Suche löschen...
The photographic news
- Bandzählung
- 35.1891
- Erscheinungsdatum
- 1891
- 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-id1780948042-189100009
- PURL
- http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id1780948042-18910000
- OAI-Identifier
- oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-1780948042-18910000
- Sammlungen
- Fotografie
- LDP: Historische Bestände der Hochschule für Grafik und Buchkunst Leipzig
- Strukturtyp
- Band
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
- Bandzählung
- No. 1687, January 2, 1891
- Digitalisat
- SLUB Dresden
- Strukturtyp
- Ausgabe
- Parlamentsperiode
- -
- Wahlperiode
- -
-
Zeitschrift
The photographic news
-
Band
Band 35.1891
-
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 1
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 17
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 37
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 57
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 77
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 97
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 117
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 137
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 157
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 177
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 197
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 217
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 237
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 257
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 277
- Ausgabe Ausgabe -
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 313
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 329
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 345
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 361
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 377
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 393
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 409
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 425
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 441
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 457
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 473
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 489
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 505
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 521
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 537
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 553
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 569
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 585
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 601
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 617
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 633
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 649
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 665
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 681
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 697
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 713
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 729
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 745
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 761
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 777
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 793
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 809
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 825
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 841
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 857
- Ausgabe Ausgabe 873
-
Band
Band 35.1891
-
- Titel
- The photographic news
- Autor
- Links
- Downloads
- Einzelseite als Bild herunterladen (JPG)
-
Volltext Seite (XML)
10 IMPRESSIONISM IN PHOTOGRAPHY.* BY GEORGE DAVISON. I see no reason, then, why photography should not be used to express our impressions of natural scenes as well as any other black and white method. (I have, of course, all along intended that colour should be kept out of any comparison. The want of colour places a method altogether upon an in ferior level.) Worked under the same conditions as the eye, or under conditions as nearly approximate as possible, nothing gives so truthful a record in drawing as photography, and no thing, in my opinion, when the proper means are used and the requisite knowledge is possessed by the photographer, gives so delicately correct a relation of tones. It is to the proper use of the proper means at their disposal that photographers still need stimulating. The most important of these means are such as are directed to securing the proper light effect and relations of light values, an 1 those which give the focussing and relative interests of the subject. In photography, the subject of focus has altogether overshadowed the more important matter of tone, for no one, except Captain Abney, has given this latter any scientific attention. It is impossible now to go into the subject of means and methods, but it is worth while noting that some of the simplest facts of light are overlooked by photographers, who have been governed by untrue and misleading conventions and dogmas concerning gradation and brilliancy. For instance, the necessity for points of the deepest black is insisted on, in order to give scope for as long as possible a series of steps up to points of white, regardless of the fact that this black is generally much too black for the purpose in hand. A little experiment would show how light out-door shadows should be as a rule. For instance, the darkest shadow out of doors seen at a little distance is lighter than the shadow side of a ruhitc curtain in a room. Consequently, it is of first-rate importance in landscape pictures to keep the shadows light. To repeat the impression of out-door light the whole picture must be luminous, and not heavy and dark, as is the effect of the ordinary style of developing, and the use of albumenised silver paper. Further, the shadows when the sun shines are lighter than when he is obscured. Or, again, there is the elementary observation that many objects seen against the blue sky come light on dark. The photographer has been so accustomed to obtaining a blank white sky on a blue day in his prints that he arrives at a conviction that this is correct. So much so, indeed, that it is related in the journals that the early photographers prided themselves upon their beautiful white skies, and would have no others. In regard to focussing, again, there are, similarly, misleading conventions which prevent the free and general use of the full powers of photography. We still hear repeated the doctrine that minute definition is the distinctive quality of photography, and that, therefore, this should be made the most of in artistic work. Even if it were, it would be sufficient answer to this that such definition is not the distinctive characteristic of seeing. But definition is no more the distinguishing feature of photo graphy than is exaggerated perspective, or, indeed, want of definition that is diffusion or softness. This depends upon the instruments used. We are told that in any broad treatment by focus we are imitating the natural characteristics of a certain school of painting. It might, with equal force or no force, be alleged that those in favour of minute definition are, in their sharpest tendencies, apeing the characteristics of the old minia ture workers. Whether in painting or photography, it is purely a matter of the instrument used and the use made of it. In the one, either a fine point or a broad brush may be used. In the other, the optician’s idea (a scientific aspect) of perfection in a lens is surely not expected to sway those bent on giving sthetic pleasure. Everyone has seen that so-called mathemati cal accuracy is not necessarily artistic truth. Nothing but what observation or science can establish can be adopted as a principle by a naturalistic photographer. That the eye with one point of sight sees in different focus near and distant objects everyone admits ; within what limits and with what differentiation is not so clear. If mere observation and feeling * Concluded from page 1010, vol. xxxiv. are of any weight, I should say that in some subjects the rela tive interests are given best with considerable differentiation, and in others the effect on the mind is best gained by general diffusion. I am aware that this is somewhat opposed to the very forcible argument in favour of one point of sight for focus as for perspective in any picture ; but in many instances the difference of effect in the two treatments does not appear im portant, and is by no means easy to distinguish, even by expert observers. A not unimportant consideration, bearing in some measure both upon the matter of values and definition, is the printing medium employed. I find, in the newest extra lough-surfaced papers, very excellent and distinctive qualities, in respect, particularly, of breadth and luminousness. Some extraordinary objections have been taken to the results on these papers as not being photography because they bear resemblance to wash drawings ; and one gentleman finds in this, and the character of diffraction photographs, an opening of the door to any and every kind of brush-work upon the print. But the answer is, first, that there is no aim to get wash-drawing appearance ; and secondly, all the process is pure photography. Both the photographer and the painter have the same aim, and it is not surprising if printing upon the same papers produce similar results, for photographic deposit more resembles painted sur faces than any other method. Both work in tones, or shades of monochrome, and both may be worked upon any medium which promises to give more truly and more effectively our impressions of nature. It is certainly very refreshing in its audacity to be told that, because photographers have consented to smirch the fair name of their art by the general use of albumenised paper and small stops, therefore this is to be its character for ever. In some respects the use of these rough papers, which are only now likely to become general for artistic work, constitute one of the greatest advances yet made. It need hardly be said that rough paper will not make a bad picture good or great, but it will do this : It will make all the difference to the majority of educated spectators between interested observation and contempt. It is difficult to over estimate the importance of the printing medium, as far as the credit of artistic photography with the critical public is con cerned. There is almost as great a superiority for most subjects in the new platinotype paper over the ordinary platinum surfaces, as there is between these latter and silver printing. This quality of the printing has more effect upon the casual tasteful observer than any other quality of the production. The defective printing medium has obscured the qualities of photography. The effect of prints upon such papers as I allude to at once shakes the superstition of honest critics, who have hated photography for its hardness, vulgarity, and untruth. These extra rough surfaces I consider the best printing medium that has been introduced, not excepting reproduction of the negative upon a copper-plate or photo-etching. Unfortunately, the difficulties in the way of quick production must probably leave the field of commercial publication to the photo-etching process. This leads me to say a word in comparison of photography with other black and white processes. It is admitted to have very justly been the death of line engraving. We have heard much about the interpretation of a painting by the engraver in black and white ; but both painter and public who wish to see retained the original quality of the work must prefer a photo gravure to the hard, formal, and unnatural character of the line engraving. Photography has pre-eminently more of paint ing qualities than any other monochrome process. Take etching, for example. Which is the better adapted for reproducing natural effect, photography or etching by line ? Mr. P. G. Hamerton, in his standard work, "" Etching and Etchers,” compares etching with other arts, and finds the superiority of etching in its power to express form, and in its freedom, preci sion, and power. He admits that “ perfect tonality is very difficult in etching,” and that other arts are better in the representation of clouds. He recognises that the brush is better than the point, because lines do not exist in nature ; but he contends that painting is not quite so well adapted to the expression of transient thoughts. How does etching com-
- Aktuelle Seite (TXT)
- METS Datei (XML)
- IIIF Manifest (JSON)