Chapter III: Part 3

The best way to mark stops is, for example, _f_/8 and _f_/16, as these expressions are universally understood, but some persons think that the relative rapidities or intensities are better, others prefer to express the relative exposure necessary, and every system of numbering on these plans has a unit which is merely empirical, not one of them adopting the only true or scientific unit of _f_/1.

Zeiss has recently changed his unit from _f_/100 to _f_/50. Dallmeyer marks some of his lenses now with the practical expression. The following table may be of service to those who happen to have lenses with their diaphragms marked on any of these empirical systems.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Royal | | | | |
| Photographic | | Paris | Zeiss | Zeiss |
_f_/ | Society. | Dallmeyer. | Congress.| (old). | (new). |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3.16 | | 1 | 1/10 | | |
3.2 | | | | 1024 | 256 |
4 | 1 | | | | |
5 | | 2.5 | 1/4 | | |
4.5 | | | | 512 | 128 |
5.66 | 2 | | | | |
6.3 | | 4 | 4/10 | 256 | 64 |
7.07 | | 5 | 1/2 | | |
8 | 4 | | | | |
8.66 | | 7.5 | 3/4 | | |
9 | | | | 128 | 32 |
10 | | 10 | 1 | | |
11.3 | 8 | | | | |
12.25 | | 15 | 1.5 | | |
12.5 | | | | 64 | 16 |
14.14 | | 20 | 2 | | |
15.81 | | 25 | 2.5 | | |
16 | 16 | | | | |
17.32 | | 30 | 3 | | |
18 | | | | 32 | 8 |
20 | | 40 | 4 | | |
22.36 | | 50 | 5 | | |
22.6 | 32 | | | | |
25 | | | | 16 | 4 |
27.36 | | 75 | 7.5 | | |
31.62 | | 100 | 10 | | |
32 | 64 | | | | |
36 | | | | 8 | 2 |
38.7 | | 150 | 15 | | |
44.72 | | 200 | 20 | | |
45.2 | 128 | | | | |
50 | | 250 | 25 | 4 | 1 |
54.77 | | 300 | 30 | | |
63.25 | | 400 | 40 | | |
64 | 256 | | | | |
70.71 | | 500 | 50 | | |
71 | | | | 2 | |
100 | | | | 1 | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------

_Image Angle._--The image angle represents what is called covering power. It may be expressed in terms of the focal length, and doubtless this is the best method, but it is not customary. It may be expressed as an angle, the angle formed when a line is drawn from each extremity of a line equal to the diameter of the circle covered, and caused to meet at a point distant from the base line equal to the focal length of the lens. The angle where the two lines meet is the image angle. But generally the covering power is expressed more roughly, as the ordinary size of the plate that sufficiently good definition can be obtained on.

_Tele-Photographic Lenses._--If a negative (or dispersing or concave) lens is introduced between the ordinary lens and the plate, the equivalent focal length of the arrangement is greater than that of the ordinary lens alone, but the length of camera necessary is not proportionately great. It is possible therefore to obtain an image of a size that would otherwise require a lens of long focal length and a corresponding and perhaps impossible length of camera. But this is not the only advantage, for if the ordinary lens and the negative lens are separable to a variable extent, the amount of magnification of the image, or increase in the equivalent focal length of the optical system, is adjustable at will. For further details concerning tele-photographic lenses and their use, reference should be made to Mr. Dallmeyer's pamphlet on the subject.

There are two other subjects connected with the production of images by photographic lenses that must be referred to, though neither of them is of great importance if we exclude the use of hand cameras (which are separately treated of) and bear in mind the ordinary practice of to-day. These are depth of definition and the distortion due to the use of single lenses.

_Depth of Definition._--It has already been shown that the action of the lens is to bring to a point in the image all the light that falls upon it from the corresponding point of the object. Now it is clear from fig. 2 that, if different parts of the object are at different distances from the lens, and this must be the case with solid objects, these different parts cannot be in focus at the same time. Still it is possible to get them so nearly in focus that the result is serviceable, and the ordinary method of doing this is to examine the image on the ground glass, and if the whole subject is not sharp enough, to reduce the size of the aperture. Depth of definition is increased by using a lens of shorter focal length or by reducing the aperture. If a large aperture has to be used, the focal length must be short if much depth of definition is wanted, or conversely, if the focal length must be long the aperture must be small. It follows that very rapid lenses that have a very long focus are of no use, for in portraiture, for example, this combination of properties would lead to the ear in the image being fuzzy if the eye was sharp.

If a lens were perfect and had a flat field, the depth of definition would depend only on the aperture and focal length. But if the lens gives inferior definition towards the edges of the field, it is quite obvious that there must be less depth of definition there, if a minimum of defining power is accepted. The definition at its best may be inferior to the minimum accepted and then obviously there is no depth. Depth of definition therefore at the centre of the plate depends entirely on the focal length and aperture, but away from the centre it depends also on the quality of the lens, and is much greater in a flat field anastigmat than in a lens of an older type. But depth of definition is not a quality apart, it depends entirely upon other factors, and it is better in examining a lens to determine these factors separately rather than to lump them together as depth.

_Distortion_ produced by single lenses is due to the fact that the diaphragm is either in front of or behind them. If the diaphragm is in front, the image is drawn towards the centre of the plate to an extent that increases as the margin of the field is approached. A line along one side of the plate has its ends drawn in to a greater amount than its centre, because they are further from the middle of the plate, and therefore it becomes curved like the side of a barrel, and this effect is called barrel-shaped distortion. If the diaphragm is behind the lens, the displacement is outwards, also increasing towards the edges of the field, and a straight line at the edge of the plate becomes curved so that it is convex towards the centre of the plate. This is known as hour-glass distortion. Both these effects are illustrated (and exaggerated for clearness' sake) in fig. 6, the central square representing the true figure. This "curvilinear distortion" is absent in all cases in the middle of the plate and generally for a considerable area, and if single lenses of only long focal length are used, say of a focal length equal to at least one and a half times the length of the largest side of the plate, it may be neglected. Wide-angle single lenses should never be used except on a suitably small plate, so that the above conditions hold. The nearer the diaphragm is to the lens the less is the distortion, and some of the most modern single lenses have the diaphragm so near that the photographer is even more safe in the use of them.

_The Comparison and Use of Lenses._--The optician when he tests lenses looks for each fault individually, but this the ordinary photographer is hardly able to do, nor is it particularly desirable for him, because if a lens is inferior it matters little to him why it is so. On the other hand occasion may arise when he wants to identify a fault, then the information already given will probably be sufficient to enable him to do so, if to it is added that a small pinhole with a flame behind it is a convenient point of light, and that if the image of this luminous point is examined with a good eyepiece, without the focussing screen, at various parts of the field, the character of the defect may be discovered.

The main things that the photographer needs to look to in judging of a lens or comparing it with another, are (1) that it works to focus, (2) the quality of its defining power especially towards the edges of the plate. There must also be taken into account the focal length and aperture, and if both these are not the same in the lenses to be compared they should be nearly the same, and the proportion that the aperture bears to the focal length should be exactly the same. A special diaphragm may have to be cut out of card for one of them. The best test object that is always at hand is a newspaper pinned flat against a flat wall. The camera must not be moved during the work. Each lens is very carefully focussed and a negative made, using the same aperture, time of development, and in all ways similar treatment for both. If the focal lengths are different, the images will be of correspondingly different sizes, and then the same detail must be compared, not the definition at the same distance from the centre.

All good lenses work to focus, but some of the cheaper ones do not. To test this, any series of small objects arranged side by side, but at distances varying by intervals of say two inches from the camera, is photographed after carefully focussing on the middle one. If any other than the middle one is the best defined, the lens is at fault. But in this, as in all similar tests, it must be remembered that ordinary dry plates are not quite flat, and the error of the plate may make an appreciable difference.

The use of lenses comprises the whole art of working with the camera, it is therefore not our province to say much about it. But so far as lenses themselves are concerned it may be remarked that, if a lens has a round field, it may be advantageous to tip up the lens with regard to the plate when only a part of the plate is being used, as for example sometimes in taking a landscape. But in using the modern flat field lenses special care should be taken to keep the lens and plate exactly true to each other, the plate exactly at right angles to the lens axis. The image and plate must coincide or definition will suffer. If the image is rounded and the plate flat, then in any case the result is only a compromise, but to take full advantage of the larger apertures when the field is flat, much more care than has been usual must be devoted to this matter.

_Simple uncorrected lenses_ such as _spectacle lenses_ or "_monocles_," suffer from the defects that have already been described, and are valued on this account by some workers because they give blurred or "soft" images. With a small enough diaphragm they will give good definition, and generally it may be stated that reducing the aperture lessens the effect of any fault that a lens may possess. To get the best definition that a simple lens will give, the plate must be brought nearer the lens after focussing by about one-fiftieth of the focal length of the lens, so that it may be brought from the best focus of visual light into the best focus of the photographically active light. If the object photographed is nearer to the lens than about one hundred times its focal length, the amount of movement after focussing must be increased. If four focal lengths distant, the correction is nearly one-thirtieth of the focal length, at three focal lengths distant, nearly one-twentieth, and at two focal lengths, about a thirteenth.

_Pinholes_ give an image that for all practical purposes may be said to be equally blurred or "soft" over the whole plate. Much has been written about pinholes and their use, but it is not definitely known yet whether the exposure should be longer or shorter than the exposure required when a lens is used, allowing, of course, for the smallness of the aperture. The following short table and exposure rules from the writer's "Science and Practice of Photography," will probably prove useful:--

+----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Pinholes--diameters | 1/16 | 1/22 | 1/32 | 1/45 | 1/64 |
+----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+
| Distance from plate for | | | | | |
| sharpest image ... | 64 | 32 | 16 | 8 | 4 |
+----------------------------+------+------+------+------+------+

All the above figures are in inches. Whatever pinhole and at whatever distance, estimate the exposure for a lens at _f_/16, _f_/22, _f_/32, _f_/45, or _f_/64, as the case may be, and multiply it by the _square_ of the number of inches that the plate is distant from the pinhole. But if the distance is as given above for any hole, it is sufficient to expose for as many minutes as the plate is inches distant from the hole, for a subject that would require one second with an aperture of _f_/16.

_Chapman Jones._

_Portraiture._

The photographer who may be expert at landscape or architectural work, will find himself at a loss when he essays portraiture. For apart from the art of managing the sitter (a most important element in producing a successful result), he will soon find that the kind of plate that is suitable for outdoor work does not answer well for portraits, unless the developer is greatly modified, for quite a different kind of negative is required. As a general rule it is advisable to use very rapid plates for portrait work; and in this respect, at the present day we are much better supplied than even five or six years ago, and with an extra-rapid plate it is possible to secure a fully exposed negative in half a second, in weather and under lighting that was quite impossible ten years ago. The best expression and pose are generally secured when the sitter is unaware of the actual moment of exposure; and for this purpose a silent shutter working inside the camera is best. The sitter should never be _asked_ to keep still unless, in groups, and when circumstances necessitate a long exposure; and nowadays an exposure of five or six seconds is a long one. Every effort should be made to put the sitter quite at ease.

A head-rest should not be used unless absolutely necessary, and few photographers are aware how easily it can be dispensed with, and fail to realize how strong an objection nearly every sitter has to it. It is far better to have an occasional plate spoilt by working without the rest than to make every sitter uncomfortable by its use. In fact some portrait negatives are actually improved by a slight movement. In a special kind of lighting when the face is in _shadow_ relieved against a light background, a slight movement which produces the effect of diffusion of focus greatly improves the result.

Great care must be exercised in choosing the background even when it is only plain or graduated, and it is well worth exposing three or four plates on the same sitter, in the same position and lighting, and with the same exposure, but with different backgrounds, and then carefully comparing the resulting prints. Even if only one background is at hand its depth can be varied by placing it nearer or farther from the source of light. The background must also be selected to suit the lighting of the sitter, as a background of medium tint suitable for what is called "ordinary lighting" would be quite unsuitable for "Rembrandt" effects, or where strong contrasts of light and shade are used, when part of the face is in dark shadow. For such effects a dark background is usually best, as it gives luminosity to the shadow side of the face. But such dark grounds are not suitable for "ordinary lighting" where the face should be full of delicate half-tone, all of which would be killed by the strength of the dark background.

For the Rembrandt effects a much longer exposure is necessary as less light is reflected from the face on to the sensitive plate; they will often need twice or three times as much as for ordinary portraits.

When pictorial backgrounds or accessories are used it must be remembered that the object of the photograph is to secure a portrait of the _sitter_, not to show what a large stock of accessories the photographer possesses. It is best to use as few accessories as possible; I have heard a lady complain bitterly of a well-known photographer, who having posed her in a very difficult position, kept her waiting for five minutes while he arranged a screen, a palm, a footstool, a tiger-skin, etc., so that she felt positively ill before the exposure was made. The sitter should not be kept waiting in the pose to be photographed any longer than is absolutely necessary. If accessories must be used they should be simple and suitable.

When portraits have to be taken in ordinary rooms it is advisable to get a friend or assistant to experiment upon, if possible beforehand. Even a few minutes spent in studying the possibilities of light and arrangement of furniture will save a great deal of worry when making the actual exposures, and nothing upsets nervous sitters more than having all kinds of experiments and arrangements made with them. But it is sometimes well worth wasting a few plates on exposures which the photographer thinks will be useless, in order to give the sitter time to get accustomed to the room; it must not be done in a fussy, irritating way, but rather to show that it is not such a very dreadful operation and really "doesn't hurt." This plan often works well with nervous children, who soon become accustomed to the room and the photographer. There is a great deal to be said in favour of the maxim "leave your sitters alone." The photographer must cultivate quick observation so that he sees at once a good pose, and secures it; and here again quick plates are essential, as many of the most charming poses are caught unexpectedly. It has been well said that the best poses the photographer secures are those he _observes_, not those he _creates_. But a spontaneous pose may not be quite perfect and a slight alteration may be easily made without disturbing the rest of the figure. It will generally be found that a pose that takes a great deal of arranging is not a success.

When taking portraits in an ordinary room it is usual to place the sitter near the window, so that one side of the face is strongly lighted and the other in deep shadow, and then use a white reflector to light up the shadow side. It is often better, when the window is a large one, to place the sitter farther back in the room almost facing the window, and put the camera near the middle of the window looking into the room; a softer lighting will then be secured. For outdoor portraits a shady corner is best, and if possible, one where the side light is much subdued on one side; a light head-shade may be used with advantage. A large grey rug out of focus makes a good background; a blanket is too light.

A portrait lens is best for the work; but if the photographer does not possess one, he need not despair of producing good work. A rapid rectilinear lens used at a large aperture will answer the purpose well; it should always be used at full aperture, partly for the sake of quickness in exposure, and partly to prevent accessories and parts of the dress appearing too sharp and competing in importance with the face. Subordination of parts is one of the essentials of a picture; and if we examine a _good_ portrait we shall find that probably no part of the photograph is quite sharp except the eyes and face. Otherwise the less important details are apt to obtrude themselves on our notice. A stop will generally be necessary, however, with a portrait lens if a full or three-quarter length is to be taken, and it will be found that heads only (as a rule) can be taken at full aperture. Just as good work, however, can be done with a rapid rectilinear as with a lens specially made for portraits, except where rapid exposures are to be made; but it is necessary to use one of fairly long focus. A rapid rectilinear lens used for landscape work on a half plate would be much too short in focus for giving good portraits on the same sized plate, for in order to get the figure large enough it is necessary to place the camera so near the sitter as to produce distortion. For portraits on a half plate a lens of at least nine inches focus should be used and for a whole plate not less than sixteen or eighteen inches, and longer if possible.

The swing back of the camera will be found useful in portrait work for getting parts of the figures into focus that are either too far behind or too far in front of the plane of the face. For instance, a full-length figure leaning back in a chair will have the feet out of focus when the face is sharp if the back of the camera is vertical, and this applies with even greater force to groups. A side swing too is useful, but is not absolutely necessary. Even in bust portraits the swing back is useful in getting the shoulders in focus when using a large aperture, for although it is well not to have the whole of the figure in _perfect_ focus all over, it is not advisable to have the face sharp and the rest so out of focus as to be blurred.

The development of a portrait plate should be different from that of a landscape, because a different kind of negative is required. A rapid plate developed so as to give a soft delicate image is best; and a developer containing more alkali and less density giver is good, and it may be considerably diluted with advantage. The image should appear within ten seconds of pouring on the developer, and the negative will generally be developed to sufficient density in from two to three minutes. With a good average rapid plate the image should show fairly well on the back of the plate, but this and the time of development will vary so much with different developers, and with the taste of each photographer that no hard and fast rule can be laid down.

Developers that give a brown deposit, or that stain the film will require shorter development than those of the newer developing agents that give a cold black colour to the negative; another fact to be borne in mind is that the image formed by these latter appears to lose more density in fixing than when pyrogallic acid is used.

A perfect portrait negative should have no clear glass shadows, and no part should be so dense as to give white in the finished print, and some negatives which give the best results may have a decided veiled appearance in the shadows.

The temperature of the developer is another important point; in very cold weather the developer should be kept warm, or if in concentrated solutions may be diluted with warm water. In cases of known under-exposure the developer may be used quite hot with advantage. A convincing experiment can be made by cutting an exposed plate in two and developing one half with icy cold developer and the other half with warm. The difference is really remarkable. If the developer has been used hot enough to make the gelatine of the plate feel "slimy" an alum bath is necessary, unless the fixing bath contains chrome alum.

METOL.
1.
Water 100 parts or 10 ozs.
Metol 1 part or 50 grains
Sodium sulphite 10 parts or 1 oz.

2.
Water 100 parts or 10 ozs.
Potassium carbonate 10 parts or 1 oz.

3.
Potassium bromide 1 part or 1 oz.
Water 10 parts or 10 ozs.

For normal exposures take 3 parts No. 1 and 1 part No. 2; to each ounce of mixed developer add 40 minims of No. 3.

PYRO AND SODA.
1.
Pyro 1 oz.
Water 70 ozs.
Nitric acid 12 drops

2.
Sodium sulphite 10 ozs.
Sodium carbonate (pure) 8 ozs.
Water 70 ozs.

Equal parts of each, for soft negatives dilute with water. To restrain for over-exposure use potassium, not ammonium bromide. Unless an acid fixing bath is used the negatives are rather green in colour.

RODINAL AND HYDROKINONE.

A.
Sodium sulphite 1 oz.
Water 20 ozs.
Citric acid 1 crystal
Potassium bromide 1 dram
Hydrokinone 2 drams

B.
Potassium carbonate 2 ozs.
Water 20 ozs.
Rodinal 1 fluid oz.

Use 1 part A, 1 part B, and 1 part of water.

The question of retouching is a difficult one. There is no doubt that a certain amount of it is necessary on nearly all portrait negatives and even on those of children. But it is equally certain that the great majority of portrait negatives are over-retouched, so much so that their value both as portraits and pictures is nearly destroyed. Yet a certain amount is necessary even for pictorial effect, and perhaps still more when the question of likeness is considered. For as a rule the untouched negative is no more a true likeness than the over-retouched one. The truth lies somewhere between the two. Even if isochromatic plates are used the little differences of colour in the face, and the incipient wrinkles are exaggerated in an unpleasant way. Under-exposed negatives will show these defects in a very marked manner, full exposure will greatly reduce them. Large heavy patches of shadow may be lightened by coating the back of the negative with matt varnish, and when it is quite hard "hatching" upon it with a soft lead. Harsh lights may be reduced by scraping away the matt varnish with the point of a knife. In some cases the matt varnish may be stained with a little aurine or uranine. Exaggerated lines and small shadows must be worked upon from the front and a retouching desk is necessary. The film of the negative will not take the pencil without some preparation. The best surface is obtained by spreading a little retouching medium with the tip of the finger on the part to be touched. A thin film of soft resin is left upon the plate which takes pencil marks readily. A hard lead, No. 4 Faber or Hardtmuth, should be used. The loose leads used in what are called the "ever-pointed holders" are most convenient. The point must be very long and fine, like a large darning needle, and is best made by rubbing the lead on a piece of fine glass-paper. The pencil must be held very lightly and the lines touched away with short _light_ strokes, a heavy stroke only rubs the medium up.

The little shadow at the end of the mouth often has to be reduced, often at the risk of spoiling the shape of the lips, but sitters _will_ insist upon it being done, and say "You have made my mouth much too large." Freckled faces are perhaps the most difficult to retouch, as it is well nigh impossible to remove the black patches caused by the freckles without at the same time destroying the modelling of the face. Yet it must be done, for probably the most severe stickler for truth would not insist on the black blotches that freckles produce in a photograph.

A great deal can be done to improve a hard negative as soon as it leaves the fixing bath, by applying a mixture of hypo solution and a solution of ferricyanide (not ferro) of potash with a piece of cotton wool to the dense parts. The proportions for this reducing bath are as follows:--To each ounce of the ordinary hyposulphite of soda fixing bath add a few drops of a 10% solution of ferricyanide of potassium or red prussiate of potash, making the whole about the colour of pale brandy. By adding more of the ferricyanide solution the reducing action is quicker, but there is a greater liability to stain the film. The work should be done over a sink with a tap of running water at hand. The solution should be of a deep lemon colour (it is almost impossible to give exact quantities), and after a short application must be washed off under the tap, and the negative may then be examined, and the reducer applied again and again till the desired reduction is obtained. It is advisable to make a few trials on spoilt plates. For if any really good work is to be done there will be plenty of rejected negatives. Probably, of all the plates exposed on portraits by first-rate professional photographers, not more than one-fourth ever get as far as the printing-frame.

Moral: Do not be chary of exposing plates, they are cheap enough now. Don't feel, "Oh! this will be good enough. I won't do another." On the other hand don't expose carelessly and recklessly and say, "It will all come right in developing." Good work is not done that way. Use every opportunity of seeing good work. Study the work of great portrait painters, but don't neglect the photographers. Go to all the exhibitions of pictures and photographs within reach.

Don't be satisfied with what you have done, but make a resolve to do something better next time. Remember, what is worth doing at all is worth doing well.

_Harold Baker._

_Pictorial Photography._

Unlike the subjects of the other articles in this book, in pictorial photography we are not brought to consider one of the many processes which go to make up the photographic craft, but merely a special and exceptional application of any and all means known to the photographer.

The particular end to which this application is made will be explained as far as the limits of space will permit, and some of the methods of such application will be described. Beyond this I have no intention of going. I do not present pictorial photography as a branch of photography especially worthy of study--I am not concerned in making converts. It is for the photographer who has already formed a desire to give his attention to the pictorial side of photography and who is seeking help, that this chapter is designed.

First let us come to a mutual understanding as to the term Pictorial Photography. Picture-making by photography would perhaps be a simpler phrase, but that to my mind the word "picture-making" is too similar in idea to boot-making, lace-making, etc., all of which imply a mechanical manufacturing, whereas a picture--a real picture--like a musical composition, a poem or a beautiful thought, grows or is evolved rather than made to order.

Art photography would be a better term, but that in photography the word "art" has been so often coupled with things the very antithesis of artistic and might hence be misleading, moreover the photographer will show discretion rather than weakness if he be not too hasty to claim for photography a position among the arts, and whilst its claims to that dignity remain as yet in dispute, we may be content with "Pictorial Photography" as a less assuming title, yet one which will sufficiently differentiate between what we may call the ordinary photographic production and---- Well, what?

That is the first thing I have to try and explain.

Look at the illustrations in this book on pages 72, 136, and 120, and, making due allowance for some loss of quality due to reproduction by a "half-tone" block, try to imagine what the originals were like. Then say if they please you. If you say no, you do not care for them, they do not appeal to you, you do not mind if you never saw anything of the kind again from this day henceforth; very well, doubtless there are other things in the world in which you can find pleasure, but so far as my present subject is concerned, here you and I part company. These illustrations are more or less successful reproductions of pictorial work, and if you do not like them, making as I have said due allowance for their being reproduced and reduced, then it is certain you do not want to hear anything about them, and it is not my intention to persuade you, so please pass on and make room for those who do care for these things and wish to learn all they can concerning them, or at most stand aside and peradventure some stray word dropped unintentionally may quicken your interest and discover in you a sympathy of which you were previously unconscious.

Referring now again to the illustrations which in the absence of anything else we take as fairly typical of pictorial photographs and assuming that one or the other, if not all, do please some of my readers, I will ask them to endeavour to analyse their feelings when confronting such productions.

Take now an ordinary commercial photographic view such as one may purchase from any sea-side stationer, and compare the sensations awakened by each. In the case of the topographical view we feel some satisfaction at being able to recognise a familiar spot, or the view reminds us of some other place, or it may be quaint buildings, or rugged mountains, or miles of foliage, or what not inspire curiosity or interest because we know the photograph to be a true record of facts, that is to say we accept the photograph in lieu of the actual presence of the objects represented, and experience nearly the same feelings as we should were we to visit the spot represented. We know that the wonderful, curious, or unusual things portrayed have an existence, otherwise we could not have a photograph of them.

In all such cases our interest and value of the photograph would vastly diminish, were it possible for a photograph of this kind to be made simply by the photographer's hand and imagination without any original at all.

You look at a photograph of this or that sea-side place and remark, "Ah, yes, that's dear old Yarmouth, many a time, etc., etc.," or else, "Dear me, I wonder what place that is, it's so like----" such and such a town, or it may be you enquire "Where's that?" and you express or think to yourself you would like to go and visit the spot. These and kindred sensations are those kindled by the average photograph, but there is yet another, for you may be impelled to exclaim, "How wonderfully clear and bright that photograph is," "What a good photograph." In this case you are interested purely in the execution as an example of clever manipulation and skilful craftsmanship.

Now, compare such feelings as these with those stirred by an example of good pictorial work. In the first place your esteem for it, if you value it at all, is quite as great whether you know the place where it was made or not. If it pleases you, that pleasure is not dependent upon the fact that it does represent some place. In the case of paintings and drawings as often as not they do not pretend to represent any place at all, but are pure fiction, yet we do not value them the less. To what then is the pleasure we feel when looking at a good picture due? Is it not that a picture stirs up, that is, _creates_ pleasant or beautiful thoughts and ideas--by pleasant I do not mean necessarily merry or joyous ones, for some hearts feel profounder pleasure in the grandeur of storm or the majesty of the mountain than in the sweet wilderness of flowery wastes, but notice that such beautiful ideas are _created_ by the picture. You were thinking of something totally different before you came upon the landscape picture which instantly made you feel the glowing light, the stirring breeze, and hear the rustling corn and noisy brook, and yet it cannot be said it is because we _recognise_ these things in the picture that we receive these impressions, at least it is not the kind of recognition which takes place when we see a photograph of Brighton Pier or Haddon Hall.

Notice, it is not the exact and faithful portrayal of objects that creates the emotions instanced, for if you closely observe the manner in which a good painting is done you will find that rude splashes of paint, broad brush strokes, and the like stand for foliage or water, or corn stalks as the case may be, when we know that had the painter desired he _could_ have produced his likeness of nature with a good deal more of the precise detail and fidelity to outlines which photography excels in, _had he wished_. But if the painter or other pictorial artist needs not to trouble about accuracy to details to secure the effect aimed at he must be faithful to general facts. There is a great difference between not recognising things or having no particular wish to do so, and feeling conscious that a portrayal is so utterly unlike anything in our past experience of nature that we should not recognise the objects even if we _were_ acquainted with them. To take an extreme case--our enjoyment of the effect and sentiment of a beautiful landscape picture is not enhanced by our being able to recognise whether the trees are oaks or elms, but it would be distinctly disturbed if the palm trees were represented as growing on the slopes of a Welsh mountain. Innumerable examples and instances might be given to show that the artist, whatsoever his medium, be it colour or monochrome, may depart from truth, or may be indifferent to precise details, _only so far as he avoids palpable untruth_.

Why is this?

When we look at a powerful and impressive picture we feel at once the sentiment, our emotions are at once stirred, subsequently we recognise objects and facts portrayed, but only when we begin to look for them or think about them; but a gross exaggeration or a very obvious error strikes us at once before we begin to receive sentiments and ideas, and that error or exaggeration once seen is never lost sight of, and whole enjoyment of the picture is hopelessly marred.

Now, from the foregoing (for want of space I am aware that the argument is incomplete, and must therefore ask the student to think the matter out and grasp the side issues by reading between the lines) we may formulate the broad definition that a picture does not depend for its excellence on the faithful representation of objects, and is not chiefly valuable on account of our immediate recognition of things portrayed, yet on the other hand it must not let us feel that there is obvious inaccuracy.

Here then we have two opposite positions in both of which the mere objects employed to build up the picture are subordinated to the effect or impression of the picture. In one case the spectator must not be allowed to feel that the representation is _wrong_, in the other success will not directly depend on the representation being very _right_, neither startling rightness or truth nor the obvious wrongness or untruth should thrust the objects composing the picture upon the beholder's attention, he should be left free to receive the expression or sentiment of it.

I hope the reader is following me in this line of thought closely. I am aware that it may seem dry and uninteresting, but I see no other way of placing the student in a proper position at the outset than by explaining the essential elements of pictorial work, and I will make this introductory part as brief as possible.

Reverting now to our argument, I have in other words suggested that obvious violation of truth will prevent the sentiment or effect of the picture from being paramount, and now I will submit that an excess of accuracy to detail is equally detrimental to the success of a picture as a picture.

If by now the reader is prepared to admit that the chief purpose of a picture is the feelings, emotions, ideas which it suggests or creates, and not the facts it portrays, he will be able to go further and perceive that in a landscape, for instance, cottages, trees, or what not are introduced, not for their own intrinsic interest but as vehicles of light and shade, which go to express the picture's sentiments.

If we stand before a good picture with closed eyes and suddenly open them, our first impression (precluding any question of colour) is that of masses of light and shade pleasingly and harmoniously arranged; if we retreat to such a distance that the objects constituting those lights and shades are unrecognisable the balance and pleasing arrangement should still be felt, and our æsthetic sense is satisfied, although we do not see fully of what the picture is composed. This is the quality which is termed breadth and which is admittedly of very great value.

If on the other hand the shadow masses are filled with innumerable details, and are thus broken up into tiny lights and shadows they no longer exist as broad masses of dark, but if before retreating as proposed from the picture, the lights or shadows appear so blank as to prompt particular investigation, and upon examination we find detail absent which we know must have been present, then we encounter an instance of untruth and exaggeration which is obvious and which disturbs our appreciation of other fine qualities. Thus we require _sufficient detail to avoid giving the idea that detail is left out_.

The delineation of sharp outlines and redundance of detail is not wrong in itself, but it is usually inexpedient when considered with respect to the effect to be produced, similarly the suppression of sharp focus both as regards outlines and details has no artistic merit of itself except as it assists the picture to impress the beholder first with the general effect.

The painter and photographer start from two opposite standpoints. The painter, or draughtsman, starts with nothing but blank paper, and having built up his picture and produced his desired effect he elaborates no further; the photographer with his more or less mechanically produced _facsimile_ starts from the opposite extreme with a transcendentally elaborate image, from which he will require to eliminate all such excess of truth as is likely to force the mere facts of the view upon the beholder's attention.

Photography, so faultlessly complete in its delineation, gives us _more than the pictorial worker needs for the expression of an idea_, and this is why I would remind the student that pictorial photography is not photography in the full sense of the word, but the application of some of its powers, just as much as we need and no more, to a definite end.

As just hinted the purpose of a picture is to express ideas, hence I will fall back on a kind of definition which I have used on a previous occasion that a picture is the portrayal of visible concrete things for the expression of abstract ideas.

To give an example by way of exposition we may look upon a picture and be made to feel by it the calm and luminous atmosphere of evening; we feel at once the restfulness, and almost feel the warmth of the humid air, giving place to the chill gathering mists of night; but the same objects, the same tangible materials, paper, pigment, metallic salts, etc., in another picture give us the sense of angry turbulent storm or perhaps bright joyous sunshine frolicking with the fresh breezes on the hill-tops. These are abstract ideas expressed or created by the manner in which concrete things, commonplace facts, are portrayed and rendered.

Finally, let me enunciate that a very excellent photograph may not necessarily be a good picture, because it may contain more than is required for the expression of its idea, and the surplus will overwhelm it; again, a good pictorial photograph may be but a poor photograph, because if we claim the right to apply photographic means to pictorial ends, we may find it convenient to leave out the very qualities which the scientific or technical expert considers most precious.

And now I think we may proceed to more practical matters.

COMPOSITION AND SELECTION.

In all matters from which the eye expects to derive pleasure, symmetry of design seems essential. In the formation of the letters that we write, in personal attire, in the decoration of our homes, in buildings, and practically in everything which is not of a purely utilitarian character, a sense of proportion and a symmetrical disposition of parts is observed. Hence it is no source of surprise that in a picture which as much as anything should aim at pleasing the eye, design, otherwise Composition, is with Expression a co-essential.

In a purely decorative production this natural desire of design is the only thing to be observed, but in a picture which _may_ be decorative, but _must_ be something more, we have expression as well to consider. If decoration alone were to be regarded, something like fixed rules might perhaps be tyrannically laid down, but in a picture the implicit observance of rules of composition would be certain to make itself seen in the result, and the undue obtrusiveness of a code of rules would be as inimical to the supremacy of ideas and feelings, as the excessive prominence of fact would be, which has already been described.

Hence the difficulty in prescribing any definite course for the beginner, because whilst to most instinctive artistic temperaments a certain knowledge of or feeling for composition is natural, so soon as this is reduced to definite rule and given to another, the, as it were, secondhand use, is nearly certain to betray itself by its misapplication. I would ask therefore that any suggestions given here on the subject of composition should be taken as one takes lessons in the rudiments of a language, which rudiments we violate and forget so soon as we have become proficient enough to speak it. _Such rules in composition should be observed only so far as to avoid the appearance of having infringed or ignored them._

The rules of composition which may be found to apply in one of the pictorial arts must necessarily apply equally in the others, and so therefore to pictorial photography which at least aspires to be considered an art. If on a sheet of paper a rectangular space is given us wherein to draw the likeness of anything, the most natural course to pursue would be to draw that figure in the centre or thereabouts, and if then we are asked to add the likeness of two or three more objects we should naturally place these near the first object. Thus should we compose a group of objects which draw the attention to the middle of the picture or space.

Suppose we are asked to draw the picture of a church tower we should probably comply with the request somewhat as shown in fig. 1. Next we will suppose we are asked to add a cottage, some trees, and a path to the church, we should, if possessed of some sense of symmetry and order, coupled with average intelligence, make the additions somewhat as in fig. 2. It would surely be an unusual thing to follow instead the course suggested by figs. 3 and 4.

In figs. 1 and 2 we have instinctively placed the primary object in or near the centre, and the others near and around it, and the result strikes one at once as being better composed, that is, more symmetrical, than in fig. 4, in which amongst other things one is not sure which object to regard as the principal one, and one also feels that but for the boundaries of the picture left and right we might have seen a good deal more beyond, which would have added to the interest of the picture.

In this we have one of the first rules in composition, namely, that the principal object should be near the centre, and the next important near to, and as it were supporting it, and no object likely to attract the eye should be so near the edge of the picture as to make us instantly conscious of the boundaries and wish to see more beyond.

But now if in compliance with the supposed request we had made our drawing as in fig. 5, might it not at once be felt by the observer that we had put the objects in a central position _intentionally_, which is equivalent to saying that we had allowed our endeavour to observe the rule just laid down to betray itself. Fig. 2 is preferable as being only just sufficiently symmetrical to avoid being unsymmetrical, which is an example of what has already been said about the necessity of observing rules of composition just so far as to escape the appearance of having broken them.

If this rule is right as regards voluntarily drawing a picture, it is equally so in the case of a photograph, but instead of deliberately placing things in such and such positions, we attain the same end by moving the camera and selecting our point of view so that the objects come into the positions desired.

Now suppose then, we have done this, but in doing it we are quite unable to prevent other objects coming into the field of view and occupying undesirable places near the margins of the picture, as for instance in fig. 6. Here we are brought to consider another rule or principle in composition, namely, that there must be one and only one chief object in the picture, whereas in fig. 6, apart from the gate and tree on the one side and the windmill on the other attracting attention to the margins of the picture, these same objects arrest the attention quite as much as the church, and we feel the eye wandering about from one to the other and missing the sensation of centralization and rest which fig. 2 gives.

If we were drawing or painting we should put in what we want and then stop, we should omit or ignore what we did not require, but in photography our powers in this direction are limited, and hence we must as far as possible select those views, and only accept such, as comply with what we feel to be right.

The angle of view included by different lenses is an auxiliary not to be neglected, for by substituting a narrower angle lens, that is, one of longer focus, we may cut off or leave out undesirable objects which the shorter focus lens might include. Then again, when the print is finished we can after careful consideration cut off what would have been better left out, for it will be better to have a picture half the size well composed, than double the number of inches with a distracting and unsatisfactory arrangement of objects, hence with many most successful workers it is no uncommon thing to take quite a small portion of a negative, and either print it as it is or else enlarge it up to the desired size, but mere size will reckon as nothing as compared with pleasing composition.

If it is inexpedient to let the principal object or group of objects occupy the exact centre of the picture, measured from left to right, it is equally so if the centre be measured from top to bottom, and hence we may formulate the rule (to be broken perhaps later when we are strong enough to be independent of guiding) that the horizon should not be allowed to come midway between the top and the base of the picture.