CHAPTER V.

DECORATIVE ART.

[Sidenote: Decorative art.]

By the term “decorative,” we mean the ornamentation of anything constructed for some useful or special purpose as opposed to the ornamentation whose object is to please _per se_. Thus, though both sculpture and easel pictures are decorative in one sense, they are executed with no consideration or regard for other purposes than to please. As we have before shown, the humblest of the decorative arts may be raised to the dignity of a fine art if an artist takes the work in hand and succeeds, or the work may degenerate into mere craftsman’s work. For decorative purposes, the various methods are modified and adapted to the important considerations of the use and fitness of the object or place decorated. Thus no good artist would paint a finished and studied landscape on a dado, he would paint the scene flat, and colour it in appropriate harmony with surrounding objects, for that is the aim; and a workman not an artist would, of course, painfully elaborate and finish it so that it was neither a decorative work nor a painting in the ordinary sense. [Sidenote: Naturalism in decorative art.] In all good decorative work the same old story of naturalism holds good; all the best decorative work we have seen was _suggested_ by nature, and though, of course, it is beyond the scope of decorative art to “copy nature,” as superficial folk say, yet all patterns and forms and harmonies should be suggested by nature. We have seen harmonies of sea-weed and sand which would have made a beautiful colour scheme for decorative work. The best decorative work has always been suggested by nature; geometrical patterns being taken from crystals, microscopic drawings of vegetable cells, &c.

[Sidenote: Photography as applied to decorative art.]

However, we must omit a general discussion of this interesting subject, for we are here only concerned with its photographic side. We are not aware that this application of decorative art has ever received much attention; and when we mention transparencies and enamels, we have said all that has been done towards employing photography decoratively. By enamels, of course, is not understood those glossed and raised productions on paper, which by some extraordinary blunder have been erroneously called enamels.

[Sidenote: Principles.]

Now the photographer, who studies and hopes to excel at decorative photography, must remember that he must work on the same general principles as he does in producing pictures, that is, he must pay attention, in a broad way, to the tone of the room, to effects of contrast, to harmonies, to the effect of artificial lights and of complementary colours, and above all to naturalism. Thus a delicate landscape must not be enamelled on a tea-cup, for it is obviously false in principle to place a picture on a curved surface. Again, a palmetto leaf must not be burned into the tiles of a fireplace, the two are incongruous and incompatible. Taste and a regard for truth should govern all such work.

We will now briefly enumerate the uses to which photography might be put in decoration.

FOR PANELLING AND FRIEZES.

[Sidenote: Panelling and friezes.]

Much might be done in this direction by an appropriate choice of subject. For panels bits of landscape of strongly marked types, sea pieces, dead game, and plants might be admirably done. By landscapes of strongly marked type, we mean such things as a dead or leafless tree overhanging a pond, a pollarded willow in winter, and like subjects, where the elements are few, the composition simple, and where there are no subtle atmospheric effects. For this work the subject must be expressed with great terseness and directness, for the form is what is required, not subtlety of tone or mystery. A group of dead mallard or teal, or an arrangement of bulrushes and water-lilies, are all suitable and admirable subjects. [Sidenote: Negatives.] Negatives for this class of work should be rather dense, and in some cases they may be as sharply focussed as possible, it being remembered that for form (diagrammatic form) decision is what is required. There are certain subjects, however, which will bear being only just suggested, such as bulrushes, reeds, &c., which are full of character in themselves. These objects should be photographed against flat-tinted backgrounds, the colour chosen being ruled by the colour of the furniture of the room. [Sidenote: Red carbon.] The best method of procedure would be to sensitize the panel and print directly on to it by the platinotype process, or perhaps by some of the carbon processes, red carbon being especially suitable for this work. The Platinotype Company give directions for sensitizing various surfaces, all of which can be obtained from their offices in Southampton Row, High Holborn.

[Sidenote: Friezes.]

For friezes, beautiful arrangements could be made of suitably draped figures of girls, of athletes, and of animals, the draped figures being in white, taken against a black background. These subjects printed in red carbon would look admirable if properly arranged. Enlargements could be used in these cases, as it does not matter if the original negatives are made microscopically sharp. Various subjects and methods of treatment will suggest themselves to the thoughtful and artistic student.

[Sidenote: Tiles.]

We cannot help thinking there is a field for the photographic decoration of tiles. For this purpose, as they are low down and seen close to, tone pictures might be used; but any quality of landscape would not be admissible for this work. Mr. Henderson’s method of enamelling is fully given in the late Baden-Pritchard’s “Studios of Europe.” These tiles would have to be cautiously used.

[Sidenote: Windows.]

There is little or nothing to be done in the decoration of windows by photography. Of course, transparencies will immediately suggest themselves, but they, like modern glass painting, are false art. The first requisite of glass painting is that all the light possible shall pass through the pane, and that the colours shall be flat. Modern window-painters overstep the limits of the art, and try to render tone as well, the result being bad artistically and bad decoratively, as utility is affected. Glass transparencies and opals are, to our mind, worthless for decorative purposes, and should not be encouraged.

[Sidenote: Enamels.]

M. Lafon de Camarsac was the first to apply photography to porcelain work, in the year 1854. He worked with colours and produced some marvellous results, applying gold, silver, and various pigments in this way. His method was used for producing enamels for jewellery, but, of course, such things could be utilized in decorative work. But to produce pictures on tea-cups, saucers, brooches, &c., seems to us, against all principles of truth. We think that with great care and taste this class of work might be artistically utilized in decorative art, but none but an artist must attempt it. So we shall give Poitevin’s method.

[Sidenote: Poitevin’s method.]

A positive on glass is obtained, and a glass plate is coated with gum sensitized with bi-chromate of potash. The positive is then placed in contact with the prepared plate and exposed to the light, the result being invisible as in carbon printing. A very fine hair sieve is now taken, and dry powdered charcoal is sifted over the coated plate, and it will be found that the charcoal adheres to the parts acted upon by light. Thus is produced a delicate portrait in as perfect tone as the original. This portrait is temporarily secured by brushing it over with collodion. The collodion film has now to be separated by delicate knives, and it brings away with it the charcoal picture. This film is next placed on a white enamelled copper plate, which plates are bought ready prepared, and a fixing paste (that used by ceramic painters being employed) is spread with a brush over the enamel. This paste combines with the charcoal image. All is now ready for placing in the enamelling furnace, when vitrification takes place, and all the organic bodies are destroyed, the vitrified charcoal image alone remaining. We think that with taste even china services might be decorated by means of photography. At any rate there is a wide field for any one with taste and feeling.

[Sidenote: Wall-papers and hangings.]

We do not know whether or not photography has been applied to the manufacture of either of these materials, but there is wide scope for it. It must be remembered, however, that definite patterns are obtrusive and undesirable. A rather monotonous geometrical pattern is required, the suggestion, however, coming from nature. Thus a good pattern could be obtained from a transverse section of a rose-bud, or from various seed-cases, such as those of the convolvulus and rose. Histological specimens also, and desmids and diatoms, all suggest beautiful and varied forms of geometrical patterns. This has often occurred to us when examining the wonderfully varied and beautiful forms of the diatom family. It would, it seems to us, be very easy with multiplying backs to get large numbers of a form on one plate, and then to reproduce them by cheap photo-mechanical means, and though we have never yet heard of photographic wall-papers, yet there is no reason why they should not be manufactured, if made artistically.

[Sidenote: D'Oyleys.]

For hangings these same patterns might be woven in or even printed directly upon the materials, by the platinotype process. The company who brought forward that process keep prepared nainsook, why not other materials? For small things, such as d'Oyleys, an endless and pleasing variety might be introduced.

In short, photography can and should be made amenable to the principles of decorative art, and employed legitimately in thousands of ways; but the student must never forget that he must rigidly and resolutely keep within the bounds of his art, which bounds we have briefly indicated here. Common sense, taste, and study are his best safe-guards. In all attempts, however, let him go to nature for his suggestions; she, if he be humble and patient, will not be less lavish to him than to the painter. So we find ourselves at the end of this chapter, and our considerations on photography as applied to decorative art lead us to conclude that the form in which it is at present chiefly applied, i.e. transparencies, is false in principle, and therefore undesirable. We felt this long before we studied art at all, and although we made many opals and transparencies at one time, we soon gave them up as vanity and foolishness. Those, however, who with training and artistic feeling care to explore the undeveloped fields above indicated, will be sure to find many new treasures.

_L'ENVOI._ PHOTOGRAPHY—A PICTORIAL ART.

-------

It is easier to jape at the light-bearing goddess than to imitate her works.

“In such an age as this, painting should be _understood_, not looked on with blind wonder, nor considered only as poetic inspiration, but as a pursuit, _legitimate_, _scientific_, and _mechanical_.”

JOHN CONSTABLE.

_L'ENVOI._ PHOTOGRAPHY—A PICTORIAL ART.

[Sidenote: The aim.]

We wish from the first to make it clearly understood as to what is our object in comparing photography with the other pictorial arts. It is not to condemn any of the other arts as inadequate for artistic expression, for we hold that _good art_, as expressed even by a lead pencil, is better than bad art expressed on the largest of canvases, but our object is to inquire what position the technique of photography takes when regarded side by side with the methods and limits of each of the pictorial arts. [Sidenote: Rock scratchings.] The earliest pictorial expressions of the human mind were, as we all know, rude rock-scratchings in the form of outline. [Sidenote: Outline drawing.] This outline drawing served the earliest nations, as it still serves children, to express in a conventional way certain limited truths, for the power of seeing and analyzing nature is of recent development, and is even now far from fully developed. Keeping this in mind, we must nevertheless not allow ourselves to despise these efforts of the undeveloped mind. Line drawing, it must be remembered, has nothing to do with tone. If you look at a line drawing of a figure by a great master, it suggests to you, in a certain limited way, the real thing, for the lines bound spaces, hence there is a suggestion of the solid figure. With almost any medium, even with pen, ink, and paper, an artist will often draw a subject in outline, to see “how it will come.” Sculptors nearly always do this, but these men do not consider these outlines as finished works, but simply as an aid to their work,—mere brief sketches suggestive of what shall be. Of course, such notes when done by a great artist become invaluable, as suggesting great truth of impression. Yet there are men who seem to stop at this stage, and revel in “beauty of line,” or else they elaborate these drawings until they pass beyond the legitimate limits of the art by which they are expressed.

We will now briefly enumerate these arts with their limitations.

[Sidenote: Lead pencil.]

Lead Pencil.—The scale between the white and black is very limited, for, as any one who has drawn with lead pencil will remember, the lowest tones are grey as compared with dead black. They are also shiny because light is reflected by the plumbago. An artist can, however, express a suggestion of tone within a limited scale, and, notwithstanding this limitation, a first-rate lead pencil drawing may give a far truer impression of nature than a bad painting, and will accordingly rank higher artistically.

[Sidenote: Pen and ink.]

Pen and Ink.—The scale in this case is also limited and there can be no tone, but an artist, by shading can give an impression of tone, as can be seen in the clever drawings by an artist in the “German _Punch_.” Of course, as in lead pencil drawings, all subtle tonality is left out, the lightest tones being lost in white, and the darkest in black, but the suggestion may be a truthful impression if well done, and in such cases the work commands the greatest respect, ranking far higher than inferior work done with a more perfect technique. Sometimes washes are added to pen-and-ink drawings to increase the impression of tone. Here, again, the bad craftsman goes beyond the legitimate limits of the art, by the pen-rendering detail, and by the wash-rendering tone, impossibilities except in monochrome work. We have seen some detestable hybrids of this class, the result of the misspent energies of amateurs and others.

[Sidenote: Chalk.]

Chalk.—This gives the artist greater scope, for his scale is greater, and, in addition, chalk is not shiny and unnatural. This material is generally used for large work, and is better suited to that purpose, for the line is not so regular and has more of the decision and indecision of a natural outline as seen in a figure standing against a background. By choosing an appropriately colored chalk an artist can give a potent suggestion of texture, and, therefore, of truthfulness. Chalk was formerly much used for studies, but charcoal has now largely taken its place.

[Sidenote: Lithography.]

Lithography.—In this art a peculiar stone is chosen, which has an affinity for water and grease. The stone is drawn upon with a greasy, specially prepared lithographic ink. From this many copies can be taken. For reproducing chalk drawings the method is worked a little differently. It is of little use now for original work, on account of the introduction of the cheaper, more certain, and more beautiful photographic processes. We are all only too well acquainted with the outcome of this process of lithography, chromo-lithographs,—monstrosities which, it is needless to say, do not enter into the category of the fine arts. Chromo-lithography, however, has a commercial value, being very useful in the reproduction of patterns, &c.

[Sidenote: Line engraving.]

Engraving.—This is drawing on metal with a burin in a special manner; that is by pushing the burin away from the operator. Considerable pressure must be exerted; and it is evident that lines cut in this way must be formal. It is, perhaps, for this reason that it is scarcely ever used for original work, but only for copying. The scale in this case is limited between the black ink and white paper, and is greater than in the arts above dealt with; but there can be no subtleties of tone. Engravers supply this suggestion of tone by cross-hatching, and so suggest a natural impression, as can be seen in some of the landscapes engraved from nature by Albert Durer. Personally we are but very little interested in engraving apart from its historical interest. Artistically, the early work of Durer, and some of that of the so-called “little masters” is, in our opinion, the best ever done. All the work—and there is much of it—which has overstepped the narrow limits of the art of line engraving is to us distasteful, because it could have been so much better expressed by other methods. Engraving with a burin, even when assisted by dry point work, is always hard, formal, textureless, and without tonal subtlety; while the quality of modern engravings, by which popular editions of well-known authors are illustrated, is to us positively unpleasing and false. There is at the present day a vigorous attempt to bolster up engraving, and give it a fictitious value, but we feel sure it is doomed. Such a narrow, limited, untrue method of expression could never live beyond the day of necessity, when there was no better mode of expression. That day is already past, as there exist more complete methods. A good pen-and-ink work by Du Maurier is, artistically, far better than any engraving Cousins ever did; and as for the fearful travesties exposed for sale in dealer’s windows, we can only wonder who buys them. Perhaps the same mild imbeciles who collect “old engravings” promiscuously, not for any art qualities they possess, for the best of them are bad in many ways, but in order to collect, and appear learned (?) and artistic (?) to their less gifted (in purse) brethren. Of all the painters and sculptors we have known, we have never found one really interested in the class of engravings we are now describing.

Stippling, or engraving in dots, seems to us a yet worse device than cross-hatching. It is done with prepared needles, or a toothed wheel called a roulette. Stippling was by Bartolozzi and others combined with etching, and a hybrid was produced which, like all hybrids, was doomed to extinction.

As compared with photo-etching for the reproduction of pictures, no one but a fanatic would maintain its superiority. By using orthochromatic plates relatively, true values or tone, and true texture can be rendered, and no translator steps in to add to, or subtract from, the originality of the work. The student will soon find as he studies nature and the best art together, that line engraving is but a sorry method, its artificiality will soon disgust him, and no one with any real insight into the mysteries of nature can derive much pleasure from engravings, except, perhaps, from some of the best of the simple line engravings, such as some of Durer’s works.

[Sidenote: Wood engraving.]

Wood engraving.—In wood cutting the parts left uncut print dark, and those that are hollowed out or cut away do not print at all; thus, the white is cut out from a dark ground. The workman cuts with special graving tools on a block of box-wood, cut sectionally. Durer’s woodcuts are simply drawings on wood, parts of the wood being cut away, for in this way many could be readily printed. They were simply fac-similes of the lines of Durer’s drawing, and had no artistic aim of their own. [Sidenote: Bewick.] With Bewick, however, the matter was different. He saw the limits of wood engraving, and kept resolutely within those limits, like the true artist he was.

[Sidenote: American wood engravers.]

With Bewick the flat black and white spaces were the limitations, as we consider they are and always will be for original work, notwithstanding the American school of wood engraving, of which we shall have something to say presently. The scale in wood engraving is limited by the ink and paper, and the suggestion of tone is got by representing the light greys as white, and the darker darks as blacks. There is no subtle tonality in Bewick’s work, and though there is much suggestion of nature and truth, the expression is limited. But here, as in other arts, directly the legitimate limit is overstepped the work becomes bad. Bewick, of course, and a few of his pupils, did original work, but the modern wood engraver, though he expresses greater subtlety of tone, is, after all, only a fac-simile worker. In the American magazines the perfection of this fac-simile work is to be seen, and, in our opinion, this school started with the intention of imitating the delicacies of photography. That such work is most useful no one can doubt, but in our opinion it has outstepped the proper limits of wood engraving, and therefore no longer interests us. It must not be forgotten, too, that the works are fac-simile work and not original. In fact, a good fac-simile wood engraver may be no artist at all. It serves a certain use certainly, but, judged by artistic standards, an intaglio copper-plate print produced by photography is far more satisfactory. Would, however, that all the art-craftsmen who work in fac-simile, kept up to the standard of the American engravers, for the feeble works of this class to be seen in this country in the book and paper illustrations of the day are lamentable. They are travesties of nature; but what more can be expected when a block is often cut into separate pieces, and engraved by different workmen? Lamentable, too, is it that many a good photograph, brought home by travellers from abroad, should be botched and ruined by these wood engravers.

A great deal of cant has been talked lately about the harm done to engraving by photography. The harm was done long ago, when artists ceased to practise the art of engraving as an original art, as was done by Bewick and some few others, and when the work of cheap reproduction fell into the hands of craftsmen. If photographic processes do anything, they will either raise the standard of fac-simile art-craft by competition, or, which would be, perhaps, as well, kill it altogether. For artists in wood engraving like Bewick there is always room; and among the first to appreciate such work and to foster it, will be the artist who works in photography; he will understand the limits of the art, and appreciate any artist who uses it artistically.

[Sidenote: Etching.]

Etching.—As the public become more educated in art matters, we find etching rapidly replacing line engraving, just as we think original photo-etching will in time replace etchings.

Etching is drawing on zinc or copper with a needle, the plate being first prepared with a ground, the nature of which varies with different practitioners. Wax, burgundy pitch, and asphaltum form a common combination for producing a ground. This ground is often smoked to produce a uniform surface, and then the artist sketches on it as freely and lightly as he would on paper. The lines are afterwards bitten in by immersing the plate in acid. Some etchers assert that they etch whilst the plate is in the bath, but we cannot imagine such a method being very successful, for want of proper control over the work. Tone is produced by thickness of lines and by cross-hatching, and also by the printer in the manner of wiping the plate, and finally touches are often added with a dry point. In addition separate bitings can be given to a plate by “stopping out” the portion not requiring further biting, with some substance which resists the acid, usually a varnish. Another method is to silver the plate and cover it with a white wax ground, so that the etcher gets a dark line on a white surface. The plate is finally covered with a thin coating of steel by electricity, this process being called “acierage.” This facing is given to the plate to resist the wear and tear of printing.

Etching, it will be seen, is far more amenable to the artist’s will than line engraving and wood-cutting. Still it has its limits, for in it all the subtleties of tone are wanting, and there is, therefore, imperfect modelling. The values cannot be relatively truly rendered, nor is texture well rendered. All this great artists have recognized and have therefore resolutely confined themselves within the legitimate limits. The masters of etching, as Rembrandt in the past and Whistler in the present day, never try for delicacies of tone in their plates, but by line and cross-hatching, like an artist in pen and ink, they express themselves, and their works are beautiful and priceless. But as with all the other arts, so with etching, inferior men have tried by this method to rival more complete methods, and the result has been failure. By complicated line work and by printing flat tones, etchers are daily striving to express in translation the perfect technique of painting, and the results are unsatisfactory. Here, again, we find that the art-craftsmen, the translators of pictures, and not original artists, are the chief sinners, and this is a fact to be carefully remembered. A good etching by Rembrandt or Whistler gives us a satisfaction we cannot well express; but carefully elaborated etchings from pictures give us no satisfaction; on the contrary, they have gone so far that they compel us to compare the work with a more complete technique, and the result is great disappointment.

As mere art-craft for the translation of pictures, photo-etching will give etching points (points not of taste but of artistic facts), and beat it hollow, as any first-rate judge will allow. The best etchers we have met are unanimous in condemning elaborated work in etching, and they themselves work within the limits of its technique. Equally averse are they to the hybrid process of combining etching with photo-etching, a hybrid only practised by inferior men and appreciated by the untrained.

We must now leave line work, for though, as we have shown, very subtle suggestions of tone can be obtained by the use of cross-hatching, still true tonality and modelling cannot be obtained by any save more perfect methods. Directly an artist has a method by which he can express subtle tonality, he has a great additional power.

[Sidenote: Charcoal.]

Charcoal.—With this method the scale is limited as the black is not so deep as many other blacks used in the arts, but by its means delicate tonality can be obtained, but not the most delicate. The values too in a charcoal drawing are not true for this reason, because the most delicate light greys are lost; neither do we like the texture it gives. It is not true; nevertheless the result is often very fine. We had quite lately the opportunity of comparing the charcoal drawing of a very fine subject with nature, and also with a very fine painting of the same subject, and our opinion is that the charcoal drawing suggested the scene better than any line method could have done, but the suggestion was very far off the suggestion offered by the painting.

[Sidenote: Monochrome.]

Monochrome Painting.—A monochrome painting may be in any colour, but since the scale is so limited, say in red for example, and the effect, except for portraits, is so incongruous that no artist dares use it. Indian ink and sepia are the commonest colours used. Monochrome painting, did it portray the different colours, would follow the same laws as painting, and would have to be considered from the same stand-point. Therein then lies the difference, a good artist may express much in monochrome, and give the suggestion of nature to a very great extent, but he is limited by this method. Delicate tonality and modelling can be obtained, but there is an unnaturalness of the middle tints and an artificial look in the textures. Notwithstanding, very fine work is done in this way, especially by some of the modern French and Dutch painters.

[Sidenote: Aquatint.]

Aquatint, as its name implies, is a form of engraving best suited to reproduce water-colours. The plate is prepared in much the same way as it is for photo-etching, the acid biting between the dots of resin. This method is now rarely used.

[Sidenote: Mezzotint.]

Mezzotint.—In this process the plate is roughened all over by an instrument called a “cradle” or _berceau_. This is really a broad chisel with a cradle-shaped edge, on which are small rough edges. This is worked by the hand all over the plate until it is rough enough to hold ink. The scale in this method is wide, the blacks being very deep. The tones are formed by scraping away the ink by the engraver, the highest light being the deepest. It gives a very good tonality, and is really the only rival to photo-etching, but the plate will not last well, thirty good prints often being all that can be taken from a plate. The engraver, too, has not sufficient control over his work. As a rule it is only used for fac-simile work, and not for original work. It will in our opinion be the last form of engraving to succumb to photo-etching. It is better suited for portraiture than landscape work; the mezzotints from Constable’s paintings are very feeble and untrue.

[Sidenote: Photography.]

Photography.—Now we come to photography, which possesses a technique more perfect than any of the arts yet treated of. Photography, in fact, stands at the top of the tone class of methods of expression; so nearly perfect is its technique that in some respects it may be compared with the colour class. The scale here, too, is limited, but less so than that of any other black and white method. Its drawing is all but absolutely correct, that is if the lenses are properly used, as has been shown. It renders the values relatively correct if orthochromatic plates are used, and it renders texture _perfectly_. Its one limitation is that it must always be worked from models; but from what we have already said, we consider this no limit of consequence when the end in view is artistic expression. When, on the other hand, the end in view is utilitarian, this is, in certain cases, a limitation, but as we are considering it only as a method for artistic expression, we do not now consider that side of the question. As a facsimile method, it is unrivalled, for some of the art-craftsmen who have worked in this direction have so perfected it that little now remains to be done so far as copperplate work goes, though much remains to be done in connection with delicate blocks for the printing-press. As a recorder of scientific facts and as an adjunct to the traveller, it has no equal, for nothing need be allowed for the personal equation of the individual. Its immense value in all the sciences and arts has been touched upon. Critics opposed to photography, and they are now-a-days the old and prejudiced, are fond of citing Mr. P. G. Hamerton’s reasons for not considering photography one of the pictorial arts. Some of his arguments were perfectly admissible when he wrote them, but as he has not taken the trouble to correct them since, we suppose he still rests in the fancied security of having slain photography for ever. But photography was not killed by Mr. Hamerton. It could not resist him then, for it was but a little child, but now that it is well grown and can resist him it will do so through us here.

[Sidenote: Mr. Hamerton criticised.]

Mr. Hamerton says when any new art is under consideration, we must ask, “Can it interpret nature? Can it express emotions? Can it express fact and truth and poetry? Within what limit can it do these things? and finally has any one with it expressed human knowledge and feeling? Will it record the results of human observation? Has it ever been practised by great men, or do they pay much regard to it?”

Beginning, then, with question I.:—

Can it interpret nature? Yes, that at any rate is the opinion of more than one good sculptor, painter, and photographer, and plates can be produced which we challenge any one to prove are not interpretations of nature in the strictest sense of the word.

II. Can it express emotions? Yes, and so faithfully and subtilely that the late Charles Darwin used it to illustrate from nature, his work “On the Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals.” Of these photographs taken by Rejlander, Mr. Darwin writes in the work mentioned, “Several of the figures in these seven heliotype plates have been reproduced from photographs, instead of from the original negatives; and they are in consequence somewhat indistinct; nevertheless, they are faithful copies, and are much superior for my purpose to any drawing, however carefully executed.”

III. Can it express fact and truth? Yes, and there is no need to say any more on this head, except that it can express fact and truth more perfectly than any other black and white process. It is not absolutely perfect, but no art is.

IV. Within what limits can it do these things? The answer to this we have shown in this work.

V. Has it ever been practised by great men? Yes, and is practised now by many of our greatest living painters and sculptors, whose names we could give.

[Sidenote: Adam Salomon’s portraits.]

M. Adam Salomon, a sculptor of ability, a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, took the photographic world by storm, by his portraits exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867, and he continued to practise it up to within a short time of his death. Let the best sculptors and painters be asked how they regard photography—especially when they are at work on posthumous works. Finally we will give here an opinion on photography as written by an able landscape painter—namely, T. F. Goodall.

“Photography has undoubtedly played an important part in the development of modern art, both in figure and landscape. In landscapes we are inclined to think that the influence of photography was for a time hurtful, for this reason, painters were apt to emulate the detail of the photograph, and lose the breadth of man’s view of Nature in consequence. They did not take into account the fact that the lens commonly used was a more powerful mechanism than the human eye, or that it reproduced at once every detail of a scene with more distinctness on the plate than the eye would on the retina, even if the attention was concentrated on one part only at a time, and that therefore the resulting picture was not a true representation of Nature, as impressed on the mind by human vision. But for artistic purposes this may be remedied, and it appears to us that photographers must take the point into consideration if they would use the camera as a means of artistic expression. Hitherto the chief aim of the photographer seems to have been a biting sharpness of detail in the negative, which is generally quite fatal to the result from an artistic point of view, for in breadth lies the beauty and sentiment of landscape. To produce a picture the photographer must select his lens and adjust his focus, so as to get an expression as nearly identical with the visual one as possible, and he must print in such good tone as will give the closest approximation to the values in nature. In all these matters the result will depend on the taste and intelligence of the author, and bear the impress of his mind. If that be commonplace, his negative will be so also; if artistic, so will be his picture. There is no reason why photography, in capable hands, may not be made a means of interpreting nature second only in value to painting itself, destined to supersede all other black and white methods in bringing an extended knowledge of and taste for art to the masses of the people. The prejudice existing against photography arises from the fact that hitherto it has been worked merely as a mechanical process; but if by results it can show that it is worthy, it will rank as a fine art. Dr. Emerson was the first to advocate rationally the claims of photography to this distinction, and, artists will admit, has by his subsequent work made good his position so far as his own productions are concerned. There should be a great future for photography if followed on really artistic lines. It should be hailed as a most powerful ally by the modern school of painting, as by means of it people may be taught to perceive how false are many of the pictures they believe in, and how much more beautiful and interesting is truth. From an art-educational point of view its value can scarcely be overrated; much has been done, by photogravure and other processes of reproduction, to spread a knowledge of pictures, and there is no reason why the same methods should not be used for original work. A good photogravure is to be preferred to a bad painting or second rate engraving, and is incomparably better than the odious chromos and wretched prints with which so many walls are disfigured.

If, instead of being satisfied with mere topographical views or foreground sketches, the photographer has cultivated artistic feeling, means are at his command for communicating to others what has impressed himself, and he may produce work of permanent value. Everything depends on what he finds to say and how he tells it. If the operator has artistic insight, it will show itself in his negative, just as it would on his canvas, if he were a painter. The mechanical and chemical processes, the practical judgment necessary in timing his exposures, the skill and knowledge necessary in developing his plates; these are his technique; but the art value of the result will depend on what he communicates to us by its aid. As long as his ideas of pictorial art are confined in landscape to views of churches and ruins, rustic bridges and waterfalls, or topographical views of the haunts of tourists, taken from the guide-book point of view, and in figure to artificial compositions, reminding one of an amateur theatrical performance, so long will his work be destitute of artistic qualities, and therefore valueless, but if he brings to his work a genuine appreciation of the picturesque in landscape and figure, and a knowledge of how so to place a subject on his plate as to convey his impressions to others, he may produce most beautiful and meritorious results. He must learn, as the painter has to do, to distinguish what in nature is really suitable for pictorial purposes, on account of beauty of form, or tone, from what merely gives him pleasure by some quality which, however impressive in nature, it is not possible to transfer to canvas. A picture being a design enclosed by four straight lines, can only please and impress by certain suitable decorative qualities in the subject. To know what will make a picture is one of the most difficult secrets in landscape art; knowing just how much of a scene to take in, where to begin and where to end, decides whether the result will carry a distinct and complete impression, or be merely a haphazard study.”

What great artists elsewhere have thought of photography is shown by the following extract from one of J. F. Millet’s letters to his friend Feuardent. After asking Feuardent to bring him some photographs from Italy, Millet continues, “In fact, bring whatever you find, figures and animals. Diaz’s son, the one who died, brought some very good ones, sheep among other things. Of figures, take of course those that smack least of the Academy and the model—in fact all that is good, ancient or modern.”

The daily use made of photography by artists is another proof of the good opinion in which it is held by them. You could not get these men to say a word in favour of chromo-lithography, because that is a hybrid craft with few possibilities. These questions being disposed of, we will proceed to discuss an assertion of Mr. Hamerton’s, that photography is like a reflection in a mirror. Now from what we have shown in this book, means are at the artist’s command to influence the final picture in every stage of its development. If an artist such as Carolus Duran, say, were thoroughly versed in photography, and a craftsman, like one of the numerous operators employed by the large photographic firms, were to be placed together, say on one of the Norfolk Broads for a week, according to Mr. Hamerton’s _reflection theory_, they would both return with work of the same quality, differing only in points of view; for Duran’s reflections would be the same as the craftsman’s, point of view always excepted. A theory that allows such an absurd application needs little comment, one remark only will we put forward. In what ignorance of optics Mr. Hamerton has allowed himself to remain! when every one knows that a reflection in a mirror is a virtual image, and _does not exist_. By pushing this theory to its logical conclusion, a monkey with a camera could produce as good pictures as Mr. Hamerton could make with the same instrument.

In “Thoughts on Art” Mr. Hamerton speciously compares photography with painting. Why not compare it with etching? It can never be compared with painting until photography in natural colours is an accomplished fact. Mr. Hamerton, after speaking of the limited scale of light in all art, goes on to say, “But look at poor photography’s scale compared with the scale in painting.” Just so, but it has a _much greater_ scale than any other black and white method, far greater than the scale of his pet etching. Why did he not state this? Why did he ignore it? Further on Mr. Hamerton enunciates that if we expose for the glitter of the sea, everything on the bank will be without detail. It is unnecessary to say this is not so, and any good photographer can easily prove this statement. Of course the only excuse for these untrue statements is that such marvellous strides have been made in what is called “instantaneous photography” since Mr. Hamerton committed his last criticisms to paper (in 1873), that probably he does not know that photographs can now be taken at midnight by a _flash of light_ in a fraction of a second, and with very fair results, as any one can prove for himself. Mr. Hamerton finds too that the _sum_ of detail in good topographical drawings is greater than that in a good photograph. Well, Mr. Hamerton may do so, just as some people see green as red, but all good photographers will laugh at the statement, and we challenge Mr. Hamerton that we will produce a greater _sum_ of detail in a photograph of a set subject than he will by any amount of drawing, and consider it no great feat either. But this has nothing to do with the artistic value of photography, or with its comparison with painting. Mr. Hamerton is here comparing it with architectural drawing.

Mr. Hamerton next says the drawing of mountains is false in photography. If that were so in 1860, it was Mr. Hamerton’s fault for ignorantly using his lens, for, as we have shown, lenses are true perspective delineators _if correctly used_.

Finally Mr. Hamerton, in 1873, sums up _his_ objections to photography from the purely artistic point, as follow:—

I. “It is false in local colour, putting all the lights and darks of natural colouring out of tone.” With the aid of orthochromatic plates it does no such thing, as any reader can prove for himself by getting a chromograph with yellow, red, blue, or any other bright colours, photographed by Mr. Dixon, of 112, Albany Street, London.

II. “It is false in light, not being able to make those subdivisions in the scale which are necessary to relative truth.” This is not so. It is false in light so far as all art is false in light, but photography can make more subtle distinctions in the scale than any other known black and white method.

III. “It is false in perspective, and consequently in the proportions of forms.” It is not. This remark convicts Mr. Hamerton of ignorance of optics and the proper use of photographic lenses. Vide Cap. II.

IV. “Its literalness, incapacity of selection, and emphasis, are antagonistic to the artistic spirit.” Photography is not literal, as the flexible technique shows; it is capable of selection almost to any extent, though, of course, it is incapable of leaving out a tree, and putting in an imaginary man. What an incapacity for emphasis means, we neither know nor care to know.

[Sidenote: Answers to other criticisms.]

Following in Mr. Hamerton’s steps other critics have raised their objections to photography, and these we shall discuss briefly.

“A photograph,” it has been said, “shows the art of nature rather than the art of the artist.” This is mere nonsense, as the same remark might be applied equally well to all the fine arts. Nature does not jump into the camera, focus itself, expose itself, develop itself, and print itself. On the contrary, the artist, using photography as a medium, chooses his subject, selects his details, generalizes the whole in the way we have shown, and thus gives _his_ view of nature. This is not copying or imitating nature, but interpreting her, and this is all any artist can do, and how perfectly he does it, depends on his technique, and his knowledge of this technique; and the resulting picture, by whatever method expressed, will be beautiful proportionately to the beauty of the original and the ability of the artist. These remarks apply equally to the critics who call pictures “bits of nature cut out.” There is no need to slay the slain, and give any further answer to the objection that photography is a mechanical process, if there were, it would be enough to remind the objectors that if twenty photographers were sent to a district of limited area, and told to take a given composition, the result would be twenty different renderings. Photographs of any artistic quality have individuality as much as any other works of art, and of the few photographers who send artistic work to our exhibitions, we would wager to tell by whom each picture is done. Of course, the ordinary art-craftsman has no individuality, any more than the reproducer of an architectural or mechanical drawing. But where an artist uses photography to interpret nature, his work will always have individuality, and the strength of the individuality will, of course, vary in proportion to his capacity.

Photography has been called an “irresponsive medium.” This is much the same as calling it a mechanical process, and, therefore, disposed of, we venture to think. A great paradox which has to be combatted, is the assumption that because photography is not “hand-work,” as the public say,—though we find there is very much “hand-work _and_ head-work” in it—therefore, it is not an Art language. This is a fallacy born of thoughtlessness. The painter learns his technique in order to speak, and as more than one painter has told us, “painting is a mental process,” and as for the technique they could almost do that with their feet. So with photography, speaking artistically of it, it is a very severe mental process, and taxes all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered his technique. The point is, _what you have to say, and how to say it_. It would be as reasonable to object to a poet printing his verse in type instead of writing it in old Gothic with a quill pen on asses' skin. Coupled with this accusation, goes that of want of originality. The originality of a work of art, it should be needless to say, refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed, whether it be in poetry, photography, or painting, and the original artist is surely he who seizes new and subtle impressions from nature, “tears them forth from nature,” as Durer said, and lays them before the world by means of the technique at his command. That one technique is more difficult than another to learn, no one will deny, but the greatest thoughts have been expressed by means of the simplest technique—namely writing.

As we have shown, all arts are limited, some in one way, some in another, two limitations of photography are that it “cannot express an intention” and “it must take whatever is before it.” We shall endeavour to answer these objections, which we frankly allow are the only serious objections to be brought against it. “It cannot express an intention.” This, at first sight, seems an insuperable objection, but on reflection it is no real objection at all when the object of photography is artistic expression. As we pointed out in Book I., it is our opinion that all the best art has been done direct from nature, and that no “intention” requires expression. No artist worthy of the name ever drew a picture evolved from his inner consciousness; if it is a brief note to see how a thing will come; it is either from nature, or from his remembrance of nature. The photographer then must compose on his ground glass or in nature, or if he wants to see how it will come, he too can draw the lines on his ground glass. But the great point is, such drawing is perfectly unnecessary for artistic purposes; only for architectural uses is it necessary, for the architect must draw a plan of his building before it can be built. This distinction has either been overlooked or speciously suppressed by Mr. Hamerton. But then we have nothing to do with architectural drawing; and if in this instance photography cannot help the architectural draughtsman, yet there are hundreds of instances in scientific studies in which _nothing can help so well as photography_, for example, in astronomy, spectral analysis, bacteriology, &c., &c. Finally, we are not aware that sculpture can help the architectural draughtsman. The second objection that the camera will take everything before it, is not of any vital importance. It only makes the field to select from more limited, and gives the artist greater credit when he does a good thing. And if we are true to one of our principles, namely, that the subject should so strike the artist that he wishes only to reproduce it, it is no objection at all, for a subject with an eyesore marring it would not, or should not, appeal to the artist sufficiently to make him wish to reproduce it. We will also give the opinion of a painter on this point. Mr. Goodall writes:—“These two subjects serve well to illustrate how unnecessary it is to alter the natural arrangement of things in order to make a picture. Although they are literal transcripts, it is hard to find a line in them which could be altered with advantage. The designs presented by nature ready made, always interest us far more than the artificial compositions of painters who pick and choose, arrange and alter, the material around them in constructing their pictures. When a picture is patched together, as it were, a bit here and a bit there, whatever the gain in composition, there is always a more than corresponding loss in those little subtleties which give quality to the work. If the beauty of a subject in nature does not appeal to the painter with sufficient force to make him wish to paint it exactly as it is, he had better leave it alone altogether, and seek some other that does. A man must be moved too deeply by something to dream of improving it by alterations, before he can possibly paint a really good picture.” But has not this very limitation its advantages as well as its disadvantages? There can be no scamping or dishonest work, and the artist must always go to nature. Had the ancient Greeks known and handed down photography—and a sculptor friend of ours is inclined to think they did have something of the kind—there would not have followed the terrible decadence in art which came after them owing to the neglect of nature, as we have shown. Again, an _immense power which photography possesses over any other art is the rapidity with which an effect can be secured_. The painter is limited to a portion of the day—his effect is only present at certain times, or his model tires; but the artist working with photography, when he sees his effect is right, can secure it in the twinkling of an eye. This advantage over all the other arts far outweighs the limitation of the field of selection.

It has been said, “The camera sees far more than the eye takes in at any given moment, and sees it with an impartiality for which there is no parallel in the human vision.” This objection has been answered in the body of the work; it only holds true with bad work, and with that we are in no way concerned.

A kindly critic, who did us the honour of reviewing us in the _Spectator_, said if our “contention were true, painting would have said its last word, and sculpture would no doubt soon be superseded by some mechanical contrivance, which would be to clay and marble what the camera is to plane surfaces.” Now we must break a lance with this reviewer and gentleman; we wish all reviewers deserved the last title. We fail to see why painting should have said its last word—for our contention _is true—pace_ our reviewer. The great fact of colour alone places true painting as a method of expression far above any other method. When photographs can be taken in natural colours, then will be the time to discuss the probable dying groans of painting. As to sculpture, it seems to us useless to discuss the merits of “probable mechanical contrivances;” when they are invented the time will come to discuss them. At present the only comparison that can be made is that between a cast of, say, a hand from life, and a modelled hand. When this comparison is made, the “cast from life” will be found poor and mean—_it is not a true impression_. The modelled hand may be so, if the sculptor is good. It is of course needless to point out that the principle of tone holds in sculpture as in painting, but the cast from life cannot have subtleties of tone for a very obvious physiological reason, namely, reflex action. If you touch a hand with a foreign substance, reflex action is set up, and there is an alteration in the heights and depths of the modelling, and the play of light gives a different impression. Now, when a living hand is covered with plaster a rough model is obtained—a model of its structure merely, and all the subtleties of tone are lost. Those subtleties would, however, all be given in a photograph, for nothing is touched, and a true impression is rendered of the hand. What more hideous travesty of nature is there than a cast taken from a dead subject—the cast being merely an exaggeration of the faults in a cast taken from life?

Here, then, we must leave photography _at the head of the methods for interpreting nature in monochrome_, and we feel sure that any one who comes to the study of photography with a rational and an unbiassed mind will admit there is no case to be made out against it as a means of artistic expression. This much has been allowed by very many of our friends, who are at the same time accomplished artists—etchers, painters, and sculptors.

The student must remember, then, that a first-rate photograph, like a first-rate pencil drawing, pen-and-ink drawing, etching, or mezzotint, is far and away superior to a second-rate painting. The greatest geniuses in art will admire the one and will not tolerate the other; but the student must also remember that a false “picture” is worse than nothing.

[Sidenote: Some masters of the minor arts.]

The student should acquaint himself with the best specimens of the various pictorial arts mentioned in this chapter, and he can do this with little difficulty by obtaining a ticket for the print-room at the British Museum; while in the provinces there are no doubt good specimens at the local galleries. Cambridge, we know, is very rich in Rembrandt’s work. The masters in each department whose work we recommend for study are—

In Lead Pencil.—Harding and Bonington in England, and Ingres in France.

Pen and Ink.—Titian, Albert Durer, Rembrandt, Fortuny, Rousseau, abroad; and among Englishmen—Leech, Caldecott, De Maurier.

Chalk.—Da Vinci, Andrea del Sarto, Rembrandt, Raphael, Titian, Constable and Millet.

Lithography.—Harding.

Chromo-lithography.—Greg.

Line Engraving.—Albert Durer, and Cousins.

Wood Engraving.—Bewick, Thompson, and Linton.

Facsimile Wood Engraving.—“The Century,” Scribner’s, and Harper’s Magazines.

Etching.—Rembrandt, Millet, Meryon, Rajon, and Whistler.

Facsimile Etching.—Brunet-Debaines.

Charcoal.—Lhermitte.

Monochrome Painting.—Mauve and Rossi.

Mezzotint.—Turner’s and Lupton’s reproductions of some of the plates of Turner’s “Liber Studiorum,” Smith’s reproductions of Sir Joshua Reynolds' pictures, and Lucas' plates after Constable.

Photography.—Adam Salomon, Rejlander, and Mrs. Cameron.

Photogravure in facsimile.—A. Dawson, W. Colls, and Scamoni.

[Sidenote: Final.]

It must not be forgotten that water-colour drawing and etching have both been despised in their time by artists, dealers, and the public, but they have lived to conquer for themselves places of honour. The promising young goddess, photography, is but fifty years old. What prophet will venture to cast her horoscope for the year 2000?

APPENDIX.

“_Very few poets_ get their inspiration from nature. The majority of them have read other poets, and they use the same ideas, clothed in different language. The painter has to go directly to nature, or he is a mere copyist. He cannot paint his picture like somebody else. He must tell his own story if he has any to tell. Please to look out of the window! You’ll get something different from what you get out of books, for it never has been seen before!”

W. HUNT.

APPENDIX I.

[Sidenote: Books on art.]

We are continually receiving letters from correspondents asking us to recommend them some books on art.

Now we can deeply sympathize with these earnest fellow-workers, for at one period we wasted much time in vexation of mind in reading the works of “self-appointed preachers, who knew many things save their subject.” When we endeavoured to learn something of art we put the very same question to our teachers, and the answer came, “There is nothing worth reading; some good things have been written by painters but they are old now, for art has developed greatly of late years, one thing only we can advise you, don’t read anything not written by a practical man.”

When we came to consider the writings of artists, we found that but very little had been written by them, and we can only repeat to the student, with the full conviction of experience, that he must read nothing save that written by practical artists.

[Sidenote: Technique and Practice of art.]

The technique and practice of art can be taught in studios, and its principles can be scientifically recorded, but the poetry of art cannot be taught, only hints can be thrown out. The poetic qualities which make an artist as distinguished from the craftsman are born in a man and cannot be acquired by any amount of training. It is for this reason we must suppose that artists have, as a rule, thrown out suggestions and hints rather than enunciated any laws: these hints and suggestions, then, coupled often with the rhapsodies of literary men, form the body of all writings on art.

The only books we know of from which the student will derive some benefit are Leslie’s “Life of John Constable.”

[Sidenote: Books recommended.]

William Hunt’s “Talks about Art.”—This excellent little book is often contradictory and illogical, but nevertheless we heartily recommend it.

[Sidenote: Photographic libraries.]

In the body of this work we spoke of recommending a few books which every photographer should have in his library, and if he has no library he should at once make a modest beginning. The library is, to the intellectual man, the armoury wherein are kept the arms which he must wield in the battle for truth.

Every photographic society in the world, worthy of the name, should collect all journals, pamphlets, and books bearing on photography, as well as all books illustrated by photography and photographic processes. Scrap-books should be kept in which are pasted all newspaper and magazine articles on photographic subjects. Photography is but young, and there is plenty of time to make such a collection complete. If all the numerous societies subscribed, it might be worth while to reprint whole volumes of rare journals.

The numerous photographic societies in this country could easily get library subscriptions, or even organize entertainments amongst their members and friends to procure the necessary funds for a library.

[Sidenote: Books recommended.]

The Camera Club has set an admirable example in this direction which will no doubt be followed. Among the books we should recommend the student to begin with are—

Captain Abney’s _Treatise on Photography_, Longman and Co.

Professor Tyndall’s _Lectures on Light_, Longman and Co.

Dr. Lömmer’s _Optics and Light_ } International Dr. Vogel’s _Chemistry of Light and } Science Photography_ Series.

The late Mr. Sawyer’s _ABC of Carbon Printing_. The Autotype Company.

Dr. Eder’s _Modern Dry Plates_, Piper, Carter, and Co.

Dr. Ganot’s _Physics_, Longman and Co.

Professor Roscoe’s _Lessons in Elementary Chemistry_, Macmillan.

The late Professor Bloxham’s _Laboratory Teaching_, Macmillan.

Messrs. Hardwich and Taylor’s _Photographic Chemistry_, Churchill.

Mr. Jerome Harrison’s _History of Photography_, Trübner and Co.

Dr. Wilson’s edition of Burnet’s _Treatise on Painting_. This book can be obtained of Messrs. Lund and Co., St. John Street, Bradford.

The late Mr. Baden Pritchard’s _Photographic Studios of Europe_, Piper, Carter, and Co.

Mr. Bolas' Cantor _Lectures on Photo-mechanical Processes_, Piper, Carter, and Co.

Mr. Hodgson’s _Modern Methods of Book Illustration_.—Mr. Hodgson’s was the first book on photo-mechanical processes, and it still remains one of the best.

Dr. Liesgang’s _Manual of Carbon Printing_, Sampson Low and Co.

Messrs. Welford and Sturmey’s _Photographer’s Indispensable Handbook_. Iliffe and Son.

Mr. Chapman Jones' _Science and Practice of Photography_. Iliffe and Son.

_Traité Encyclopédique de Photographie_, par Dr. Charles Fabre. Paris, Gauthier-Villars.

---------------------

APPENDIX II.

--------------

SCIENCE AND ART.

(_A Paper read at the Camera Club Conference, held in the rooms of the Society of Arts, London, on March 26th, 1889._)

MR. PRESIDENT, LADIES, AND FELLOW-PHOTOGRAPHERS,—Before beginning this paper I would fain ask of you two things,—your attention and your charity, but especially your charity. The reception which you accord me, ladies and gentlemen, assures me you will give both, and I thank you beforehand.

Since all mental progress consists, as Mr. Herbert Spencer has shown, for the most part in differentiation,—that is in the analysis of an unknown complex into known components,—surely it were a folly to confuse any longer the aims of Science and Art. Rather should we endeavour to draw an indelible line of demarcation between them, for in this way we make mental progress, and Science and Art at the same time begin to gather together their scattered forces, each one taking under its standard those powers that belong to it, and thus becoming integrated, and necessarily stronger and more permanent; for evolution is integration and differentiation passing into a coherent heterogeneity. Now, I do not mean to premise that this confusion between Science and Art exists everywhere,—it does not. But I feel sure that it exists largely in the ever-increasing body of persons who practise photography. The majority of them have not thoroughly, nay, not even adequately, thought the matter out. It is obvious then, according to the teachings of evolution, that, if we are to make progress, this differentiation must be made, thoroughly understood, and rigidly adhered to by every practitioner of photography. Each one must have his aim clearly stamped upon his mind, whether it be the advancement of Science or the creation of works whose aim and end is to give æsthetic pleasure. Proceed we now to analyze the difference between the aims and ends of Science and Art.

Let us first approach the subject from the scientific standpoint.

Assuming that we have before us a living man, let us proceed together to study him scientifically, for the nonce imagining our minds to be virginal tablets, without score or scratch. Let us proceed first to record the colour of his skin, his hair and eyes, the texture of his skin, the relative positions of the various orifices in his face, the number of his limbs, the various measurements of all these members. So we go on integrating and differentiating until we find that we have actually built up a science,—ethnology. If we pursue the study, and begin to compare different races of men with each other, we find our ethnology extends to a more complex anthropology.

We next observe that the eyelids open and close, the lips open, sounds issue from the mouth, and our curiosity leads us to dissect a dead subject, and we find that beneath the skin, fat, and superficial _fasciæ_ there are muscles, each supplied with vessels and nerves. We trace these vessels and nerves to their common origins, and are led to the heart and brain. In short, we find the science of anatomy grows up under our hands, and if we go on with our studies we are led into microscopy. Then we begin to ponder on the reasons why the blood flows, on the reasons why the _corrugator supercilii_ and _depressores anguli oris_ act in weeping, the _musculus superbus_ in practical arrogance, and the _levator anguli oris_ in snarling or sneering. So we go on studying the functions of all the organs we find in our man, and lo! we are deep in physiology; and if we go deeply enough we find the thread lost in the most complex problems of organic chemistry and molecular physics. And so we might go on studying this man; and if our lives were long enough, and if we had capacity enough, we should be led through a study of this man to a knowledge of all physical phenomena, so wonderful and beautiful is the all-pervading principle of the conservation of energy, and so indestructible is matter. As we proceeded with our studies we should have been observing, recording, positing hypotheses, and either proving or disproving them. In all these ways we should have been adding to the sum of knowledge. And in the greatest steps we made in our advancement we should have made use of our _constructive imagination_,—the highest _intellectual_ power, according to recent psychologists.

The results of these investigations, if we were wise, would have been recorded in the simplest and tersest language possible, for such is the language of Science. It is needless to point out that in these records of our studies, as in the records of all scientific studies, _too many_ facts could not possibly be registered. Every little fact is welcome in scientific study, so long as it is true. And thus the humblest scientific worker may help in the great work; his mite is always acceptable. Such is, alas! not the case with that jealous goddess, Art: she will have nothing to do with mediocrity. A bad work of art has no _raison-d'être_; it is worse than useless,—it is harmful.

To sum up, then, “Science,” as Professor Huxley says, “is the knowledge of the laws of Nature obtained by observation, experiment, and reasoning. No line can be drawn between common knowledge of things and scientific knowledge; nor between common reasoning and scientific reasoning. In strictness, all accurate knowledge is Science, and all exact reasoning is scientific reasoning. The method of _observation_ and _experiment_ by which such great results are obtained in Science is identically the same as that which is employed by every one, every day of his life, but refined and rendered precise.”

Now let us turn to Art, and look at our imaginary man from the artistic standpoint. Assuming that we have learned the technique of some method of artistic expression, and that is part of the science we require, we will proceed with our work.

Let us look at the figure before us from the sculptor’s point of view. Now what is our mental attitude? We no longer care for many of the facts that vitally interested us when we were studying the man scientifically; we care little about his anatomy, less about his physiology, and nothing at all about organic chemistry and molecular physics. We care nothing for his morality, his thoughts, his habits and customs,—his sociological history, in fact; neither do we care about his ethnological characters. If he be a good model, it matters little whether he be _Greek_, _Italian_, or _Circassian_. But we do care, above all, for his type, his build, and the grace with which he comports himself; for our aim is to make a statue like him, a statue possessing qualities that shall give æsthetic pleasure. For the _raison-d'être_ of a work of art ends with itself; there should be no ulterior motive beyond the giving of æsthetic pleasure to the most cultivated and sensitively refined natures.

The first thing, then, we must do is to sit in judgment on our model. Will he do for the purpose? Are his features suitable? Is _he_ well modelled in all parts? Does he move easily and with grace? If he fulfils all these conditions we take him. Then we watch his movements and seize on a beautiful pose. Now with our clay we begin to model him. As we go on with our work we begin to see that it is utterly impossible to record all the facts about him with our material, and we soon find it is undesirable to do so,—nay, pernicious. We cannot model those hundreds of fine wrinkles, those thousands of hairs, those myriads of pores in the skin that we see before us. What, then, must we do? We obviously _select_ some,—the most salient, if we are wise,—and _leave out_ the rest.

All at once the fundamental distinction between Science and Art dawns upon us. We _cannot_ record too many facts in Science; the fewer facts we record in Art, and yet express the subject so that it cannot be better expressed, the better. All the greatest artists have _left out_ as much as possible. They have endeavoured to give a fine _analysis_ of the model, and the Greeks succeeded.

It is beside the question to show how Science has exercised an injurious influence upon certain schools in art; but that would be very easy to do. At the same time, the best Art has been founded on scientific principles,—that is, the physical facts have been true to nature.

To sum up, then, Art is the selection, arrangement, and recording of certain facts, with the aim of giving æsthetic pleasure; and it differs from Science fundamentally, in that as few facts are compatible with complete expression are chosen, and these are arranged so as to appeal to the emotional side of man’s nature, whereas the scientific facts appeal to his intellectual side.

But, as in many erroneous ideas that have had currency for long, there lurks a germ of truth, so there lurks still a leaven of Art in Science and a leaven of Science in Art; but in each these leavenings are subordinate, and not at the first blush appreciable. For example, in Science the facts can be recorded or demonstrated with selection, arrangement, and lucidity; that is, the leaven of Art in Science. Whilst in Art the physical facts of nature must be truthfully rendered; that is, the leaven of Science in Art.

And so we see there is a relationship between Science and Art, and yet they are as the poles asunder.

II.

We shall now endeavour to discuss briefly how our remarks apply to photography. Any student of photographic literature is well aware that numerous papers are constantly being published by persons who evidently are not aware of this radical distinction between Science and Art.

The student will see it constantly advocated that every detail of a picture should be impartially rendered with a biting accuracy, and this _in all cases_. This biting sharpness being, as Mr. T. F. Goodall, the landscape-painter, says, “_Quite fatal from the artistic standpoint_.” If the rendering were always given sharply, the work would belong to the category of topography or the _knowledge_ of places, that is _Science_. To continue, the student will find directions for producing an _unvarying_ quality in his negatives. He will be told how negatives of low-toned effects may be made to give prints like negatives taken in bright sunshine; in short, he will find that these writers have a _scientific ideal_, a sort of _standard negative_ by which to gauge all others. And if these writers are questioned, the student will find the _standard negative_ is one in which all detail is rendered with microscopic sharpness, and one taken evidently in the brightest sunshine. We once heard it seriously proposed that there should be some sort of _standard lantern-slide_. My allotted time is too brief to give further examples. Suffice it to say, that this unvarying _standard negative_ would be admirable if _Nature_ were unvarying in her moods; until that comes to pass there must be as much variety in negatives as there are in different moods in Nature.

It is, we think, because of the confusion of the aims of Science and Art that the majority of photographs fail either as scientific records or works of art. It would be easy to point out how the majority are false scientifically, and easier still to show how they are simply devoid of all artistic qualities. They serve, however, as many have served, as topographical records of faces, buildings, and landscapes, but often incorrect records at that. It is curious and interesting to observe that such work always requires a _name_. It is a photograph of _Mr. Jones_, of _Mont Blanc_, or of the _Houses of Parliament_. On the other hand, a work of Art really requires _no name_,—it speaks for itself. It has no burning desire to be christened, for its aim is to give the beholder æsthetic pleasure, and _not_ to add to his knowledge or the _Science_ of places, i.e. geography. The work of Art, it cannot too often be repeated, appeals to man’s emotional side; it has no wish to add to his knowledge—to his _Science_. On the other hand, topographical works appeal to his intellectual side; they refresh his _memory_ of absent persons or landscapes, or they add to his _knowledge_. To anticipate criticism, I should like to say that of course in all mental processes the intellectual and emotional factors are inseparable, yet the one is always subordinated to the other. The emotional is subordinate when we are solving a mathematical problem, the intellectual is decidedly subordinate when we are making love. Psychologists have analyzed to a remarkable extent the intellectual phenomena, but the knowledge of the components of the sentiments or the emotional phenomena is, as Mr. Herbert Spencer says, “altogether vague in its outlines, and has a structure which continues indistinct even under the most patient introspection. Dim traces of different components may be discerned; but the limitations both of the whole and of its parts are so faintly marked, and at the same time so entangled, that none but very general results can be reached.”

The chief thing, then, that I would impress upon all beginners is the necessity for beginning work with a clear distinction between the aims and ends of Science and Art. When the art-student has acquired enough knowledge—that is, _Science_—to express what he wishes, let him, with jealous care, keep the scientific mental attitude, if I may so express it, far away. On the other hand, if the student’s aim is scientific, let him cultivate rigidly scientific methods, and not weaken himself by attempting a compromise with Art. We in the photographic world should be either scientists or artists; we should be aiming either to increase knowledge,—that is, science,—or to produce works whose aim and end is to give æsthetic pleasure. I do not imply any comparison between Science and Art to the advantage of either one. They are both of the highest worth, and I admire all sincere, honest, and capable workers in either branch with impartiality. But I do not wish to see the aims and ends of the two confused, the workers weakened thereby, and, above all, the progress of both Science and Art hindered and delayed.

III.

Next I shall discuss briefly the ill-effects of a too sedulous study of Science upon an Art student.

The first and, perhaps, the greatest of these ill-effects is the _positive_ mental attitude that Science fosters. A scientist is only concerned with stating a fact clearly and simply; he must tell the truth, and the _whole truth_. Now, a scientific study of photography, if pushed too far, leads, as a rule, to that state of mind which delights in a wealth of clearly-cut detail. The scientific photographer wishes to see the veins in a lily-leaf and the scales on a butterfly’s wing. He looks, in fact, so closely, so microscopically, at the butterfly’s wing, that he never sees the poetry of the life of the butterfly itself, as with buoyant wheelings it disappears in marriage flight over the lush grass and pink cuckoo-flowers of May.

I feel sure that this general delight in detail, brilliant sun-shiny effect, glossy prints, &c., is chiefly due to the evolution of photography: these tastes have been developed with the art, from the silver plate of _Daguerre_ to the double-albumenized paper of to-day. But, as the art develops, we find the love for gloss and detail giving way before platinotype prints and photo-etchings.

The second great artistic evil engendered by Science, is the careless manner in which things are expressed. The scientist seeks for truth, and is often indifferent to its method of expression. To him, “Can you not wait upon the lunatic?” is as the late Matthew Arnold said, as good as, “Canst thou not minister to a mind diseased?” To the literary artist, on the other hand, these sentences are as the poles asunder,—the one in bald truth, the other literature. They both mean the same thing; yet what æsthetic pleasure we get from the one, and what a dull fact is, “Can you not wait upon the lunatic?” There are photographs and photographs; the one giving as much pleasure as the literary sentence, the other being as dull as the matter-of-fact question. The student with understanding will see the fundamental and vital distinction between Science and Art as shown even in these two short sentences.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I do not think I can do better than finish this section by quoting another passage from the writings of the late Matthew Arnold.

“_Deficit una mihi symmetria prisca._—‘The antique symmetry was the one thing wanting to me,’ said Leonardo da Vinci, and he was an Italian. I will not presume to speak for the American, but I am sure that, in the Englishman, the want of this admirable symmetry of the Greeks is a thousand times more great and crying in’ any Italian. The results of the want show themselves most glaringly, perhaps, in our architecture, but they show themselves also in our art. _Fit details strictly combined, in view of a large general result nobly conceived_: that is just the beautiful _symmetria prisca_ of the Greeks, and it is just where we English fail, where all our art fails. Striking ideas we have, and well-executed details we have; but that high symmetry which, with satisfying delightful effect, contains them, we seldom or never have. The glorious beauty of the Acropolis at Athens did not arise from single fine things stuck about on that hill, a statue here, a gateway there. No, it arose from all things being perfectly combined for a supreme total effect.”

CONCLUSION.

And now I must finish my remarks. I have not perhaps told you very much, but if I have succeeded in impressing upon beginners and some others the vital and fundamental distinction between Science and Art, something will have been achieved. And if those students who find anything suggestive in my paper are by it led to look upon photography in future from a new mental attitude, something more important still will have been attained. For, in my humble opinion, though it is apparently but a little thing I have to tell, still its effect may be vital and far-reaching for many an honest worker, and if I have helped a few such, my labour will have been richly rewarded indeed.

INDEX.

Abney, Captain, F.R.S., 13, 160, 182. ——’s fog-clearing solution, 176. —— hyposulphite of soda eliminator, 175. —— on exposure, tables, 160. —— “Photography with Emulsions,” 162. —— “Treatise on Photography,” 294. Abolition of medals, 226. Accidents and faults in dry plates, 174. —— to the camera, 132. Adam Salomon, 147, 252. —— —— on retouching, 187. —— ——’s portraits, 279. Æolus, 254. Aërial perspective, 248. After-treatment of plates, 173. Agatharchos, 34. Aim of “Naturalistic Photography,” 8, 29. Albums, 220. Alkaline developer, 170. “Amateur” and “Professional” photographers, 12. American art, 78. —— wood engraving, 273. Amount of landscape to be included in a picture, 255. Analysis, 17. Ancient Greek and Italian art, 33. Anderson’s “Pictorial Arts of Japan,” 54. Angelo, Michael, 64, 93. Angle of view, 139. “Antiques” for tourists, 39. Apelles, 36. Apollodoros, 35. Apotheosis of Homer, 41. Apparatus, 141, 257. Appendix, I., 293. —— II., 295. Aquatint, 277. Aristotle, 23. Art, 17. —— among the Philistines, 52. —— and culture, 258. —— and legerdemain, 255. —— and photography, 5. —— at home, 258. —— blocks, 204. —— criticism, 39. —— division, 10. —— principles, 114. —— of feeling nature, 250. “Artist photographer,” 254, 257. Artistic, 18. “Artistic opals,” 257. “Art-Science,” 18. Artificial light, 147. Assyrian art, 32. —— bas-reliefs, 33. —— lion hunt, 33. Astigmatism, 100. Astronomical photography, 2. Atkinson, Dr., 22. Atmosphere, 115.

Bad wood engraving, 255. Backgrounds, 146, 243. Bags, 129. Balance, 248. Barometer of Naturalism, 95. Baseboard of Camera, 126. Bastien-Lepage, 90. Beautiful poses, 256. Bewick, 70, 273. Binocular vision, 111. Biting process, A second, 216. Bitten plates, 212, 214, 216. Blind spot, 100. Blisters, 176. Bloxham’s “Laboratory teaching,” 162. Bolas' “Cantor Lectures,” 295. Books on art, 293. —— recommended, 294. Boucher, 85. Bouquet, 157. Boy and thorn, 41. Branches of Photography, 8. Breadth, 18, 240, 255. Breton, Jules, 91. British Museum, 40. Brown fog, 176. Bruciani’s plaster casts, 93. Brunn, 35. Buddhism, 54. Bunsen, Professor, 158. Burnet’s “Treatise on Painting,” 238. —— “Laws of Composition,” 238. Burns, Robert, 24. Busy Insanity, 258. Byzantine art, 46.

Cadett’s studio-shutter, 146. Callcott, 77. Camera, 125. ——, choice of, 125, 126. —— clamp, 129. ——, hand, 132. ——, length of, 127. ——, register test for, 132. ——, size of, 126. ——, square, 127. ——, studio, 128, 146. Camera obscura, 66, 149. Cameron, Mrs., 152, 164, 189. Canova, 94. Caracalla’s bust, 40. Carbon printing, 191. Catacombs, 45. Cellini-Benvenuto, 93. Chalk drawing, 270. “Character” in portraiture, 252. Charcoal drawing, 276. Charlemagne, 47. Chemicals, 169. Chemical solutions, 142. Chemistry and Photography, 2. Chiaro-oscuro, 35, 239. Chinese Art, 54, 58. —— renascence, 55. Choice of district to work in, 246. —— —— lens, 136. Christmas Cards, 257. Cimabue, 49. Classification of Exposures, 154. Clays, 75. “Clearness,” 259. Cloud negatives, 197. Cold process in platinum printing, 194. College of Photography, 13. Collotypes, &c., 205. Colls, W. L., 209. —— —— on Photogravure, 211. Colour, 18, 108. ——, differences of, 108. —— of Platinotype prints, 196. —— of landscape in sunshine, 257. Combination printing, 197, 199. Commercial groups, 244. Commodus' bust, 41. Composite, photography, 137. Composition, 237, 238, 240, 248. Constable, 75, 227, 268. Constable’s dicta on art, 75. Contents of “Naturalistic Photography,” 8. Cooke, 77. Copper-plate printing, 210. Copy of schedule for copyrighting, 222. Copyright, 221. Cordianus' bust, 40. Corot, 85. Correggio, 65. Cover for developing dish, 142. Cox, David, 73. Creative artist, 19. Creswell, 77. Criticism, 29, 259. Critics, 259. Crome, Old, 75, 76. Cuyp, 83.

Daguerre and the French Academy, 1. Dallmeyer’s new long-focus lenses, 135. Damages for infringement of copyright, 224. Dark room and apparatus, 141. —— ——, ventilation of, 141. Darwin, Charles, on photographs, 278. Daubigny, 86. Da Vinci, 27, 64. Dawson, A., 209. Decoration, D'Oyleys, 264. ——, of hangings, 264. ——, wall papers, 264. ——, windows, 262. Decorative art, 260. —— ——, enamels, 262. —— ——, panels and friezes, 261, 262. —— ——, tiles, 262. Defects in gelatine plates due to damp, 178. De Hooghe, 75, 83. De la Croix, 85. De la Roche, 85. Del Sarto, Andrea, 65. Della Robia, 93. Dense negatives, 177. Deposits on the film, 178. “Depth of focus,” 139. Descamps, 85. Desideratum, A great, 206. Developing rule, A, 141, 168. Development, 162. —— by artificial light, 172. ——, meteorological conditions in, 167. ——, method of, 167. ——, slow, 167. De Wint, 73. Diagrammatic blocks and plates, 204. Diaphragm, 138. Direct and indirect vision, 102. Direction of light, Law of, 102. Dirty backs of negatives, 178. Dishes, 142. Dispersion of light, 99. Dixon and Gray’s Orthochromatic Photography, 284. Doctoring negatives, 189. Donatello, 92. Double-backs, 129. Drainage rack, 142. Drawing of photographic lenses, 118, 136. Dull spots and pits on negatives, 179. Dulwich Gallery, 68, 69, 70. Duplicate plates, 173. Durer, Albert, 23, 61. Dutch Art, 80.

Early Christian Art, 44 Easel pictures, 35. Eastern Art, 52. Eder’s, Dr., Intensifier, 175. —— ——, “Modern dry plates,” 294. —— potash developer, 171. —— reducer, 177. Educated sight, 233, 238. Edwards’s, B. J., clearing solution, 177. —— —— orthochromatic plates, 182. —— —— yellow screens, 182. Egypt, Ancient, works to be studied, 31. Egyptian art, 30. —— artists, 32. —— lions, 31. Emerson on “Ventilation of the dark room,” 141. ——’s “Ammonia poisoning,” 141. —— “An ideal photographic exhibition,” 227. —— “Photography; a pictorial art,” 9. —— “Pharyngitis and Photography,” 141. Emperors' School, 46. Engineering and Photography, 3. English Art, 69. —— sculpture, 94. —— _v._ French photogravure, 209. Enlargements, 200. Enlarging and tonality, 201. Enquiry into Naturalism in Art, 28. Etching, 81, 274. Eupompos, 36. Evolution in Art, 61. Exhibitions, 225. Experiment for forming a rough rule for use of lenses, 136. Exposure, 154. ——, method of, 154. ——, variation of, 157. Exposures, classification of, 154. ——, lens and stop in, 157. ——, meteorological conditions in, 157. ——, no rule for, 159. ——, quick, 154, 155, 156. Exposures, time, 155. ——, shutter, 156. ——, tables of, 160. Expression, 252.

Fabius, 38. Fading of prints, 192. Failure, 257. Falsity of photographic portraits, 255. Fantin’s flowers, 152. Fechner’s Law, 107. Ferro-prussiate printing paper, 194. Ferrous-oxalate developer, 169. Fiddle-brown trees, 258. Figure and landscape, 251. Fine Art, 19. Finish, 257. Flare-spot, 139. “Flat and weak” negatives, 255. Flemish Art, 69. Fluorescence, 100. Focussing, 101, 148. ——, example of, 150. ——, mental attitude in, 148. ——, rule for, 119, 150. —— the eye, 101. Fog, 175. Forensic medicine and photography, 4. Forfeiture of pirated works, 224. Fortuny, 68. Foster’s, W. Michael, Physiology, 97. _Fovea Centralis_, 101. Frames, 219. Framing, 218. French (Modern) Art, 84. Frilling, 176. Fuseli, 70. Fuzziness, 120.

Gainsborough, 70. Gambling for medals, 227. Ganot’s “Physics,” 134. Gelatino-bromide paper, 192. Gelatino-chloride paper, 192. Geography and photography, 3. German (Modern) Art, 61, 68. Ghiberti, 92. Gibson Gallery, 43. Giotto, 49. Girtin, 73. Glass slabs, 143. Glazing a studio, 145. “Good Art,” 256. Goodall, T. F., on colour, 18. —— ——, on composition, 287. —— ——, “Mere transcripts of Nature,” 26. —— ——, on photography, 297. Good work, 257. Gothic Art, 48. Greek and Græco-Roman sculpture, 39. —— and Italian Art, 33. —— chiaroscuro, 35. —— coins, 42. —— landscape art, 38. —— painting, 34. —— perspective, 35. —— scene-painting, 35. —— vases, mosaics, and stone paintings, 38. Green fog, 176 Green plates, 252. Greuze, 85. Ground-glass pictures, 149. Groups, 244. Grown plates, 212. Guilds, The, 48, 50.

Halation, 177. Hamerton on Photography, 278. Hand cameras, 132. Hardwich and Taylor’s “Photographic Chemistry,” 294. Harrison, 78, 79. ——'s, J., “History of Photography,” 294. Head-rests, 146. Heffner, 68. Helmholtz, Professor, 103, 108, 109, 110, 111. Henderson’s enamels, 262. Hering’s theory, 108. Hick’s opaque measuring-glasses, 142. “High Art,” 20, 185. Hints on copper-plate printing, 210. Hints on development, 164, 165. —— — lenses, 140. —— — photo-etching, 210. —— — pictorial art, 254. —— — platinotype printing, 195. Historical value of Assyrian bas-reliefs, 33. History of Greek painting, 34. Hobbema, 83. Hodgson’s “Modern methods of book illustration,” 294. Hogarth, 69. Hokusai, 58. Holbein, Hans, 63. Homer’s bust, 41. Hood for camera, 128. Horizon line, 44. Horse of Selene, 42. Hunt’s, W., “Talks on Art,” 79, 124, 292. Hydrokinone developer, 171.

Ideal, 20. Idealism, 29. Imaginative, 22. Impression, 118, 249. Impressionism, 22. Impressionists, Modern, 120. Impressions v. absolute fact, 131. Index, 303. Individuality, 258. Indoor work, 243. Industrial arts and photography, 4. Industrial division, 11. Ingres, 85. Intensification, 175. Intensity of lenses, 138. —— —— light, 103. Interiors, 257. Interpreting nature, 22. Introduction, 1. Israels, Josef, 83. Ivan the Terrible, 47.

Japanese Art, 54, 58. —— ——, 1st Period, 54. —— ——, 2nd Period, 54. —— ——, 3rd Period, 55. —— ——, 4th Period, 57. —— —— at British Museum, 58. —— —— Commissioners, 58. Japers at photography, 259. Jewellery, 244. Justinian, 46.

Kano School, 56. Kauffman, 70. Kaulbach, 68. Kôrin, 57.

Lamp for developing-room, 195. ——, travelling, 142. Landscape, 245. Landseer, 77. —— ——’s lions, 31. Lantern slides, 202, 203. Law of projection, 102. —— —— corresponding points, 102. —— —— visible direction, 103. Laws of composition, 237. Lawrence, Sir Thos., 120. Lea, Carey, Dr., 180. Lead-pencil drawing, 270. Le Brun, 84. Le Conte’s, Prof., Division, 98. Lenses, 134. —— for special purposes, 137. —— recommended, 135. _L'Envoi_, 266-269. Leslie, 77. ——’s “Life of Constable,” 293. Lewes, G. H., 20. Lhermitte, 91. Libraries and Photography, 4. Liesgang’s “Manual of Carbon Printing,” 295. “Life” of the model, 256. Light, 98. Lighting of picture, 118. Limits of art, 256. Limpet-shell markings, 178. “Lines,” 247. Line Engraving, 271. Linnell, 77. Lithography, 271. Little Masters, 271. Local colour, 22. —— development, 171. Lömmer’s, Dr., “Optics and Light,” 294. Lorraine, Claude, 84. Low-Art, 22. Ludius, 38.

Maclise, 77. _Macula lutea_, 101. Makart, 68. Man and vulgarity, 254. Marblings in negatives, 178. Masks, 199. Mason, 77. Massys, Quintin, 60. Masters, 96. Masters of the minor arts, 289. Matahei, 56. Material for dresses, 244. Measuring-glasses, 142. Medals, Art, 226. Mediæval Art, 47. —— ——, glass paintings, 48. —— ——, guilds, 48, 50. —— ——, miniaturists, 47. Medical and Biological Photography, 3. Meichō, 55. Melanthios, 36. Merit of photographs, 254. Metallic patches on negatives, 179. Meteorology and Photography, 3, 157. Meteorological conditions and development, 167. Method of copyrighting, 221. —— —— reproducing negatives from nature for copperplate process, 212. Mezzotint engraving, 277. Microscopy and Photography, 2. Military and Naval Photography, 4. Millet, Jean François, 44, 86, 232. ——’s dicta on art, 86. Miniatures, 46. Modern French School of Painting, 43, 91. —— —— —— —— Sculptors, 94. Modified stops, 138. Mohammedan Art, 52. Monarchies of Western Asia, 32. Monochrome Painting, 276. Morland, 70. Mosaics, 45, 46. Mouldings, 219. Mountants, 218. Mounting, 218. Mounts, 219. Müller, 77. Müller’s Law, 102. Mulready, 77. Munkacsy, 68. Murillo, 68. Muybridge’s cantering horse, 42. —— —— photographs, 161. Mystery of Nature, 257.

Nasmyth, 77. National Gallery, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 69, 73, 77, 80, 83. Naturalism, 22. —— in Art, 28. —— in decorative Art, 260. Naturalistic photography, 259. —— work, 258. Nature and photography, 259. —— —— pictures, 258. Nature and sanity, 258. Nature of a copyright, 223. Negative finishing, 179. Negatives for decorative work, 262. Nero’s bust, 40. Newton, Sir W. J., 152. Nicol, Dr., on sensitometer, 160. Ni Ō, The, 54. Nobuzané, 55. Nude, 54.

Ōkió, 57. On breadth and simplicity, 255. —— copyright agreement, 221. —— “form,” 256. —— “going in for photography,” 255. —— impression and fact, 118. —— opinions on art, 258. —— publishing, 257. —— reproduction, 256. —— studying photography, 256. —— success, 257. Optic nerves, 97. Optics, 134. Original Artist, 24. Origin of retouching, 186. Ortho-chromatic Photography, 181. Out-door portraiture, 243. —— work, 243. “Outings,” 246. Outline drawing, 269. Over-exposure, 174. Over-production, 169.

Palæolithic stone scratchings, 269. Pamphilos, 36. Paper negatives, 180. Paris Salon, 91. Parrhasios, 35. Parthenon Frieze, 42. Pausias, 36. Pecuniary Penalties for infringing copyright, 224. Pen and Ink drawing, 270. Perspective, 35, 112, 239. Perspective, four kinds of, 112. Pertinax’s bust, 40. Phenomena of sight and art principles deducted therefrom, 97. Photographs as historical records, 257. “Photographic,” 24. —— —— haunts, 247. —— —— Libraries, 294. —— —— Society of Great Britain, 185, 227. “Photographics,” Dr. Wilson’s, 144. Photographing Clouds, 198. Photography, 277. —— —— and Art, 259. —— —— a pictorial art, 269. —— —— applied to decorative art, 261. Photo-etching, 207. Photo-mechanical printing processes, 204. —— —— classification of, 204. Pictorial Art, 230. Picture-buyers, 53. Pin-hole photography, 131. “Pisanello,” 93. Pisano, Andrea, 92. ——, Niccola, 49, 92. ——, Nino, 92. ——, Vittore, 93. Plate-making, 163. Plates, 163. Plate-washer, 142. Platinotypes, 205. —— —— for book illustration, 205. —— ——, framing of, 219. —— ——, “sinking in” of, 205. —— ——, spotting, 195. —— ——, texture of, 195. Platinotype Company, 195. —— ——, new cold process, 194. Poetry in works of art, 250. Point of sight, 254. Poitevin’s method of enamelling, 263. Polygnotos, 34. Portraits taken with rapid rectilinear lens, 137. Portraiture, 243, 252. —— in studio, 252. Posthumous portraits and busts,185. Poussin, 84. Practical Hints, 254. Preface, V. Pre-Raphaelites (modern), 25. Prettiness, 256. Principles of studio lighting, 252. —— of Decorative art, 261. Printing, 191. —— frames, 143. —— clouds, 198. —— papers, 191. Prints, 191. ——, carbon, 191. ——, gelatino-chloride, 192. ——, gelatino-bromide, 192. ——, permanency of, 192. ——, platinotype, 191. ——, silver, 191. ——, tonality of, 192. Print-sellers, 7, 81. Pritchard’s, Baden, “Studios of Europe,” 262. Prizes for “set subjects,” 254. Procrastination, 255. Prolonged and patchy fixings, 178. Protogenes, 37. Pseudo-scientific photographers and art, 254. Psychological data of sight, 111.

Quality, 24, 256. —— of greatness, 257. Qualities of a picture, 251. —— of good lenses, 140. Queer judges, 227.

Raphael, 65. Realism, 24. Red-carbon process for decorative work, 262. Red fog, 176. Reflections and shadows, 256. Reflectors, 146. Reform in exhibitions, 227. Registration of photographs, 223. Rejlander, O., 199. ——, on combination printing, 199. ——, on retouching, 188. Relative tone or value, 25. “Rembrandt pictures,” 254. Rembrandt’s etchings, 81. —— paintings, 80. Remedies for infringement of copyright, 224. Removal of varnish from negatives, 178. Renascence, European, 59. Replicas, 224. Resolution, 254. Retouching negatives, 184. —— ——, Adam Salomon on, 187. —— ——, Cameron, Mrs., on, 189. —— ——, Definition of, 184. —— ——, Rejlander on, 188. Retrospect of Photography, 2. Reubens, 69. Reynolds, Sir J., 69. —— on rules, 241. Rhetoricians, Roman, 39. Rhyparographi, The, 37. Ribera, 66. Rising front of camera, 129. Roller slides, 180. Roman Art, 38. Roscoe’s “Lessons in Elementary Chemistry,” 162. Rousseau, 85. Ruby glass, 141.

Sable-hair brush, 142. Sargent, 78, 79. Sawyer’s, J. R., “ABC of Carbon Printing,” 294. Scales, 143. Scene-painting, 34. Science and Art, 295. —— division, 11. Scientific diagrams, 152. —— photographic work to be reconsidered, 136. Scratches on plates, 179. Sculpture, 92. Sea-air and dry plates, 178. Sensational in nature, 256. Sensitometer, Warneke’s, 159. ——, Dr. Vogel on, 159. Sentiment, 25, 256. —— and poetry, 256. Sentimentality, 25. Sesshiū, 56.ū Setting up the Camera, 129. “Sharpness,” 257. Shijo School, 57. Shiūbun, 55. Sight, 7. Size of plate, 127. Slabs of glass, 143. Slow development, 167. Soga chokman, 56. —— Jasoku, 55. Soul, 25. South Kensington Museum, 74, 77, 79, 93. Spanish (modern) Art, 67. Spherical aberration, 99. Spiller, A., “on permanency of gelatine-bromide prints,” 192. Spirit-Levels, 126. Spontaneity, 257. Spotting negatives, 189. —— prints, 195. Spurious pictures, 224. Standard developer, 170. Stansfield, 77. Stereoscopic Slides, 202. Stolen bits, 258. “Stopping down,” 149. “Stops,” 138. St. Peter’s Statue at Rome, 45. Studio, 144. ——, building, 144. ——, camera, 128, 146. ——, Dr. Wilson’s specifications for, 144. —— effects, 147. —— furniture, 145. —— glazing, 145. —— lighting, 147. ——, _objets d’art_, 145. ——, principles of lighting, 144, 252. ——, rule for lighting, 147. ——, top and side light, 144. —— walls, 145. Study of Chemistry, 162. —— Tone, 173. Subject of a picture, 250. Sun and shadows, 259. Supplementary poles, 129. Surveying and Photography, 3. Swing-backs, 130. ——, use of, 130. Swiss Art, 63.

Table of contents, ix. Taine’s “La philosophe de l’art Grec,” 43. Teaching of Art, 294. Technical criticism, 43. Technique, 26, 123, 293. —— and practice, 123. Teniers, 69. Terminology, 17. Textures of printing papers, 195. Theban-Attic School, 36. Theon of Samos, 37. Thirteenth Century Sketchbook, 49. Thorwaldsen, 94. Thumb-screws, 126. Timanthes, 35. Timomachos, 38. Titian, 66. Tonality and development, 164. Tone, 26, 115, 248. Topography, 258. Torso at British Museum, 41. Trajan’s bust, 40. “Transcript of Nature,” 26. Transparencies, 202. Transparent spots in negatives, 177. Travelling lamps, 142. “Treatise on Painting,” 237, 238. Treatment of model, 244. Tripod head, 128. Tripods, 128. Troyon, 86. Turbidity of media of the eye, 100. Turner, 73. ——’s “Frosty Morning,” 74. Tyndall, Prof., 158. Tyndall’s “Lectures on Light,” 12, 294. Typographic blocks, 205. —— Etching Company, 208.

Under exposure, 174. Undeveloped Islands, 179.

Value of a picture, 256. Van der Velde, 83. Vandyck, 69. Van Eyck, The brothers, 59. ——’s portrait, 60. Vanity, 257. Van Ostade, 69, 82. Varnish, Dr. Carey Lea’s, 180. ——, removal of, 178. Varnishing a negative, 179. Velasquez, 67. Verestchagin, 68. View-finder, 138. —— -maker, 100. Vigilance committees for plates, 163. Vignetting, 196. Vogel, Dr., 177. ——, on chemical action of sky, 158. ——, exposure tables, 160. —— Warneke’s sensitometer, 159. —— altochromatic plates, 182. Vulgarity, 255.

Walker, F., 77. Walker and Eastman films, 180. Water-colours, 53, 71. Watteau, 84. Welford and Sturmey’s “Photographer’s Indispensable Handbook,” 295. Wet-plate process, 163. Whistler, J. M., 16, 78. ——, on mounts, 218. ——, “Art and Art critics,” 78. ——, “Ten o’clock,” 78. Wilkie, 77. Wilkinson’s “Ancient Egyptians,” 32. Willis, W., Jun., 193. Wilson, 69. Wilson’s, Dr. E., “Burnet’s Treatise on Painting,” 237, 294. Wilson’s, Dr. E., “Photographics,” 144. Woermann, Dr., 28. Woltmann, Dr., 28. Wood-engraving, 71, 272. Work and faith, 255. “Working up” in oils, &c., 184. Wu-Tao-Tsz, 59.

“Year’s Art for 1887,” 223. Year-book of Photography and Photo News Almanac, 1885-87, 141. —— —— and British Journal Almanac, 1887, 141. Yellow fog, 176. Yellow stains on negative, 177. Young Satyr at British Museum, 41.

Zeuxis, 35.

THE END.

LONDON: PRINTED BY GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, LIMITED, ST. JOHN'S HOUSE, CLERKENWELL ROAD.

“_If any one wants to convert an artist to photography, he should present him with some of Emerson’s pictures; but, whether with this object or otherwise, we earnestly recommend every photographer to obtain, and to study, Emerson’s books._”—_Mr. W. J. Harrison in “The International Annual of Anthony’s Photographic Bulletin” for 1888._

------------------------------------

DR. EMERSON'S WORKS.

=Life and Landscape Series.=

Collectors and Librarians should take notice that all Dr. Emerson’s previously published Works are strictly limited to the numbers herein advertised. _After the completion of the advertised editions all plates and blocks will be at once destroyed._ Intending purchasers should therefore complete their sets as soon as possible, before the works become scarce and advance in price. These works can be obtained through any bookseller or from the publishers direct.

------------------------------------

Separate Plate. “GATHERING WATER-LILIES.” (_Copyright._)

AUTOGRAVURE.

Size of Plate, 14¼ × 11 inches. India Proofs, mounted on plate paper, size 23½ × 17, limited to 150 copies. Price 10_s._ 6_d._ each.

Prints on plate paper, size 23½ × 17 inches, 7_s._ 6_d._ each. Limited to 1000 copies.

_To be obtained of the_ AUTOTYPE COMPANY, _74, New Oxford Street, London_.

-------------------------

LIFE AND LANDSCAPE ON THE NORFOLK BROADS.

By P. H. EMERSON, B.A., M.B. (Cantab.), and T. F. GOODALL.

Illustrated with Forty Plates from Nature, mounted on plate paper, size 17 × 12 inches. _Edition de luxe_, limited to 100 copies, bound in vellum, with black and gold decorations, plates mounted on India paper, and text printed on finest white paper. Price £10 10_s._ Ordinary Edition, handsomely bound in cloth, plates mounted on finest plate paper, and text printed on fine white paper, limited to 750 copies. Price £6 6_s._

This Work contains a valuable Essay on “Landscape,” including Photography, by the landscape painter T. F. Goodall, and should be studied by all Photographers.

(SAMPSON LOW & CO., Ld., St. Dunstan’s House, Fetter Lane, E.C.)

=Opinions of the Press.=

“We feel grateful to Dr. Emerson and Mr. Goodall for a most fascinating volume. There is something singularly characteristic and attractive in the scenery of the Norfolk Broads, as there is much that is peculiar and picturesque in the manners of the primitive population.... The series of illustrations seem to embrace and exhaust the whole range of local subjects. We are taken through wildernesses of wood and water, through sedgy solitudes, haunted by shy waterfowl, along winding river-reaches with wherries under sail. We are landed in quaint nooks of that watery world, where the tumble-down cottage of the fisherman or the fowler hangs over the rushy creek; we see the lonely farmhouse, with its sedge-thatched and straggling outbuildings, standing somewhat apart between marsh and cloudland; or the sequestered hamlet huddled round the little church, with the rude spire which is a landmark for leagues along the water-ways. We are shown the amphibious people following their multifarious occupations, with their farming, and their fishing, and their strange fashions of fishing.... The set of landscapes which close the volume are excellent as works of art, and they give an admirable idea of the somewhat melancholy charms of the scenery, when it does not happen to be lighted up by brilliant sunshine.”—_The Times._

“Good wine needs no bush, and the Norfolk scenery needs no praise; but one may blamelessly sing in praise of good wine and the singing be but good, and write of or photograph Norfolk meritoriously. This Messrs. Emerson and Goodall have done, and done well, for which they deserve much thanks.”—_Saturday Review._

“The life depicted in this charming series of photographs is still redolent of the past. The wide expanse of flowery pasture-land, the smooth and pellucid waters, the picturesque craft, and the hardy good-humoured Broadsmen with their nets and meaks, are admirably represented, while the descriptive letterpress will recall many of his own experiences to the reader familiar with East Anglian waters.”—_Morning Post._

“Dr. Emerson has in this work applied the art of photography in so triumphant a manner, that the fitful breezes are clearly caught on the water, and seen playing amongst the heads of the reeds.... We can vouch for their wonderful fidelity to Nature. Nothing like it has ever been published.”—_The Field._

“‘Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads’ is a book of unique artistic interest.... The prevailing tone of the pictures is restful and subdued. There is much of quiet cloudy sky and long evening light. And the general impression left by the illustrations, even when representing the characteristic industries of the Norfolk work-a-day world, is singularly free from anything approaching to hurry and turmoil. The claims of photography to rank among the true means of artistic production were never better exhibited than in this series of studies.... They leave no possible doubt of Dr. Emerson’s manipulatory skill, or of the tasteful discrimination of the fellow art-workers.”—_The Globe._

“‘Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads’ is the name of a really beautiful book.... The text is descriptive, and pleasantly descriptive, of the scenes reproduced from nature.... We have seldom, perhaps never, seen such successful studies of landscape made by any mechanical process....”—_Daily News._

“It is enough to know that they are exquisitely beautiful. It has sometimes been contended that photography is not art. That view has had to be modified. It has been shown that in the hands of artists photography can be used with admirable effect. If proof of this be required, it will be found in this volume. There is nothing of the wooden stiffness of the old photographs about the pictures.... Some of them might be reproductions in monochrome of Corot’s pictures. Light and shade are exquisitely managed. Every picture is arranged with the truest taste.... Then all the plates are redolent of the spirit of the scene.”—_Scotsman._

“The volume of ‘Plates from Nature’ which Messrs. Emerson and Goodall have just published to illustrate ‘Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads’ is an extraordinary achievement in photography.... Messrs. Emerson and Goodall have now taken them up, and mirrored their river highways and their shy retreats alike with a uniform success, which must have been the result of extraordinary skill and patience.... The peasants and watermen gave, it is clear, much information about life on the Broads, which the authors have occasionally worked up into very interesting letterpress.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._

“That beautiful series of forty plates, with their accompanying letterpress, illustrating ‘Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads,’ are an unanswerable refutation of those who say there is no art in photography. Mr. P. H. Emerson, B.A., and T. F. Goodall have been round the fens with camera and note-book to some purpose.... There is every quality in many of them of thoroughly good pictures.... No episode or incident seems to be inaccessible to these skilful artists.”—_Daily Telegraph._

“They have studied the Broads in all seasons and in all aspects, in the full light of the cloudless summer mornings, and in the autumn evenings when the light grows dim, and the result is forty plates in platinotype, of great variety, of singular interest, and of remarkable beauty.... Both the authors of the illustrative text are accomplished writers, and their articles are of unusual merit.”—_The School Board Chronicle._

“‘Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads’ is an epoch-making book because such perfection of photography, such perfection of reproductive processes, and such perfection of artistic feeling have never before been brought together.”—_Amateur Photographer._

“Now and then in the past we have seen occasional photographs such as Dr. Emerson now presents, but to him is due the credit of endeavouring to form a real and truthful school of photographic representation.”—_Photographic News._

“Thus we have fishermen and women engaged in all the phases of labour which the water-wastes of Norfolk afford, and all happily unconscious that they are standing for their portraits—none of them staring into the camera in ordinary photographic fashion, but all pursuing their avocations in an unaffected and natural manner. This is a rare excellence, which is deserving of all praise, and the value of the plates as truthful illustrations of the ordinary work and demeanour of the people is greatly enhanced by the judgment and skill manifested in this particular.... The letterpress which accompanies the plates is not the least entertaining part of the book.”—_Manchester Guardian._

PICTURES FROM LIFE IN FIELD AND FEN.

By P. H. EMERSON, B.A., M.B. (Cantab.).

Being Twenty Plates in Photogravure reproduced from Dr. Emerson’s Original Negatives by Messrs. Dawson & Co., Boussod, Valadon & Co., Walker & Boutall, and the Autotype Co., together with an Introductory Essay on Photography and Pictorial Art. The Plates are enclosed in a handsome Portfolio. _Edition de luxe_, limited to 50 numbered copies, Plates on India paper, size 20 × 16 inches. Price £5 5_s._ Ordinary Edition, limited to 550 copies, with Plates on fine plate paper, same size. Price £3 3_s._

N.B.—The Author reserves the right of publishing separately, _on plain paper_, any one of these Plates until the edition is completed, after that all plates will be destroyed.

(GEO. BELL & SON, York Street, Covent Garden, W.C.)

=Opinions of the Press.=

“His compositions remind us more of paintings than of any mechanical reproductions of Nature. ‘Sunrise at Sea,’ 'The Barley Sele,‘ 'The Faggot-Cutters,’ 'At Plough,‘ 'A Winter’s Morning,’ and ‘The Mangold Harvest,’ are all well chosen and cleverly arranged compositions, and they show us that it is by no means so impossible to combine in photography the human figure and natural landscape, and to tell a simple pictorial story, as is commonly believed. We congratulate Mr. Emerson on this achievement; his work, at all events, deserves that praise which is due to those who try to raise the art to which they are devoted, and to carry it a step farther than is usually considered necessary. It is something to have carried photography a step farther in the direction of art, and Mr. Emerson is fairly entitled to claim this praise.”—_Spectator._

“He has spoken, as well as taken, twenty original negatives, and has done both to good purpose. A man must have penetrated into the inner circle of the lives of our East Anglian peasantry before he could have the chance of witnessing some of the scenes which he so sympathetically represents.... Many will look at the beautiful series of plates in photogravure, and be charmed with the skill with which they have been manipulated. We find our highest pleasure in approving the carefulness with which the real types have been selected and the ‘environment’ made appropriate.”—_The Field._

“Dr. Emerson’s very handsome folio of twenty plates of varied subjects, mostly found in the above county, is useful as showing what care in grouping, and tact and judgment in selecting points of view, will do towards producing effective pictures when the photographer combines the qualities referred to.”—_Artist’s Record._

“Dr. Emerson ... has been the teacher of a new school of art photography and he has now a large following, many of whom are endeavouring to do work as good and true to the ‘school’ as the examples that are before us.... As a source of study for amateur photographers and as a drawing-room book we highly recommend ‘Life in Field and Fen’ to all our readers. As specimens of reproductions of photographs the plates are beyond praise, and the book is beautifully printed and got up in a most artistic manner.”—_Amateur Photographer._

“How far photography can go is well shown in this carefully prepared defence of it as an art.”—_Athenæum._

“When we say that Dr. Emerson has so used his camera as to truly represent Nature, we say the highest.... Having with rare judgment steered clear of doubtful and, to the camera, impossible subjects, Dr. Emerson has given us some delightful photographic pictures, which not only represent, but also interpret Nature.... Dr. Emerson evidently intends to form a school in photography, and has resolved to show photography at its best.”—_Photographic News._

“Dr. Emerson, the producer of this fine portfolio of photogravures, represents to some extent a new effort to get home once more to Nature, and he enters into the battle as a photographer.... His seascapes are exquisite.... ‘A Suffolk Dyke’ (a charming study of river and Suffolk fen) and ‘Breydon Water,’ sea-fog coming up (a sweet picture, full of all the feeling of the place).... The work is of a very choice character.”—_School Board Chronicle._

“Exquisite photographs exquisitely reproduced.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._

“They are in themselves of artistic merit as regards grouping and selection. Some of them, such as ‘The Poacher’ and the ‘Dame’s School,’ are distinctly dramatic, and they are produced with much care and nicety by the automatic etching process.”—_Daily Telegraph._

“It is marvellous how completely Dr. Emerson appears to have mastered the difficulties which have attended the use of the camera. No painter could have produced anything more charmingly true to Nature, more suggestive of real life and interest, than many of the pictures in this volume. They are admirably taken, with a carefulness in regard to light and shade that has rarely been approached.”—_The Scotsman._

=Separate Plate.=

THE HAYSEL.

(_Copyright._)

PHOTOGRAVURE.

Size of Plate, 22½ × 17½ inches, taken direct.

India Prints on paper, 34 × 26 inches, limited to 100 copies. Price 15_s._ a copy.

Prints on fine plate paper, size 34 × 26, limited to 400 copies. Price 10_s._ a copy.

After the advertised number has been pulled, the plate will be destroyed.

_Copies to be obtained of the_ TYPOGRAPHIC ETCHING COMPANY, _3, Ludgate Circus Buildings, E. C._

=Opinions of the Press.=

“We have received ... a very beautiful reproduction of a picture by P. H. Emerson, which is a triumph both for photographer and process.... There is much poetical feeling in the grouping.... The general tone of the picture is a subdued red, and gives one the idea of summer twilight.”—_The Camera._

“We have here a magnificent plate.”—_Photographic News._

“From the Typographic Etching Company we have a reproduction of a landscape by P. H. Emerson ... by a process ... possessing decided individuality and capable of effect of light and atmosphere which the present example shows may be suggestive and pleasing. Here the figures of the labourers and the laden wain are realized with considerable fidelity to the conditions of light and air that constitute a vague glimmering environment. The charm of tranquillity that belongs to mild diffused light and spacious windless atmosphere can scarcely have suffered by translation in this instance.”—_Saturday Review._

“Whether in composition or general treatment it is a picture of which the artist may justly feel proud.”—_British Journal of Photography._

“We have received a large plate of a beautiful meadow scene also photographed by Mr. Emerson. It is indeed a June idyl of the marshes, with the women in picturesque attire piling upon a hay waggon the sweet-scented grasses for transport to the neighbouring stackyard.”—_Scotsman._

“It is most certainly a splendid production, though its beauties do not dawn upon one at the first glance, yet after a little contemplation we must confess that it is one of the best examples of photogravure we have ever seen.”—_Photographers' World._

------------------------------------

IDYLS OF THE NORFOLK BROADS,

A Series of Twelve Plates, depicting Pastoral Life in East Anglia, reproduced in Autogravure from Original Negatives, with accompanying descriptive Notes, by the Author, P. H. EMERSON, B.A., M.B. (Cantab.).

Numbered Proofs printed on India and Plate paper, outside size 17 × 13 inches, in gold-lettered portfolio. Price £1 11_s._ 6_d._

The issue of these proofs is limited to 150.

Prints on Plate paper, outside size 17 × 13 inches, in lettered portfolio. Price £1 1_s._

The issue of these Prints is limited to 600 copies.

(AUTOTYPE CO., 74, New Oxford Street, London, W.)

=Press Notices.=

“It contains a dozen exquisite studies of the Broads and their borders, reproduced by their well-known delicate process of autogravure. These pictures are selected with true artistic feeling, and in almost every case they have ‘composed’ as perfectly as though they were arranged at will and not by Nature. There is but one word which fitly indicates their merit, and that is one borrowed from their title—idyllic.”—_Land and Water._

“In a handsome, delicate portfolio, in white and gold, in choice and luxurious form, are presented a dozen deeply mounted autogravure plates, on India paper, from photographic negatives. They are loving studies of beloved aspects and incidents in the land of the famous Broads, in every season of the year and in various phases of the quiet life of that country. Mr. Emerson’s text, printed on fine old English rough quarto paper, poetically descriptive of the country and of the scenes of the pictures, makes beautiful bits of writing.”—_School Board Chronicle._

“In ‘Idyls of the Norfolk Broads’ Mr. P. H. Emerson still further adds to our knowledge of the pastoral life and landscape of the English Fens. He is in love with the country—he calls it an earthly paradise; and never did lover sing the praises of his mistress with more enthusiasm than does Mr. Emerson the distinctive beauties of this land of mists and marshes and sweet-scented meadows, with its industrious and homely people.... The scenes have been selected with an artist’s eye, and are reproduced in really a delightful manner—two especially are very pleasing—‘Flowers of the Mere,’ in which we have the head of a charming little village maiden, and ‘A Grey Day Pastoral,’ the silvery tones of which have at least been suggested in black and white. Accompanying each plate is a concise, well-written description of the scenery depicted.”—_Scotsman._

“The present volume of proofs on India paper, reproducing original negatives by the autotype process, presents some of the most charming and characteristic types of East Anglian life and scenery.”—_Daily Telegraph._

“That Mr. Emerson is an enthusiastic lover of the Norfolk Broads is very evident. To him East Norfolk is an earthly paradise, replete with all the elements that conduce to poetry and art. Of these the former finds an outcome in the descriptive letterpress, and the latter in twelve photographs, which illustrate one or other phases of life or nature in these broads....

“These pictures are, in most cases, full of feeling. In technical merit ‘The Windmill’ excels. It is a very charming little picture, about four inches square, representing a windmill standing close by a stream, boats lying at repose alongside. The engraving, printing, and general get-up are of a high order of merit.”—_British Journal of Photography._

“Mr. Emerson gives a poetic account, almost with the loving fervour of Virgil, of the beauties that he so much feels.... Altogether Mr. Emerson has in this last series done an excellent thing, and should the time come when photographers in general do similarly, artists will not speak of photography as they very often do at present.”—_Photographic News._

“On the whole, the series is representative of the district of which Mr. Emerson writes with the knowledge that comes of enthusiastic study. ‘The Mill,’ ‘The Haysel’ and the marshy pasture. No. 3, are charming pictures. ‘A Grey Day Pastoral’ is a pleasing example of the cool, moist, and luminous effect of mild diffused light under a thin veiled sky. Mr. Emerson’s text is pleasant reading.”—_Saturday Review._

“Mr. Emerson is well known as the producer of some of our most artistic photographs and these ‘Idyls’ cannot fail to increase his reputation.... Each one is a delightful study.... The composition in each case is admirable, and they are printed in a manner which shows advance in photographic art.”—_Artist._

“This is truly a book for the drawing-room table. The introductory matter, as well as the descriptive text, give proof that Mr. Emerson is as successful a worker with pen as with sun-pencil, for the matter is full of poetic touches which only a true lover of Nature would be capable of, and which few could express in such a charming manner.”—_The Camera._

------------------------------------

PICTURES OF EAST ANGLIAN LIFE.

Illustrated with Thirty-two Photogravures and Fifteen smaller Illustrations. The text, divided into twenty-six chapters, treats of the East Anglian peasantry, and is full of interesting information of the habits and customs of the peasantry and fisherfolk, of their ghost stories, witchcraft, and of natural history, poaching, &c.

The _Edition de luxe_, size 20 × 16 inches, is handsomely bound in vellum, with green morocco back, and black and gold decorations. The text is printed on best English hand-made paper; the small Illustrations, as well as the larger ones, are printed on India. This sumptuous Edition is limited to 75 numbered copies. Price £7 7_s._ a copy.

The Ordinary Edition is strongly bound in cloth and leather. The Plates are printed on best plate paper, and the text is printed on best white paper. This Edition is strictly limited to 500 copies. Price £5 5_s._ a copy.

(SAMPSON LOW & CO., Ld., St. Dunstan’s House, Fetter Lane, E.C.)

=Press Opinions.=

“It is a monograph, pictorial and literary, on the Suffolk peasantry and fisherfolk—a natural history of one of the most interesting of English race-types.... Hedger and ploughman, fisher and boor, as they are pictured in these exquisite engravings, they have a not too remote resemblance to the melancholy peasant of Millet.... The author has something of his eye for the bovine-human type, for the fine artistic gloom of life and mind of the fields.”—_Daily News_ (Leader).

“After a hasty glance at Mr. P. H. Emerson’s handsome large quarto volume ... one is disposed to characterize it as the prose of Dr. Jessop’s ‘Arcady.’ On better acquaintance, we see that there is in Mr. Emerson’s book also a great deal of the poetry of real life. We ... claim that in ordinary village ways as sketched by Mr. Emerson, and in village character, hard and uninviting as it seems to the outsider, there is poetry' enough.... He has plenty of quiet humour.... Of some of the plates, which form such a feature in this volume, it is impossible to speak too highly.”—_The Graphic._

“It might almost be said to be descriptive by anecdote, of which the author seems to have a rare store, on every aspect of the subject with which he deals. His book is undoubtedly ... ‘a contribution to a natural history of the English peasantry and fisherfolk.’... In this series of East Anglian books Mr. Emerson has distinctly elevated landscape photography. His scenes are selected with the eye of a true artist.... To a certain extent Mr. Emerson may be said in these pictures to have done for the peasantry of East Anglia what Jean François Millet did for those of his own country.”—_Scotsman._

“In ‘A Stiff Pull’ and ‘In the Barley Harvest,’ both capital subjects, capitally treated, he has been successful enough to make us wish that Millet had painted in Suffolk instead of at and about Chailly-en-Bière. In another plate, ‘The Farm by the Broad,’ he contrives to give us something of the effect of ... a Corot. In ... ‘Going Out’ and ... ‘Coming Ashore’ he reminds us a little of Mesdag; in other plates ... of the followers of Bastien Le Page.”—_Saturday Review._

“The volume may be taken, therefore, as representing pretty completely the present state of the art of photo-engraving in England.... Mr. Emerson is to be congratulated on having brought distant East Anglia and its people before us with a completeness that has not been attempted with any other considerable portion of the British Islands.”—_Manchester Guardian._

“The tales and interesting folk-lore are simply and pleasantly told. The philologist will find in these pages many fresh words and expressions; the artist and naturalist many curious and novel observations.... The book is a valuable addition to the natural history of the English peasantry and fisherfolk.”—_Daily Telegraph._

“Dr. Emerson’s new book is one which no county family’s library in Suffolk should be without.... Dr. Emerson has studied the Suffolk peasantry with conscientious thoroughness and approached his subject with sincere sympathy for the hardness of their life.”—_Pall Mall Gazette._

“All who have felt the peculiar attraction of East Anglian scenery are grateful to Dr. P. H. Emerson for his splendid photogravures.... This splendidly got-up folio is an important work, reflecting high credit on all concerned in its production. We hope Dr. Emerson will not allow his camera to lie idle.... Dr. Emerson has been a close observer of their character and intelligence, and has much that is curious to say.”—_Westminster Review._

“We have, in short, a delightful history of the inner life of the Norfolk and Suffolk peasant, and of the things dear to him, illustrated by such a series of truthful nature-pictures as is approximated to in no other work of which we know, unless in Dr. Emerson’s earlier series.”—_Photographic News._

“Mr. P. H. Emerson has produced a really valuable book. His text, descriptive of the life, superstitions, and character of Suffolk peasantry and fisherfolk, their stories of the land and stories of the sea, are all of the greatest interest, and in many cases have the merit due to original inquiry and research.... Mr. Emerson, one of the foremost, and in some respects one of the most successful, of living photographers, has illustrated his large work with thirty-two photogravures ... the full page plates are often of the highest merit. ‘The Clay Mill,’ and especially ‘The Haymaker with Rake,’ are so good in tone that they almost suggest the work of Millet. ‘Where winds the Dike,’ reminds the spectator of Corot.”—_Magazine of Art._

“This book is handsomely got up, well-bound, finely printed, and copiously illustrated.... His text is thoroughly well worth reading on account of ... its sardonic sense of humour, keen zest for the grotesque provincialisms of the people of out-of-the-way districts, quick ear for laughable oddities of pronunciation, quick eyes for old-world customs and whimsicalities, and deep sympathy with the sufferings of the poor and helpless.... There are, too, many quaint anecdotes.”—_Athenæum._

“Dr. Emerson gives us not only a mass of valuable and interesting letterpress, but a collection of very remarkable photo-engravings. By no one has photography been more diligently and more successfully applied to illustrate not country scenes only, but country life.... His pictures never look like compositions—indeed, he is as successful with some of his groups as with mere landscapes.... The letterpress ... proving on every page that he has not only lived among the people whom he describes, but that he is quite in touch with them.... Dr. Emerson is a keen observer of men as well as of nature.... He is for the most part thoroughly reasonable.... I am grateful to him, for I have learnt much from his book, and have been put in the way of (I hope) learning much more.”—_Academy._

“Nothing could well be better selected or executed than are the photogravures, and even the small illustrations of the book. In these he has caught ‘the very form and spirit of the times’ in East Anglia.... His landscapes ... recall Constable’s pictures.”—_Field._

“This is a delightful book ... indeed, no one can study the illustrations and read the accompanying text without becoming imbued with the author’s enthusiasm, and without feeling that he has gained an entirely new insight into the character and surroundings of the English peasant. So artistic are the illustrations, with their Corot-like softness of outline, that in future no book that deals with an unfamiliar country will seem complete without such aids.... There should be, and no doubt there will be, books such as this about every corner of the globe, and Mr. Emerson is to be thanked for setting the example.”—_New York “Nation.”_

NATURALISTIC PHOTOGRAPHY

FOR

STUDENTS OF THE ART.

By Dr. P. H. EMERSON.

Crown 8vo. Cloth, 5_s._ Second Edition, revised.

Opinions of the Photographic Press.

“In the work just issued, that the author endeavours himself to look directly at his subject without feeling himself bound by what others have said, constitutes the chief charm, and the reader soon finds he is not in contact with an author who is either an echo of others, or wishes to make his readers mere echoes of himself; indeed, the reader soon finds that his teacher is not one who expects and strives to mould his readers to his own image, but one who hopes to rather read them to think and act for themselves. If our author’s spirit was more current among the technical teachers of our day, we would probably be in a more hopeful condition as regards future progress in the arts and crafts. The literary style of the work is excellent, and it contains a fund of useful information conveyed in a pleasant manner.... The mass of the book is composed of valuable and thoughtful essays on the various branches of photographic work—both from the technical and the artistic aspects—embodying the author’s own experience. Altogether ‘Naturalistic Photography’ is a work which should be possessed and read by every one interested in the practice of Photography.”—_Photographic News._

“Suffice it to say that the book is distinctive from any other book on photography, and there is reading worth study on every page. We have been so fascinated by the freshness of language and the forcible way in which the author endeavours to bowl over old ideas and institute new ones, that we have had a difficulty at times in laying aside the admirably printed and got-up volume. We can only say that we heartily commend it to all who are interested in artistic photography, and who are not above learning from a master in the subject.”—_Photographic Journal._

“When he comes to the part that really concerns photographers he is simply admirable ... his boldness and originality of treatment, the ability with which he analyzes, arranges, and treats his subject, and his practical conclusions, are as charming as they are valuable, as pleasant to read as they will be useful to practise.... The latter part of the book on technique and practice is capital, and ought to meet with acceptance, and must be valuable to the photographic world.... Carefully thought out, ably written, boldly expressed, original in treatment, ‘Naturalistic Photography’ is a valuable contribution to our literature.”—_Photography._

“Dr. Emerson’s book has come at last. It was well worth waiting for, and fully justifies expectations.... It has evidently already helped a considerable number of photographers to ideas.... The general acceptance of evolution principles, thought freed from trammels, and the adoption of scientific methods, tend to give us treatises in which a rational and natural basis for all phenomena is sought. Dr. Emerson’s book is distinctly of this class.... It is brimful of interest, and will furnish texts for art argument for some time to come, as well as afford solid instruction for the earnest student.”—_Camera Club Journal._

“C'est un volume à lire, je dirai même à relire, car le Dr. P. H. Emerson émet des idées qui lui sont tellement personnelles, qui souvent contredisent si fort les idées généralement reçues, qu’il faut s’y reprendre à deux fois pour bien se rendre compte de sa manière toute nouvelle d’apprécier l’art photographique.... Il se compose d’une introduction, dans laquelle nous trouvons tout d’abord la preuve de l’originalité des idées de l’auteur, &c.... On le voit, le sujet est traité dans tous ses détails, et ajoutons qu’il est traité d’une façon très intéressante.... Il taut reconnaître que la lecture de ce volume s’impose non seulement à ceux qui s’occupent de photographie, mais à tous ceux qui s’occupent de l'étude des beaux-arts.”—_Journal de l'Industrie Photographique._

“It is enough to say that we have read this beautifully got-up book with interest, and consider the opinions and many doctrines of the author very remarkable; and finally we can in good faith recommend the book.”—(Translation of part of review in the) _Deutsche Photographen-Zeitung_.

“A most enjoyable book to every true lover of nature.... Erudite, embracing a very large field ... this work must claim the careful attention of an earnest student ... the ordinary textbook of photography is superseded, and technique and practice is dealt with in a thorough and somewhat original manner ... the reader will find much which will be well worth careful study.”—_Photographic Art Journal._

“‘Naturalistic Photography’ is a splendid contribution to photographic literature.”

_Wilson’s Photographic Magazine._

“This book is highly to be recommended to those acquainted with the English language.”

(Translated from) _Photographische Mittheilungen_.

“Cet ouvrage si bien étudié sera lu avec grand fruit par les photographes amateurs, surtout auxquels il est destiné, car ils y trouveront les conseils pratiques dont ils tireront profit, soit dans 'atelier, soit dans les études en plein air.”—_L'Amateur Photographe._

“The practical part of Dr. Emerson’s book is most admirable.... Dr. Emerson has produced some of the most superb work ever achieved by photography, and all who have admired his beautiful compositions are anxious to know his methods. He treats the subject in a clear and forcible way, and with much originality.... One reads and reads again with pleasure from page to page, and is often delighted with the novelty of presentation. The great virtue of Dr. Emerson’s book is its freshness. The reader is not wearied with reiteration of old hackneyed ideas and misapplication of stereotyped rules. It is a record of the author’s own opinions.”

_American Journal of Photography._

“This book contains a greater amount of information on the artistic elements to be considered in photography than any that we know of. The author ... has elucidated very concisely, yet also very fully, the principles which should be kept in view in making artistic and attractive photographs.... In these days of amateur photography, when the mechanical and chemical manipulations necessary to obtain a good photograph are so easily acquired, a book like this, calling attention in simple language to the elementary conditions that should be observed in making artistic photographs, will be greatly appreciated.”—_Scientific American._

“Da Londra, coi tipi Sampson Low & Co., ci giunge una recentissima pubblicazione del Sig. Emerson, col tito ‘Naturalistic Photography,’ essolutamente originale ed interessante. L'autore si rivela per un artista intelligentissimo della fotografia e facendone la critica con sicurezza di giudizio e con esempii tratti, nella parte estetica, dai gran di maestri.”

_Bollettino dell' Associazione degli Amatori di Fotografia da Roma._

_Advertisements._

W. WATSON & SONS, =_313, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON,_= MANUFACTURERS OF HIGHEST CLASS Optical and Photographic Instruments.

------------------------------------

_=WATSON'S LIGHT PREMIER CAMERAS.=_

_Exceedingly Light and Compact. Exceedingly Strong and Rigid. Long Range of Focus. Reversing Back._

=Very Highest Quality and Workmanship,=

And made on the interchangeable system. The Dark Slides, Fronts and Screw Nuts being fitted to standard sizes, extra ones can be supplied at any time, or the slides of any one Camera will interchange with any other for same size plates.

_Each includes 3 Double Slides, fitted with Watson’s Patent Stops and Spring Catches to the Shutters._

─────────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬──────── Size of │ 4¼×3¼. │ 5×4. │ 6½×4¾. │ 7½×5. │ 8½×6½. │ 10×8. │ 12×10. │ 15×12. Camera │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. │ £ s.d. Prices │ 7 15 0│ 8 10 0│ 9 12 0│10 0 0│12 5 0│14 0 0│16 12 6│21 0 0 Extra, if │ 1 10 0│ 1 10 0│ 1 10 0│ 1 10 0│ 1 15 0│ 2 0 0│ 2 10 0│ 3 0 0 brass bound │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rapid │ 2 5 0│ 2 10 0│ 3 10 0│ 4 0 0│ 4 10 0│ 6 0 0│ 7 15 0│10 0 0 Rectilinear │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Lens │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Solid Leather│ 1 1 0│ 1 5 0│ 1 15 0│ 1 15 0│ 2 2 0│ 2 15 0│ 3 10 0│ 5 5 0 Travelling │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Case │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Folding │ 1 1 0│ 1 1 0│ 1 5 0│ 1 5 0│ 1 5 0│ 1 10 0│ 2 2 0│ 2 10 0 Tripod Stand │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Instantaneous│ 0 12 6│ 0 12 6│ 0 12 6│ 0 12 6│ 0 15 0│ 0 15 0│ 1 0 0│ 1 5 0 Shutter │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼──────── Totals for │14 4 6│15 8 6│18 4 6│19 2 6│22 12 0│27 0 0│33 9 0│43 0 0 Sets │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────

The above Prices are subject to 10 per cent. discount for Cash with order.

WATSON'S “DETECTIVE” CAMERAS.

The most perfect and convenient form of Instantaneous Apparatus extant.

------------------------------------

STUDIO CAMERAS, BACKGROUNDS, EXPOSURE SHUTTERS, DISHES, DRY PLATES, CHEMICALS, &c.

------------------------------------

_An Illustrated and Descriptive Catalogue, of every instrument and accessory required in Photography, sent free to any address on application. Ask for Photo List._

------------------------------------

Awarded in 1889—The only Medal for Cameras, Richmond Photographic Exhibition. In 1888—The only Medal for Cameras, and the only Medal for Stands, at the Crystal Palace Great Photographic Exhibition; The Gold Medal for Photo. Instrument, Melbourne International Exhibition. In 1887—The only Medal for Photo. Apparatus, Adelaide International Exhibition. In 1886—The only Gold Medal for Photo. Apparatus, Liverpool International Exhibition.

------------------------------------

=W. WATSON & SONS, 313, HIGH HOLBORN, LONDON.= Steam Factory—9, 10, 11, Fulwoods Rents, W.C. ESTABLISHED 1837.

SANDS & HUNTER,

Photographic Apparatus Manufacturers,

_O, CRANBOURN STREET, LONDON, W.C._

------------------------------------

=SANDS & HUNTER'S NEW LIGHT CAMERA, “THE IMPERIAL,”=

Is specially constructed for Tourists, combining both strength and lightness, is portable and perfectly rigid, has long extending focus, reversing holder, double swing back with independent motions, rack and pinion focusing adjustment, best quality leather bellows, &c.

The back and front can be fixed at any part of the baseboard, and are firmly fixed by clamping rods.

The ground glass focusing screen is protected by the baseboard when closed for travelling.

N.B.—The above camera is now fitted with Sands and Hunter’s New Patent Swing Back.

Price, including 3 double backs with spring fastenings:—

4¼×3¼ or 5×4 6½×4¾ 7½×5 or 8×5 8½×6½ 10×8 12×10 15×12 £6 6s. £8 10s. £9 5s. £10 £12 £15 £18 15s.

Brass Binding Camera and 3 double backs:—8 × 5 and under, £1 10s.; 8½ × 6½ to 10 × 8, £2; 12 × 10, £2 5s.; 15 × 12, £3.

Russia leather bellows, extra:—4¼ × 3¼ or 5 × 4, =17s.=; 6½ × 4¾ to 8 × 5, £1 2s.; 8½ × 6½, £1 4s.; 10 × 8, £1 6s.; 12 × 10, £1 15s.; 15 × 12, £2 10s.

Illustrated Catalogue post free. SANDS & HUNTER, LONDON.

The Amateur _PRICE 2d._ PUBLISHED WEEKLY. Photographer.

------------------------------------

=IMPORTANT ADVERTISING MEDIUM.=

------------------------------------

BEING THE ONLY JOURNAL FOR AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHERS

In Field, Studio, Camp; Afloat, Ashore; in Town or Country; at Home and Abroad.

------------------------------------

N.B.—All communications respecting Advertisements to be addressed to PARRY & CRAWFORD, 52, Long Acre, LONDON, W.C.

=THE TOURIST'S COMPANION.=

------------------------------------

SHEW'S ECLIPSE POCKET CAMERA, or Fixed Focus Hand Apparatus (Patent).

We would call special attention to the superiority of the results obtained with this little instrument over those of the many others introduced since we first made the Eclipse. As a first-class working instrument it still has no rival.

Street Views, Groups, Architectural subjects, Landscapes, Panorama, &c., are obtained with marvellous detail, particularly suitable for Lantern Transparencies and for enlarging to an extraordinary extent.

Detective Case

Apparatus Fitted with Three Double for Roller Slide,

Size. Complete, one Roller Slide Backs fitted and Camera open,

Double Back. for 48 for or three Double

Pictures. Backs.

3¼ × 3¼ £4 4 0 — £1 13 0 —

4¼ × 3¼ 4 9 0 £6 5 0 1 13 0 £1 1 0

5 × 4 5 0 0 7 10 0 1 18 6 1 5 0

6½ × 4¾ 6 0 0 8 15 0 2 5 0 1 5 0

12 × 9 centimeters, 5 5 0 7 5 0 1 16 0 1 5 0

16 × 12 ” 6 0 0 8 15 0 2 5 0 1 7 6

18 × 13 ” 6 10 0 9 7 6 2 8 0 1 10 0

Screw and fitting plates to Camera for use on Stand, Clip, or Camera Rest, for Landscape or Portrait, either size, 2/-.

SHEW'S PATENT POCKET CAMERA REST, or Support for Hand Cameras.

An Ingenious Substitute for a stand where it is impossible, through want of light or other causes, to obtain an instantaneous exposure. Instantly attaching the Camera to any wooden projection. =No tourist should be without it.=

Weight. Size. Price, post free. For ¼-Plate Cameras 2½ oz. 4½ × 2 × ¾ in. 3/3 For ½-Plate ” 6 ” 7½ × 2½ × 1 ” 4/3

=SHEW'S ECLIPSE ENLARGING OR REDUCING APPARATUS,= See special circular, free on application to =J. F. SHEW & CO., 88, NEWMAN ST.=, _Four doors off Oxford St._, =LONDON, W.=

=GEORGE HARE,= _PHOTOGRAPHIC APPARATUS MANUFACTURER_,

26, Calthorpe Street, Gray’s Inn Road, LONDON.

FOURTEEN PRIZE MEDALS have been awarded to G. HARE'S Cameras and Changing-Box for Excellence of Design and Workmanship. SILVER MEDAL awarded at the International Inventions Exhibition for Excellence in the manufacture of Cameras.

------------------------------------

G. HARE'S NEW CAMERA. INVENTED AND INTRODUCED, JUNE, 1882.

_The Best and most compact Camera ever Invented._

Since its introduction, this Camera has received several important modifications in construction. It stands unrivalled for elegance, lightness, and general utility. It is specially adapted for use with the Eastman-Walker Roll Holder. A 6½ × 4¾ Camera measures when closed 8 × 8 × 2½ in., weighs only 4 lbs., and extends to 17 in. The steady and increasing demand for this Camera is the best proof of its popularity.

“Little need be said of Mr. George Hare’s well-known Patent Camera, except that it forms the model upon which nearly all the others in the market are based.”—Vide _British Journal of Photography_, August 28, 1885.

Size of Square, with Brass│Size of Square, with Brass

Plate. Reversible Holder. Binding.│Plate. Reversible Holder. Binding.

5 × 4 £6 0 0 £0 16 0│10 × 8 9 16 0 1 4 0

6½ × 4¾ 7 2 6 1 0 0│12 × 10 11 0 0 1 6 0

7½ × 5 7 10 0 1 0 0│15 × 12 13 5 0 1 10 0

8½ × 6½ 8 15 0 1 0 0│These prices include one Double Slide.

Since this Camera has been introduced, it has been awarded THREE SILVER MEDALS: at Brussels International Photographic Exhibition, 1883; at the Royal Cornwall Polytechnic Society, Falmouth; and at the INTERNATIONAL INVENTIONS EXHIBITION, 1885. Also Bronze Medal, Bristol International Exhibition, 1883—HIGHEST AWARD.

G. HARE'S Improved Portable Bellows Camera. INVENTED AND INTRODUCED 1878.

This Camera offers many advantages where a little extra weight and bulk is not objected to. It is very solid and firm in construction, and especially suited for India and other trying climates.

PRICES, with one Double Slide and Hinged Focussing Screen:—

Horizontal and Square, with Brass For Plates. Vertical. Reversible Holder. Binding. 6½ × 4¾ £6 7 6 £7 12 6 £1 0 0 8½ × 6½ 7 18 0 9 5 0 1 0 0 10 × 8 9 4 0 10 16 0 1 5 0 12 × 10 10 13 0 12 5 0 1 10 0 15 × 12 13 5 0 15 10 0 2 0 0 18 × 16 20 15 0 24 0 0 2 10 0

For Prices of Extra Dark Slides and Inner Frames, See Catalogue.

HINTON & C^O. 38 BEDFORD STREET =STRAND, W.C.=

==PHARMACEUTICAL, OPERATIVE & PHOTOGRAPHIC CHEMISTS.==

HINTON'S FOLDING PLATE RACKS, 4000 sold in one year.

HINTON'S MAGNESIUM FLASH LAMPS, the most practical made.

HINTON'S PURE CHEMICALS, always reliable.

HINTON'S STANDARD READY-MADE SOLUTIONS.

HINTON'S “COLLEGE” DARK ROOM LAMPS, 10/6.

HINTON'S SELECTED LENSES AT MODERATE PRICES.

HINTON'S CAMERAS OF SEASONED WOOD AND BEST WORKMANSHIP.

HINTON & CO. STOCK PLATES, FILMS, and PAPERS by all the best makers.

DEPÔT for WRAY'S MAGNIFICENT LENSES, LIESEGANG'S ARISTOTYPE PAPER, and NEWMAN'S ACCURATE TIME SHUTTER.

_=SEND FOR HINTON'S PRICE LIST.=_

-------

=Registered G.W.W. Trade Mark.=

=G. W. WILSON & Co.,=

=2, ST. SWITHIN STREET, ABERDEEN,=

Wholesale Landscape Photographers and Photographic Publishers,

=LANTERN SLIDE MAKERS AND ENLARGERS AND PROCESS PRINTERS.=

----------------------------

_Catalogues and Price Lists Post Free on application._

---------------------

=CORRESPONDENCE INVITED.=

PLATINOTYPE PRINTING

From Photographers' own Negatives carefully executed, by Richard Keene, so as to secure the ==BEST RESULTS==.

---------------------

RETOUCHING, NATURAL SKIES, &c., AT MODERATE COST.

---------------------

Price List Post Free on application to _=RICHARD KEENE, DERBY.=_

=THE AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER.= PUBLISHED WEEKLY. Price 2d.

------------------

=IMPORTANT ADVERTISING MEDIUM.=

------------------

Being the ONLY JOURNAL for AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHERS in Field, Studio, Camp; Afloat, Ashore; in Town or Country; at Home and Abroad.

N.B.—All communications respecting Advertisements to be addressed to PARRY & CRAWFORD, 52, LONG ACRE, LONDON, W.C.

_PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY._ _PRICE 2d._

Edited by CHARLES W. HASTINGS.

London: HAZELL, WATSON & VINEY, Ld., 52, Long Acre, W.C. _And through all Newsagents and Photographic Dealers._

=SPECIMEN COPY FREE ON APPLICATION.=

=☞ 10/10 per year, 5/6 for Six Months.=

Polytechnic School

OF

Photography,

309, 311, REGENT STREET, LONDON, W.

THE SCHOOL is open daily for Practical Instruction in all branches of =PHOTOGRAPHY=. The STUDIO and DARK ROOMS are lit by Electricity, and the appliances are complete in every respect.

---------------------

_TERMS FOR PRIVATE INSTRUCTION_:—

£ _s._ _d._

In Dry Plate Photography and Silver Printing, until 5 5 0 proficient

” Retouching 5 5 0

” Developing (_special course_) 2 12 6

” Carbon Printing 2 2 0

” Enlarging 2 2 0

” Platinum Printing 1 1 0

---------------------

=FORTY-EIGHT PRIZE MEDALS= Have been awarded to Students of the School at Exhibitions.

---------------------

_A year’s practical Training at the School is the best Photographic Education obtainable in the World._

---------------------

FULL PARTICULARS ON APPLICATION.

=P. MEAGHER'S=

FIELD AND STUDIO CAMERAS AND STUDIO STANDS

Have received the Highest Awards wherever Exhibited.

“The Cameras of MEAGHER deserve special Examination, as well for the perfection of their workmanship as for their perfect adaptation to the purpose for which they are designed.”—Vide _Report of Jurors_, Class IX., International Exhibition, Paris.

This Camera is Light, Portable, and quickly set up ready for use, and is perfectly rigid when extended. Fig. 1. shows the Camera packed up.

Fig. 2 shows the Camera with Reversing Frame and Front extended. Each Camera is supplied with two Fronts which can be raised or lowered as required.

------------------------------------

=MEAGHER'S IMPROVED PORTABLE BELLOWS CAMERA.=

Specially constructed for use with Dry Plates. It is fitted with Single or Double Action Swing Back, and the focussing is effected by Screw or Rack Adjustment. Prices, with Single Swing Back and three Double Backs, each carrying two Prepared Plates:—

For 5 × 4 =£5 15 0=

Ditto, with Double Swing Back, Reversing Frame, and = 8 5 0= Extending Front for Long Focus

For 6½ × 4¾ = 7 1 0=

Ditto, with Double Swing Back, Reversing Frame, and = 9 11 0= Extending Front for Long Focus

For 7½ × 5 = 7 5 0=

Ditto, with Double Swing Back, Reversing Frame, and = 9 15 0= Extending Front for Long Focus

For 8½ × 6½ = 8 10 0=

Ditto, with Double Swing Back, Reversing Frame, and =11 15 0= Extending Front for Long Focus

For 10 × 8 =10 5 0=

Ditto, with Double Swing Back, Reversing Frame, and =14 5 0= Extending Front for Long Focus

=BRASS-BINDING CAMERA=, and Three Double Backs up to 8½ × 6½, =£1 8s.=; 10 × 8, =£1 13s.=

FOR PRICES OF LARGER SIZES SEE ILLUSTRATED CATALOGUE.

Illustrated Catalogues Post Free. Ten Per Cent. Discount for Cash with Order.

=LENSES BY ROSS, DALLMEYER,= AND ALL OTHER MAKERS. =☞ AGENT FOR THE ABNEY AND DERBY DRY PLATES, And BLANCHARD'S SENSITIZED PAPERS.=

------------------------------------

MANUFACTORY:—21, Southampton Row, High Holborn, LONDON, W.C.

BECK'S

‘AUTOGRAPH’ LENSES

WITH

IRIS DIAPHRAGM.

BLAKE & EDGAR, Artists in Photography, 74, Midland Road, Bedford.

Messrs. R. & J. BECK.

Dear Sirs,

The No. 5 Lens, after severe testing, has proved to be a Splendid and Reliable Instrument, and candidly we expected a good thing; but with this Lens, for all the purposes we have tried it, the results are far above our expectations. During Twenty-five Years' experience in Photography, only Lenses of the two Best Makers have been used. We can confidently say we prefer your Lens to any of the others we have.

We are, Dear Sirs, yours respectively, BLAKE & EDGAR.

FULL CATALOGUES ON APPLICATION TO

R. & J. BECK, 68, Cornhill, LONDON.

SPECIAL NOTICE TO LOVERS OF ART PHOTOGRAPHY.

---------------------------------------------------------

It is a recognized fact by all the leading Art Photographers of the day that a single Landscape Lens is absolutely the best for correct rendering of distances in Landscape Pictures, and that, providing the Lens is carefully corrected, a beautiful softness and truthfulness of atmospheric distance is the natural result. The Stereoscopic Company claim for their “BLACK BAND” single Landscape Lenses absolute perfection in this respect.

------------------------------------

_Extract from the_ AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER _of June 8, 1888_.

“The space at our command forbids us to more than mention the conical-shape single landscape lens, a useful addition to every photographer’s kit, where views of mountain scenery are to be taken, the distances being rendered with truer perspective than is the case with the rectilinear.”

------------------------------------

PRICES.

No. 1. Size 5 ×4 £1 11 6

” 2. ” 7×5 2 12 6

” 3. ” 8½×6½ 3 13 6

” 4. ” 10 ×8 4 14 6

” 5. 5 5 0 ” 12 ×10

The London Stereoscopic and Photographic Co., Ltd.

110 & 108, REGENT STREET, W., & 54, CHEAPSIDE, E.C.

----------------------------

NEW ILLUSTRATED PRICE LIST, 200 pp., post free, 7 Stamps.

Transcriber’s Note

On p. 102, the start of an apparent quotation from Helmholtz is not marked, but most likely begins with “_we see this in combination...”.

Beginning on p. 105, an extended quotation from Helmholtz seems to extend through p. 107, where the ending quotation mark appears. The conventional practice of punctuation across paragraphs was not observed. This occurs again on pp. 279-281 with a quotation for T.F. Woodall.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original. The following issues should be noted, along with the resolutions.

57.23 [O/Ō]kio. Replaced.

64.28 Woerman[n] Added.

79.8 and sometimes “impress[s]ions” in oil Removed.

85.26 Then we have first De[s]camps Inserted.

88.1 principal feat[n/u]res are already beautiful Inverted.

108.12 we distinguish them from the intermediate _sic_ waves.[”]

140.33 supplied in tel[o/e]scopic form Replaced.

182.30 on Dr. V[ö/o]gel’s plates Replaced.

208.28 negatives had been reprodu[c]ed here Inserted.

222.2 Copyright (Works of Art) Ac. Ac[t]. Restored.

242.15 composition, that [ /i]s selection Restored.

271.21 Considerable pressure must be exerte[d] Restored.

289.34 Harding and Bonington in Eng[l]and Inserted.

305.45 “Modern dry plates,[”] Added.

307.15 “Mere trans[s]cripts of Nature,” Removed.

302.9 and crying than [i]n any Italian Restored.

a2.6 t[ /h]rough> sedgy solitudes Restored.

a2.14 The set of landscapes which c[ /l]ose the Restored. volume

a4.11 may justly fee[ /l] proud. Restored.

a7.12 to rather [read] them to think and act _sic_: lead?

End of Project Gutenberg's Naturalistic Photography, by P. H. Emerson