Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly (1907 (Heft 19))

ON THE STRAIGHT PRINT.

THE old war between straight photography and the other one—call
it as you like—has begun over again. It is not, as it ought to be,
a question of principle. No, it has become a personal question
amongst a good many photographers, because most of them, and
especially those who take purely documentary photographs, look to being
recognized as artists. It follows that any definition of art that does not fit
in with their methods will be violently attacked because the recognition of
such a definition would limit pictorial photography to a certain number of
men instead of throwing open the doors of the temple to the vast horde
of camera carriers.
It is not without certain misgivings that I am attempting to give a clear
résumé of this ever debated question, for I know that the above paragraph
will be used against me and I shall be accused of “pleading for my saint” as
we say. As a fact I am doing nothing of the sort, for though I believe firmly
that a work of art can only be evolved under certain circumstances, I am
equally convinced that these same circumstances will not perforce engender
a work of art. Meddling with a gum print may or may not add the
vital spark, though without the meddling there will surely be no spark
whatever.
My meaning I hope has been made clear. Still there is a second point
to be elucidated, and that is the precise signification of a term that we shall
be using presently, “ straight print.” According to the sense that is given
to this term the whole structure of our arguments may be radically changed
and the subsequent verdict falsified. For here is “par avance ” my opinion
in a few words. A straight print may be beautiful, and it may prove super-
abundantly that its author is an artist; but it can not be a work of art. You
see now that it is necessary before entering into details to give a clear defini-
tion of the nature of the straight print as I understand it, and also a definition
of the work of art. A straight print, to be worthy of its name, must first of
all be taken from a straight negative. There must be no playing upon
words in a serious controversy of this nature. One must not call “straight ”
a bromide mechanically printed, but from a negative reduced locally and
painted on the glass side with all the colors of the rainbow. This leads us
to describe the straight negative. It will be a negative produced by normal
development, or better still by tank development,during which no control is
possible; and of course it will not be submitted to any subsequent retouching
either on the film or on the glass. From this negative a print will be taken
with a normal exposure without local shading. If the paper used for printing
has to be developed, it will not be developed locally nor interfered with in
any way during development. It will be mounted or framed without its
surface being touched by a finger or a brush.
This is my idea of the sense of the term “straight print.” lf any
readers consider that it is a false idea they had better leave the next pages
unread. Now, speaking of graphic methods only, what are the distinctive

21