In the "Judgment of Paris," by Rubens, the horizontal line of the background cuts the waist of the first female figure, showing that the artist was seated. The other two female figures are placed against a background of rocks and dark ma.s.ses of foliage. Rubens' picture of the "Holy Family and St. George" is also a good example of the kind of picture for the photographer to study as to the situation of the horizontal line.

The picture of "The Idle Servant," by Nicolaes Maes, is also an excellent subject for study of this kind. It shows the due relation of the horizon of an interior in a very marked degree, and its shape and subject are very suitable to the size and form of a carte-de-visite. So are his pictures of "The Cradle" and "A Dutch Housewife."

The picture of "John Arnolfini of Lucca and his Wife," painted by John Van Eyck in the fifteenth century, is an excellent specimen of an interior background, with a peep out of a window on one side of the room. This is a capital subject for the study of photographers who wish to use a background representing an interior.

"The Holy Family at a Fountain," a picture of the Dutch school, painted by Schoorel in the sixteenth century, has an elaborate landscape background with the horizon above the heads of the figures, as if the artist had been standing and the models sitting.

For an example of a portrait less than half-length, with a landscape background, look at the portrait of "An Italian Gentleman," by Andrea da Solario. This picture shows how very conscientiously the old masters worked up to the truth of nature in representing the right amount of landscape in proportion to the figure; but the background is much too hard and carefully worked out to be pleasing. Besides, it is very destructive to the force and power of the picture, which will be at once visible on going to the portraits by Rembrandt, which have a marvellous power, and seem to stand right before the dark atmospheric backgrounds which that artist generally painted in his portraits.

There are other examples of half-length portraits with landscape backgrounds, wherein the horizontal line pa.s.ses right through the eyes of the princ.i.p.al figure, one of which I will mention. It is that of the "Virgin and Child," by Lorenzo di Credi. In this picture the horizontal line pa.s.ses right through the eyes of the Virgin without interfering with the interest of the chief object.

Several examples of an opposite character are to be seen in the National Gallery, with the horizon of the landscape background much too low in the picture. It is needless to call special attention to them. After carefully examining the works already named, and comparing them with the natural effects to be observed daily, it will be quickly seen which is a truthful picture in this respect, and which is a false one.

SHARPNESS AND SOFTNESS _V._ HARDNESS.

The discussion on "Sharpness: what is it?" at the meeting of the South London Photographic Society in May, 1861, and the more recent discussion on "Focussing" at the last meeting of the same Society, seem to me to have lost much of their value and importance to photographers for want of a better definition of the term _hardness_ as applied to art, and as used by _artists_ in an _artistic sense_. Webster, in his second definition of the word "hardness," gives it as "difficulty to be understood." In that sense Mr. Wall succeeded admirably when he gave the term _concentration_, in reply to Mr. Hughes, who asked Mr. Wall what he meant by _hardness_. Fairholt gives the _art meaning_ of the word as "want of refinement; academic drawing, rather than artistic feeling." But even that definition would not have been sufficiently comprehensive to convey an adequate idea of the meaning of the term in contradistinction to the word _sharpness_, and I cannot but think that Mr. Wall failed in his object in both papers, and lost considerable ground in both discussions, by not giving more attention to the nice distinctions of the two terms as used in art, and explaining their artistic meanings more clearly.

Sharpness need not be hardness; on the contrary, sharpness and softness can be harmoniously combined in the representation of any object desired. On the other hand, a subject may possess abundance of detail, and yet convey to the mind an idea of _hardness_ which the artist did not intend. This kind of hardness I should attribute to a miscarriage of thought, or a failure, from want of manipulative skill, to produce the desired effect. For example: one artist will paint a head, model it carefully, and carry out all the gradations of light and shade, and for all that it will be _hard_--hard as stone, resembling the transcript of a painted statue more than flesh. With the same brushes and colours another artist will paint a head that may be no better in its drawing, nor any more correct in its light and shade, but it will resemble _flesh_, and convey to the mind of the observer a correct impression of the substance represented--its flexibility and elasticity--that it is something that would be warm and pleasant to the touch, and not make you recoil from it as if it were something cold, hard, and repulsive, as in the former case. Again, two artists will paint a fabric or an article of furniture (say a table) with the same brushes, pigments, and mediums: the one artist will render it so faithfully in every respect that it would suggest to the mind the dull sound peculiar to wood when struck, and not the sharp, clear ring of metal which the work of the other artist would suggest.

Another example: one artist paints a feather, and it appears to have all the feathery lightness and characteristics of the natural object; the other will paint it the same size, form, and colour, and yet it will be more like a painted chip, wanting the downy texture and float-in-the-air suggestiveness of the other. Thus it will be seen that both artists had similar ideas, had similar materials and means at their disposal to render on canvas the same or similar effects. The one succeeded, and the other failed, in giving a faithful rendering of the same subjects; but it was no fault in the materials with which they worked. The works of one artist will convey to the mind an idea of the thing itself; with its texture, properties, weight, and proportions; nothing undervalued; nothing overrated, nothing softer, nothing harder, than the thing in nature intended to be portrayed. The other gives the same idea of form and size, light and shade, and colour, but not the texture; it is something harder, as iron instead of wood, or hard wood instead of soft wood, or stone instead of flesh. This, then, is the artistic meaning of hardness (or concentration, as Mr. Wall said), and that is an apparent packing together, a compression or petrifaction of the atoms or fibre of which the natural materials are composed. This difference in the works of artists is simply the effects of _feeling_, of power over the materials employed, and ability to transfer to canvas effects that are almost illusions. And so it is with photographers in the production of the photographic image. There is the same difference in feeling and manipulative skill, the same difference of power over the materials employed, that enables one photographer to surpa.s.s another in rendering more truthfully the difference of texture. Photographers may and do use the same lenses and chemicals, and yet produce widely different results.

One, by judgment in lighting and superior manipulation, will transfer to his plates more texture and suggestiveness of the different substances represented than the other. It is a fact well known to old photographers that in the best days of the Daguerreotype practice two widely different cla.s.ses of pictures were produced by the most skilful _Daguerreotypists_, both sharp and full of exquisite detail; yet the one was _hard_, in an artistic sense, not that it wanted half-tone to link the lights and shades together, but because it was of a bronzy hardness, unlike flesh from which it was taken, and suggested to the mind a picture taken from a bronze or iron statue of the individual, rather than a picture taken from the warm, soft flesh of the original.

The other would be equally sharp as far as focussing and _sharp lenses_ could make it, and possess as much detail, but it would be different in colour and texture; the detail would be soft, downy, and fleshy, not irony, if I may use that word in such a sense; and this difference of effect arose entirely from a difference of feeling, lighting, preparation of the plate, and development of the pictures. They might all use the best of Voightlander's or C. C. Harrison's lenses, the favourite lenses of that day. They might all use the same make of plates, the same iodine, bromine, and mercury, yet there would be this difference in the character of the two cla.s.ses of pictures. Both would be sharp and possess abundance of detail, still one would be _soft_ and the other hard in an artistic acceptation of the word _hardness_.

Collodion positives exhibited a similar difference of character. The works of one photographer would be cold and metallic looking, while the works of another would be softer and less metallic, giving a better idea of the texture of flesh and the difference of fabrics, which many attributed to the superiority of the lens; but the difference was really due to manipulation, treatment, and intelligence. And so it is with the collodion negative. A tree, for instance, may be photographed, and its whole character changed by selecting a bad and unsuitable light, or by bad manipulation. The least over-development or "piling up" of a high light may give it a sparkling effect that would change it into the representation of a tree of cast iron, rather than a _growing tree_, covered with damp, soft, and moss-stained bark. Every object and every fabric, natural or manufactured, has its own peculiar form of "high light" or mode of reflecting light, and care must be taken by both artist and photographer not to exceed the amount of light reflected by each particular object, else a _hardness_, foreign to the natural object, will be represented. But not only should the artist and photographer possess this feeling for nature in all her subtle beauties and modes of expressing herself, to prevent a miscarriage in the true rendering of any object, the photographic printer should also have a sympathy for the work in hand, or he will, by over-fixing, or in various other ways, mar the successful labours of the photographer, and make a negative that is full of softness, and tenderly expresses the truth of nature, yield prints that are crude, and convey to the mind a sense of _hardness_ which neither the natural objects nor the negative really possess.

Now, I think it will be seen that _hardness_ in a painting or a photograph does not mean sharpness; nor is the artistic meaning of the word _hardness_ confined to "rigid or severe drawing," but that it has a broader and more practical definition than concentration; and that the converse to the art meaning of _hardness_ is softness, tenderness, truthfulness in expressing the varied aspects of nature in all her forms, all of which are coincident with sharpness.--J. Werge (_Photographic News_).

UNION OF THE NORTH AND SOUTH LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETIES.

_To the Editors, British Journal._

Gentlemen,--Allow me to express my opinion on the suggestion to unite the North and South London Societies, and to point out a few of the advantages which, I think, would accrue from a more extensive amalgamation.

Though I am a member of all the three London photographic societies, I have long been of opinion that there are too many, and that the objects of all are considerably weakened by such a diffusion of interests. If the furtherance of the art and the free and mutual interchange of thought and experience among the members were the only things considered, there would be but one society in London; and with one society embodying all the members that now make the three, how much more good might be done!

In the first place, the amounts now paid for rent by the three would, if united, secure an excellent meeting room or chambers, in a central position, for the _exclusive_ use of the society, where the ordinary and special meetings, annual exhibitions, and _soirees_ could be held much more independently than now, and at a cost little or no more than what is now paid for the privilege of holding the ordinary meetings alone.

Secondly: If such a place of meeting were secured, then that laudable scheme of an art library, so strenuously advocated by Mr. Wall and Mr.

Blanchard at the South London Photographic Society, might be successfully carried into effect. Then a library and a collection of works of art might be gradually gathered together, and one of the members could be chosen curator and librarian, to attend the rooms one evening in the week, or oftener, as circ.u.mstances might require, so as to give members access to the library to make exchanges, extracts from bulky books, &c.

Thirdly: If the union were effected, and the place of meeting more central, there would be a larger attendance of members, and more spirited and valuable proceedings would be the result. Papers to be read at the regular meetings would be much more certain, and the discussions would be more comprehensive and complete. The members would become personally acquainted with each other, and a much better feeling would pervade the whole photographic community.

These, gentlemen, are a few of the advantages which ought to accrue from a union of the three societies; but, if that cannot be effected, by all means let the triumvirate now existing be reduced to a biumvirate. If it be not possible for the "Parent Society" and her offspring to reunite their interests and affection for the common good, surely the other two can, and thereby strengthen themselves, and secure to their members a moiety of the advantages which would result from the triple alliance.

But, before proceeding farther, let me ask--Has such a thing as a triple alliance ever been considered? Has it been ascertained that an amicable amalgamation with the Photographic Society of London is impossible? If so, what are the motives of the proposers of the union of the North and South London Societies? Do they wish to form a more powerful antagonism to the other society, or do they simply and purely wish to further the advancement of our art-science, and not to gratify personal pique or wounded pride? I do not wish to impute such unworthy motives to anyone; but it does seem singular that the proposition should come from the Chairman of the North London Photographic a.s.sociation almost simultaneously with the resignation of his seat at the council board of the Parent Society.

If, however, the motives are pure, honest, and earnest, I heartily approve of the suggestion as a step in the right direction, although I candidly admit that I would much rather see all the societies united in one, and fully believe that that would be the most advantageous arrangement that could possibly be made for all concerned.--I am, yours, &c.,

Union Jack (J. Werge).

_London, February 18th, 1867._

UNION OF THE LONDON PHOTOGRAPHIC SOCIETIES.

_To the Editors of the British Journal._

Gentlemen,--Perhaps I am in courtesy bound to answer the questions of your correspondents, Mr. Homersham and "Blue Pendant," but in self-justification I do not think it necessary, for it turns out that my suspicions of antagonism to the Parent Society were well founded; and, from their remarks, and the observations of your contributor "D.," I learn that the disaffection is more widely spread than I at first thought it was.

I may have been wrong in suspecting the Chairman of the North London Photographic a.s.sociation of unworthy motives; if so, I frankly beg that gentleman's pardon. But I am not wrong in suspecting that antagonism is mixed up with the movement.

Your contributor "D." chooses to construe my unwillingness to make a direct charge--my hope that there were no such unworthy motives--into timidity; but I beg to remind "D." that there is not much, if any, of that apparent in my putting the plain questions I did, which, by-the-by, have not yet been very satisfactorily answered.

I flatter myself that I know when and how to do battle, and when to sue for peace, as well as any in the service under whose flag I have the honour to sail; and I, as much as anyone, admire the man that can fight courageously when in the right, or apologise gracefully when in the wrong; but, as the object of this correspondence is neither to make recriminations, nor indulge in personal abuse, I return to the primary consideration of the subject, and endeavour to sift the motives of the movers of the proposition to unite the North and South London Societies, and ascertain, if possible, whether they have the good of those societies and the furtherance of photography really at heart or not.

_Imprimis_, then, let us consider the arguments of "D.," who cites the resignation of three gentlemen in proof of the management of the London Photographic Society being "out of joint." He might as well say, "because a man is sick, leave him and let him die." If there were anything they disliked in the government of the Society, or any evil to be corrected, their most manly course was to have held on, and fought the evils down. They all had seats at the Council board, and if they had wished well to the Society, they would not have resigned them, but battled for the right, and brought their grievances, real or imagined, before the members. A special meeting has been called before now to consider personal grievances which affected the honour of the Society, and I should think it could have been done again. I do not maintain that all is right in the Society, but I do think that they were wrong in resigning their seats because an article appeared in the Society's journal condemnatory of a process to which they happened to be devotedly attached.

It can scarcely be supposed that the cause of reform, or the general good of the country, would have been forwarded had Gladstone, Bright, and Earl Russell resigned their seats as members of either House because they could not carry their ministerial bill of last session. From this I argue that men who have the object they advocate, and the "best interests" of the Society, thoroughly at heart, will stick to it tenaciously, whether in or out of office, and, by their watchfulness, prevent bad becoming worse, in spite of captious opposition, fancied insults, or journalistic abuse.

The next paragraph by "D." on which I shall comment contains that bold insinuation of timidity, which I have already noticed as much as I intend to do. But I wish to discuss the question of "absorption" a little more fully. I cannot at all agree with the sentiments of "D." on that subject. Absorption is in many instances a direct and positive advantage to both the absorber and absorbed, as the absorption of Sicily by Italy, and Frankfort and Hanover by Prussia. Nitric acid absorbs silver, and how much more valuable and useful to the photographer is the product than either of the two in their isolated condition; and so, I hold, it would be with the Society were the two other Societies to join the old one, impart to it their chief characteristics, re-model the const.i.tution, and elect the members of the Council by ballot. We should then have a society far more powerful and useful than could ever be obtained by the formation of a new one.

In the foregoing, I think I have also answered the question of Mr.

Homersham, as well as that part of "Blue Pendant's" letter relating to the establishment of a _fourth_ society. On that point my views harmonise with those of your contributor, "D."

On the subject of "members of Council," I do not agree with either "D."

or your correspondent "Blue Pendant." The Council should be elected from and by the body of members, and the only qualifications necessary should be willingness and ability to do the work required. No consideration of cla.s.s should ever be admitted. The members are all recommended by "personal knowledge," and elected by ballot, and that alone should be test sufficient on the score of respectability.

Concerning "papers written as puffs," I cordially agree with "Blue Pendant" as far as he goes; but I go further than that, and would insist on each paper being scrutinised, before it is read, by a committee appointed for the purpose, so as to prevent "trade advertis.e.m.e.nts" and such shamefully scurrilous papers as I have heard at the South London Photographic Society.

With reference to the questions put by "Blue Pendant," I beg to decline answering his second, it not being pertinent; but I shall reply to his first more particularly. He seems to have forgotten or overlooked the fact that I thought the advantages I enumerated would result from a union of the _three_ societies--not from an alliance of the two only.

That I still look upon suspiciously as antagonistic to the Parent Society; and "Blue Pendant's" antagonism is proved beyond doubt when he says it is "tottering to its fall," and he almost gloatingly looks forward to its dissolution coming, to use his own words, "sooner or later," and "perhaps the sooner the better." But I venture to think that "Blue Pendant" is not likely to be gratified by seeing the "aged Parent"

decently laid in the ground in his time. There is too much "life in the old dog yet"--even since the secession--for that to come to pa.s.s. It cannot be denied that the Parent Society has amongst its members some of the best speakers, thinkers, writers, and workers in the whole photographic community.

While discussing this subject, allow me, gentlemen, to advert to an article in your contemporary of Friday last. In the "Echoes of the Month," by an Old Photographer, the writer thinks that the advantages I pointed out as likely to accrue from a union of the societies are a "pleasant prospect that will not bear the test of figures." It is a fact that "figures" are subject to the rules of addition as well as of subtraction, and I wish to show by figures that my ideas are not so impracticable as he imagines. In addition to the eight guineas a year paid by the North and South London Photographic Societies for rent, I notice in the report of the London Photographic Society, published last month, two items in the "liabilities" which are worth considering. One is "King's College, rent and refreshment, 42 4s. 6d.," which, I presume, is for one year. The other is "King's College _soiree_ account, 20 15s. 6d.," part of which is undoubtedly for rent of rooms on that occasion. Now there is a clear showing of over 50 12s. 6d. paid in one year by the three societies for rent and refreshment, the latter not being absolutely necessary. I may be mistaken in my estimate of the value of central property; but I do think a sum exceeding 50 is sufficient to secure a room or chambers large enough for the purposes of meeting, and keeping a library, &c.; or, if not, would it not be worth while making a strain to pay a little more so as to secure the accommodation required? If the Coventry Street experiment were a failure from apathy or other causes, that is no proof that another attempt made by a more numerous, wealthy, and energetic body would also be abortive.

In sea phraseology, "the old ship has made a long leg to-day!" but I hope, gentlemen, you will not grudge the s.p.a.ce required for the full and careful consideration of this subject. The "developing dish" and the ordinary _modus operandi_ of photography can well afford to stand aside for awhile to have this question discussed to the end. I have not said all I can on the amalgamation project, and may return to it again with your kind permission, if necessary.--I am, yours, &c.,

Union Jack (J. Werge).

_London, March 4, 1867._

THE SOCIETY'S EXHIBITION.

Impressions and Convictions of "Lux Graphicus."

The brief and all but impromptu Exhibition of the Photographic Society, recently held in the rooms of the Architectural Society, 9, Conduit Street, Regent Street, where the Society's meetings are to be held in future, was one of the pleasantest and most useful expositions in connection with photography that has been consummated for many years. In the first place the idea of an exhibition evening free from the formalities of a _soiree_ was a happy one; the _locale_ was happily chosen; and the whole arrangements most happily successful. Everybody seemed to be pleased; cordial expressions of agreeable surprise were freely exchanged; and there were abundance and variety enough of pictorial display to satisfy the most fastidious visitor.