Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1907 (Heft 18))

to make their photographs almost as bad in some respects as weak draw-
ings or charcoal sketches. Demachy himself did not make this mistake:
his taste was too severe, and his common sense too strong. And Puyo
is clearly one of the old Robinsonian school: he would have got medals
twenty-five years ago. But as to-
I regret that an urgent appointment at the Court Theater compels me
to break off at this thrilling point.
FREDERICK H. EVANS’VIEWS.
While I think that friend Demachy is giving far too much importance
to the journalistic criticism he attacks, and almost wholly though I agree
with what he critically says, still there are two points I would venture to
challenge, as dealt with too sweepingly and unsparingly.
He says, for instance, “Let us say a word or two, then, in our turn
about these wonderful qualities of the medium that are so dinned into our
ears. Whence come they ? They are not in the negative, the qualities of
which are unique and easy to establish, but which neither the critics nor their
public have opportunities of examining.” I am certain that, for one, M.
Demachy must produce perfect negatives; that is, negatives taken when the
subject was in ideal lighting, fully exposed for tone values, and properly
developed for perfect printing qualities. The whole basis of pure, straight
photography lies in this initial step; but of how many “gummists" can it be
said that their negative was evidently perfectly produced, and that the “gum”
has only given it the ideal rendering? How many of them would be willing
to allow a straight platinum print to be hung side by side with their “gum,”
that the latter's virtues may shine the stronger ? And why should perfect
photography, as a Demachy gum, for instance, is, not be regarded as neces-
sarily perfect in every stage, from exposure, through development, to the
printing and working up ? The " qualities of the medium,” if we must use
these phrases, are quite as much in negative making as in printing.
Again, M. Demachy says, “The mechanically-produced print, from an
untouched negative, will always have, in the eyes of a true artist, faults in
values and absence of accents, etc., etc.” This is a hard saying, and who
shall hear it? For why should “straight” photography be only the “mechani-
cally-produced” print? Straight platinum printing may be as delicately true
a process as any hand-work, calling, as it does, for the exact degree of print-
ing, the best temperature and composition of the developing bath, etc.
Of course it is largely, painfully indeed, the exception to find a subject
that is so properly composed, so even and true in tone qualities, so perfect
in lighting, as to yield a negative perfect enough to give a print from it in
unfaked condition that shall be artistically satisfying. But I am sure that it
can and does happen; though that does not say therefore that all negatives
should be printed from untouched, or be destroyed. No, let the eyes judge,
as M. Demachy insists. If the result is wrong, the process is wrong. If
brush marks are so partial and so insistent as to obviously distract one's
attention, they are wrong. If the brush marks are so wholesale as to make
46