The photographic news

• Bandzählung: 6.1862
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1862
• Sprache: Englisch
• Signatur: F 135
• Vorlage: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Rechtehinweis: Public Domain Mark 1.0
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id1780948042-186200003
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18620000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18620000
• Sammlungen: LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
• Sammlungen: Fotografie
• Bemerkung: Seite 1-72 fehlen in der Vorlage. Vorlagebedingter Textverlust.
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

JuN [JUNE 20, 1862 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 290 any number of prints could be obtained by the ordinary processes of printing. That such a method must be a boon to amateurs there cannot be a question. To be able, either in the operating room or the field, to produce small, perfect negatives re quiring short exposures, and involving very little labour or difficulty at the time, and afterwards, at leisure, enlarge them easily and perfectly to sizes of, say 10 by 8, or 12 by 10, is such a tempting prospect, that every photographer, certainly every amateur, must covet it. This was the prospect Mr. Heath wished to hold out: the range of en largement he proposed and that usually effected by the solar camera were two distinct things, in no way competing or clashing with each other, and there was no need to put them in competition, or suppose them to be in any sense antagonistic. It is a somewhat singular fact that long as the method referred to by Mr. Heath has been known, it has not been successfully practised; hard, coarse negatives being its general results. That this is not necessarily the case, we have long been convinced, and the specimens shown by Mr. Warner and Mr. Fry in the International Exhibition prove; although some of these leave something to be desired. Mr. Heath also, at the meeting in question, exhibited pictures which proved pre-eminently that delicacy could be obtained. He felt, however, that in a process so desirable and yet so little practised, it was worth while to enlist general interest in the improvement of its details. It unfortunately happened that, instead of this result, a dispute as to its merits ensued, and, so far as discussion could aid it, the matter stands where it was. The subject has engaged much of our attention, and we have experimented for many months past at intervals in improving the manipulations. On a future occasion we shall have something further to say on the subject and some hints to offer. In the meantime we commend it as well worthy of attention and experiment, to all interested in obtaining the best results by the simplest means. much si Mr. Fe same si: unpleas for mur folio. ' just the the groi equally believe Turn! are disa lost met regret t )'et we fi It is a s tleman . butafe lot less cess, hit ad: t By th Mr. The Rood la nin 1 (hit pl Pehensi fheligh good; ai 4mass o tannin ] fine skit Mr. Ant joined w to the st this is ] there cai He rem: “my sk "here tl simple a Verfera taken Irt the utm Ktcetotl the 1 Practice Gtuted 1 tgitima St test. h<tS II,P, 44 deta 'teelkm Another dy proc And the ikely tc by dry j And full tural pic are all < bits som Admi ltmost Buxton’ by the i not sury There is beautifu down or also con process, of it. lovely. In the centre are “ That arch caricaturist, tl* camera, as it appeared (after taking several glasses), spiring with the sun against the surrounding critics.” T® camera wears the focussing cloth as a cowl, and seemit enjoy the fun, whilst the sun fully enters into the spiritd the thing. The sketch is a capital pendant to M. Claude recent able letter on the subject. We commend it heartil to the critics of the Saturday and London Itevuws, and • whom it may concern. Amongst the most noticeable pictures at the Exhibition are the contributions of Mr. Earl, with whose large al excellent views of Raglan Castle many of our readers " familiar. His chief contributions here are a series of large photographs of Witley Court with the surroundiz grounds, fountains, &c. These pictures are very W perhaps 24 by 18, and the photography very goodi1 photograph of one of the fountains, consisting of a 60 Andromeda, is especially good in many respects. We 1D confess, however, that except for special subjects, we dot admire such large photographs. We give these all prat however, for the excellence of the work, and the caw 11 preparation. Mr. Tyley sends some remarkably fine architectural phot, graphs. A view of Bristol Cathederal is equally good picture, and as a photograph. Two examples of differ photographic treatments given to a “ Memorial Design' * both admirable pictures, and instructive illustrations of™ effect of dark and light backgrounds. Some of the most charming pictures in the Exhibition scenes in Venice, contributed by Mr. W. H. Warner; are executed, however, by an English amateur, who, 1 private reasons, is not desirous of appending his name. . publishing them. The “ Bridge of Sighs ” is a very PeESC picture, the point of view is well chosen, and the Pba graphy very brilliant without being hard. The deep maa of shadow are in admirable keeping with the subject, "I the soft irregular reflections in the water are admina ’ rendered. Various other views by the same hand do! or less justice to the “ Queen of the Adriatic." Here 18 k Bridge of the Rialto, and here the Cathedral of St. Ma here is the Mole past which “ silent rows the songless 80 dolier.” The whole of these pictures are good, and subjects fraught with unusual interest. Here also aredi examples of Ponti’s admirable views of Venice, in whica photograph is carefully coloured. We have rarely M photographic views of architectural or landscape sc622 with any attempt at colour, that have not been enta spoiled by the operation; but these views of Pontisa tinted in water colours with so much care and judg"a that we are compelled to admit, that, for Venetian S especially, the colour- is an improvement on the monochrj The reference to these pictures reminds us, that in a 88 at the Crystal Palace, not far from the Photograph 10 Sat bition of the South London Society, there is a largps of photographs by Ponti and others in every stage 01 80 • and yellow decomposition and fading. We do not E whom they may belong, but we should be glad for the C of the art to see them removed from public exhibition, .uf Mr. Spode sends some good landscapes, of which " f mention “ Sheephill Cove, Isle of Wight,” and “At - D tage, Staffordshire,” amongst those which please 1 A Mr. Haigh sends several Australian views, which, 11 ) photographs, are chiefly interesting from their localitisteA Olleys contributes some excellent specimens which 111 microscopists ; they consist of transverse sections ot largd trees and plants, and some entomological subjects, ("Nu by what is described as the reflecting process. Mrbjod” waring exhibits some frames containing a class 0 fssepb he has made peculiarly his own; we refer to his exqus tographs of flowers, singly and grouped; some of thesSlr )‘ are perfect gems. Many photographers will rememc89 Roger Fenton's groupings of fruit, flowers, bric-a^ 1 W «1 a la Lance. Some of Mr. Mainwaring’s groups tDey" similar, with this difference and advantage, that SOUTH LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC EXHIBITION. In returning to the South London Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, our attention is arrested to the reproduction of a clever- pictorial jeu d'esprit, sketched by Mr. Wall, entitled “ An Essay on Photographic Criticism,” and dedicated to the London Review, and Saturday Review. It consists of seven heads, portraits of the various critics, whose opinions are often heard on matters of photographic. The portraits arc described as follows :— 1. The critic who thinks that “ photographs always give a receding effect to the forehead.” 2. The critic who thinks “ photographers should never light their sitters from the top.” 3. The critic who states that “ photographers always exaggerate the prominent features.” 4. The critic who asserts that “ photographs make her look so old, quite like a woman of thirty.” 5. The critic who thinks “ photographs invariably give one such an unpleasant expression.” 6. The critic who thinks “ you always look so silly in your photographs.” 7. The critic who “ is generally very well satisfied with a photograph.” We may add that each grumbling critic, if he receive simple justice from the camera, will conceive that he has the strongest facial reasons for spiteful feeling. Nos. 1 and 6 are receding foreheaded, shallow-pated spoonies ; No. 2 is a beetle-browed gentleman, the whole of whose brain seems to have taken lodgings in a pent house over the eyes ; No. 3 is a youth whose most salient features occupies nearly one- half of his face; Nos. 4 and 5 arc portraits of ladies of about —well, a “ certain age,” and have apparently been disap pointed in life; No. 7 is the head of a lovely girl, who may defy the most truth-telling lens to make her other than