alliance ever been considered? Has it been ascertained that an amicable
amalgamation with the Photographic Society of London is impossible? If
so, what are the motives of the proposers of the union of the North and
South London Societies? Do they wish to form a more powerful antagonism
to the other society, or do they simply and purely wish to further the
advancement of our art-science, and not to gratify personal pique or
wounded pride? I do not wish to impute such unworthy motives to anyone;
but it does seem singular that the proposition should come from the
Chairman of the North London Photographic Association almost
simultaneously with the resignation of his seat at the council board of
the Parent Society.
If, however, the motives are pure, honest, and earnest, I heartily
approve of the suggestion as a step in the right direction, although I
candidly admit that I would much rather see all the societies united in
one, and fully believe that that would be the most advantageous
arrangement that could possibly be made for all concerned.--I am,
yours, &c.,
Union Jack (J. Werge).
_London, February 18th, 1867._
UNION OF THE LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETIES.
_To the Editors of the British Journal._
Gentlemen,--Perhaps I am in courtesy bound to answer the questions of
your correspondents, Mr. Homersham and "Blue Pendant," but in
self-justification I do not think it necessary, for it turns out that my
suspicions of antagonism to the Parent Society were well founded; and,
from their remarks, and the observations of your contributor "D.," I
learn that the disaffection is more widely spread than I at first
thought it was.
I may have been wrong in suspecting the Chairman of the North London
Photographic Association of unworthy motives; if so, I frankly beg that
gentleman's pardon. But I am not wrong in suspecting that antagonism is
mixed up with the movement.
Your contributor "D." chooses to construe my unwillingness to make a
direct charge--my hope that there were no such unworthy motives--into
timidity; but I beg to remind "D." that there is not much, if any, of
that apparent in my putting the plain questions I did, which,
by-the-by, have not yet been very satisfactorily answered.
I flatter myself that I know when and how to do battle, and when to sue
for peace, as well as any in the service under whose flag I have the
honour to sail; and I, as much as anyone, admire the man that can fight
courageously when in the right, or apologise gracefully when in the
wrong; but, as the object of this correspondence is neither to make
recriminations, nor indulge in personal abuse, I return to the primary
consideration of the subject, and endeavour to sift the motives of the
movers of the proposition to unite the North and South London Societies,
and ascertain, if possible, whether they have the good of those
societies and the furtherance of photography really at heart or not.
_Imprimis_, then, let us consider the arguments of "D.," who cites the
resignation of three gentlemen in proof of the management of the London
Photographic Society being "out of joint." He might as well say,
"because a man is sick, leave him and let him die." If there were
anything they disliked in the government of the Society, or any evil to
be corrected, their most manly course was to have held on, and fought
the evils down. They all had seats at the Council board, and if they had
wished well to the Society, they would not have resigned them, but
battled for the right, and brought their grievances, real or imagined,
before the members. A special meeting has been called before now to
consider personal grievances which affected the honour of the Society,
and I should think it could have been done again. I do not maintain that
all is right in the Society, but I do think that they were wrong in
resigning their seats because an article appeared in the Society's
journal condemnatory of a process to which they happened to be devotedly
attached.
It can scarcely be supposed that the cause of reform, or the general
good of the country, would have been forwarded had Gladstone, Bright,
and Earl Russell resigned their seats as members of either House because
they could not carry their ministerial bill of last session. From this I
argue that men who have the object they advocate, and the "best
interests" of the Society, thoroughly at heart, will stick to it
tenaciously, whether in or out of office, and, by their watchfulness,
prevent bad becoming worse, in spite of captious opposition, fancied
insults, or journalistic abuse.
The next paragraph by "D." on which I shall comment contains that bold
insinuation of timidity, which I have already noticed as much as I
intend to do. But I wish to discuss the question of "absorption" a
little more fully. I cannot at all agree with the sentiments of "D." on
that subject. Absorption is in many instances a direct and positive
advantage to both the absorber and absorbed, as the absorption of Sicily
by Italy, and Frankfort and Hanover by Prussia. Nitric acid absorbs
silver, and how much more valuable and useful to the photographer is the
product than either of the two in their isolated condition; and so, I
hold, it would be with the Society were the two other Societies to join
the old one, impart to it their chief characteristics, re-model the
constitution, and elect the members of the Council by ballot. We should
then have a society far more powerful and useful than could ever be
obtained by the formation of a new one.
In the foregoing, I think I have also answered the question of Mr.
Homersham, as well as that part of "Blue Pendant's" letter relating to
the establishment of a _fourth_ society. On that point my views
harmonise with those of your contributor, "D."
On the subject of "members of Council," I do not agree with either "D."
or your correspondent "Blue Pendant." The Council should be elected from
and by the body of members, and the only qualifications necessary should
be willingness and ability to do the work required. No consideration of
class should ever be admitted. The members are all recommended by
"personal knowledge," and elected by ballot, and that alone should be
test sufficient on the score of respectability.
Concerning "papers written as puffs," I cordially agree with "Blue
Pendant" as far as he goes; but I go further than that, and would insist
on each paper being scrutinised, before it is read, by a committee
appointed for the purpose, so as to prevent "trade advertisements" and
such shamefully scurrilous papers as I have heard at the South London
Photographic Society.
With reference to the questions put by "Blue Pendant," I beg to decline
answering his second, it not being pertinent; but I shall reply to his
first more particularly. He seems to have forgotten or overlooked the
fact that I thought the advantages I enumerated would result from a
union of the _three_ societies--not from an alliance of the two only.
That I still look upon suspiciously as antagonistic to the Parent
Society; and "Blue Pendant's" antagonism is proved beyond doubt when he
says it is "tottering to its fall," and he almost gloatingly looks
forward to its dissolution coming, to use his own words, "sooner or
later," and "perhaps the sooner the better." But I venture to think that
"Blue Pendant" is not likely to be gratified by seeing the "aged Parent"
decently laid in the ground in his time. There is too much "life in the
old dog yet"--even since the secession--for that to come to pass. It
cannot be denied that the Parent Society has amongst its members some
of the best speakers, thinkers, writers, and workers in the whole
photographic community.
While discussing this subject, allow me, gentlemen, to advert to an
article in your contemporary of Friday last. In the "Echoes of the
Month," by an Old Photographer, the writer thinks that the advantages I
pointed out as likely to accrue from a union of the societies are a
"pleasant prospect that will not bear the test of figures." It is a fact
that "figures" are subject to the rules of addition as well as of
subtraction, and I wish to show by figures that my ideas are not so
impracticable as he imagines. In addition to the eight guineas a year
paid by the North and South London Photographic Societies for rent, I
notice in the report of the London Photographic Society, published last
month, two items in the "liabilities" which are worth considering. One
is "King's College, rent and refreshment, L42 4s. 6d.," which, I
presume, is for one year. The other is "King's College _soiree_ account,
L20 15s. 6d.," part of which is undoubtedly for rent of rooms on that
occasion. Now there is a clear showing of over L50 12s. 6d. paid in one
year by the three societies for rent and refreshment, the latter not
being absolutely necessary. I may be mistaken in my estimate of the
value of central property; but I do think a sum exceeding L50 is
sufficient to secure a room or chambers large enough for the purposes of
meeting, and keeping a library, &c.; or, if not, would it not be worth
while making a strain to pay a little more so as to secure the
accommodation required? If the Coventry Street experiment were a failure
from apathy or other causes, that is no proof that another attempt made
by a more numerous, wealthy, and energetic body would also be abortive.
In sea phraseology, "the old ship has made a long leg to-day!" but I
hope, gentlemen, you will not grudge the space required for the full and
careful consideration of this subject. The "developing dish" and the
ordinary _modus operandi_ of photography can well afford to stand aside
for awhile to have this question discussed to the end. I have not said
all I can on the amalgamation project, and may return to it again with
your kind permission, if necessary.--I am, yours, &c.,
Union Jack (J. Werge).
_London, March 4, 1867._
THE SOCIETY'S EXHIBITION.
Impressions and Convictions of "Lux Graphicus."
The brief and all but impromptu Exhibition of the Photographic Society,
recently held in the rooms of the Architectural Society, 9, Conduit
Street, Regent Street, where the Society's meetings are to be held in
future, was one of the pleasantest and most useful expositions in
connection with photography that has been consummated for many years. In
the first place the idea of an exhibition evening free from the
formalities of a _soiree_ was a happy one; the _locale_ was happily
chosen; and the whole arrangements most happily successful. Everybody
seemed to be pleased; cordial expressions of agreeable surprise were
freely exchanged; and there were abundance and variety enough of
pictorial display to satisfy the most fastidious visitor.
As might have been expected, the works of M. Salomon, exhibited by
Mr. Wharton Simpson, were the chief objects of attraction, and
during the whole of the evening an anxious group surrounded the
collection; and it was curious to remark with what eagerness these
pictures were scrutinized, so as to ascertain whether they were
examples of photography "pure and undefiled," or helped by artistic
labour afterwards. That they are the very finest specimens of
art-photography--both in the broad and masterly treatment of light and
shade, pose, manipulation, tone of print, and after finish--that have
ever been exhibited, is unquestionable; but to suppose that they are
photographs unaided by art-labour afterwards is, I think, a mistake. All
of the heads, hands, and portions of the drapery bear unmistakable
proofs of after-touching. Some of them give evidence of most elaborate
retouching on the hands and faces, on the surface of the print. I
examined the pictures by daylight most minutely with the aid of a
magnifying glass, and could detect the difference between the retouching
on the negative, and, after printing, on the positive. The faces of
nearly all the ladies present that appearance of dapple or "stipple"
which nothing in the texture of natural flesh can give, unless the
sitter were in the condition of "goose flesh" at the moment of sitting,
which is a condition of things not at all likely. Again, hatching is
distinctly visible, which is not the photographic reproduction of the
hatch-like line of the cuticle. In support of that I have two forms of
evidence: first, _comparison_, as the hatchings visible on the surface
of the print are too long to be a reproduction of the hatch-like
markings of the skin, even on the hands, which generally show that kind
of nature's handiwork the most. Besides, the immense reduction would
render that invisible even under a magnifying glass, no matter how
delicate the deposit of silver might be on the negative; or even if it
were so, the fibre of the paper would destroy the effect. Again, the
hatchings visible are not the form of nature's hatchings, but all
partake of that art-technical form called "sectional hatchings." I could
name several of the prints that showed most conclusive evidence of what
I say, but that is not necessary, because others saw these effects as
well as I did. But I wish it to be distinctly understood that I have not
been at the pains to make these examinations and observations with the
view of lessening the artistic merit of these pictures. I unhesitatingly
pronounce them the most beautiful achievements of the camera that have
ever been obtained by combining artistic knowledge and skill with the
mechanical aid of the camera and ability to handle the compounds of
photographic chemistry. There is unmistakable evidence of the keenest
appreciation of art, and all that is beautiful in it in the production
of the negative; and if the artist see or think that he can perfect his
work by the aid of the brush, he has a most undoubted right to do it.
This question of pure and simple photography has been mooted all the
summer, ever since the opening of the French Exhibition, and I am glad
that I, as well as others, have had an opportunity of seeing these
wonderful pictures, and judging for myself. Photography is truth
embodied, and every question raised about the purity of its productions
should be discussed as freely and settled as quickly as possible.
There was another picture in the exhibition very clever in its
conception, but not so in its execution, and I am sorry to say I cannot
endorse _all_ the good that has been said of it. I allude to Mr.
Robinson's picture of "Sleep." How that clever photographer, with such a
keen eye to nature as he generally manifests in his composition
pictures, should have committed such a mistake I am at a loss to know.
His picture of "Sleep" is so strangely untrue to nature, that he must
have been quite overcome by the "sleep that knits up the ravell'd sleeve
of _care_" when he composed it. In the centre of the picture he shows a
stream of light entering a window--a ghost of a window, for it is so
unsubstantial as not to allow a shadow to be cast from its _seemingly_
massive bars. Now, if the moon shone through a window at all, it would
cast shadows of everything that stood before it, and the shadows of the
bars of the window would be cast upon the coverlet of the bed in broken
lines, rising and falling with the undulations of the folds of the
covering, and the forms of the figures of the children. In representing
moonlight, or sunlight either, there is no departing from this truth. If
the direct ray of either stream through a closed window and fall upon
the bed, so will the shadows of the intervening bars. Any picture,
either painted or photographed, that does not render those shadows is
simply untrue to nature; and if the difficulty could not have been
overcome, the attempt should have been abandoned. Then the beams are not
sharp enough for moonlight, and the shadows on the coverlet and children
are not deep enough, and the reflections on the shadow side of the
children's faces are much too strong. In short, I do not know when Mr.
Robinson more signally failed to carry out his first intentions. Wanting
in truth as the composition is, it proves another truth, and that is,
the utter inability of photography to cope with such a subject. Mr.
Robinson exhibited other pictures that would bear a very different kind
of criticism; but as they have been noticed at other times I shall not
touch upon them here.
Herr Milster's picture bears the stamp of truth upon it, and is a
beautiful little gem, convincing enough that the effect is perfectly
natural.
Mr. Ayling's pictures of the Victoria Tower and a portion of Westminster
Abbey are really wonderful, and the bit of aerial perspective "Across
the Water" in the former picture is truly beautiful.
Mrs. Cameron persists in sticking to the out-of-the-way path she has
chosen, but where it will lead her to at last is very difficult to
determine. One of the heads of Henry Taylor which she exhibited was
undoubtedly the best of her contributions.
The pictures of yachts and interiors exhibited by Mr. Jabez Hughes were
quite equal to all that could be expected from the camera of that
clever, earnest, and indefatigable photographer. The portrait
enlargements exhibited by that gentleman were exquisite, and of a
totally different character from any other exhibitor's.
Mr. England's dry plate pictures, by his modified albumen process, are
undoubtedly the best of the kind that have been taken. They lack that
appearance of the representation of _petrified_ scenes that most, if
not all, previous dry processes exhibited, and look as "juicy" as "humid
nature" can well be rendered with the wet process.
Mr. Frank Howard exhibited four little gems that would be perfect but
for the unnatural effect of the artificial skies he has introduced. The
"Stranded Vessels" is nicely chosen, and one of the wood scenes is like
a bit of Creswick uncoloured.
Messrs. Locke and Whitfield exhibited some very finely and sketchily
coloured photographs, quite up to their usual standard of artistic
excellence, with the new feature of being painted on a ground of carbon
printed from the negative by the patent carbon process of Mr. J. W.
Swan.
Mr. Adolphus Wing's cabinet pictures were very excellent specimens, and
I think it a great pity that more of that very admirable style of
portraiture was not exhibited.
Mr. Henry Dixon's copy of Landseer's dog "Pixie," from the original
painting, was very carefully and beautifully rendered.
Mr. Faulkner's portraits, though of a very different character, were
quite equal in artistic excellence to M. Salomon's.
Mr. Bedford's landscapes presented their usual charm, and the tone of
his prints seemed to surpass the general beauty of his every-day work.
Mr. Blanchard also exhibited some excellent landscapes, and displayed
his usual happy choice of subject and point of sight.
An immense number of photographs by amateurs, Mr. Brownrigg, Mr.
Beasley, and others, were exhibited in folios and distributed about the
walls, but it is impossible for me to describe or criticise more.
I have already drawn my yarn a good length, and shall conclude by
repeating what I said at starting, that a pleasanter evening, or more
useful and instructive exhibition, has never been got up by the
Photographic Society of London, and it is to be hoped that the success
and _eclat_ attending it will encourage them to go and do likewise next
year, and every succeeding one of its natural life, which I doubt not
will be long and prosperous, for the exhibition just closed has given
unmistakable evidence of there being "life in the old dog yet."
_Photographic News, Nov. 22nd, 1867._
THE USE OF CLOUDS IN LANDSCAPES.
The subject of printing skies and cloud effects from separate negatives
having been again revived by the reading of papers on that subject at
the South London Photographic Society, I think it will not be out of
place now to call attention to some points that have not been commented
upon--or, at any rate, very imperfectly--by either the readers of the
papers or by the speakers at the meetings, when the subject was under
discussion.
The introduction of clouds in a landscape by an artist is not so much to
fill up the blank space above the object represented on the lower part
of the canvas or paper, as to assist in the composition of the picture,
both as regards linear and aerial perspective, and in the arrangement of
light and shade, so as to secure a just balance and harmony of the
whole, according to artistic principles.
Clouds are sometimes employed to repeat certain lines in the landscape
composition, so as to increase their strength and beauty, and to unite
the terrestrial part of the picture with the celestial. At other times
they are used to balance a composition, both in form and effect, to
prevent the picture being divided into two distinct and diagonal
portions, as evidenced in many of the pictures by Cuyp; on other
occasions they are introduced solely for chiaroscuro effects, so as to
enable the artist to place masses of dark upon light, and _vice versa_.
Of that use I think the works of Turner will afford the most familiar
and beautiful examples.
In the instances cited, I make no allusion to the employment of clouds
as repeaters of colour, but merely confine my remarks to their use in
assisting to carry out form and effect, either in linear composition, or
in the arrangement of light and shade in simple monochrome, as evidenced
in the engraved translations of the works of Rembrandt, Turner, Birket
Foster, and others, the study of those works being most applicable to
the practice of photography, and, therefore, offering the most valuable
hints to both amateur and professional photographers in the management
of their skies.
Before pursuing this part of my subject further, it may be as well,
perhaps, to state my general opinions of the effects of so-called
"natural skies," obtained by one exposure and one printing. Admitting
that they are a vast improvement on the white-sky style of the early
ages of photography, they fall far short of what they should be in
artistic effect and arrangement. In nearly all the "natural skies" that
I have seen, their office appears to be no other than to use up the
white paper above the terrestrial portion of the picture. The masses of
clouds, if there, seem always in the wrong place, and never made use of
for breadth of chiaroscuro.
No better illustrations of this can be adduced than those large
photographs of Swiss and Alpine scenery by Braun of Dornach, which
nearly all contain "natural clouds;" but, on looking them over, it will
be seen that few (if any) really exhibit that artistic use of clouds in
the composition of the pictures which evidence artistic knowledge. The
clouds are taken just as they happen to be, without reference to their
employment to enhance the effects of any of the objects in the lower
portion of the view, or as aids to the composition and general effect.
For the most part, the clouds are small and spotty, ill-assorting with
the grandeur of the landscapes, and never assisting the chiaroscuro in
an artistic sense. The most noticeable example of the latter defect may
be seen in the picture entitled "Le Mont Pilate," wherein a bald and
almost white mountain is placed against a light sky, much to the injury
of its form, effect, and grandeur; indeed, the mountain is barely saved
from being lost in the sky, although it is the principal object in the
picture. Had an artist attempted to paint such a subject, he would have
relieved such a large mass of light against a dark cloud. An example of
a different character is observable in another photograph, wherein a
dark conical mount would have been much more artistically rendered had
it been placed against a large mass of light clouds. There are two or
three fleecy white clouds about the summit of the mountain, but, as far
as pictorial effect goes, they would have been better away, for the mind
is left in doubt whether they are really clouds, or the sulphurous puffs
that float about the crater of a slumbering volcano. That photographs
possessing all the effects required by the rules of art are difficult,
and almost impossible to obtain at one exposure in the camera, I readily
allow. I know full well that a man might wait for days and weeks before
the clouds would arrange themselves so as to relieve his principal
object most advantageously; and, even if the desirable effects of light
and shade were obtained, the chances are that the forms would not
harmonize with the leading lines of the landscape.