of "Arts and Manufactures," the chief photographic feature of which is a
considerable display of "Swan's Carbon Prints," from several well-known
negatives by Bedford and Robinson. The promise of this process is very
great, and its commercial advantages were singularly demonstrated to me
when visiting the printing establishment of Mr. Swan, which I happened
to do on a dark and unfavourable day--one totally unfit for silver
printing; and yet I saw several very beautiful carbon prints that had
been produced that day, the rate of production being about eight to one
over silver printing. As a proof of the certainty and commercial
application to which Mr. Swan has reduced his beautiful process, I need
only mention that he has undertaken the printing of two thousand copies
of the celebrated picture of "The First General Assembly of the Church
of Scotland," painted by D. O. Hill. This historical picture contains
four hundred and fifty portraits: the negatives were taken from the
original painting by Mr. Annan, photographer, Glasgow, and are 32 by 14
inches, and 24 by 9 inches; and Mr. Swan has to turn off one thousand
copies of each within a given time. The publishers of the work give a
guarantee to their subscribers that every print shall be of a high
standard, for each one has to pass the examination of two competent
judges. They also very justly pride themselves on being the very first
to translate and multiply such noble works of art by a process "so
beautiful, and, at the same time, _imperishable_." I saw several of the
prints, both in process of development and complete; and anything more
like rich, soft, and brilliant impressions of a fine mezzotint engraving
I never saw, by any process of photography.
Mr. Swan's arrangements for conducting the various parts of his process
are very extensive and complete; and his mode of "developing and
transferring" seems to be the very acme of perfection. But, as Mr. Swan
is about to publish a work containing a full description of the process,
with a beautiful specimen print as frontispiece, I will not anticipate
him, or mar his own comprehensive account of the details of a process
which he has brought to such a state of beauty and perfection, by an
amount of patient perseverance and thoughtful application rarely
exhibited or possessed by one individual.
I also visited the photographic establishment of Messrs. Downey in
Newcastle, and there saw some _cabinet pictures_ of the Princess of
Wales, taken recently at Abergeldie Castle. Messrs. Downey have just
returned from Balmoral with upwards of two hundred negatives, including
whole-plate, half-plate, and _cabinet_ size, which will be published in
one or all those sizes, as soon as the orders of Her Majesty have been
executed. From the well-known reputation of the Messrs. Downey as
photographers, it is, in all probability, a treat in store for the
lovers of photography, to get a sight of their latest works at Balmoral
and Abergeldie.
Mr. Parry, another excellent photographer in Newcastle, was also making
arrangements to introduce the new cabinet size picture in a style that
will insure its success.
Altogether, the movements of the best photographers in the North are
highly commendable, and, with their notoriously practical minds, there
is little doubt of their undertakings becoming a success. Let us hope
that the same elements of energy and "push" will speedily impregnate the
minds of all photographers, and create a combination that will develop a
new form of popular beauty, and result in forming a salt that will
savour their labours, produce deposits of gold, and create innumerable
orders of merit.
ERRORS IN PICTORIAL BACKGROUNDS.
We have recently had a few papers on the necessity of art culture and
art knowledge in relation to photography, but they have chiefly been of
a theoretical and speculative character, few, if any, assuming a
practical form. "Apply the rod to teach the child" is an old saying, and
our artist friends and teachers _have_ applied the rod and belaboured
photography most unmercifully, but they have _not_ taught the child.
They have contented themselves with abusing photographers for not doing
what was right, instead of teaching them how to avoid what was wrong.
It will be my endeavour to point out, in this paper, some errors that
have crept into photographers' and artists' studios, and I hope to be
able to suggest a remedy that will lessen these evils, and elevate
photography in the scale of art. The faults in pictorial backgrounds
that I invite your attention to, arise from the neglect of the
principles of linear and aerial perspective. I do not speak of the
errors in perspective that may exist in the backgrounds themselves,
viewing them as pictures; but I refer to the manifest fault of depicting
the sitter--the principal object--according to one condition of
perspective, and the background that is placed behind him according to
another. An unpardonable error in any work of art, whether photograph or
painting, is to represent a natural object in an unnatural position. By
this I do not mean an awkward and constrained attitude, but a false
position of the principal subject in relation to the other objects by
which it is surrounded. We frequently see portraits, both full-length
and three-quarter size, with landscape backgrounds--or a bit of
landscape to be seen through a painted or actual window--of the most
unnatural proportions in relation to the figure itself. The head of the
subject is stuck high in the heavens--sometimes so high that, in
relation to the painted landscape, nothing shorter than a church steeple
could attain such an altitude. The trees and castles of the pretty
landscape, supposed to be behind the sitter, are like children's toys;
the mountains are like footballs in size, and the "horizon" is not so
much in relation to the figure as the width of a fishpond is to a man
standing on one side of it. It must be admitted that artists themselves
have set this bad example of departing from truth to give increased
importance to their subjects by placing their figures against diminutive
backgrounds; but that is a liberty taken with nature which photographers
should neither imitate nor allow. Photography is, in all other respects,
so rigidly truthful that it cannot consistently sanction such a
violation of natural laws.
Pictorial backgrounds have usually been painted on the same principle as
a landscape picture, and one of the earliest things the painter has to
determine is, where he shall represent that line where the sky and
earth appear to meet--technically, the _horizontal line_. This settled,
all the lines, not vertical or horizontal in the picture, below this are
made to appear to rise up to it, and those above descend, and if all
these are in due proportion the perspective is correct, no matter
whether this governing line is assumed to be in the upper, lower, or
middle part of the picture. A painter can suppose this imaginary line to
be at any height he pleases in his picture, and paint accordingly. In
photography it is invariable, and is always on a level with the lens of
the camera. To illustrate the relation of the horizontal line to the
human figure, when a pictorial background is to be introduced, let us
imagine that we are taking a portrait out-of-doors, with a free and open
country behind the person standing for his carte-de-visite. The camera
and the model are, as a matter of course, on the same level. Now focus
the subject and observe the linear construction of the landscape
background of nature. See how all the lines of the objects below the
level of the lens run up to it, and the lines of the objects above run
down to it. Right across the lens is the horizontal line, and the centre
is the point of sight, where all the lines will appear to converge.
Suppose the lens to be on a level with the face of the subject, the
horizontal line of the picture produced on the ground glass will be as
near as possible as high as the eyes of the subject. Trees and hills in
the distance will be above, and the whole picture will be in harmony.
This applies to interior views as well, but the ocular demonstration is
not so conclusive, for the converging lines will be cut or stopped by
the perpendicular wall forming the background. Nevertheless, all the
converging lines that are visible will be seen to be on their way to the
point of sight. Whether a natural background consisted of an interior,
or comprised both--such as a portion of the wall of a room and a peep
through a window on one side of the figure--the conditions would be
exactly the same. All the lines above the lens must come down, and all
that are below must go up. The following diagrams will illustrate this
principle still more clearly.
[Illustration: Fig. 1.]
[Illustration: Fig. 2.]
Fig. 1 is a section of the linear construction of a picture, and will
show how the lines converge from the point of observation to the point
of sight. Artists, in constructing a landscape of an ordinary form,
allot to the sky generally about twice the space between the base and
horizontal lines. But for portraits and groups, where the figures are of
the greatest importance and nearer to the eye, the proportion of sky and
earth is reversed, so as to give increased value to the principal
figures, by making them apparently larger, and still preserving the
proper relation between them and the horizontal line (see fig. 2). This
diagram represents the conditions of a full-length carte portrait, where
the governing horizontal line is on a level with the camera. If a
pictorial background, painted in the usual way, with the horizontal line
low in the picture, is now placed behind the sitter, the resulting
photograph will be incongruous and offensive. It will be seen, on
referring to fig. 2, that all the lines below the horizon must of
necessity run up to it, no matter how high the horizontal line may be,
for it is impossible to have two horizons in one picture; that is, a
visible horizon in the landscape background, and an imaginary one for
the figure, with the horizontal line of the background far below the
head of the figure, and the head far up in the sky. The head of a human
figure can only be seen so far above the horizontal line under certain
conditions; such as being elevated above the observer by being mounted
on horseback, standing on higher ground, or otherwise placed
considerably above the base line, none of which conditions are present
in a studio. Whenever the observed and observer are on the same level,
as must be the case when a photographer is taking the portrait of a
sitter in his studio, the head of the subject could not possibly be seen
so high in the sky, if the lens included a natural background instead of
a painted one. As, for convenience, the painted background is intended
to take the place of a natural one, care should be taken that the linear
and aerial perspectives should be as true to nature as possible, and in
perfect harmony with the size of the figures. The lens registers, on the
prepared plate, the relative proportions of natural objects as
faithfully as the retina receives them through the eye, and if we wish
to carry out the illusion of pictorial backgrounds correctly, we _must_
have the linear construction of the picture, which is intended to
represent nature, as true in every respect as nature is herself.
Aerial perspective has not been sufficiently attended to by the painters
of pictorial backgrounds. There are many other subjects in connection
with art and photography that might be discussed with advantage--such as
composition, arrangement of accessories, size, form, character, and
fitness of the things employed; but I leave all these for another
opportunity, or to someone more able to handle the subjects. For the
present, I am content to point out those errors that arise from
neglecting true perspective, and while showing the cause, distinctively
supply a remedy.
It is not the fault of perspective in the background where the lines are
not in harmony with each other--these too frequently occur, and are
easily detected--but it is the error of painting a pictorial background
as if it were an independent picture, without reference to the
conditions under which it is to be used. The conditions of perspective
are determined by the situation of the lens and the sitter. If the
actual objects existed behind the sitter, and were photographed
simultaneously with the sitter, the same laws of perspective would
govern the two. What I urge is, that if, instead of the objects, a
representation of them be put behind the sitter, that representation be
also a correct one. The laws of perspective teach how it may be made
correctly, and the starting point is the position of the lens in
relation to the sitter.
Some may say that these conditions of painting a background cannot be
complied with, as the lens and sitter are never twice exactly in the
same relation to each other. There is less force in this objection than
at first appears. Each photographer uses the same lens for all his
_carte_ portraits--and pictorial backgrounds are very frequently used
for these--and the height of his camera, as well as the distance from
his sitter, are so nearly constant, that the small amount of errors thus
caused need not be recognized. If the errors that exist were not far
more grave, there would be no necessity for this paper. Exceptional
pictures should have corresponding backgrounds.
When a "sitter" is photographed standing in front of a pictorial
background, the photograph will represent him either standing in a
natural scene, or before a badly-painted picture. Nobody should
wittingly punish his sitter by doing the latter when he could do the
former, and the first step to form the desirable illusion is pictorial
truth. There is no reason why the backgrounds should not be painted
truthfully and according to correct principles, for the one is as easy
as the other. I daresay the reason is that artists have not
intentionally done wrong--it would be too bad to suppose that--but they
have treated the backgrounds as independent pictures, and it is for
photographers to make what use of them they think proper. The real
principles are, however, now stated, by which they can be painted so as
to be more photographically useful, and artists and photographers have
alike the key to pictorial truth.
In conclusion, I would suggest to photographers the necessity of
studying nature more carefully--to observe her in their walks abroad, to
notice the gradual decrease of objects both in size and distinctness, to
remember that their lens is to their camera what their eye is to
themselves, to give as faithful a transcript of nature as they possibly
can, to watch the flow of nature's lines, as well as natural light and
shade, and, by a constant study and exhibition of truth and beauty in
their works, make photography eventually the teacher of art, instead of
art, as is now the case, being the reviler of photography.
PERSPECTIVE.
_To the Editors._
Gentlemen,--At the end of Mr. Alfred H. Wall's reply to Mr. Carey Lea's
letter on _Artists and Photographers_, I notice that he cautions your
readers not to receive the very simple rules of perspective laid down in
my paper, entitled _Errors in Pictorial Backgrounds_, until they have
acquired more information on the subject. Allow me to state that all I
said on perspective in that paper only went to show that there should be
but one horizon in the same picture; that the lines of all objects
_below_ that horizon should run up to it; that the lines of all objects
_above_ should run down, no matter where that _one_ horizon was placed;
and that the horizon of the landscape background should be in due
relation to the sitter and on a level with the eye of the observer, the
observer being either the lens or the painter.
If your correspondent considers that I was in error by laying down such
plain and common sense rules, which everyone can see and judge for
himself by looking down a street, then I freely admit that your
correspondent knows a great deal more about _false_ perspective than I
do, or should like to do.
Again, if your correspondent cannot see why I "volunteered to instruct
artists" or painters of backgrounds, perhaps he will allow me to inform
him that I did so simply because background painters have hitherto
supplied photographers with backgrounds totally unfit for use in the
photographic studio.
In spite of Mr. Wall's assumption of superior knowledge on subjects
relating to art, I may still be able to give him a hint how to produce a
pictorial background that will be much more natural, proportionate, and
suitable for the use of photographers than any hitherto painted.
Let Mr. Wall, or any other background painter, go _out_ with the camera
and take a _carte-de-visite_ portrait out-of-doors, placing the subject
in any well-chosen and suitable natural scene, and photograph the
"sitter" and the natural scene at the same time. Then bring the picture
so obtained into his studio and enlarge it up to "life-size," which he
can easily do by the old-fashioned system of "squaring," or, better
still, by the aid of a magic lantern, and with the help of a sketch of
the scene as well, to enable him to fill in correctly that part of the
landscape concealed by the figure taken on the spot; so that, when
reproduced by the photographer in _his_ studio, he will have a
representation of a natural scene, with everything seen in the
background in correct perspective, and in natural proportions in
relation to the "sitter." This will also show how _few_ objects can
naturally be introduced into a landscape background; and if the distant
scenery be misty and undefined, so much the better. It is the sharpness,
hardness, and superabundance of subjects introduced into pictorial
backgrounds generally that I object to, and endeavoured to point out in
my paper; and I consider it no small compliment to have had my views on
that part of my subject so emphatically endorsed by so good an authority
as Mr. Wallis, in his remarks on backgrounds at the last meeting of the
South London Photographic Society.
I make no pretensions to the title of "artist," although I studied
perspective, drawing from the flat and round, light and shade, and other
things in connection with a branch of art which I abandoned many years
ago for the more lucrative profession of a photographer. Were I so
disposed, I could quote Reynolds, Burnett, and Ruskin as glibly as your
correspondent; but I prefer putting my own views on any subject before
my readers in language of my own.
I endeavour to be in all my words and actions thoroughly independent and
consistent, which is more than I can say for your correspondent "A. H.
W." In proof of which, I should like to call the attention of your
readers to a passage in his "Practical Art Hints," in the last issue of
_The British Journal of Photography_, where he says:--"It is perversion
and degradation to an art like ours to make its truth and unity
subservient to conventional tricks, shams, and mechanical dodges," while
at the last meeting of the South London Photographic Society, when
speaking of backgrounds, he admitted they were _all conventional_.
Now, that is just what we do not want, and which was the chief object I
had in view when I wrote my paper. We have had too many of those
art-conventional backgrounds, and want something more in accordance with
natural truth and the requirements of photography.
In conclusion, allow me to observe that I should be truly sorry were I
to mislead anyone in the pursuit of knowledge relative to our
profession, either artistically or photographically. But let it be borne
in mind that it is admitted on all sides, and by the best authorities,
that nearly all the pictorial backgrounds now in use are quite
unnatural, and totally unsuited for the purposes for which they are
intended. Therefore the paper I read will have done the good I intended,
and answered the purpose for which it was written, if it has been the
means of calling attention to such glaring defects and absurdities as
are now being perpetrated by background painters, and bringing in their
place more natural, truthful, and photographically useful backgrounds
into the studios of all photographers.--I am, yours, &c.,
J. Werge.
_February 10th, 1866._
PERSPECTIVE IN BACKGROUNDS.
_To the Editors._
Gentlemen,--I must beg of you to allow me to reply to Mr. Wall once
more, and for the last time, on this subject, especially as that
gentleman expects an answer from me.
To put myself into a fair position with regard to Mr. Wall and your
readers, I will reply to the latter part of his letter first, by stating
that I endeavour to avoid all personality in this discussion, and should
be sorry to descend to anything of the kind knowingly. When I spoke of
"independency and consistency," I had not in view anything relative to
his private character, but simply that kind of independence which
enables a man to trust to his own powers of utterance for the
expression of his ideas, instead of that incessant quoting the language
of others, to which your correspondent, Mr. Wall, is so prone. As to his
inconsistency, I mean that tendency which he exhibits to advocate a
principle at one time, and denounce it at another. I shall prove that
presently. Towards Mr. Wall, personally, I have neither animosity nor
pique, and would take him by the hand as freely and frankly as ever I
did were I to meet him at this moment. With his actions as a private
gentleman I have nothing to do. I look upon him now as a controvertist
only. So far, I hope I have made myself clearly understood by Mr. Wall
and all concerned.
I also should like to have had so important a question discussed without
introducing so much of that frivolous smartness of style generally
adopted by Mr. Wall. But, as he has introduced two would-be-funny
similes, I beg to dispose of them before going into more serious matter.
Taking the "butcher" first (see the fifth paragraph in Mr. Wall's last
letter), I should say that, if I were _eating_ the meat, I should be
able to judge of its quality, and know whether it was good or bad, in
spite of all the butcher might say to the contrary; and surely, no man
not an out-and-out vegetarian, or lacking one of the five senses--to say
nothing of _common sense_--will admit that it is _necessary_ to be a
"butcher" to enable him to be a judge of good meat. On the same ground,
I contend that it is _not_ necessary for a man to be an artist to have a
thorough knowledge of perspective; and I have known many artists who
knew as little about perspective, practically, as their easel did. They
had a vague and dreamy idea of some governing principles, but how to put
those principles into practice they had not the slightest notion. I once
met an artist who could not put a tesselated pavement into perspective,
and yet he had some right to the title of artist, for he could draw and
paint the human figure well. Perspective is based on geometrical
principles, and can be as easily mastered by any man not an artist as
the first book of Euclid, or the first four rules of arithmetic; and,
for all that, it is astonishing how many artists know so little about
the working rules of perspective.
Again: Mr. Wall is surely not prepared to advance the dictum that no one
can know anything about art but a professional artist. If so, how does
he reconcile that opinion with the fact of his great and oft-quoted
authority, Ruskin, not being an artist, but simply, in his public
character, a voluminous writer on art, not always right, as many artists
and photographers very well know.
Mr. Wall objects to my use of the word "artist," but he seems to have
overlooked the fact that I used the quotation marks to show that I meant
to apply it to the class of self-styled artists, or men who arrogate to
themselves a title they do not merit--not such men as Landseer, Maclise,
Faed, Philips, Millais, and others of, and not of, the "Forty." Mr. Wall
may be an artist. I do not say he is not. He also is, or was, a painter
of backgrounds. So he can apply to himself whichever title he likes
best; but whether he deserves either one or the other, depends on what
he has done to merit the appellative.
Mr. Wall questions the accuracy of the principles I advocated in my
paper. I contend that I am perfectly correct, and am the more astonished
at Mr. Wall when I refer to vol. v., page 123, of the _Photographic
News_. There I find, in an article bearing his own name, and entitled
"The Technology of Art as Applied to Photography," that he says:--