Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1903 (Heft 2))

tints which appeal most to the cultivated eye are just those which no three-
color process has yet reproduced, at any rate for public exhibition. They may
have been made, but their makers conceal them, and the only shown specimens
were either of brilliant tints approximately correctly rendered or of the more
delicate shades hopelessly mistranslated. If three-color work can accomplish
these, it would be a great thing, although not obviously a step toward true
color-photography. If it can not, then pictorially it is of no avail and its
results are out of place in exhibitions of pictorial photographs.
I HAVE not referred to two-color gum and similar work, because such can
never be really true to nature except in copying specially prepared paintings
limited to two colors and their derivatives, and because all color-work not
reasonably true and convincing is artistically offensive and immeasurably
inferior to a correct monochrome rendering, which in the present state of
our knowledge is not difficult of accomplishment. R. Child Bayley.

SALON JURIES.
AT THE present day there is no subject of more concern to
photographers than the constitution of salon juries. Notable
differences of opinion exist upon this question. M. Demachy,
the noted leader of French photographic picture-makers, has
recently expressed himself in " Photograms of 1902,” in favor
of painters upon photographic juries. To those who appreciate the
substantial value of his work, M.Demachy’s ideas on photographic matters
are of more than common interest; yet not only is his view not shared by
most of the recognized American photographers, some of whom have gone
on record in favor of juries composed entirely of such photographers as have
proved by their work their qualification for deciding the artistic requirements
of a picture, but so far have these carried their opposition that they have
failed to support exhibitions held under the auspices of those who regard
such juries as incapable of exercising artistic judgment.
THERE has been little said in defence of our position, and it might not be
amiss to note a few of the considerations which have influenced our actions.
One can scarcely take seriously such an argument as M. Demachy advances
as a representative defence of our attitude — that photographers might just
as well judge paintings. The absurdity of a reversed proposition does not
weaken the force of an original statement. But, other things being equal,
to realize the ideal of a salon it is essential that all work should be judged
only by such as are capable of recognizing and appreciating those qualities
which are inherent in each medium of expression. Unquestionably many of
the things the camera can do are simply astonishing to a painter who has
constantly before him sights and visions which he would be glad to express
in his own language—if "Art were not so long”—while here is a little
machine that can draw the face or the scene in an instant. This same
painter will discover remarkable “painter-like” qualities in a gum-print
which a gum-printer knows is a stupid, unskilled piece of work whose artistic
46