The advance of photography : its history and modern applications (1911)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

ART IN PHOTOGRAPHY 203 cases produces an untrue impression. This is often the case with views taken with lenses of great aperture. Effect of Distance. — There are other abnormal appearances which accompany portrait taking. Thus, the same object gives an entirely different picture according as it is viewed from a greater or less distance. Let the reader conceive a pillar with the outline A B C D, let it be viewed from P ; in this case the faces A B and C D will X p Fig. be perfectly seen. Now let the spectator approach nearer to the object — for example, to 0. From this position nothing is any longer seen of the faces ; the entire character of the picture becomes changed. If, instead of a pillar, a human face be thought of, it is evident that the cheeks will contract if we approach the object, and the face appear too narrow in proportion to its height. The accuracy of this conclusion is proved by the following illustrations. The two representations (fig. 89) of the head of Apollo were taken at the distance of 47 and 112 inches. The bust was placed perfectly upright, also the photographic apparatus, and the directing line was most carefully arranged. The contrast is obvious. The whole figure appears in I. slimmer, the chest almost contracted ; on the other hand, the same model II. appears with full cheeks and square shoulders. That this slimness is by no means a mere deception of the eye may be ascertained by measurement.1 1 In the original photograph, where the two busts stand out from a black background, this difference is still more marked.