PhotoHistory

Can Photography Lie?

From: THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF PHOTOGRAPHY
No. 1392. VOL. XXXIV. JANUARY 7, 1887.

ON THINGS IN GENERAL

By FREE LANCE

“CAN photography lie?” What a terrible implied imputation! And I am indeed afraid that photography cannot be at all likened to Caesar’s wife, for it is not above suspicion. When one finds a well-known photographer putting the above question (see report of the transactions of the London and Provincial Photographic Association) it is as good (or as bad) as a verdict of Guilty, at the outset. We are brought back to the old reply, “Truth is hid in a well,” and it is the real truth that such is the case in regard to matters photographic. I find it hard to believe Mr. Bridge’s friend who managed to secure 150 pounds sterling for services rendered to the two opponents in the case of a contested railway matter. But if this question itself be so horrifying, what will the British Public, or that large section of it that reads The British Journal Of Photography, think of the reply subsequently given at the Camera Club by Mr. J. Traill Taylor, “There was no room for doubting that photographers, as such, could and did?” Now, really, Mr. Taylor I won’t say Mr. Editor, for he spoke as a photographer, and not an editor — what am I to understand? Do you mean to accuse me of mendacity because I happen to possess a camera and a lens? But no, that is impossible. I call to mind an old speech of the sort I heard a great many years ago. A printer had outraged the patience of one of his customers for so long a time that at last he got angry. “Well, I will give you my word the things shall be printed tomorrow,” said the printer. “Is it the word of a printer or the word of a gentleman you mean?” retorted the injured one. I will imagine Mr. Taylor to have spoken in a Pickwickian sense.

I was much amused at the remainder of the discussion that occurred the same evening in relation to the difficulty of pleasing sitters. I do not think any one not used to the work can have any idea of the great difficulties experienced by those who have to paint by the sun’s light. It is not necessary to believe that Mr. Henderson exaggerated the least when he speaks of one sitter — a gentleman — having employed himself for two or three hours before a looking-glass in arranging his position. I have myself seen an instance of a sitter of this class, who had taken about half an hour to pose, call out to the operator, just as the latter was going to uncap, “Now, how would this do?” throwing himself, at the word, into an entirely different attitude, and requiring all the arranging to be gone through again.

The great question of the hour seems to be orthochromatic or non-orthochromatic plates, and, clinging to its fringes is another, “lawsuit or no lawsuit?” There would be a great advantage to the community if only the question could be fought out for them; the combatants would have to pay all costs, and if, as is quite possible, the so-called “infringers of the patents” gained the day, then the process would be thrown open to the public at large. A patent suit, at the best, is nothing but weariness and vexation of spirit, and when it is mainly supported by, or combatted upon, scientific, and especially chemical, evidence, the way the verdict will be brought in is a pure question of chance. This kind of evidence has been described by a well-known literary and scientific man as follows: “Positive, mendacity; comparative, outrageous lying; superlative, scientific evidence.” And I think he is not far wrong in his conclusions.

What is all the stir one sees happening at the meeting of an amateur society in a city well known for its connection with photography? A gentleman seems to have made a business of his amateur work some years ago, but the club or society condoned his offense; now they have reopened the question, and by a resolution to the effect that “Any parson now or at any time a member of this Association who shall practice photography professionally, sell, or publicly expose for sale photographs of his own production, shall thereupon cease to be an ordinary member of the Association,” have, apparently, ostracized him. That is a resolution which with a prospective action only might be with advantage adopted by all amateur societies. Their ranks would be well thinned, for it is my belief that there are very few amateurs who do not sell their productions professedly at a price, “just enough to cover the cost, you know,” the cost, I suppose, of all their experiments, hire of instrument, and all etceteras, so as to make them free of all expense in the fixing of their hobby. I wish to observe, though, that in the resolution above quoted the word “shall” cannot grammatically (though I suppose the intention of the framers is not carried out in the words) be considered to apply to the past.

I note that at the last London and Provincial Photographic Association meeting some discussion upon platinotype printing took place, in which the speakers alluded to the difficulty of introducing modifications in the printing, as is commonly done with silver prints. Now there is no doubt that there is some increased care and judgment needed in the operation — it is scarcely one that can be deputed to “the boys;” — but there is a fairly visible image in an undeveloped platinum print, and personally, I may say I have found it a comparatively easy matter to introduce clouds into platinum prints. It is, however, requisite to take care that the time taken over the work be not prolonged too much, or the character of the results will suffer; for a very slight absorption of moisture by the paper renders it impossible to obtain purity of whites. By-the-by, I should like to know whether the pages of this journal are going to be permanently increased for the next year or two, to allow of more lengthened correspondence upon the “permanent” question? Can any one doubt that the readers will be pleased if such be the case, all the letters, so far, having been such nice, light, instructive reading? (I hope no one will think that by light I mean frivolous; for all frivolling is discountenanced from the editorial chair, I know.)

The articles upon retouching by Mr. Barrett that have been appearing for some months past in these columns, are written by a man who is at once artistic in feeling and capable of expressing himself in suitable words; but I should like to say of them that assuming, as I do, from its last paragraph, that the paper printed at the end of December was the last of the series there is a glaring deficiency in them. To the best of my recollection there is not one single word about the manner of using his tools. As to the caliber of the work to be done there is plenty of instruction, but as to the mystery of spot, dot, stipple, lines curved and straight, hatching or cross-hatching, not one word. Now it may be that Mr. Barrett intends to introduce some such instructions at the end of his work — that I cannot say, but one might fairly expect the series of articles to have begun with something of the sort.

At the close of exhibitions, photographic or otherwise, there are always, and as a matter of course — letters denunciatory of management, selection, and all other authorities, published in all the periodicals that will admit the lucubrations of the disappointed ones; but this time the cry has swelled to such a chorus of unbroken complaint as to breakages and damages that there is clearly some one at fault. A scapegoat will have to be found, for it is evident the gilt has all been rubbed off the frames. Some gentlemen have even not had — nil — their pictures hung — would it be believed! May I make a suggestion to the authorities to have a supplementary exhibition of the works of the forsaken ones? I think one such exhibition should entirely for the future put an end to such wailing, for as the hangers were so regardless of the best interests of some of the senders as to hang a few of the atrocities, it is easy to imagine the character of what remained in the cellars, rotting — I was about to say, but I am afraid there is no such kind fate in store.

In the report of the Manchester Amateur Photographic Society’s meeting last month, I read that “a novelty in the lantern display was the use by Mr. Jones of gas compressed into steel bottles instead of gas bags.” Now I happen to know, as also do many of my readers, that there are some exceedingly wide-awake men in that Society, and I don’t think they would look upon the compressed gas as a novelty.