Изображения страниц

300 miles, with 21 miles of submarine cable.

Mr. Baker has also designed a portable apparatus which a newspaper photographer may carry with him and send the pictures back to his office over the telephone line. This was successfully demonstrated in England.

As there are many difficulties in sending a photograph a long distance, say over 1,000 miles, Mr. Baker is working on a wireless method which was tested and gave fair results over a distance of 16 miles, but it is only in its infancy.

The writer had the good fortune to assist Mr. Baker in his experiments for the New York American, being stationed at the Boston American office. The American Telephone and Telegraph Co. very courteously placed the use of their trained staff and long distance line at the disposal of the inventor to carry out the tests.




GOOD many of us about this time are thinking of our trips to the seashore and the fine pictures we are going to get and one of the questions which confronts us, is what the amount of exposure to give to get the best results.

The text books and magazines are full of information on this point and those which I have seen almost invariably recommend small stops and very short exposure on account of the intense light on the coast. But they don't tell us how much difference there is in the light so we are just about as bad off as if they had not said anything about it.

Now, of course, the easiest way for us to get along, is to take the word of some whom we call authority, and have faith in what he says and guess at what he omits, but there are some who would rather have knowledge than faith and think that they will be better off in the long run by knowing things.

If one is mentally lazy the faith way is far the best, for although the authorities differ still it is easy to pick out one whom we wish to believe, and then we will stick to it that he is right and follow his lead without questioning, but if one is willing to study and struggle he may get some satisfaction by experimenting for himself and knowing.

the first place is the light more intense on the coast than inland, and if so, why, and how much?

The light comes from the same sun and through the same atmosphere and at first it seems as if it must be of the same intensity in one place or in another a few miles away.

Does the water affect the air above it so as to make any appreciable difference in the rays of light as they come through, and if so, how much? Would it not be the same over any other body of water, a pond or river inland?

There are some who say that the reflection from the water is responsible for this greater intensity of light and the question rises do we get any extra light from the reflection and, if so, how much?

Of course all of the light from the sun which strikes the water is not reflected and as the water is a very uneven surface what is refleced will be sent in all directions and not all concentrated on the objects which we are photographing.

Anything which was facing the sun across the water of course would get a large amount of light from reflection but as we seldom take photographs with our backs directly to the sun as that would give too flat a lighting we must consider the amount of light that other objects in different directions from the sun would get.

In spite of all the talk of the intensity of the light I would like to ask if you ever saw a negative taken on the coast which was over-exposed?

Get all the coast pictures which you can find and see if they do not represent the rocks on the shore as a coal formation and worth at least $8 per ton, and the shipping as painted jet black, and the trees and woods on the shore as if a fire had swept through them?? Take these pictures with you to the coast and spread them out and compare them with the real scenes and see if you consider them realistic or artistic.

How would it do to take six negatives on the coast giving them all the way from 1/100 to 1/5 at f8, and then see which you consider the best exposure. Then on a day as near like as possible take six negatives inland with the same exposures and compare with the six taken on the coast.

I don't think that one can get a good comparison by taking a picture inland with the exposure which one thinks is right and comparing it with one taken on the coast with the exposure which he thought was right for there. One must compare inland and coast scenes taken with the same exposure. Don't compare one with 1/5 inland with one with 1/100 on coast but compare 1/5 with 1/5 and 1/100 with 1/100.

I am going to try some of these experiments this summer and would like to "swap" experience with other crank amateurs who "want to know, you know."

Let us see if there is any extra intensity of light on the coast, and if so how much? Is it 1/5 more, 1⁄2 more; is it 2, 3, 4, or 5 times as much?

One of the questions we will find will be not only as to how much the reflection from the water amounts to in a bright sunny day, but how much will it amount to on dull and lowery days.

Another is just how far inland you would have to go to lose this extra intensity of light. Would it be a quarter of a mile or would it be many miles?





LL who have studied nature with the object of securing pictorial results know the wonderful changes which may take place in a single scene from variations in the state of the atmosphere as well as those caused simply by alteration of lights and shadows under ordinary conditions. This is especially true of landscapes which embrace both near and distant objects, when seen through fog, mist, or rain, or in winter during a snow storm, while on a warm day when the sun shines through a haze and soft vaporous clouds are constantly passing over the landscape, the shadows they cast over foreground or distance certainly produce most beautiful, and often unlooked for, atmospheric effects which no

amount of "faking" by the photographer could rival in charm.

Too often, however, the inexperienced amateur who attempts to reproduce such effects with the aid of a camera fails to secure the hoped for success on account of the unfamiliar conditions met with, the causes of failure being due either to lack of technical knowledge or the selection of an unsuitable subject.


W. S. Davis.

[graphic][subsumed][merged small][merged small]

With regard to subjects. As the charm of mist or fog effects is usually due to the opacity of the atmosphere, producing a striking differentiation in the various "planes," i.e., between foreground and distance, causing objects such as trees or buildings near the observer to stand out boldly from the background, it is seldom worth while to photograph foreground subjects pure and simple under these conditions. Open landscapes, such as marshlands or a bit of hilly landscape in a morning mist offer good material, while those who live near an expanse of water, whether river, lake, or seashore, have many subjects at hand which are capable of producing most artistic pictures under proper conditions. Coast views with masses of dark rocks in the foreground or the water front of a harbor with vessels fading into the fog suggest themselves to mind. Forest interiors are often much better taken on a misty day, as woodland views on a clear day generally present a confusing mass of details which spoil the artistic quality of the picture. Such details cannot always be satisfactorily subdued by differentiation of focus, but the mist not only disposes of that matter, but, owing to the separation of planes, also gives a feeling of space between things, as though one might walk around the tree trunks or rocks in the foreground of the pictures.

Of the technical details little need be said, except that isochromatic plates (preferably the backed or non-halation kind) should be used, generally with a ray-filter of medium depth, which increases the exposure three to four times, on the lens. A full exposure and short development in a somewhat weak developer is essential, that a soft negative full of delicate tone gradation may be secured, as nothing will destroy atmospheric effect in a photograph more readily than forcing the development of an under-exposed plate, which always results in a hard negative, lacking all the fine differentiation of "values"

Editorial Notes


R. W. I. SCANDLIN, formerly one of the editors of THE PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES, and now a well known writer and lecturer on photographic subjects, (see article on page 209, this issue) has sent us his announcement for next season. Three of his lectures, which particularly appeal to the readers of our magazine, and others interested in photography, are, "Some Wonders, Beauties, and Uses of Photography," with nearly one hundred slides; "Heroes of the Surf," with a large number of lantern slides from negatives made especially for this purpose; "The Story of our Mails," illustrated with a large number of special slides.

Mr. Scandlin's address is 685 Sterling Place, Brooklyn, New York, and we would suggest that lecture committees and others, looking for attractive lectures, will do well to communicate with Mr. Scandlin for his terms and dates.


HE question is often asked, "As formalin (usually a 40% solution of formic aldehyde) is so useful in "tanning" gelatine, would it not be better to mix it with the developer at first, and so avoid a second process?" Most developers nowadays contain sulphite of soda in greater or less quantity, and a short trial would quickly demonstrate the inadvisability of the addition. Decomposition between the sulphite and the formalin quickly takes place with the result of the production of a most unpleasant odor.


E take pleasure in presenting our readers, this month, with a reproduction of Mr. Harry D. Williar's very beautiful evening picture entitled, "Golden Glow." "It was made about sun down, with a yellow light," writes Mr. Williar, "on a Hammer plate, with a Goerz lens, developed with metol hydrochinon and printed on Cyko paper. It is enlarged from a 4 x 5 print." Mr. Williar further writes, in regard to his success with Cyko paper, that he has taken "quite a number of prizes from photographic journals, including the Burr-McIntosh Magazine; in the past five or six months, three first, one second, and one third prize, and, in the Baltimore Camera Club Contest, the only gold medal awarded, as well as one silver and a bronze medal out of a total of seven.

The cover illustration of this number is a reproduction of Mr. Williar's "Sheep Grazing," which, though entirely different in style and treatment, quite as beautiful as "Golden Glow."

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »