Volltext Seite (XML)
538 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [July 31, 1891. papers. This is undoubtedly the case, and the most popular picture ever published in this way—Millais’ “Cherry-ripe”—is hung in many a room. But still, there is the feeling, common to us all, that a picture which so many people have a chance of acquiring is not quite so desirable as one which is a little more rare. The German travelling pedlar carries a large variety of works with him, and one dweller in a village will take care that he does not buy the duplicate of a picture already purchased by a neighbour. We may also suppose that the polished frame, with its gilt edge, has something to do in tempting the purchaser. In pitting photography against these cheap litho graphs, we have in mind the number of exquisite pic tures annually exhibited at the different exhibitions, the ready means by which such pictures can be en larged, and the number of processes available for reproducing them. A good photograph of an attractive subject, enlarged if need be, reproduced by the Meisenbach method, and carefully printed, is far finer than anything that lithography can do, and we believe that in quantities it could be produced quite as cheaply. Collotype pictures could be turned out at a slight in crease of cost, and would probably meet with a large sale. Higher priced pictures might owe their exis tence to Woodburytype, and carbon and photogravure would still meet—as they do now—with a fair share of patronage from the more wealthy. Of course such a business cannot be started without effort and energy, for the people will not come to buy; they must be sought out. When once they are able to compare the German monstrosities with the photographs, and receive a guarantee that the latter will not fade, we feel cer tain that they will not hesitate to avail themselves of the better and newer form of art. We think that there is money in the idea, and manufacturers would do well to give it their consideration. We are quite aware that in these hard times the producer’s first question must be, “ Will it pay ? ” but in the case before us he cannot fail to feel a certain satisfaction in knowing that he is influencing for good the popular taste, and inculcating among our least educated classes a desire for something a great deal better than they have been accustomed to. Better ideas of this nature lead to more noble aspirations in other matters, and such feelings are much wanted in England just now, notwithstanding the boasted march of civilisation. Brighton PHOTOGRAPHIC Society.—Mr. A. H. C. Corder, the hon. secretary, asks us to notify his removal from 42, Montpe lier Road, to 77, Buckingham Road, Brighton. Iodides in the Developer.—Herr Lainer, of the Vienna Institute of Photography, has been examining the action of iodine and iodides in hydroquinone, eikonogen, and pyro developers, and has found that their action is precisely the opposite to that of bromides ; the latter, as is well known, tending to the increase of contrast, whereas iodine and iodides tend to produce reduction of contrast, and, if used in excess, to very flat negatives. A 1 per cent, solution of iodine in equal parts of alcohol and water is recommended, and the addition of 2 or 3 drops of such tincture to every ounce of developer has a striking effect, REMARKS ON DR. EMERSON’S “NOTES ON PERSPECTIVE DRAWING AND VISION.” BY W. II. WHEELER. Dr. Emerson’s paper, entitled “Notes on Perspective Drawing and Vision,” followed so closely on that in which I had endeavoured to direct attention to the mental theory of visual perception as capable of explaining apparent anomalies in photographic perspective, that some remarks might naturally be looked for on my part. As it happened, I did not see it for some weeks, and being disappointed, for the present, in my hope of finding leisure to continue the development of my own views, I would ask of you space to say that, though welcoming Dr. Emerson’s testi mony as to the general fact of such discrepancies—which must ever exist, our judgments being continually warped and modified by causes varying momentarily and indi vidually, though some are pretty constant and general—I cannot at all agree with him as to their cause and character. Indeed, I find so much at the outset of what seems to me very like confusion of thought,* and of the ignoring of well accepted theory, both mental and physical, that I can only now comment on these points. Dr. Emerson tells us, in Proposition A, that “that portion of the eye which perceives distance and distant objects (i.e., those above the ground) sees the objects on a larger scale than the portion of the eye which views the foreground or nearer objects, therefore our impression of nature is not what we get with a mathematically correct perspective drawing, or the drawing of an aplanatic photo graphic lens. (To say a rectilinear doublet lens would be more accurate—aplanatism has nothing to do with the matter.) That is, a perspective drawing surprises us by making the foreground objects look larger in proportion to the distance ”—than what ? Presuming Dr. Emerson’s meaning to be “ than agrees with our ordinary percep tion,” there is, I think, no doubt about the truth of this last sentence, and a most important truth it is. But the earlier part of the proposition contains implied assump tions which I look on as profound misconceptions, so greatly at variance with the accepted theories, both mental and physical, as to be well worth endeavouring to unravel. We see, first, that the accepted mental theory, according to which distance can never be directly seen as such — that is, it can never be apprehended as simple sensation in the way that differences of colour, brightness, &c., are apprehended, but must always be inferred through an act of judgment, interpreting the signs presented to us through sensation—is entirely ignored ; and distance, as well as distant objects, are mentioned as though both were actually seen, and that, indeed, by a portion only of the eye. Yet not only the comparatively subtle and complex inferences drawn from our knowledge of real or actual magnitudes, compared with our estimates of apparent magnitude, or from running the eye over a succession of intervening objects, or from atmospheric softening—by all which we may estimate considerable distances—are distinctly acts of judgment, but also the accommodative action of the ciliary muscles—the co-ordinated movements required in binocular vision to converge the axes of both eyes to the same spot; and all the parallactic effects of moving the head, or otherwise changing the point of view, * What can be meant by the sentence, “ and prove the fallacy of photo graphic and all mechanical methods of measurement ” ? Are actual or apparent magnitude referred to, or is it the difference existing between the two ?