Volltext Seite (XML)
L, 1862. THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS Vol. VI. No. 189.—April 17, 1862. arrangingi udgment i ontinually good rest) tse, andb ping quill ed in iodi, • with No. •s been gr, . Never! dition of I eit. The milkinessi on has enst much we J been red the photographic department at the INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION. 1 he majority of the photographic contribitors in the English Cepartment are now in the building, and arc rapidly in the course of unpacking and arranging. Notwithstanding the hankless task imposed upon the gentlemen forming the photographic committee, they have worked heartily and energetically to make the most of the facilities placed at eir disposal aiming with limited means to satisfy extensive Smand s. Many of those, whose applications were at first e user, ave, by the judicious management of space, by i ucing some who received allotments in the photographic department to accept of space in other classes, and by other means, now received allotments according to priority of merit. Many are still, of course, disappointed at the amount or position of the space awarded to them, especially amongst exhibitors of apparatus. Some who especially require bril liant light have had dark corners allotted. Some who have prepared square cases have received oblong space for them. As far as it is possible all these defects are remedied; the most courteous anxiety to make satisfactory arrangements being manifested by the committee, and by Mr. Peter Le Neve Foster, the superintendent of the department, but the task of fitting square pegs into round holes can never issue with entire success. The fact is, the space is so much too limited that anything like satisfactory results can scarcely be anticipated. As for the position in the building, it is one which will effectually keep the exhibition select. The Commissioners, as if ironi cally answering the outcry of photographers for the elevation of their art, have exalted it with a vengeance, placing it high above the picture galleries and everything else. We venture to predict that none but those actually interested in the matter, and seeking for the photographs, or it may be stray visitors who have lost themselves in wandering up in terminable flights of steps, will undertake the task of mount ing to the photographic department. No official announcement of the jurors in the various de partments has been made; but it is understood that Dr. Diamond, Sir David Brewster, and M. Claudet have been appointed to make the awards in Class XIV, which will include, we presume, all the photographic departments. As a whole, we fear this appointment will not give unmixed satisfaction. As regards the first-named gentleman the appointment is doubtless unexceptionable: the long connection of Dr. Diamond with photography, his high attainments in the various branches of the art, his representative position as Secretary of the Photographic Society, and the personal esteem in which he is held by photographers generally, all conduce to stamp him as pre-eminently fitted to fulfil such duties with efficiency, and to secure the confidence of the photographic public in his decisions. Regarding Sir David Brewster we regret to say we cannot express any such con fidence. Willingly recognizing his high character and labours as a man of science, we cannot so readily admit his judgment in matters photographic. In the optics of photo graphy his name has been identified with some crotchets which have had no confirmation in the practice of able pho tographers. Of his general acquaintance with photography we have no knowledge, but what we have recently gleaned from an article in the North British Review, which is publicly attributed to his pen. We have not hitherto called the attention of our readers to this article, as we are in the habit of doing with regard to any photographic contributions in periodicals devoted to general literature, simply because wo have hesitated to couple a name so high as that of Sir David Brewster with the amount of misinformation and inexact state ment with which the article abounds. Regarding the last- named gentleman, M. Claudet, no one will doubt for a moment his photographic knowledge or ability, his deep love of the art, and concern for its honour—yet we hesitate in acknow ledging his fitness for the office. In the first place, and chiefly, because the appointment is a great injustice to himself. M. Claudet is a large and very worthy contributor to this de partment, and he has at no remote period taken prizes in exhibitions of photographs. As an exhibitor here he is manifestly disqualified from pronouncing as a juror upon THE SOUTH LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC EX HIBITION. There is one clause in the “Rules for Exhibitors” in the forthcoming Exhibition of the South London Photographic Society, which, on reflection, appears to have been adopted without sufficient consideration of all its bearings. In order to secure in its fullest sense the photographic character of the Exhibition, the committee, in adopting a rule generally made, but rarely observed—that of requiring an untouched copy to accompany each coloured picture—resolved to insist upon its rigid observance. In doing this they intended to give emphasis to the fact, that in a photographic exhibition, coloured portraits—without a disparagement to the position the colourist—were merely admitted as illustrating one of the applications of photography; and to render clear the nature and extent of this application, it was important that an uncoloured copy should be present for comparison, fu order to make this condition stringent, and without thinking of the damaging effect on the general harmony of arrangement, it was resolved, that “coloured photo graphs would only be admissible when accompanied, in the same frame, with untouched specimens.” A very little reflection will suffice to show that a most unsatisfactory, spotty, inharmonious, incongruous effect might result if this rule were rigorously carried out. The immediate juxta-position of things not intended for comparison, might often, in an artistic sense, be injurious to each, and have a bad effect, without either in itself being faulty. The untouched photograph, and the painting upon the pho tograph, might each be excellent, whilst the result of their con- tact and contrast might be more or less damaging to both. The monochrome and the painting glowing with colour each may have their special excellencies, but they do not harmo- nize. As M. Claudet observes, in a courteous letter to the secretary, promising to contribute, no man of taste would hang engravings on the same wall as paintings or water- Splour drawings'; he would keep each in separate apartments, f he wished each to have their true value or produce a per- fect ensemble. . We are authorized to state, therefore, that the committee ping re considered the question, have resolved to rescind "’ lc h p ar t o f the seventh rule, as renders it necessary to place 16 uncoloured duplicate in the same frame as the coloured Plcture. It will still be imperative that coloured specimens be accompanied by untouched copies, the arrangement of copies in the Exhibition being left to the discretion of he hanging committee. We trust that this decision will ^tribute to the satisfaction of exhibitors, and to the general effect of the Exhibition. ,iass room bliged by] out desir : we migb eagues ip ■opriety i e combine collodion certain, i you hal 8 Manua onnected n the su re is no' NAC cont ended, i of a bro* nd uses i> lat for po* to the os t'ding thei iewsare lens mad r. Wilsol’ ent donH 1 ; but fro" rely depeP id profes, actical P crescent st distal" is not co ireful W* liaphrag" forward. They W luded. Ithat s until t a." Sir, res are S necessar!) y the or" of their' ng them* nst any 1 e neithe. >ic visioh, cture be MS., at’ commul" j glass."g re in re" aining: ’ •ate of v t for hP ion of N ited soD3 1 othersg test sutlr 1, andt ,u whg ch profev thepoi ur or t' nding" our to t egutive” fapr26 de of s9 ic batl,) r the tu"