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. 1730, October 30, 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)
this is just what critical observers, accustomed to the true face or figure, know it not to be. Fortunately, an increased distance from the sitter practically corrects all faults of this kind so rapidly, that I believe the most critical artist does not recommend in general more than fifteen feet or so for moderate sized portraits, less sufficing for heads only. But how many are taken from less than half that distance? Perhaps I may, to many readers—accustomed either to uncritical judges, whose perceptions of true form are blunt and inaccurate ; or to others, who, while con scious of something not right (they know not what) set provided, helping us to retain that constant sense of true form so necessary for recognition, as well as for our appre ciation and feeling for harmonious beauty, which sense of true form might otherwise be hardly able to sustain itself against the continually changing and distorting variations of apparent forms, as the close proximities of ordinary life necessarily present them to crude sensation. On the other hand, when we look only at the photo graph, our perceptions not being corrected by so full a sense of reality, or so favourably modified by running the eye over it (the figure, being so small, is embraced by the eye almost at once), it is seen pretty simply as the lens has depicted it; that is, with each different part or feature presented on different scales, corresponding precisely to their different distances from the eye. And, of course, mechanical perfection of our means are such that, for a really good photograph of still life, our attention need never be diverted from study of artistic effect in lighting or composition, and we need sacrifice nothing but a little time in the exposure, to combine with such qualities as artists appreciate, and which satisfy inattentive or dim-sighted observers, that delicate optical definition also, a full appre ciation of which rewards the attentive observation of a sharper vision. It is all very well for some artists to de precate a close survey by saying that a picture is not intended to be smelt. Most certainly not! That, at least, is abundantly evident, sometimes to more senses than one. But photography is a different thing, because we can, as the artist cannot, easily so produce our pictures as that their details may reward the keenest sight, and yet a har monious general effect equally gratify an observer at the proper distance. I would, therefore, invert the common Thus, while a longer exposure can compensate us for ’want of light, the clearance from surrounding haze of error produces even more improvement in the distinctness of definition. Some things, indeed, there are which men have expected from small stops in which they will certainly be disappointed. They will never make up for careless focussing. They will not make a “ rapid rectilinear ” lens cover like a wide- angle lens of equal quality and similar focus. They will not cure any kind of distortion. Their value is perhaps greatest with so-called non-aplanatic lenses, in which central distinctness with a large stop has been to some ex tent judiciously sacrificed to obtain better marginal defini tion with a flatter field; and when used in taking subjects with which an even delicacy of accurate definition is most likely to be appreciated. But a full appreciation of that delicate accuracy of photographic definition which cannot, without a small stop, be generally distributed among various planes—so answering to the ciliary accommodation of natural vision; or over a considerable angle of view, corresponding again with the natural perceptive process of distinct and successive vision on the “ fovea ”—varies very much with different people. The painter, whose longing is for ideal beauty and for the effective presentation of his own conceptions, does not realise the almost universal consent with which the general public, who desire rather to recall associations than to obtain original ideas, prefer such detail, even when irrelevant in itself, as seems to carry with it the stamp and proof of reaUty, trusting, pro bably, to their own memories or imaginations for the neces sary ideal element; and he very naturally pooh-poohs the minute delicacy of definition which the very nature of his means precludes him from obtaining with due subordina tion, for which, perhaps, his own particular public care less, and which, therefore, the judicious artist does not care to spend time in attempting, although he has fre quently, for want of it, to substitute a conventional imita tion for the natural texture a good photograph can render. Then there is the inattentive observer, and the observer whose eyesight has begun to fail him. But the nature and separate in our theory those cases in which contingent or certain movement may or must injure the result, or, as sometimes in portraits, a tired expression supervene ; also cases where a passing phase of incident or of lighting needs to be secured—including, of course, the whole body of “ shots,” or instantaneous pictures. In all such cases the choice between inaccurate definition and insufficient ex posure on the one hand, and the possibly injurious effect of movement or the inconvenience of a long exposure on the other, must be left to the worker’s own judgment as to each individual case. For portraits, the intelligent attention of photographers is already so well directed to the subject that only one case appears to me to call for remark. It is that of those who, feeling sure that it is right to keep well away from their sitter by using a long- focus lens, even for heads when wanted on a large scale, may yet be deterred, fearing such want of depth as would compel a smaller stop—slower than desirable. They have been told that longer focus lenses have far less depth, and may not be aware how fully a greater distance from the sitter compensates this. The correct rule really is that, with the same scale of image and the same intensity of lens, the depth of focus is also precisely the same, whatever be the focal length used; and the sound and important reason why we should never photograph, even a face, from a very near standpoint, can scarcely be repeated too often. It is not merely that a longer focus lens covers better—though this is important too—but it is to prevent the face or figure from being, as artists call it, “outof drawing.” For when we look at any person from a very close standpoint, we see the figure far more as we know it to be, than as corresponding exactly to the varying distances of its different parts from the eye, this truer perception of the figure as it really is being greatly aided by our natural habit of running the eye over the whole near figure as it looms, irregularly large, on our sight, so giving time and opportunity for actual memory, or for preconceived ideas, to modify our sensations as they are ■ mentally interpreted, and so form themselves into a perception of the whole. It is a means beneficently way of putting the case, and for the question, how large a stop can I use? I would ask instead, how small a stop have I time and convenience to use? Thus fully to recognise delicate accuracy of definition over the whole picture as a good thing in itself, and worthy to be sought for its own sake. But, as the time required by a smaller stop increases very fast—at least, as fast as the area of the stop (that is, of course, as the square of its diameter)—we ought to
- Aktuelle Seite (TXT)
- METS Datei (XML)
- IIIF Manifest (JSON)