Society of Motion Picture Engineers : incorporation and by-laws (1916)

Messrs. Hurter & Driffield, of England, whose research work in the photographic field is recognized throughout the world, put great stress on the necessity of securing a technically perfect negative. Let us quote a few words from their little book on "Photo-Chemical Investigations and Methods of Speed Determination:" While we quite realize that the artist will always produce the best picture^ we contend that the scientist will produce the best negative. The photographer, therefore, who combines scientific method with artistic skill is in the best possible position to produce good work. The truthful representation of light and shade involves the production of a technically perfect negative, i. ^., one in which the capacities of its graduations are proportional to the light reflected by those parts of the original object which they represent. Our investigations show that such a relationship does exist, but only when a plate has received what we term a correct exposure. While many photographers attach very little importance to accuracy in exposure, and maintain that errors may be readily corrected by suitable modifications in the composition of the developer, we have always strongly msisted that a correct exposure is an essential foundation if we aim to procure a technically perfect negative. It must be clearly understood, however, that, by a correct exposure we do not imply that there is necessarily one exposure, and one only, which will yield a negative answering to our definition. Fortunately most plates admit of some latitude in this respect. Our contention is that the latent image, false in its gradations, cannot, by modifications in the constitutions of the developer, be made to yield a visible image true in its gradations. The practice of photography, by methods of scientific predetermination, imperatively demands a correct exposure as a fundamental condition." The standardization of the exposure so that at all times every foot of film exposed in the studio will be uniform in density will do away with the necessity of variations of timing on the printer, and eliminate the uncertainty of the finished result, also one can predetermine the screen results when toning or dying is resorted to. I have been working on an indirect system of studio lighting to standardize the exposure, in which the volume of indirect light is governed by the cubical area to be lighted, and in addition to which the light effects are secured by the use of a few diffused direct light units. In this way the photographer can exercise his artistic ability with the assurance of a perfectly exposed negative resulting. Of course, studio conditions will have to be somewhat changed from the present methods of working, but the certainty of the results will warrant the expense. Ninety percent of the time we spend in indirect or reflected light. Such being the, case, why should we not make our photographs in the conditions under which we normally live. The Eskimo is a specimen of a human being who spends most of his life under direct light. Now, who would want to be photographed to look like an Eskimo? To my mind the use of undiffused direct light in the studio is a great mistake. Besides causing terrific eye strain for those working under it, it is responsible for the chalk and lamp black effects so often seen upon