Volltext Seite (XML)
594 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [September 21, 1883. and taste can accomplish as he desires ; but we say, to fully appreciate—or rather appraise—his result, the juror should be both artist and photographer. For all this, we do not say the enrolment of Royal Academicians or distinguished painters among the jury is a mistake. Even if it were, since jury awards are always fraught with errors, one more or less is of little con sequence. We think, however, that several years having now passed, during which we have invoked the assistance of these gentlemen, we may very well try the experiment of getting on by ourselves again. No award will give complete satisfaction, and hence the change need not lead us to any sanguine expectations. Moreover, as years go on, painters will become more and more conversant with photography, and we shall thus be in a position to invite men to aid us in coming to a decision, who, besides their art training, know something of the ins and outs of photo graphy, and can at once discriminate between gross neglect and praiseworthy endeavour. While we say, therefore, that for the nonce it is well to confine the jury to photo graphers and photographic experts, we sincerely trust that the recent state of things will not be cast on one side altogether ; but that the advice of painters or sculptors of standing will be from time to time invited by the council of the Society. For the forthcoming exhibition the number of the judges is seven, as heretofore; the president of the Society, as usual, being one of them. But Mr. Glaisher, we believe, acts more the part of disciplinarian than that of judge, and is, indeed, more referee than anything else. He has a large experience of judges and juries in medal awards, and his assistance is, for this reason, additionally valuable. The other judges are Captain Abney, who will be most useful in appraising the scientific value of any modifications of formulas, as well as in estimating the work of the scientific photographer, whether in the realms of astronomy, physics, medicine, or what not. Mr. Warnerke is no less competent to give a sound vote upon matters scientific and technical, and indeed, the way in which these two gentle men recently acquitted themselves as British jurors at the Brussels Exhibition would alone suffice to insure the confidence of their brethren. The other jurors are Mr. Francis Bedford, an honoured name among photo graphers for a quarter of a century; Mr. Joseph Paget, whose clear-sightedness in respect to the wants of the photographer, no less than his generosity in instituting the Paget prize, speak well for his qualifications as a judge ; Mr. Robert Slingsby, who has himself produced some of the most successful pictorial photographs, whether regarded from an artistic or commercial point of view; and Mr. Frederick Hollyer, whose clever and artistic work on the walls of past exhibitions at Pall Mall is alone sufficient passport for admission among the seven elect. Altogether, intending exhibitors may look forward with considerable confidence to the due appraisement of their work by a competent jury ; and in conclusion, we would simply add a word of advice that, inasmuch as year by year the number of pictures and the number of exhibitors grow apace, the latter would do well to exercise them selves the function of “ selection,” so that this duty may not fall too heavily upon the Hanging Committee, a body which for some time past has been unable to cope satis factorily with the large number of works forwarded for exhibition. POINT OF VIEW. In photographing objects having vertical straight lines, photographers who pretend to any knowledge of their business are most careful to have the ground glass—as representing the sensitive plate—vertical, knowing that such is the only way in which to obtain parallel lines in the resulting picture. They either use the swing-back, or raise the front of tho camera if it be otherwise im possible to include all the picture that is considered advisable. The procedure is a perfectly correct one, and the effect produced is at least conventionally correct; but it is, we believe, not generally known, or at least considered, how merely conventional it is that lines vertical in fact should be represented as parallel lines on paper. To take an example : if we place ourselves near the foot of a couple of high columns, and look up towards the top of them, it is quite evident that there is quite as much appearance of convergence as exhibits itself, for example, between the two walls of a short distance of street along which we look. The tops of the columns, which are more distinct, must certainly appear nearer to each other than the bases. Yet any photographer who took a photograph of the scene would make every endeavour to have the columns in his negative, and print not converging, but parallel. Here it would at first sight appear that there is a distinct mistake made; that if the columns appear to the eye to converge, they ought also to be made on paper to converge. A further consideration of the matter is, however, neces sary. Let us suppose the print, including the columns, and showing them parallel, to be hung in a vertical plane ; and let us suppose that we look at this print from the same relative point of view that we looked at the columns— that is to say, we look from a distance equal to the focal length of the lens which was used to photograph the object, and from a point horizontally in the line with that point of the columns with which the camera was horizontal. Now, although we have opposite us two columns repre sented as parallel, the top of the representation or picture is farther from the eye than is the bottom, and, as a conse quence, the tops appear nearer each other than the lower ends, and this to precisely the same degree as appeared when we looked at the actual columns ; so that, in fact, the same image is produced upon the retina by the picture as by the object. It is, therefore, quite evident that, the conditions stated being observed, we have a correct picture. Let us, however, look at the picture of the columns from a point level with the middle of them. Now the effect is quite different. The picture is farther from our eyes, both at the top and at the bottom, and, as a consequence, the columns appear nearer each other at these points than in the middle. This is distinctly wrong, and from the example we may declare the following fact. The representation of an object which shows vertical lines parallel, and which is obtained by keeping our sensitive plate vertical, is a correct representation only when it is placed in a vertical plane, and is looked at from one particular point of view. A photograph can never be a correct representation of an object unless it is looked at from a point of view corresponding to the equivalent focus of the lens used to take it. It may, however, if it be placed in a certain plane differing from the vertical, be a perfectly correct repre sentation when vertical lines are not shown parallel. For example: if, in photographing the columns which we have taken as an illustration, we had given way to the temptation to “ tip ” the camera up, we could have had a representation of them in which they converged towards the top. Such a picture, being in a vertical plane, would give a very imperfect representation of the object photo graphed ; but if it were hung in a plane sloping at the top, forward from the vertical, the defect would be corrected. The top of the picture being thus nearer the eye than the bottom, the apparent distance between the columns at the top would be increased, and the outline on the retina of the eye would again be the same as that pro duced by the objects themselves; that is to say, our representation would be correct when hung as described, although it was not produced according to photographic conventionality. It is true that the effect produced would probably not be very pleasing to most; but this is not for any better