Amateur Photographer & Cinematographer (1933)

August 23rd, 1933 Thi AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHER 6 CINEMATOGRAPHER a PICTURES oftkeWEEK ^ . . . ^ C 7 on the Beginners’ prints reproduced on Some {critical Comments sthe opp£site page. THE photography of architecture, especially interiors, does not seem to be practised as much nowadays as it was some few years ago. As a class, it still has its adher¬ ents, but the number of examples that are entered in our competitions or shown in the chief exhibitions of the year are comparatively few. Architectural Interiors . Possibly the reason lies in the difficulties that are supposed to be innate in subjects of this character. Exposures are necessarily prolonged, and to undertake the work success¬ fully no little expenditure of time is required. Proper equipment is a desirability, but, with a camera of any type, providing it is fitted with a fairly short focus lens, much may be done. A rigid and non-slipping tripod is absolutely essential, and a rising front of good range is usually needed, but, upon the assumption that these re¬ quirements are met, there should be no reason why successful pictures should not be made. Instances of promising efforts in this direction are to be seen in Nos. 2 and 6 of the prints reproduced on the opposite page — “ Sanctitude,” by M. A. Tomlinson, and “ Interior, Wing Church,” by C. J. Wassell — both of which show an appreciation of the possibilities that offer them¬ selves in work of this character. The effect of light in the former is very well caught and conveyed, and, if there be a drawback, it is the lack of distinction between the tones in the very darkest portions. Unmodulated Shadows. The probability is that the failing is attributable to a combination of the effects of under-exposure and slight over-development. It might be either the one or the other alone, but it is more likely that both defects exist, although it is impossible to say for certain without an inspection of the negative. It is probable that three or four times the exposure given would pro¬ duce a more satisfactory and more complete range of tone, provided it be accompanied by a reduction in the time of development of the negative ; but, apart from the technical de¬ ficiency referred to, the subject has been very well handled. No. 6 seems better from the point of view of craftsmanship, though it could do with a little deeper printing, but the subject neither makes up quite so well nor has it the same attraction of effect. It is perfectly true that the architecture is not so imposing, and there is not the same sense of dignity and height ; but, while these factors may affect the appeal to some extent, the main reason for the difference in artistic attraction appears to lie in the fact that, in the latter print, a source of light is included, and, in the first, only an effect of light is seen, the source itself being hidden. Inevitably, there is competition, in No. 6, between the light coming from the window and that reflected from the pillars, whereas the feeling is, from the pictorial point of view, that only the pillars should be shown in light. By some means or other, the window should be omitted, and, if that could be arranged, not only would the composition be unified and rendered more satisfactory, but the artistic appeal would be very appre¬ ciably enhanced. Indoor and Outdoor Subjects. Whether such a re-arrangement of the subject would ever come within the range of practical politics is problema¬ tical. It is just possible, at another time of day, that the window in question would be so obscured that the light on the pillars would become the brighter, and, if so, the exposure might well be repeated. It does not seem to be very likely, but the point is one that should be kept in mind when dealing with similar subjects in the future. These two examples, coming from the ranks of beginners, suffice to indicate that the difficulties associated with architecture indoors are not in¬ surmountable, and, possibly, they may be the means of stimulating a revival of interest in this particular class of work. With outdoor subjects of similar nature, exposure does not present the same problem, that is, as long as it be kept in mind that due allowance has to be made on account of the proximity of the subject, the necessary increase being allowed. From the 181 technical standpoint. No. 1, " Nor¬ man Doorway, Adel Church,” by R. Falkinder, is excellent, and offers no ground for adverse criticism. It makes an admirable record, but, although sunshine is present, it is not suffi¬ ciently brought into evidence to endow the print with any appreciable pic¬ torial appeal, the lack of an adequate quantity of shadow being responsible. Sunshine and Effect. There is a much greater proportion of shadow, comparatively, in No. 5, " Light Craft,” by Arthur S. Paris, and the appreciation in the value of the sunshine as an effect is very evident. It is made to tell far better, re¬ stricted as it is, than the more wide¬ spread and larger area of sunlight in the other, and, though the subject might be said to be a combination of architectural and marine classes, there is a sufficient similarity between the two to point a moral. The former, on the face of it, does no more than serve its purpose as a record, while the latter, to some extent at least, shows the effect of sunshine in such a way that it becomes attractive artistically, and, in so doing, forms a pictorial motive. Naturally enough, the effect is enhanced by the presence of the reflections and the repetitions thus afforded, but, even had a less pleasing foreground been provided, the effect would have been almost as well conveyed if it were in shadow. Buildings in Landscapes. In the two remaining prints, the buildings are scarcely significant enough in scale to enable the subjects to be placed in the category of archi¬ tecture, for, primarily, they are land¬ scapes with the buildings as prominent, but not the preponderating, elements. The buildings may be important enough to be regarded as the centre of interest, but only as an item in a scene of which they are a part. By reason of the shadow in close proxim¬ ity, the sunlit roofs of No. 4, “ Road¬ side Scene,” by R. Jacobs, convey an excellent impression of sunlight, but, in No. 3, " Alcanbury Mill,” by W. M. V. Chapman, it is scarcely possible to say whether it be present or not, the absence of shadow being most marked. “ Mentor.” 19