Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

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.

August 2nd, 1933 Thi AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER t> 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER 0 P ictorial Analysis Every week one of the pictures reproduced on an art page will be analysed in detail for the benefit of readers of the paper who are seeking to improve their pictorial work. “ OLD SOMERSET,” by Henry G. Goulden. HOW great a part is played by the sunshine, and how much dif¬ ference a comparatively slight lapse of time would make in the attraction displayed by this picture can easily be appreciated when it is considered that but a little earlier the sun would have been dead on the cottage front, and a little later this would be wholly in shadow. Time and the Subject. In the former event not only would a great proportion of the shadow be missing, but the sug¬ gestion of texture, now so pleasingly rendered, would also be absent. If the sunlight were off the front, practi¬ cally the whole of the artistic appeal would be lost, and, instead of a picture, such a representation could only be regarded as a record. It is the shadows that make the sun¬ shine evident. If the subject had been taken at an earlier hour there would have been either no visible shadow or just a modicum under the eaves and in those portions at rightangles to the front. The sunlight, as a mass, might be brighter, but it would be much more uniform in tone, and no one portion would be appreciably lighter than the rest In these circumstances and with the reduced area of shadow, it could not possibly tell as well as it now does. Reference to the reproduction will show that, at present, the brightest portion is that in the neighbourhood of the doorway (1). The front of the bow window (2) is a little lower in tone, and on the front wall in between these two points (3) it is just a shade lower still. Priority of Attraction. Naturally, therefore, the light round the doorway claims priority, and there the main attraction lies. The im¬ portance of this section is stressed by its forceful position, and again by the fact that its area is the largest of the three. It is just possible that, with the rest of the picture in shadow, this light might be sufficient to convey an artistic impression of sunshine ; but there is a doubt about it, and the composition would probably have to be considerably adjusted. As the print stands, however, the feeling of sunlight gains from the repetition afforded by the areas (2) and (3), for, in view of their lower tone and smaller size, they not only extend the portions under the influence of sunshine without introducing a sense of competition, but also heighten the attraction of the first by force of comparison. They can also be re¬ garded as accents furnishing a satis¬ factory but unequal balance, each being separated from the other by the intervening shadow, which also sets it forth, but sufficiently connected by the fact that they all form part of the same facade. This connection is ample to estab¬ lish a sense of unity, without which the arrangement would fall to pieces. and it is aided by the dark tone which surrounds the central lights. The foreground is of a considerable depth of tone ; the right and left-hand margins are dark, and the tone towards the top is very little lighter. An inevitable consequence is that the lights in question are appreciated in value, and, to some extent, the scale in which the front of the cottage is shown is justified. It does seem, however, that these margins might be extended, if possible, with no little advantage, for, at present, the setting appears somewhat over-restricted and the cottage too large for the total area of the print. If nothing in the way of obtrusive lights or other dis¬ tractions would be introduced, the addi¬ tion of a little more space all round might as well be tried ; but if, as may actually be the case, such an ex¬ tension would involve the inclusion of un¬ necessary complica¬ tions, it would be wiser to leave the ar¬ rangement as it stands. Surface and Texture. Reference has al¬ ready been made to the rendering of tex¬ ture, the angle at which the light is fall¬ ing being responsible for revealing this quality in its en¬ tirety. It causes minute shadows to appear in the very highest lights, and, besides adding to their attraction, dis¬ plays the nature and structure of the plaster over the underlying stonework. It is undeniably very pleasing indeed, and, reverting back to the remarks concerning diffusion in our issue of last week, it is difficult to see how a result in any way approach¬ ing the standard set in this instance could be achieved had any degree of diffusion been incorporated. The image here is perfectly well defined, and each of the minute shadows is properly recorded. “ Mentor.” 114 22