Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1905 (Heft 9))

Let us now see if the painter has at all to consider the mechanics of
the iris. Let us assume a landscape with a solid group of trees in the fore-
ground against a strongly sunlit sky. Look at the sky and then at the trees.
What do you see in the trees? Vague, nebulous patches of shadow.
Continue to peer into the shadow. Little by little details become visible,
but never many ; the mass becomes lighter, but not very much. Hold your
hand so as to intercept the light from the sky without interrupting that from
the trees. What do you see ? The mass suddenly becomes much lighter,
and incomparably more detail appears. Why ? The powerful source of light
from the sky from which the iris was protecting the retina having been
removed, the pupil has dilated to accommodate itself to the light from the
trees, thus allowing a greater quantity to enter. Remove your hand and the
trees suddenly darken and the shadows again become mysterious. Try
the same experiment with a single gas-jet. Study the flame and the shadow
together; then try to peer into the shadow without cutting out the light;
then shade your eyes from the light. Try the experiment in numerous
ways. What conclusion do you draw from the results? The only one to
be drawn is that purely physiological and mechanical conditions affect our
perception of values. The first condition, that of gazing at sky and trees
together, is that assumed by the impressionist to be the truly scientific
method, and is one of the primary concepts of Monet and his followers. It
is the habit of the restless, quickly moving eye. The second condition, that
of examining sky and shadow carefully, is the one assumed by Titian in his
landscapes, and is the aspect nature presents to the leisurely wandering and
thoughtful eye. The third, that of artificially and insistently examining
nature, is the habit of the curious eye, the eye not searching for esthetic
pleasure but diagnosing nature. This last habit is the one adopted by the
Buckeye school. All three methods give true values, and all deserve our
respect and consideration. Even the Buckeye school, to whose ranks the
majority of chromos belong, is as truly scientific as any other and appeals to
senses that are more widely spread and more firmly rooted in our mind than
are those to which either the impressionistic or Titianesque appeal. The
German Düsseldorf school were Buckeye painters and so, very frequently
also, was Turner in his foregrounds.
But how do these methods apply to photography? In what different
manners can the camera see the solid group of trees against the strongly
sunlit sky ? In one way only, with an iris and an exposure equally adjusted
to the sky and the trees — namely, as the impressionist sees. Of course,
the exposure may be such as to obtain the detail of the trees, but then
the sky is lost. However, in that case the plate can be artfully developed
so as to bring back the sky. In fact, with proper technical procedure,
even the Buckeye values can be obtained. But, philosophically, the camera
can have but one attitude toward nature. Photographers complain that
if they justly interpret the sky in an effect like the one we are speaking
of, they get no details in the trees. They are not so far off as they
think. They are probably in the habit of looking at nature in the

21