DOI Heft:
American section
DOI Artikel:The International Studio summer photographic competition
DOI Seite / Zitierlink: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28250#0400
Photographic Competition
in giving, as gauge, a suggestion of dignity to the
rising foreground trunks, and in adding, by way of
characterisation, a sense of allurement. In short,
“Dixie” has succeeded well with a somewhat diffi-
cult subject and, indeed, better than we can do
entire justice to in engraver’s ink. Perhaps the
most obvious blemish, technically, is a touch of
halation in the right foreground, where also the
fine detail is a little distracting; but in incurring
this reproach, woolliness, at least, has been avoided.
By way of contrast to the former, the photograph
by “Omar” (W. Archibald Wallace, Lewisburg,
W. Va.), to which the second prize of ten dollars
has been awarded, finds an attractive success in
less daring and originality. Strangely enough,
“Omar,” in the adjustment of definition, always a
problem photographically, seems to have met some-
thing like the same formula of difficulty as “ Dixie”
did in the former print. Whereas in the grove we
find in the right upper half of the composition a
plunge into almost bare shadow, carried by the live-
liness elsewhere of the play of light on form, or the
sharp focus, or the silhouette, here in the river view
we see a delicacy of detail in form and a gentleness
of gradation in tone, opposed in the lower right to
the unadorned flare of the illuminated water sur-
face. As a matter of fact, however, this opposition
is rather with the open sky; the lines of the river
course proceed symmetrically with those of the
road; the centre of shadow between road and bank
is disposed in just the right spot to carry the eye
forward along the various converging curves, to
which effect the foreground, not being distracting,
offers no impediment, and the whole picture,
though technically betraying a hint of under-
exposure, shows a capability in handling that would
be at home in less obvious results.
We wish to congratulate “Endeavour” (Miss
Grace H. Turnbull, Rodgers Forge, Baltimore
County, Md.) on the composition of the photograph
to which an honourable mention has been given.
“Endeavour” has, in experimenting, carried the
“woolly” effect to extremes,so that immediate fore-
ground and furthest distance are alike vague. In
this sort of background, oddly enough, we are, in
an attempt to evade exaggerated definition, getting
back to the effect of the antiquated canvas scenery,
formerly so common in the cabinet dozen. But for
the curious balance of uncertainty in the foreground
and the distance of this photograph, there is some
psychologic sanction. It will hardly stand the test
of comparison with conscious mental impression,
however, because the penumbral foreground is not
contemplated by the mind’s eye, while the indistinct
distance is. These considerations take us probably
beyond the intention of the photograph, in which
xx
in giving, as gauge, a suggestion of dignity to the
rising foreground trunks, and in adding, by way of
characterisation, a sense of allurement. In short,
“Dixie” has succeeded well with a somewhat diffi-
cult subject and, indeed, better than we can do
entire justice to in engraver’s ink. Perhaps the
most obvious blemish, technically, is a touch of
halation in the right foreground, where also the
fine detail is a little distracting; but in incurring
this reproach, woolliness, at least, has been avoided.
By way of contrast to the former, the photograph
by “Omar” (W. Archibald Wallace, Lewisburg,
W. Va.), to which the second prize of ten dollars
has been awarded, finds an attractive success in
less daring and originality. Strangely enough,
“Omar,” in the adjustment of definition, always a
problem photographically, seems to have met some-
thing like the same formula of difficulty as “ Dixie”
did in the former print. Whereas in the grove we
find in the right upper half of the composition a
plunge into almost bare shadow, carried by the live-
liness elsewhere of the play of light on form, or the
sharp focus, or the silhouette, here in the river view
we see a delicacy of detail in form and a gentleness
of gradation in tone, opposed in the lower right to
the unadorned flare of the illuminated water sur-
face. As a matter of fact, however, this opposition
is rather with the open sky; the lines of the river
course proceed symmetrically with those of the
road; the centre of shadow between road and bank
is disposed in just the right spot to carry the eye
forward along the various converging curves, to
which effect the foreground, not being distracting,
offers no impediment, and the whole picture,
though technically betraying a hint of under-
exposure, shows a capability in handling that would
be at home in less obvious results.
We wish to congratulate “Endeavour” (Miss
Grace H. Turnbull, Rodgers Forge, Baltimore
County, Md.) on the composition of the photograph
to which an honourable mention has been given.
“Endeavour” has, in experimenting, carried the
“woolly” effect to extremes,so that immediate fore-
ground and furthest distance are alike vague. In
this sort of background, oddly enough, we are, in
an attempt to evade exaggerated definition, getting
back to the effect of the antiquated canvas scenery,
formerly so common in the cabinet dozen. But for
the curious balance of uncertainty in the foreground
and the distance of this photograph, there is some
psychologic sanction. It will hardly stand the test
of comparison with conscious mental impression,
however, because the penumbral foreground is not
contemplated by the mind’s eye, while the indistinct
distance is. These considerations take us probably
beyond the intention of the photograph, in which
xx