Volltext Seite (XML)
May [May 2, 1862. THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 210 it’s no use to deny it. Of course, if we Review to have permitted the publication of such diatribes against the greatest feat of modern philosophy and ingenuity. exaggerated their defects for the mere pleasure of appearing witty; but what lias all that to do with photography? Isi absolutely necessary or unavoidable that the camera should pro; duce pictures distorted and out of foeus ; that the persons be baclly posed, and standing or sitting in the centre of perje^ chaos, and surrounded with pieces of furniture, leaning, rolling and tumbling about the apartment, g-c. ? If these defects are the result of bad instruments, and of the ignorance and stupid management of clumsy photographers, i is perfectly ridiculous to accuse the art of being their cause Nevertheless, such a theme has been thought a subject fit for" serious paper, and an intelligent man has hot found it an unge- nial task to disparage an art so beautiful and so perfect as plio- tography, for the poor satisfaction of running down what is generally admired. At all events, it was unworthy of the London ay it, photography can only produce caricaturii' C" , if .. J have been ill-treated, it is the fate of every ol and the fault of photography. Decidedly this art is detestable: let us turn it into ridicule 1 the taste of their dress ? I rather think that you would have returned home very little charmed with your physiologics study. Among those who had passed before your eyes, judging only from their external appearance, might you not perchance have mistaken a nobleman for a farmer, a legislator for a publican, a bishop for a schoolmaster, a clergyman for a waiter, a Russian prince for a commercial traveller, a banker for a tea-dealer, a" eminent writer for a toast-master ? But if, instead of the reality, you had seen only the photographs of these persons, with their distinguished names written at the foot of their “ cartes de visits would you not exclaim, “Oh! these cannot but bo caricatures: it is just what might bo expected from photography ?” In plain truth, photography caricatures because it represents and one of the most marvellous discoveries of our age. In stopping before the shops exhibiting photographic “cartes 1 de visite,” you have seen nothing but caricatures. Be it so. But | is it owing to the ugliness of the photographs, or to the ugliness I of the persons represented ? It may be either, or it may be bothi I but whatever it is, that has nothing to do with photography. If, after a walk along Regent Street, you had chosen to 1 describe the strange diversity of the perambulating multitude, t would you have found much to say in praise of the refined ex pression of countenance of every one you had met—of the beauty of form of every individual, male and female—of the distinction of their bearing, the elegance of their manners, and When in use for stereoscopic pictures a black bag is fastened on to the back with elastic, and draws close with double strings. This serves for a focussing-cloth, and in the event of any hitch of the slides within the camera, the hand can be introduced through a piece of elastic which is passed over the opening. In packing, the camera is folded up, and the table turned up to the side of the plate-box and put into a case (the front upwards), made either of leather or of the glazed stuff used for umbrella covers, lined. The case should have a foundation of thin wood. The camera and the front for the twin lenses pack against the top of the plate-box. The piece of wood (fig. 7), and focussing-cloth on the front, now uppermost, over all is put a square of the same glazed material as the case, large enough to cover the whole of the apparatus, and the lenses when in use, and two leather straps, enable the package to be carried either by a handle of wood, as a knapsack. The straps should be buckled over the covering when the appa ratus is set up as they prevent its being blown away, and by taking off the tripod legs, the whole can be conveniently carried short distances. The size of the package is about 12 inches high, 10 by 8], and weight about 11 lbs., exclusive of the lenses which may be carried separately.—Your truly, Thomas Barbett. P.S.—I should recommend the plates to be packed in numbered dozens, in the following manner:—Cut two pieces of card the size of the plates, and fasten to the ends pieces of paper folded in and out, so that a double piece about |-th inch broad may separate each plate. The last plate must face the next, and may be always No. 12. A description of the view taken may be entered in a memorandum-book, as 1, 2, &c. of No. 1 dozen, &c.; and if they arc put into the plate slides as they are arranged in the packet, and returned in the same order, there can be no mistake as regards the number. Red Hill, Reigate, April, 1862. destructive blows than praises for their catoptrical performance. It is, indeed, for this numerous class that portrait-painting" more true than photography, and that photographic likenesses dn nothing but caricatures. If so many have obvious reasons for being dissatisfied wil their lot in the dispensation of the graces of nature, it is nd surprising that they should generally complain of their apped ance in a “ carte de visite." We find that our photograph is ugly, therefore we have W disfigured by the artist, or rather by his camera. To convinot ourselves that it must be so, we look at the likenesses of friends; and as we have a great number of friends who, like ourselves, are exceedingly plain, we exclaim, in delight, “Oh; too faith dualities clever pi in such mien ap] man aris mind of man eva elegant, thought Photo; they oug more agi satisfacti fiction o like goo nothing a minor Ask a seas, wh Painted 1 htter in may exci and dist alone, th het son: Toom,bu called, f t herabsez will she, j ‘'rMedi minster, adapted Imagine, return, li ” carte di can gues heart: ii to his lip for phot barbare! Have studied 1 based? ' Would be self word Witness t known t 'hiring h llly unf We se< Our task will be very easy. We have only to stop at certain shops in Regent Street, where are exhibited for sale the mos heterogeneous assemblage of “ cartes de visite" of emperors and empresses, kings and queens, princes and princesses, the Pop' and his cardinals, bishops, generals, ambassadors, ministers, orators, philosophers, preachers, actors, dancers, acrobats, pug 1 ; lists, and gorillas, all in a row of perfect “ egalitd, fraternitl- Are not the greater number of them miserable specimens d photography, printed in a horrid gingerbread tint, “ some out 9 focus, the generality badly posed, and standing or sitting in centre of perfect chaos. Ravels of walls, doors, jars of conservatorli flowers, tables, and other articles of furniture, lean, roll, and tumU 1 about the apartment, as if spirit-rapping teas going on, in etcrj position out of the perpendicular. The central figure may be i4 focus and straight; but even if she escape with no distortion, sets as a monster hand or foot, or a cheek that seems afflicted with th 1 mumps, all her ‘ entourage’ is reeling about her, as if she had bet* taken in the saloon of the big ship during the great storm.” I suppose that this lively and most picturesque description i perfectly correct, and I have no doubt that the critic of the Ldr don Revieiv has seen such hideous photographs, and has not THE NEW PICTURE GALLERIES. BY A. CLAUDET, ESQ., F.B.S. [We have recently been favoured with an eloquent and able letter from M. Claudet, in which he administers an effective rebuke to the writer of an impertinent article which recently appeared in the London Review, entitled the “ New Picture Galleries,” a portion of which was reprinted into our pages, and commented upon at the time. The following are some extracts] :— If the writer of the article on “ the Picture Galleries ” had been content to criticize the unsuccessful attempts of inapt practitioners, he might have found ample ground for exercising Iris wit, and would have been perfectly justified in endeavouring to deter incapacity from meddling with photography. In doing so, he might have rendered a signal service to the art. But ho has generalized his remarks, striking, not the failures, but the art itself and its principles, accusing it of all the miserable pro ductions of those who are incapable of understanding it; and he has arrived at this strange and absurd conclusion, that no true likeness can be taken in this way. Does this conclusion agree witli the remarkable fact, that every one has his likeness taken by photography in preference to any other process? For, notwithstanding its supposed defects, it is the surest way to obtain likenesses perfectly true and characteristic, and in this respect more satisfactory than those which are embellished by the portrait-painter, which, according to our critic, are “ the result of study and generalization, qualities lacking in an ordinary photograph." Still, there is a class of persons who instinctively hate photo graphy as heartily as socialists hate aristocracy—those whoso features are either common, ugly, or unmeaning, and those of both sexes who recollect, naturally not without regret, the time when they did not wear a wig or dye their hair. We may well imagine what their feelings are when they look at themselves in their toilet-glass ; and, surely, if these fragile manufactures were a new invention, they would be likely to receive more Teflect, has plac oall" Cura, between Iunicat wlilein canactu Image ha 148 no cc ther res Perspecti retin Now t! Producin Cye. If s than the a perfect represent and oper bo able t instantai Therefor tically, t only for ho will p trait, am ing, a fit
