Volltext Seite (XML)
September 4, 1891.] such crude sensation be apprehended by the mind—will now act somewhat similarly in reducing the violent photo graphic perspective which, save for the effect of plane projection, would resemble such crude perception very closely. But this will not help us much when, instead of looking at the object, we look at its photograph; for such a sense of reality as we justly have when observing nature itself, is greatly wanting when viewing only its pictorial image. The larger the photograph, however, and the more accurate its details, the better is our sense of reality, for then we find more material for our inferences. But binocular vision, which aids this sense of reality in nature by continually suggesting a stereoscopic solidity, not only fails us with the photograph, but acts most energetically by forcing on us the fact that it is merely a plane surface we are looking at, not the depth and solidity of nature. Therefore we are now really helped by shutting one eye that we may fall under the illusion of perspective ; and if, at the same time, we can adjust our monocular point of view to the true point of sight— the place of the lens which formed the image—a more pleasing perspective will commonly result, despite the forced and artificial mode of observation. Since the above was written, I have seen Dr. Emerson’s reply to my “Remarks.” I will now only say that Dr. Emerson evidently did not notice that the completion of the sentence which he partially quotes—‘ ‘ that (distance) can never be apprehended as simple sensation in the way that differences of colour, brightness, §-c., are apprehended"— shows that on the question of physiological or psycho logical theories of our sense or perception of contrast, I have followed Hering rather than Helmholtz. I under stand him to admit the ignoring of what is—in England, certainly—a well-accepted theory, on the ground that he prefers the accepted theory of the sensationalists, though, at the same time, he attributes my apparent ignoring of their theory to innocence of their literature. I dare say Dr. Emerson has drunk deeper of their waters than I— individual preferences will influence our choice of reading. I wish also to seize this opportunity of saying at once, concerning the sentence which I said seemed “ very like confusion of thought, ” that it has since occurred tome that it meant simply that photographic or camera-obscura measurements may prove fallacious to an artist, because not necessarily according with his visual perception. In that case I entirely agree. It is several years since I ever thought their identity could be relied on, and for that reason probably such a meaning did not at once occur to me. The only difference between the professional and amateur, according to the Flicgendc Flatter, is that “ an amateur photo graphs people as they arc, a professional as they would like to be.” GUARD Against Light.—It can never be too urgently insisted that the greatest care should be taken in the dark room as to the light and the exposure of plates thereto. It is not, how ever, so much the quality of the light, but as to quantity, and its proximity or otherwise to the plate. It is infinitely easier to work with a fairly light yellow or ruby screen, and keep your plate and developing dish at a distance from it, than to have a very dark screen, and have to hold your dish close to and strain your eyes to gauge progress. In every instance where the negative is to be held to the light, it should first be well rinsed so that none of the developer remains on the plate ■during examination.—Photographic Scraps, ILLUSTRATION OF POEMS BY PHOTOGRAPHY.* BY MISS CATHARINE WEED BARNES. Delegates to political conventions are often said to be “ instructed,” and so I conceive myself to have been in receiving a notification that my paper for this Convention need not be long, and should be instructive. I shall endeavour to carry out these instructions. Let me put myself on record, to begin with, as decidedly and understandingly taking ground that the words “ art ” and “ artistic ” are no longer the private property of painters and sculptors. After several years’ training in painters studios I have largely laid aside the brush for the lens, and in so doing it appeared to me as if I was only stepping from one room into another, working with different tools and under different conditions, but imbued with the same reverence for art, and feeling the same inspiration. It is an undeniable fact that painters and photographers are apt to put on very defective glasses in judging each others’ work, and a course of mental optics would benefit both in correcting far more serious aberra tions than any to be met with in a photographic lens. Where one’s attention is almost entirely given to portrait ure, pure and simple, much of what might be called art in photography is not required, and would not be appreciated ; but photographers justify the reproach that theirs is machine work when they allow themselves to sink into such a deep groove as only to see along the narrow path before them, while experience in painters’ studios ought to liberalise one’s judgment of a picture, whether made by brush or lens. There is often, however, great bigotry in much so-called liberality, and it needs a steady hand to hold an even balance in judging camera work now that it is worthily claiming a higher place in the judgment of the world than any heretofore given it. Neither the scientific nor artistic qualities should be exalted beyond their proper places. The lens has limits, and it is not a brush ; yet, when those limits are fully understood, it will be seen that they embrace wonderful possibilities of their own. But as always, when one departs from the beaten track, this means hard work, a great deal of trouble, endless patience, severe art training, and a thorough understanding of what is meant by illustrating. I conceive this last to be a pic torial translation of an author’s meaning, and that any- thng and everything which will tend to elucidate that meaning is justifiable. This remark is intended, as will be seen, to cover a wide field. The faintest conception of the true art spirit ought to keep one from making his pictures the stilted, ordinary, not-to-be-mistaken photo graphs. Push photographic limits as far as possible, refusing to be bound by the traditions of the portrait studio, and cutting loose from whatever can suggest it. Start with the intention to have all your accessories what they claim to be and where it is obligatory to use imita tions, have them as perfect as can be made. Do not adopt the penny wise and pound foolish policy, or think it always needful to go to great expense in the studio, for a little ingenuity often goes a long way in devising useful contrivances. In many cases where I have been credited with expensive appliances the same have been made with my own hands,and, where unable to actually make the desired articles, I have designed them after long and careful thought. It is well to settle in one’s mind, before taking up illustrative work, whether the object or the manner of realising it is the main point to be considered. If the latter, then, like the Irishman, stop before you * Bead at the Buffalo Convention.