International photographer (Jan-Dec 1934)

Fourteen The INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER Julv, 1934 Thoughts on Photography By Karl A. Barleben, Jr., F.R.P.S. HOTOGRAPHY as a hobby offers many un' usual attractions to the amateur who is willing to go into it with both feet and realize from the 2LMZ&& start that it is far from an exact science. To many, photography is a simple matter which can be learnt in a few hours. Yet, in order to fully understand it, one must delve into optics, mechanics, art, and chemistry. It is possible, of course, to teach a person how to operate a simple camera in half an hour. At the end of that time he should know how to release the shutter, focus the lens, and set the diaphragm. In a sense this is photography, but it hardly suits the term. Photography in its broader meaning suggests far more. Regarding the matter from another view-point, let us for a moment dwell upon the self-styled expert. For the sake of the argument he may claim to know photography from A to Z — but does he really? It has been my experience that the more a man knows about photography the less inclined he is to be sure of himself, for he has come to realize what a vast held photography actually is. The more a man knows, the more he realizes what an enormous amount there is still to learn and know and this fact makes the true "expert" doubtful as to his ability. No one man can claim to know all about photography — nor even all about one single branch of it. One may specialize in photographic chemistry, for example, and know all about developers, fixing baths, time and temperature, gamma, and the like. Yet when it comes to making pictures, he may be a decided flop. This is only to be expected after all, for, as those who have thought about the matter agree, no one man can be proficient in everything. It is even something of an achievement to be a master of one phase of the work. I have known excellent photographers who didn't know what f :4.5 meant — and cared less. They closed the lens down by rule-of-thumb plus years of experience. Nevertheless, while we may laugh at them, it must be admitted that they knew how to make photographs. There is no denying that a sounder knowledge of photography in general is a decided aid to better pictures, but just how deep to go depends greatly upon the individual. The popularity of the miniature camera today has brought forth many new theories, ideas, and formulas. These were necessary in order to secure the best results with the tiny camera. But more than that, these new ideas have crept into the fields where larger cameras, too, are used. But the point is that in the miniature camera field there exists a certain type of enthusiast who is continually thirsting for technical knowledge. He experiments, he asks, and in general one 'would consider him a remarkably well-informed individual. But see some of his work! Nine out of ten are lucky if they can show you one decent photograph. On the other hand, the enthusiast whom most of us scoff at in pity, who goes about snapping pictures here and there without any real basis of photographic lore — ask to see some of his results. You may often be surprised at the beautiful technique and quality they exhibit. A person of this type has a mind which is not in the least scientific or mechanical, but highly artistic. He figures, but owing to a lack of imagination and artistic experimenter, who runs towards technicalities, knows his appreciation cannot make one decent print. Without discrediting the technician — we need them badly — it would appear to me that the uninformed "boob" who can make good pictures in spite of not knowing the difference between f :4.5 and gamma is the best off. At least his mind is at ease and he can secure real enjoyment from his camera. He is not being constantly thrown into an uproar every time a new fine grain formula is suggested. In short, he is playing with photography for the fun he gets out of it. The other chap gets all the worries and headaches — but maybe he likes them, or else how can you account for his going into it? Photography has been called both an art and a science. So far as technique is concerned, it has all the earmarks of being a science — surely it is based on some very definite and familiar laws of physics. But because artistic pictures can be made with it, it spells art to others. Both factions are, therefore, right in their contention. And speaking of art and the like in connection with photography — which is a dangerous subject to even touch upon — I should like to mention that some of the most famous photographers who specialize in pictorial and similar artistic efforts feel that an artistic temperament cannot be gotten from books. Several of my friends express themselves in a way that leaves no doubt in one's mind on listening to them. They claim that artistic appreciation and interpretation is something born in us, and not acquired. I should mention, however, that these gentlemen are well-versed in art — painting and drawing — and possibly their ideas may be slightly biased. Needless to say, because of their artistic training, they are enabled to produce photographs which are truly examples of artistic photography. Regardless of these attitudes, there can be no denying that an understanding of art stands the photographer in good stead. To indicate a few of the variables of photography — the reason why one cannot be smart enough to know all about it — we might mention that the photographic emulsion as we today know it is one of the most profound mysteries. Sherlock Holmes himself would be stumped on a case of this nature. We know how to make emulsions, but that is about all. Even the manufacture of emulsions is a delicate process, liable to spoil through an error of a minute or two or an ounce or two. As a result, the process is kept strictly secret by the respective manufacturers. If any reader thinks that the process of emulsion making is easy, he is referred to the book "Photographic Emulsions" by E. J. Wall — it will be an eye-opener. What happens when light strikes the emulsion? Many guess but no one actually knows. Several theories have been brought forward, but so far none has withstood the test of time and science. We place a film or plate in our camera. The film is labeled a certain speed. Just how accurate is this rating? It is well known that film cannot be made uniform, batch to batch. There are bound to be slight discrepancies, yet as far as we are concerned, this does not bother us. True, can make pictures, in other words. The other type, the Please mention The International Photographer when corresponding with advertisers.