Volltext Seite (XML)
the photographic NEWS. Vol. XXXV. No. 1700.—April 3, 1891. CONTENTS. PAGE Quite Another Thing. By II. P. Robinson • 257 The Camera Club Conference 259 The Portraiture of the Stars. By James Mew 259 The Present State of the Photographic Profession. By J. Vincent El-den 262 Bromide Paper and Enlargements. By Charles Hufell 263 On Enamelling Photographs. By H. C. 11. Harley 263 The Permanency of Photographs. By Fr. Wilde 265 The Photographic Scheme of the Bodleian Library. By Julius F. Sachse 268 PAG Notes * 266 Report of Progress in Spectrum Work. By Professor Henry A. Rowland 269 Hydroquinone versus Eikonogcn 270 Stereoscopic Photography. By Edward D. Ledyard 271 Patent Intelligence 272 Correspondence.—The New Rapid Iron Process—The Storm in the Naturalistic Crater 273 Proceedings of Societies 274 Answers to Correspondents 276 QUITE ANOTHER THING. Concerning Some Photographic Societies. BY H. P. ROBINSON. This is an age of progress, as I think has been often observed of other matters than those which are photo graphic. We ferment in photography, but I am not sure that we move as fast as we ought to do; indeed, I am equally uncertain whether some of us know exactly what photography is, or, like the Prince in Tennyson’s “Medley,” “know the shadow from the substance.” Some mistakenly think our art is a pure science; others look upon it as a substitute for drawing in sepia; some rightly say it is a mechanical process ; others, also rightly, graciously admit that it is a fine art; while the vast majority take it as an amusement pure and simple. It is a Protean affair altogether; but, whatever it is, unquestionably it is not a chemical industry, nor an optical problem. It has become a great industry, if not a great art. If we have not been brilliant artistically in the past, we may become so in the future. There are some signs of an awakening. We have had fifty years of talk, and at least two of them at high pressure ; we have achieved our jubilee; the tributary chemical and mechanical arts have done their duty in supplying us with inven tions, perhaps greatly beyond our need; the Camera Club has gone into new premises; the Photographic Society of Great Britain has taken an attic all to itself, and there is some talk of confederation ; besides which, the Institute is looming in the future. These accom plished and coming changes may cause the thoughtful to pause and consider if it is for the advantage of the art to continue on the old lines, or to attempt a new departure. As a contribution to the consideration, the following revolutionary suggestions are offered, not, however, without apology to those who prefer keeping to the old ruts, and to follow the old traditions. We have, I believe, something like two hundred photographic societies in the United Kingdom, and on the Continent and in America they are increasing like ■—like rabbits. Is it not time that some of these societies became associations of photographers ? “So they are,” will be the almost universal reply, but in many cases it will be quite untrue. This proposition is not difficult of proof. As I understand, the plain meaning of the term a photographer is, one who photographs; who uses photographic materials either for making pictures, mapping the stars, taking the portraits of Mr. Pringle’s little friends the microbes, or for lending a hand to almost every industry, and assisting every art. The application makes the photo grapher. In the smaller societies attention is certainly often called to the question how to do it; but it is a curious fact that the more important the society, the less is thought of application and the more of theory, the manufacture instead of the use of materials, until we get to the universally acknowledged head of all societies, the Photographic Society of Great Britain, when we seem to soar into the calm regions of undiluted science, uncomprehended by and useless to the real photographer, and, if one may judge by the last report of the Council as it was first presented to the annual meeting, very little else but pure science is wanted. The report, graciously patronising the art of photo graphy, said : “ Although the meetings of this Society should be devoted to the scientific rather than the artistic side of our subject, an occasional paper on practical picture-making would be welcomed.” This, it is true, was altered by the meeting, but it shows how the wind blows, and is scarcely encouraging to those who would be of practical use. Now, what should we think of painters if they associated together, as they often do, under the name of sketching clubs, if they did nothing at their meetings but talk over the manufacture of their pigments, brushes, easels, and whatnot? Would they not rather deserve the name of artists’ colourmen than artists? And why should those connected with photography mistake the materials for the art ? I do not deny that the Royal Academy keeps a professor of chemistry, as it also does a chaplain, but it is carefully provided that he does not profess too much and swamp the art. The usual subjects discussed at the Photographic Society bear about as much relation to photography as colour-making does to painting, type-founding and