the eye and the
object whose distance we are appreciating. A distance at sea
appears much shorter than the same distance on land, marked with
houses, trees, and other objects; and for the same reason, the sun
and moon appear more distant when rising or setting on the horizon
of a flat country, than when in the zenith, or at great altitudes.
2. The variation in the apparent magnitude of known objects,
such as man, animals, trees, doors and windows of houses. If one of
two men, placed at different distances from us, appears only half the
size of the other, we cannot be far wrong in believing that the
smallest in appearance is at twice the distance of the other. It is
possible that the one may be a dwarf, and the other of gigantic
stature, in which case our judgment would be erroneous, but even in
this case other criteria might enable us to correct it.
3. The degree of vivacity in the colours and tints of objects.
4. The degree of distinctness in the outline and minute parts of
objects.
5. To these criteria we may add the sensation of muscular action,
or rather effort, by which we close the pupil in accommodating the
eye to near distances, and produce the accommodation.
With all these means of estimating distances, it is only by
binocular vision, in which we converge the optical axes upon the
object, that we have the power of seeing distance within a limited
range.
But this is the only point in which Monocular is inferior to
Binocular vision. In the following respects it is superior to it.
1. When we look at oil paintings, the varnish on their surface
reflects to each eye the light which falls upon it from certain parts of
the room. By closing one eye we shut out the quantity of reflected
light which enters it. Pictures should always be viewed by the eye
farthest from windows or lights in the apartment, as light diminishes
the sensibility of the eye to the red rays.
2. When we view a picture with both eyes, we discover, from the
convergency of the optic axes, that the picture is on a plane surface,
every part of which is nearly equidistant from us. But when we shut
one eye, we do not make this discovery; and therefore the effect with
which the artist gives relief to the painting exercises its whole effect
in deceiving us, and hence, in monocular vision, the relievo of the
painting is much more complete.
This influence over our judgment is beautifully shewn in viewing,
with one eye, photographs either of persons, or landscapes, or solid
objects. After a little practice, the illusion is very perfect, and is aided
by the correct geometrical perspective and chiaroscuro of the
Daguerreotype or Talbotype. To this effect we may give the name of
Monocular Relief, which, as we shall see, is necessarily inferior to
Binocular Relief, when produced by the stereoscope.
3. As it very frequently happens that one eye has not exactly the
same focal length as the other, and that, when it has, the vision by
one eye is less perfect than that by the other, the picture formed by
uniting a perfect with a less perfect picture, or with one of a different
size, must be more imperfect than the single picture formed by one
eye.
 CHAPTER III.
ON BINOCULAR VISION, OR
VISION WITH TWO EYES.

We have already seen, in the history of the stereoscope, that in

the binocular vision of objects, each eye sees a different picture of
the same object. In order to prove this, we require only to look
attentively at our own hand held up before us, and observe how
some parts of it disappear upon closing each eye. This experiment
proves, at the same time, in opposition to the opinion of Baptista
Porta, Tacquet, and others, that we always see two pictures of the
same object combined in one. In confirmation of this fact, we have
only to push aside one eye, and observe the image which belongs to
it separate from the other, and again unite with it when the pressure
is removed.
It might have been supposed that an object seen by both eyes
would be seen twice as brightly as with one, on the same principle
as the light of two candles combined is twice as bright as the light of
one. That this is not the case has been long known, and Dr. Jurin
has proved by experiments, which we have carefully repeated and
found correct, that the brightness of objects seen with two eyes is
only ¹/₁₃th part greater than when they are seen with one eye.[32]
The cause of this is well known. When both eyes are used, the
pupils of each contract so as to admit the proper quantity of light; but
the moment we shut the right eye, the pupil of the left dilates to
nearly twice its size, to compensate for the loss of light arising from
the shutting of the other.[33]
 Fig. 6.
This beautiful provision to supply the proper quantity of light when
we can use only one eye, answers a still more important purpose,
which has escaped the notice of optical writers. In binocular vision,
as we have just seen, certain parts of objects are seen with both
eyes, and certain parts only with one; so that, if the parts seen with
both eyes were twice as bright, or even much brighter than the parts
seen with one, the object would appear spotted, from the different
brightness of its parts. In Fig. 6, for example, (see p. 14,) the areas
bfi and cgi, the former of which is seen only by the left eye, d, and
the latter only by the right eye, e, and the corresponding areas on
the other side of the sphere, would be only half as bright as the
portion figh, seen with both eyes, and the sphere would have a
singular appearance.
It has long been, and still is, a vexed question among
philosophers, how we see objects single with two eyes. Baptista
Porta, Tacquet, and others, got over the difficulty by denying the fact,
and maintaining that we use only one eye, while other philosophers
of distinguished eminence have adopted explanations still more
groundless. The law of visible direction supplies us with the true
explanation.
 Fig. 7.
Let us first suppose that we look with both eyes, r and l, Fig. 7,
upon a luminous point, d, which we see single, though there is a
picture of it on the retina of each eye. In looking at the point d we
turn or converge the optical axes dhd, d′h′ d, of each eye to the point
d, an image of which is formed at d in the right eye r, and at d′ in the
left eye l. In virtue of the law of visible direction the point d is seen in
the direction dd with the eye r, and in the direction d′d with the eye
l, these lines being perpendicular to the retina at the points d, d′.
The one image of the point d is therefore seen lying upon the other,
and consequently seen single. Considering d, then, as a single point
of a visible object ab, the two eyes will see the points a and b single
by the same process of turning or converging upon them their optical
axes, and so quickly does the point of convergence pass backward
and forward over the whole object, that it appears single, though in
reality only one point of it can be seen single at the same instant.
The whole picture of the line ab, as seen with one eye, seems to
coincide with the whole picture of it as seen with the other, and to
appear single. The same is true of a surface or area, and also of a
solid body or a landscape. Only one point of each is seen single; but
we do not observe that other points are double or indistinct, because
the images of them are upon parts of the retina which do not give
distinct vision, owing to their distance from the foramen or point
which gives distinct vision. Hence we see the reason why distinct
vision is obtained only on one point of the retina. Were it otherwise
we should see every other point double when we look fixedly upon
one part of an object. If in place of two eyes we had a hundred,
capable of converging their optical axes to one point, we should, in
virtue of the law of visible direction, see only one object.
The most important advantage which we derive from the use of
two eyes is to enable us to see distance, or a third dimension in
space. That we have this power has been denied by Dr. Berkeley,
and many distinguished philosophers, who maintain that our
perception of distance is acquired by experience, by means of the
criteria already mentioned. This is undoubtedly true for great
distances, but we shall presently see, from the effects of the
stereoscope, that the successive convergency of the optic axes upon
two points of an object at different distances, exhibits to us the
difference of distance when we have no other possible means of
perceiving it. If, for example, we suppose g, d, Fig. 7, to be separate
points, or parts of an object, whose distances are go, do, then if we
converge the optical axes hg, h′ g upon g, and next turn them upon
d, the points will appear to be situated at g and d at the distance gd
from each other, and at the distances og, od from the observer,
although there is nothing whatever in the appearance of the points,
or in the lights and shades of the object, to indicate distance. That
this vision of distance is not the result of experience is obvious from
the fact that distance is seen as perfectly by children as by adults;
and it has been proved by naturalists that animals newly born
appreciate distances with the greatest correctness. We shall
afterwards see that so infallible is our vision of near distances, that a
body whose real distance we can ascertain by placing both our
hands upon it, will appear at the greater or less distance at which it is
placed by the convergency of the optical axes.
We are now prepared to understand generally, how, in binocular
vision, we see the difference between a picture and a statue, and
between a real landscape and its representation. When we look at a
picture of which every part is nearly at the same distance from the
eyes, the point of convergence of the optical axes is nearly at the
same distance from the eyes; but when we look at its original,
whether it be a living man, a statue, or a landscape, the optical axes
are converged in rapid succession upon the nose, the eyes, and the
ears, or upon objects in the foreground, the middle and the remote
distances in the landscape, and the relative distances of all these
points from the eye are instantly perceived. The binocular relief thus
seen is greatly superior to the monocular relief already described.
Since objects are seen in relief by the apparent union of two
dissimilar plane pictures of them formed in each eye, it was a
supposition hardly to be overlooked, that if we could delineate two
plane pictures of a solid object, as seen dissimilarly with each eye,
and unite their images by the convergency of the optical axes, we
should see the solid of which they were the representation. The
experiment was accordingly made by more than one person, and
was found to succeed; but as few have the power, or rather the art,
of thus converging their optical axes, it became necessary to
contrive an instrument for doing this.
The first contrivances for this purpose were, as we have already
stated, made by Mr. Elliot and Mr. Wheatstone. A description of
these, and of others better fitted for the purpose, will be found in the
following chapter.
 CHAPTER IV.
DESCRIPTION OF THE OCULAR, THE
REFLECTING,
AND THE LENTICULAR STEREOSCOPES.

Although it is by the combination of two plane pictures of an

object, as seen by each eye, that we see the object in relief, yet the
relief is not obtained from the mere combination or superposition of
the two dissimilar pictures. The superposition is effected by turning
each eye upon the object, but the relief is given by the play of the
optic axes in uniting, in rapid succession, similar points of the two
pictures, and placing them, for the moment, at the distance from the
observer of the point to which the axes converge. If the eyes were to
unite the two images into one, and to retain their power of distinct
vision, while they lost the power of changing the position of their
optic axes, no relief would be produced.
This is equally true when we unite two dissimilar photographic
pictures by fixing the optic axes on a point nearer to or farther from
the eye. Though the pictures apparently coalesce, yet the relief is
given by the subsequent play of the optic axes varying their angles,
and converging themselves successively upon, and uniting, the
similar points in each picture that correspond to different distances
from the observer.
As very few persons have the power of thus uniting, by the eyes
alone, the two dissimilar pictures of the object, the stereoscope has
been contrived to enable them to combine the two pictures, but it is
not the stereoscope, as has been imagined, that gives the relief. The
instrument is merely a substitute for the muscular power which
brings the two pictures together. The relief is produced, as formerly,
solely by the subsequent play of the optic axes. If the relief were the
effect of the apparent union of the pictures, we should see it by
looking with one eye at the combined binocular pictures—an
experiment which could be made by optical means; but we should
look for it in vain. The combined pictures would be as flat as the
combination of two similar pictures. These experiments require to be
made with a thorough knowledge of the subject, for when the eyes
are converged on one point of the combined picture, this point has
the relief, or distance from the eye, corresponding to the angle of the
optic axes, and therefore the adjacent points are, as it were, brought
into a sort of indistinct relief along with it; but the optical reader will
see at once that the true binocular relief cannot be given to any other
parts of the picture, till the axes of the eyes are converged upon
them. These views will be more readily comprehended when we
have explained, in a subsequent chapter, the theory of stereoscopic
vision.

The Ocular Stereoscope.

We have already stated that objects are seen in perfect relief
when we unite two dissimilar photographic pictures of them, either by
converging the optic axes upon a point so far in front of the pictures
or so far beyond them, that two of the four images are combined. In
both these cases each picture is seen double, and when the two
innermost of the four, thus produced, unite, the original object is
seen in relief. The simplest of these methods is to converge the
optical axes to a point nearer to us than the pictures, and this may
be best done by holding up a finger between the eyes and the
pictures, and placing it at such a distance that, when we see it
single, the two innermost of the four pictures are united. If the finger
is held up near the dissimilar pictures, they will be slightly doubled,
the two images of each overlapping one other; but by bringing the
finger nearer the eye, and seeing it singly and distinctly, the
overlapping images will separate more and more till they unite. We
have, therefore, made our eyes a stereoscope, and we may, with
great propriety, call it the Ocular Stereoscope. If we wish to magnify
the picture in relief, we have only to use convex spectacles, which
will produce the requisite magnifying power; or what is still better, to
magnify the united pictures with a powerful reading-glass. The two
single images are hid by advancing the reading-glass, and the other
two pictures are kept united with a less strain upon the eyes.
As very few people can use their eyes in this manner, some
instrumental auxiliary became necessary, and it appears to us
strange that the simplest method of doing this did not occur to Mr.
Elliot and Mr. Wheatstone, who first thought of giving us the help of
an instrument. By enabling the left eye to place an image of the left-
hand picture upon the right-hand picture, as seen by the naked eye,
we should have obtained a simple instrument, which might be called
the Monocular Stereoscope, and which we shall have occasion to
describe. The same contrivance applied also to the right eye, would
make the instrument Binocular. Another simple contrivance for
assisting the eyes would have been to furnish them with a minute
opera-glass, or a small astronomical telescope about an inch long,
which, when held in the hand or placed in a pyramidal box, would
unite the dissimilar pictures with the greatest facility and perfection.
This form of the stereoscope will be afterwards described under the
name of the Opera-Glass Stereoscope.

Fig. 8.
 Description of the Ocular Stereoscope.
A stereoscope upon the principle already described, in which the
eyes alone are the agent, was contrived, in 1834, by Mr. Elliot, as we
have already had occasion to state. He placed the binocular
pictures, described in Chapter I., at one end of a box, and without
the aid either of lenses or mirrors, he obtained a landscape in perfect
relief. I have examined this stereoscope, and have given, in Fig. 8,
an accurate though reduced drawing of the binocular pictures
executed and used by Mr. Elliot. I have also united the two original
pictures by the convergency of the optic axes beyond them, and
have thus seen the landscape in true relief. To delineate these
binocular pictures upon stereoscopic principles was a bold
undertaking, and establishes, beyond all controversy, Mr. Elliot’s
claim to the invention of the ocular stereoscope.
If we unite the two pictures in Fig. 8, by converging the optic axes
to a point nearer the eye than the pictures, we shall see distinctly the
stereoscopic relief, the moon being in the remote distance, the cross
in the middle distance, and the stump of a tree in the foreground.
If we place the two pictures as in Fig. 9, which is the position they
had in Mr. Elliot’s box, and unite them, by looking at a point beyond
them we shall also observe the stereoscopic relief. In this position
Mr. Elliot saw the relief without any effort, and even without being
conscious that he was not viewing the pictures under ordinary vision.
This tendency of the optic axes to a distant convergency is so rare
that I have met with it only in one person.
 Fig. 9.
As the relief produced by the union of such imperfect pictures
was sufficient only to shew the correctness of the principle, the
friends to whom Mr. Elliot shewed the instrument thought it of little
interest, and he therefore neither prosecuted the subject, nor
published any account of his contrivance.
Mr. Wheatstone suggested a similar contrivance, without either
mirrors or lenses. In order to unite the pictures by converging the
optic axes to a point between them and the eye, he proposed to
place them in a box to hide the lateral image and assist in making
them unite with the naked eyes. In order to produce the union by
looking at a point beyond the picture, he suggested the use of “a pair
of tubes capable of being inclined to each other at various angles,”
the pictures being placed on a stand in front of the tubes. These
contrivances, however, though auxiliary to the use of the naked
eyes, were superseded by the Reflecting Stereoscope, which we
shall now describe.

Description of the Reflecting Stereoscope.

 This form of the stereoscope, which we owe to Mr. Wheatstone,
is shewn in Fig. 10, and is described by him in the following terms:
—“aa′ are two plane mirrors, (whether of glass or metal is not
stated,) 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
of a vertical board, cut away in such a 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 them 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 or forwards in grooves on the upright boards d, d′. The
apparatus having been described, it now 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 till 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 picture
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. 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.

Fig. 10.
“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 rl, and fixing the upright boards d, d′ at the proper distance.
The sliding pannels may also be dispensed with, and the drawings
themselves be made to slide in the grooves.”
The figures to which Mr. Wheatstone applied this instrument were
pairs of outline representations of objects of three dimensions, such
as a cube, a cone, the frustum of a square pyramid, which is shewn
on one side of e, e′ in Fig. 10, and in other figures; and he employed
them, as he observes, “for the purpose of illustration, 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.”
“Careful attention,” he adds, “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.”
This expectation has never been realized, for it is obviously
beyond the reach of the highest art to draw two copies of a flower or
a bust with such accuracy of outline or colour as to produce “perfect
identity,” or anything approaching to it, “with the object represented.”
Photography alone can furnish us with such representations of
natural and artificial objects; and it is singular that neither Mr. Elliot
nor Mr. Wheatstone should have availed themselves of the well-
known photographic process of Mr. Wedgewood and Sir Humphry
Davy, which, as Mr. Wedgewood remarks, wanted only “a method of
preventing the unshaded parts of the delineation from being coloured
by exposure to the day, to render the process as useful as it is
elegant.” When the two dissimilar photographs were taken they
could have been used in the stereoscope in candle-light, or in faint
daylight, till they disappeared, or permanent outlines of them might
have been taken and coloured after nature.
Mr. Fox Talbot’s beautiful process of producing permanent
photographs was communicated to the Royal Society in January
1839, but no attempt was made till some years later to make it
available for the stereoscope.
In a chapter on binocular pictures, and the method of executing
them in order to reproduce, with perfect accuracy, the objects which
they represent, we shall recur to this branch of the subject.
Upon obtaining one of these reflecting stereoscopes as made by
the celebrated optician, Mr. Andrew Ross, I found it to be very ill
adapted for the purpose of uniting dissimilar pictures, and to be
imperfect in various respects. Its imperfections may be thus
enumerated:—
1. It is a clumsy and unmanageable apparatus, rather than an
instrument for general use. The one constructed for me was 16½
inches long, 6 inches broad, and 8½ inches high.
2. The loss of light occasioned by reflection from the mirrors is
very great. In all optical instruments where images are to be formed,
and light is valuable, mirrors and specula have been discontinued.
Reflecting microscopes have ceased to be used, but large
telescopes, such as those of Sir W. and Sir John Herschel, Lord
Rosse, and Mr. Lassel, were necessarily made on the reflecting
principle, from the impossibility of obtaining plates of glass of
sufficient size.
3. In using glass mirrors, of which the reflecting stereoscope is
always made, we not only lose much more than half the light by the
reflections from the glass and the metallic surface, and the absorbing
power of the glass, but the images produced by reflection are made
indistinct by the oblique incidence of the rays, which separates the
image produced by the glass surface from the more brilliant image
produced by the metallic surface.
4. In all reflections, as Sir Isaac Newton states, the errors are
greater than in refraction. With glass mirrors in the stereoscope, we
have four refractions in each mirror, and the light transmitted through
twice the thickness of the glass, which lead to two sources of error.
5. Owing to the exposure of the eye and every part of the
apparatus to light, the eye itself is unfitted for distinct vision, and the
binocular pictures become indistinct, especially if they are
Daguerreotypes,[34] by reflecting the light incident from every part of
the room upon their glass or metallic surface.
6. The reflecting stereoscope is inapplicable to the beautiful
binocular slides which are now being taken for the lenticular
stereoscope in every part of the world, and even if we cut in two
those on paper and silver-plate, they would give, in the reflecting
instrument, converse pictures, the right-hand part of the picture
being placed on the left-hand side, and vice versa.
7. With transparent binocular slides cut in two, we could obtain
pictures by reflection that are not converse; but in using them, we
would require to have two lights, one opposite each of the pictures,
which can seldom be obtained in daylight, and which it is
inconvenient to have at night.
Owing to these and other causes, the reflecting stereoscope
never came into use, even after photography was capable of
supplying binocular pictures.
As a set-off against these disadvantages, it has been averred
that in the reflecting stereoscope we can use larger pictures, but this,
as we shall shew in a future chapter, is altogether an erroneous
assertion.

Description of the Lenticular Stereoscope.

Having found that the reflecting stereoscope, when intended to
produce accurate results, possessed the defects which I have
described, and was ill fitted for general use, both from its size and its
price, it occurred to me that the union of the dissimilar pictures could
be better effected by means of lenses, and that a considerable
magnifying power would be thus obtained, without any addition to
the instrument.
 Fig. 11.
If we suppose a, b, Fig. 11, to be two portraits,—a a portrait of a
gentleman, as seen by the left eye of a person viewing him at the
proper distance and in the best position, and b his portrait as seen
by the right eye, the purpose of the stereoscope is to place these two
pictures, or rather their images, one above the other. The method of
doing this by lenses may be explained, to persons not acquainted
with optics, in the following manner:—
If we look at a with one eye through the centre of a convex glass,
with which we can see it distinctly at the distance of 6 inches, which
is called its focal distance, it will be seen in its place at a. If we now
move the lens from right to left, the image of a will move towards b;
and when it is seen through the right-hand edge of the lens, the
image of a will have reached the position c, half-way between a and
b. If we repeat this experiment with the portrait b, and move the lens
from left to right, the image of b will move towards a; and when it is
seen through the left-hand edge of the lens, the image of b will have
reached the position c. Now, it is obviously by the right-hand half of
the lens that we have transferred the image of a to c, and by the left-