Volltext Seite (XML)
APRIL 30, 1880.] THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 205 Ue Potographic Zlcs, &pril 30, 1880. PHOTOGRAPHY IN AND OUT OF THE STUDIO. Photography and Fashion—Photographic Societies and their Advantages—The Diaphote. Photography and Fashion -Despite what purists may say to the contrary, pnotography owes not a little to what has been termed the “frivolity of fashion.’’ We do not suppose that the possession of a new suit of clothes has ever induced a man to go and have his photograph taken ; but we are by no means sure that a new dress does not often have some influence of this kind on the fairer half of creation. The most aggravating part of the matter, however, to photographers, is that fashion is not always artistic, and when the new dress is reproduced as a pic ture, it is sometimes found not quite so pleasing as it seemed to be. In these cases sitters generally contrive to find some fault with the expression, or pose, and only show the real reason of their discontent when they appear for a resitting in a different dress. This, of course, is very annoying to the photographer, and he requires some tact and strength of mind to avoid offending his cus tomer on the one hand, and being made the victim of caprice on the other. Perhaps there has never been a greater call upon his intelligence in dealing with matters of dress than at the present time, now that costume balls are so much the rage, and when every one who puts on masquerading attire deems it necessary to perpetuate, by means of photography, his or her counterfeit presentment thus disguised. From one point of view nothing can be more laudable, and the more photography is patronized the better for the commercial success of the art. But when you have a gentleman made up as a bold buccaneer, and with a face as mild as a sucking dove; a cavalier of the time of Louis Quatorze with silk stockinged calves like spindle shanks ; a Spanish Don, upon whose recreant limbs the unaccustomed garb seems to hang as on a lay figure; the unfortunate photographer is put to his wits’ end to enforce dignity with his sitters, and to deal with them with some appropriateness of pose and surroundings. The fantastic dresses and violent contrasts of colours fancied by the lady-masqueraders are also severe tests, and must make a man of taste grind his teeth when he finds, with all his skill, he can only produce grotesque patches of black-and-white, which will persist in coming in the wrong place for artistic effect. We lately saw the photograph of a lady who had chosen to go to a fancy hall representing the game of “ Nap.” The dress was of white, and decorated with playing cards strung together, and bright pennies sewn on here and here. Here were materials to be dealt with of the most outre character, and we are bound in truth to say the photographer had not triumphed over the difficulties. The wide range of cos tumes also necessitates a greater variety of background than is required in ordinary use ; but this, of course, is a matter easily arranged if a man can paint his own. We see, how ever, no reason why photographing human nature in fancy costumes should be discouraged, but rather the reverse. Photographs are not so much a part of domestic life as they were in the days of the carte mania, and any thing which can give a spurt to the art ought to be gladly welcomed. With dry plates, and with the Luxograph light—we should like to say the electric light, but this is still in the future, so far as a convenient and portable means of producing it is concerned—it is not a difficult matter to photograph persons at their own homes. It may so happen that ere long it will be as common a thing for a lady, before she goes to a ball, a garden party, oris presented at Court, to send for the photographer, as it is now for her to send for her hairdresser. Had photo graphy been known in the days of Sheridan, most assuredly he would have introduced in his “Trip to Scar borough,” a photographer in company with the tailor, shoemaker, jeweller, hosier, sempstress, and perruquier, to whom Lord Foppington devotes the business of bis life. Photographic Societies and their Advantages.—It may appear to some that we have taken a low and degrading view of the photographic profession in the above remarks. We have no intention of so doing. In being linked with the foibles of fashion, photography suffers no degradation, and it simply depends upon the photographer himself whether he maintains his dignity or not. There are not a few men who look upon photography in a commercial aspect only, and with a view to making money. Their sole energy is devoted to finding out the best mode of taking the greatest number of sitters per day, and of turning out proofs with the least expenditure of money possible compatible with durability. The class of photographers to whom we allude are shrewd businesslike men, who know the value of good assistants, and, therefore, pay them well, and who also know that the secret of a successful photographic business is to produce what the public like, and who prefer following the public taste, to leading it. We are not going to say they are wrong, but what we do say is that many of these purely commercial photographers affect a contempt for photo graphic societies and their members which is not only absurd, but unjust. “ Why do you not belong to a photo graphic society ? ” we said the other day to one of this class, a man of good manipulative skill and unbounded in dustry, so far as dealing with the public is concerned. “Well,” said he, “I don’t see the use. It seems to me only a waste of time for a man in business to go to these societies just to hear other people talk. Besides,” and this seemed to be his strong point, “you don’t find the men who have made money in the profession at these societies. You never see their names as speaking at the meetings. Depend upon it, those who talk are not always the best nor the most successful workers.” We leave it to our readers to say whether this dictum really represents the truth. Even were it the case—which we most certainly deny—the question of success or non-success pecuniarily has nothing to do with the value of a discovery or an im provement in manipulation. The individual in question, for the same illogical reason which led him to despise societies, also affected a contempt for photographic litera ture. “ My own practice ” appeared to be the beginning and end of his ideas, and he regarded his “ clean,” sharp, highly enamelled commercial productions as the highest aim to which a photographer could attain. The public liked his work, paid their money with alacrity, and he, on his side, manipulated them like machines. He was thriv ing, he had a good balance at his banker’s, and why should he trouble either about photographic societies or photo graphic journals ? These were his opinions. How would it be if every photographer held similar ones ? Nothing, we maintain, has done so much to maintain a high tone among photographers as the various photographic socie ties. Their value, so far as a stimulus to research and ex periment, and an opportunity of making known the results, are concerned, goes without saying, while the mere meeting together of men working in the same direction often pro duces benefits which are none the less to be esteemed, because at first sight they may not be apparent. The pleasant desultory chat which follows the more formal business of the evening, every man who attends knows full well, is frequently of as much use to him as the discussions arising from the papers read; but this benefit, of course, does not reach the man who only reads the reports of the meetings. It is as much a mistake to suppose that art, science, and business capacity cannot be united in the same person, as it is to imagine that photographers who are successful commercially cannot learn much by becoming members of a photographic society. The Diaphote.—There is literally nothing new under the sun. Some few weeks back we noticed in these pages the