Suche löschen...
The photographic news
- Bandzählung
- 13.1869
- Erscheinungsdatum
- 1869
- Sprache
- Englisch
- Signatur
- F 135
- Vorlage
- Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
- Digitalisat
- Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Lizenz-/Rechtehinweis
- Public Domain Mark 1.0
- URN
- urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id1780948042-186900000
- PURL
- http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18690000
- OAI-Identifier
- oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18690000
- Sammlungen
- Fotografie
- LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
- Bemerkung
- Heft 545 (S. 73-84), Heft 547 (S. 97-108), Heft 589 (S. 599-610) fehlen in der Vorlage. Paginierfehler: Auf Seite 444 folgt Seite 443
- Strukturtyp
- Band
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
- Bandzählung
- No. 539, January 1, 1869
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Strukturtyp
- Ausgabe
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
-
Zeitschrift
The photographic news
-
Band
Band 13.1869
-
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 1
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 13
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 25
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 37
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 49
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 61
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 85
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 109
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 121
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 133
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 145
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 157
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 169
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 181
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 193
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 205
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 217
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 229
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 241
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 253
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 265
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 277
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 289
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 301
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 313
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 325
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 337
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 349
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 361
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 373
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 385
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 397
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 409
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 421
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 433
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 443
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 455
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 467
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 479
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 491
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 503
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 515
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 527
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 539
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 551
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 563
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 575
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 587
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 611
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 623
- Register Index To Volume XIII 629
-
Band
Band 13.1869
-
- Titel
- The photographic news
- Autor
- Links
- Downloads
- Einzelseite als Bild herunterladen (JPG)
-
Volltext Seite (XML)
THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [JANUARY 1, 1869. photography, as a branch of the art, "has remained at a standstill,” is not only absurd, but it is simply untrue. It is in landscape more especially that almost’all the improvement in photography has been made during-the last ten years. Only four years ago, in the answer to correspondents in one of the papers devoted entirely to photo graphy, a statement was made that no lens then existed by which pictures of more than 70° angles could be made ; now there is no limit to the angle of view which can be obtained. Then, too, in the actual process of landscape work there have been great improvements during the last few years, so much so that to detail them would be tedious. The omission which your critic makes is also one of a very serious character. In his high praise of M. Salomon and his pictures, there is one most important feature of his works which has not received any notice: the “ re-touching ” upon the finished print by an ex perienced artist, on which, in very many cases, much of the beauty of his pictures depends. In some cases the whole of the face is so completely "touched up” that very little, if any, of the original photograph remains visible. This, though by no means always the case, is still so important a feature in the works of M. Salomon that it should never be lost sight of in any critical notice of his produc tions, as it is often not a little conducive to art excellence in photo graphic portraiture to be able to look upon the face as technically of but small importance at the moment of taking the picture, while the whole attention is being given to backgrounds, drapery, and so on, leaving the face, which is in reality of most importance, to the atten tion of the colourist or “ re-toucher.” This is by no means the usual plan with M. Salomon; but when retouching is a method ex tensively practised, it should, as I say, be always taken into consideration in a critical notice, especially when it is one of the causes out of many which conduce to a marked success.—I am, yours truly, A Photographer. [W have laid this communication before the writer of the note to which it refers, and he remarks upon it as follows.—S. U.] :— The angry tone adopted by “A Photographer” suggests the no tion that he is driven to follow the well-known legal precept for giving apparent strength to a weak case. Ho abuses me for my ignorance upon photographic matters. For my own part I care little for this ; but it is due to your readers that they should be infor med that they are not addressed by the ignoramus which “ Photographer,” to suit his purposes, supposes me to be. Permit me, then, to inform them, that I speak on photographic subjects with fifteen years’ ex perience as a basis for my opinions, and that I can claim acquaintance, in most cases from actual practice, with every known process and every description of apparatus. Every phase of photographic deve lopment which the period embraces is perfectly familiar to me. As a chronicler of scientific matters it lias been my duty to note carefully the applications and the modifications of the photographers’ art, and, as an occasional reviewer of photographic works, I am tolerably con versant with its literature. You, Mr. Urban, may have seen a specimen or two of my production, and you may be in a position to judge how far my friends are justified in preferring portraits of my amateur taking to those produced by many of the professed masters of the art. This is egotism; but the circumstances justify it. When I have asserted my claim to as great competency for judg ment as any ordinary critic can be expected to possess, I have said wellnigh all I care to say in reply to your ill-tempered correspondent. Much of what ho says is matter of opinion only. On some points he is very short-sighted, or else very biassed. He fancies I have con tradicted myself by declaring M. Salomon’s pictures to show the exercise of a mind, and by denying the possibility of a camera picture bearing the impress of a soul. I see a great gulf between the works of M. Salomon and those of an ideal picture maker. One simply portrays, the other tries to create. “Photographer” seems to think that the gulf may be bridged over; I hold such a thought a delusion. The best evidence of the impracticability of producing art photographs is, that of all the attempts that have been made in that direction, no one has exhibited the germ of success. Can any of the works of Lake Price, Rejlander, Cameron, or Robinson, be called suggestive ? Are any of them aught else than portraits t or combina tions of portraits, or patchworks of portraits and scenes ? In my opinion, not. Once I essayed a fancy picture. My model was a lady of artistic taste, and all accessories were carefully studied. But all was in vain; the best result was only the diminished reflection of a lady in costume, with a stagey expression, suggestive of nothing but an attempt to look a character. How different the result if I had asked my friend Scumblcr to sketch the figure standing before my camera, and to put a dash of his soul into it! But my failure pleased some people, for I sold the negative to a London publisher, and shortly after encountered its prints in the shop windows. I never tried again, however. The light-beams were not to be handled like the painter’s brush or the sculptor’s chisel; I could but copy, and copying models did not realise my idea of creating pictures. With regard to what “Photographer” calls my mis-statement eoneeming hindscape photography, I can only say that I see no reason to modify my opinion, nonsense or no nonsense. Nothing in the exhibition surpassed, to my remembrance, the works which the Le Grays, the Bissons, the Everards, and the Fentons exhibited years ago. As to panoramic photography, it is an improvement not yet consummated, notwithstanding its age, far greater than “Photo grapher,” with his presumptive experience, seems to be aware of; for Sutton in England, and Porro in France, made panoramic lenses, and took pictures with them, eight or nine years ago. And as to M. Salomon’s retouching, it did not concern my notice. I wrote for the public, who neither know nor care about means, but who look only at ends. If I had criticised in detail every picture or every exhibitor, you could not have given space to my remarks. Such a review might have suited a photographic journal; but even there I should have omitted reference to the Frenchman’s retouch ing, for it has been discussed ad nauseam. As the art-critic here remarks, much of the matter here discussed is matter of opinion, and, like the gold and silver shield, presents two sides, each equally important in an estimate of the whole truth. The main fallacy into which the critic fell was in the assumption that, because the photo graphic camera has no soul, the photographer’s work must necessarily lack the impress of a soul. He mistook the tool for the workman. As we before pointed out, his own observa tions on the work of Adam-Salomon showed that he did not believe in the fallacy to which he gave utterance. He now, however, takes higher ground : he makes a distinction between the photographer and the ideal picture-maker. “ One simply portrays, the other tries to create.” This is a distinction which the most staunch upholder of the art- claims of photography will readily admit, but in nowise disposes of the art-claims of photography. All art in paint ing is not creative art: much very excellent work is imitative art, but not the less fine art. The imitative artist in paint ing will give the impress of his mind to his work in his mode or manner of treatment; and in like manner, if not in like degree, will the photographer impress his mind. The critic asks if the works of the best pictorial photo graphers can “ be called suggestive.” To which we reply, that many of Rej lander’s and Robinson’s best works are eminently suggestive. Take Robinson’s first work of the kind, for instance, “ Fading Awaywe boldly challenge the verdict of Sylvanus Urban on the suggestiveness of this picture. But, putting this aside, we deny that suggestiveness is the touchstone of art. That it is a high quality in art cannot be doubted ; but we cannot admit that it is the sole touchstone of art qualities. Besides, it is too vague. Sug gestiveness requires a condition and capacity of mind in the obseiver, as well as certain qualities in the work of art itself. Peter Bell might have objected that a primrose was not sug gestive, because “ A primrose on the river’s brim, A yellow primrose was to him, And it was nothing more whilst to Wordsworth that primrose, or even the meanest flower that blows, suggested thoughts which “ lie too deep for tears.” Another dangerous but common form of fallacy is that involved in the statement that the critic once essayed a fancy photographic picture, and failed, and the argument deduced that, because his own first attempt failed, or failed to satisfy himself, the thing was impossible. That it should have done so was not unnatural, nor is the circumstance un common. In all art, realization—especially with beginners— often lags far behind conception ; and surely no legitimate argument against the art-claims of photography should be deduced because the first attempt of one gentleman to use it as a fine art fell short of perfect success. Photographers who strive with a loving earnestness to elevate their art naturally object to the haut en bas tone in which art critics are apt to indulge in dealing with sun pictures ; because the photographer has more difficulties to deal with in his pictorial aims, it is a little hard that his best results should be summarily dismissed from the cate gory of fine art, and that successes or failures should be treated alike, not as the produce of his brains, but as the work of his camera.
- Aktuelle Seite (TXT)
- METS Datei (XML)
- IIIF Manifest (JSON)