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 205 Let the ends of the arms A A be next considered. In I. the side surface is scarcely seen and in II. it is very apparent. In like manner it is clearly seen that the back pedestal at u stands out more in II. than in I. In II. the head stands more between the shoulders (let the angle of the neck be observed at W) ; in I. it rises up more ; therefore the whole form appears in I. to raise up the head. In II. the head appears somewhat bent forward ; and yet the figure was immovable, the lenses employed free from flaw, the direction and height were the same in both. Nothing was different but the distance. If four heads taken at different distances are placed beside each other, it is seen how with the increase of distance the form becomes fuller and more thickset ; how the hair sinks more and more ; how the ellipses of the pedestal become flatter ; how the chest increases in width, and the stumps of the arms stand out. Thus, therefore, we see very different views of the same object at different distances ; just as the same portrait placed in different lights expresses an entirely different character. It may be objected that these are small matters, and that it is indifferent whether the statue looks a little too thin or too stout. To many this may appear unimportant in the case of Apollo — most persons do not know in the least how he looks. But it is a different matter in the photography of portraits, when the personality of the customer himself is in question. Persons quite untutored in art have a very quick eye for their own physiognomy — a line, a wrinkle, an outline, a curl, are in this case criticised, and differences that would not be at all remarked in the picture of Apollo become very striking. It is therefore the duty of the photographer to attend to the effects of distance. Now, many persons would perhaps wish to know which distance is the best ; which gives the most correct picture.