Volltext Seite (XML)
362. iera. It i nature. . 5. Pre- not tried 7. The is iodide ind bro mide of rectified. THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. ard por- taker by vill pro- I, subse ne time, mprove- etter for Sutton's rtake to is some- mean as andled, mow of, e of too Some he plate loo by and the or ma! of gold liver of e recipe ence as Ghemar llverein r baths i in the i Jo., the ntity cf j rposes. . lates. ose who ionably j ideed a j regret, | f either j ght for r Ve shall •e sufti- by add* j never excited inchest ras will If you i will to ist such • preci- C gold; ride of tarnish irits of oath in nty re te heat before es will ortion- lot the .tented r such super hand i. paque, .side?, ighted chare 1 good it will amine 1 from article nd in- larges nt, re- ydney ndon n and Vol. VI. No. 217.—Octoler 31, 1862. luring his chief’s which ill-nature .ore is a sample in and bad English culminate :— PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE CONTEMPORARY PRESS. PnOrOGRAPIIERS always read with interest the criticisms of the general press on the productions of their art; and they lave, on the whole, reason to ho satisfied with the estimate in which it is held. Now and then a truculent outburst of spleen, probably, as it has been suggested, from some gentleman whose counterfeit presentment as produced by the camera is not flattering, does find vent; but on the whole, the press as well as the public, estimate the art with tolerable fairness. A notice of British Photography in the Exhibition which recently appeared in the Times, and which we reprint in another column, is for the most part appreciative and satisfactory. There are, it is true, a few errors of omission and commission. Some names are not mentioned which are deserving of high praise, and there are a few blunders: but these are not serious. We have, for instance, the touched specimens of Mr. Mayall, which are so worked up in neutral tint, as to leave scarce any trace of the photograph, set before photographers as standards of excellence to which they should endeavou to attain. Doubtless this class of work answers Mr. Mayall’s purpose, and we have nothing to say against it, except that it is not photography, and that Mr. Mayall does not, in exhibiting it, do justice to the really excellent photographs which arc thus obliterated in the process of retouching; but we must, Nevertheless, protest against pictures which are covered up with pigment, however skilfully applied, being held as models of perfect photography. We have next a some what amusing blunder, in which the excellence of the ad mirable untouched portraits of Williams is regarded as due *o his " exquisite method of printing.” The printing is, •loubtless, exquisite, but without the equally exquisite negatives; it would serve but little purpose. There are in the article one or two other technical errors, but it will, nevertheless, be read with interest and satisfaction. The Athenceum, which has generally been distinguished by its intelligent criticism on photography, is, in a recent notice of the British department at the Exhibition, less than lisually appreciative, and, except where it is unjust, more than sually uninteresting and commonplace. The notice pre- Bents some such extraordinary specimens of bad writing, that it is a charity to suppose that the matter had been listed to some incompetent subordinate during his chiefs Auitumnal holiday. Here is a sample in which ill-nature Mr. H. P. Robinson illustrates, more completely, perhaps, lhan anything else can do, the fallacy of expecting a mental operation, such as the results of pictorial art are, from a Ghemical process. In this case the operator has placed some models (children and others), according to a pictorial arrange- "ent, in the hopes (sic) of making a picture. His “ Holiday m the Wood” (131), and others hero, with their set of por- STsitures, stiffness, and fixed smiles on the models’ faces, are tlserably depressing to the spectator. This failure of inten- gon is the more observable, seeing that the operator has taken foot pains to obtain a contrary result. Of course the critic has a right to his opinion on the object; but we might desire some consistency in that tpinion. Now in the same journal, some time ago, we find 0 same photograph described as “ most successful and effective,” and as possessing a “ sunniness beyond the reach of art.” However, let that.pass: and let us ask what the critic means by telling us, that “ the results of pictorial art are a mental operation?” We fear the mental operation of which this criticism is the result, was not of a character so exalted as it was ill-natured. The bad English and bad humour are “ depressing ” enough, and the writer should remember, that a stereotyped sneer may be more offensive than even a fixed smile in a model. Mr. Robinson may take heart of grace, however ; his work is not entirely bad : Here is another remark in the same article :— Mr. H. P. Robinson’s “ Album Photographs ” show exquisite taste in toning, and choice of theme. Mr. Robinson received the only medal awarded for card pictures. How satisfied he must feel to think that it was due to his “ exquisite taste in toning I ” The article presents some other choice specimens of lucidity in style; for instance:— The Earl of Caithness’s Snow Scenes (100) are fine and broad in choice of effect, clear and well toned. Now, what is a “ broad choice ?" Breadth of effect we can understand, but a broad “ choice of effect ” puzzles us. A paragraph in a more recent number of the same journal treats Mr. Rejlander with about the same amount of consi deration as the above sentences treat Mr. Robinson, as though two of the most artistic members of the photographic guild were selected for especial slight. There is, moreover, an in sufferable air of patronage and knowingness which is very offensive. Here is the paragraph :— Mr. 0. G. Rejlander is a good manipulator, and wo have some times found ourselves able to praise his photographs; but ho must be told, in very plain words, that the English public will not tolerate his tricks. He must not try to pass, as portraits of Garibaldi, studies from an artist’s model, paid for playing the hero of Marsala at fifteen ponce an hour. The ” Vision of Aspromonte ” now in the shop-windows, is a nuisance. The woman is not an Italian. The man is not Garibaldi. The drapery is indecent, and the composition is bad in taste. To speak of Rejlander simply as a “ good manipulator,” is to credit him with skill in one of the very smallest de partments of the art, whilst his real excellence is displayed entirely in its highest and most artistic branches. Besides, there is no attempt to pass off the picture as a portrait of Garibaldi; nor is Mr. Rejlander, who, in the allegorical sketch alluded to, personates the hero, an artist’s model at fifteen pence an hour. We were not aware that the figure representing “ Hope ” required to be an Italian, nor that there was anything indecent in drapery which loosely, and in ample folds, covers the figure from head to foot. There may be differences of opinion about the taste of the compo sition, but there can be none as to the bad taste and unne cessary snarling of the criticism. We are glad to be able before closing to cull from the Athenceum’s notice one paragraph we can agree with. It is as follows:— The folly of touching upon photographs was never more strik ingly shown than in Mr. J. fa. Mayall’s Portraits (152), most of which, originally excellent, have been fairly spoilt by handling, that, however careful, is never an improvement to such things, —a fact it requires but a moment’s consideration of the nature of a photograph to make palpable to the observer. A bad pho tograph is not worth keeping, and a good one is infinitely be yond the power of manipulating to improve. This remark is worth saying, and is well said.
