There is very little novelty to call for notice this year, either in subject, or mode of treatment, or chemical process. In the last respect—with some few exceptions, as Janpenot’s and Fothergill’s process, collodio-albumen, &c.—the old collodion process constitutes the staple of the exhibition.
The merits and demerits of photographs are, generally speaking, so entirely chemical as to leave little subject for art-criticism. In the quality of chemicals employed the photographer has generally no further concern than in the choice of a chemist; and in such subjects as copies of painting, &c., there is really nothing by which the skill, or want of skill, of the artist himself can be tested. All is done for him. The chief merit of which photographs are capable as chemical productions is sensitiveness of collodion, or other vehicle, and capability of reproducing minute details. This is best tested by foliage and old stonework—foliage especially, as the green presents an obstacle to the photographer which has never been perfectly overcome. The best examples of successful treatment of this may be found in Messrs. Cundall and Downes’—No. 31, Mr. L. Smith’s 23 and 47, Lieut. Holder’s No. 66 (though suffering a little from a want of light), and Mr. Robinson’s Nos. 73 and 61; the latter is, perhaps, the best specimen of this year. In stonework we would call especial notice to Messrs. Bisson’s beautiful pictures—(Nos. 30, 34, 35, 36)—nothing can exceed the perfection of detail exhibited by the roof in No. 30; and 35 contains a most successful moonlight effect, though no doubt taken in sunlight. Then there are those of Messrs. Cundall and Downes (No. 40); Mr. Barnes (No. 17), where the crumbling stonework of the old college fronts is most truthfully rendered; Mr. Grice (21), all Mr. Piper’s; while, perhaps, the best specimen of detail in architecture and foliage combined is to be found in Mr. Bedford No. 432. As similar subjects we may call attention to Mr. White’s 155 and Mr. Fenton’s 121 and 145; in the latter he has most successfully contended with the additional difficulty of winter light. However, this merit of sensitiveness of collodion may be carried to an extreme, so as to fail in giving the necessary contrast of light and shade, and so to produce a general flat effect. An instance of this may be seen in Mr. Fenton’s 130.
The artist himself is mainly responsible in views for choice of point of view and time of day, and (occasionally) the arrangement of foreground accessories; in such subjects as copies of pictures, &c., for focussing alone; and in portraits, for choice of light, altitude, and grouping.
As instances of taste in choice of view Lord Alfred Churchill’s 234 and Mr. Bedford’s 238 are well worthy of notice; the former is a thoroughly poetical picture. In the upper picture of 238 the tree in the foreground is perfectly placed, and in the lower remarkable taste has been shown in getting the mass of white formed by the cottage and the cascade just far enough out of the centre to avoid stiffness of composition, and yet not so far as to overbalance the picture by an excess of light on one side; two other good specimens of this may be found in Messrs. Cundall and Downes’ 281, and Mr. Mudd’s 315.
Instances of good choice of light may be found in Messrs. Maull and Polyblank (No. 5), Mr. Grice (21), Mr. Mudd (37), and Mr. Fenton (150); the last, an interior, is an especially difficult subject.
For good focusing Mr. White’s No. 155 may be taken as an instance. This picture is excellent in every way, the collodion having been perfectly sensitive, and a very still day chosen for taking the picture, thus avoiding the too common fault of woolly foliage. The facsimiles of music by Mr. Rippingham (Nos. 558, 561, and 562), and the copy of a map which faces the spectator on entering, are also first-rate.
In taking portraits a well-arranged light is of paramount importance. We have already noticed a remarkable instance of this in No. 5, and another may be found in Mr. Hering’s 237, and Messrs. Watkins’ 2 and 26. This point is of especial importance, as without it all softness of feature is hopeless.
The grouping of Messrs. Hennah and Kent’s 312, and Mr. Robinson’s 98 and 493, is especially good. In all the important result of unity of picture has been obtained by giving to the different figures one object of attention; thus, the cricketing group in 312 may be supposed to be watching a match going on behind the spectator, and in 98 some object to the right has evidently diverted for a moment the attention which would naturally be directed to the spectator himself.
In single portraits the chief difficulty to be overcome is the natural placing of the hands; within the narrow limits allowed by the focussing power of the lens there are not many attitudes into which they naturally fall, while, if the artist attempts the arrangement himself, he generally produces the effect of the proverbial bashful young man in society who finds for the first time that his hands are an incumbrance, and cannot remember what he is in the habit of doing with them in private life. Mr. Hering’s portraits generally are specimens of what may be done overcoming this difficulty. His portraits of children in No. 327 are nearly all excellent, while the two end ones, and the third from the left in the upper row, are as nearly perfection in this line of art as the present state of photography admits of; the last-mentioned picture (with the trifling drawback of an awkward pose of the right hand) is not surpassed by any in the room. Among pictures of this sort Messrs. Lock and Whitfield also deserve notice, especially the child in profile No. 231, and the same exquisitely coloured in 331. The colouring itself does not of course constitute a branch of photography. Beautiful instances of this may be found in Nos. 331, 342, 343, 357, and 366. All Mr. Herbert Watkins’s portraits are artistic and lifelike.
We turn now to a less pleasing portion of our task—the fault of photographs. These, like their merits, chiefly consist in choice of view, lighting, focussing, grouping, &c., and in all these respects instances may be pointed out which may act as beacons to the young adventurer in the art.
A common fault in choice of view is getting the principal object exactly into the centre, or, at all events, so near to it that the calculating faculty is at once aroused instead of the imaginative, and the spectator longs for a foot rule to ascertain whether the picture is exactly bisected or not. Instances of this may be seen in 197 and 295, the latter having the additional fault of facing the spectator full instead of a little obliquely, which is the more pity as Magdalen Tower presents so many much better aspects from other directions. In No. 120 a very curious effect is produced by the absence of all the usual standards of measurement, for want of which the spectator can scarcely avoid taking the edging to the flower-borders for the height of ordinary railings, and so raising the windows above into gigantic proportions.
Bad lighting is another very common fault; this may be studied in Nos. 67 and 135, the latter giving one the idea of the fish having been left out till so late at night that the forgetful sportsman is forced to bring a lantern to look for them.
But it is grouping that the chief difference lies between the artist and the mere chemical manipulator, and melancholy instances of what may be done in this way are only too easy to point out. Mr. Robinson’s groups are usually exquisite, and some of his have already been noticed as such; but in No. 68 not only has the head of the principal figure been thrown out of focus for the sake of other parts of the picture, but the infant has been so placed that its feet are terribly magnified, giving it the effect of a hideous dwarf. The same remark applies to 459, where this group is repeated, though the effect is rather less apparent from the diminution of the picture. Mr. Robinson has also inflicted a pair of very large feet on the central figure in 98, a picture otherwise admirable. In No. 183 he has thrown all three figures into strained and unlikely attitudes while the eyes of the right-hand girl would most certainly be fixed on the spectator, who is necessarily close upon the group. In No. 142 there is a unity of attention given to the group, but it is centred on nothing; the eye involuntarily wanders over the pile of logs in search of the figure of the stump orator or field preacher who ought to be there, but whose motions appear to have been too continuous and energetic for photography to catch him. In 501 the figures, though practised actors, are greatly wanting in life and meaning; but perhaps the crowning instance of what may be achieved by a resolutely stiff and conventional arrangement may be found in No. 537. A resigned gloom has settled over nearly all the unfortunate victims; and if the second picture from the right in the top row were only labelled “Entrance to a Panoramic Exhibition, all the seats full, and no view to be had from the door,” it would be indeed excellent.
One other fault, but much less common than any of the preceding, remains to be noticed—the attempting of manifest impossibilities. Some instances of this may be found in Mr. Piper’s beautiful pictures, where, by taking a point of view too near for the powers of the lens, a disagreeable pyramidal effect is given to the buildings—see Nos. 44, 51, and 196. This effect may be especially noticed in 244, where the buildings actually appear to be falling. In 198 and 305 effects are attempted which cannot possibly be all in focus at once, and a woolliness of effect is inevitable.
Mr. Paul Pretsch’s nature engraving is interesting, though the result is so uniformly dark as to be hardly satisfactory.
I have omitted to mention some fine views of Niagara Falls exhibited by the London Stereoscopic Company. Through an oversight, probably, they are not numbered in the catalogue, but they nevertheless are well worthy the attention of the visitor. I would especially mention “The General View of Niagara,” embracing the Horseshoe Fall, Goat Island, and the American Fall.
The Lounger.