Volltext Seite (XML)
The Si. James's Gazelle has but a poor opinion of photo graphy as a means of assisting the artist in etching or painting a portrait. Speaking of an etching, by Mr. 0. O. Murray, of Dr. John Brown, we are told that “in spite of its being a compilation from photographs,’’ the picture “ is a capital likeness, and sufficiently pleasing as a work of art.” One thing, the Gazelle itself is not called upon to produce portraits, and therefore the opinion it expresses does not involve much responsibility ; only we should like our contemporary to tell us what sculptors, portrait painters, and other artists want with a photograph, if it is not to assist them at their work. Water companies differ as to their ideas of the quantity of water consumed by photographers, and as there appears to be no uniform rule of charge, it is possible that the inspector of the district is the real arbitrator. Anyway, a sharp photographer of our acquaintance thought so, and when recently something was wrong with the supply, necessitating a visit of this authority to the premises, the photographer, by asking him to sit for his portrait without charge, so gained his favour, that he allowed a pipe of larger diameter to be put in, by which the photographer gained a double supply at no extra charge. As the house was supplied on the constant service system, the difference was something important. Herr Kopske gives some details in the last number ofthe Mittheilungen of his Retouching School recently established at Berlin. The School accommodates ten students, the fee being fifty marks, or shillings, per month for two hours’ instruction every day. Herr Kopske has the rank of Academical Painter in Berlin, and his course includes thorough art instruction, as well as positive and negative retouching. “ The Persian Prince, who was here some two years ago, received his instruction in retouching from me,’’ says Herr Kopske, proudly ; but this does not mean that he takes only princes as pupils ; he admits photographers as well. Periodicals illustrated by photography not being portraits, have somehow never succeeded. There have been two attempts made in this country (we refer only to those which absolutely came before the public), one the Photographic Art Annual, started in 1858, and the Photographic Art Journal, which appeared in 1870. The Photographic Art Annual changed its name to the Photographic Art Journal after the first number. Eight parts were published monthly—there was an interregnum of three months between the seventh and eighth—and it then ceased to exist. The photographs with which it was illustrated have now a curious old world look about them. They were printed on plain paper, apparently from paper negatives, and show little signs of fading. The Photographic Art Journal of twelve years later was a much more ambitious effort, and the illustrations were printed in carbon. It had, however, even less success than its predecessor, for four numbers only were issued. These journals were certainly very much before their time, for even now, with improved appliances and with an increased interest in photography on the part of the public, it is doubtful whether a general photographic publication would pay. It sounds odd, by the way, to read in the first of the two journals we have mentioned the following: “Proposals will shortly be issued for the formation of a new Photo graphic Society to be composed exclusively of scientific and artistic photographers who will unite their efforts for a vigorous pursuit of the philosophy of the art, and oppose the quackery that is fast creeping in. Such a Society is really needed. The Photographic Society of London has failed in accomplishing the end for which its original promoters established it, and all hopes of its ever effecting any real good are abandoned.” It is always unsafe to prophesy unless you know. The Photographic Society has survived for a quarter of a century after this prediction, and certainly holds as good a position as ever it did. View meters and aiming-sights are again being talked about. Mr. Harvey Barton’s view-meter, which has been described in these columns, is one of the simplest forms ; but the modification of it we now show is still better. A, the foresight—that is, to frame the view chosen—slides to and fro on the bar, B ; while C, through which the eye looks, is fixed or hinged at the end of the bar. This instrument may be constructed of metal, wood, or even cardboard, the photographer marking upon the bar, B, certain lines to correspond with the lenses in his possession. He tries his lenses practically, and sees what each of them will do, and the results he marks on the scale. Then, when he has to take a view, he simply looks at it through his view-meter, and chooses the lens indicated on the scale. As an aiming-sight or finder, either a second lens and camera may be used, or a simple foresight and back-sight. These latter are most conveniently fixed to the side of the camera, the back-sight having an eye hole similar to that in C, in the previous sketch, while the foresight may be a round opening rather larger, with a cross of wire in the centre. Supposing the camera to be ready for exposure, and the photographer is waiting, per haps, a coming vessel, which is to form the centre of his picture, he simply tarries until the approaching craft is seen to be covered by the cross of the foresight. He at once makes his exposure, being quite sure that whatever is in the line of sight, is at the same moment in the centre of his plate.