DOI article:
Hinton, A. Horsley: Pictorial photography in Austria and Germany
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.27086#0129
AUSTRIA AND GERMANY
mucilage of gum arabic and the desired pigment, and is made
light-sensitive by the addition of potassium bichromate, this
sensitiveness being shown by the pigment and gum becoming
more or less insoluble in proportion as the light has access to it.
The paper thus prepared is exposed to daylight under a photo-
graphic negative which, being opaque or partly so in those places
which should be light in the ultimate picture and relatively
transparent where the picture’s shadows will be, respectively
intercepts and permits the action of the light. No image is visible
as the direct result of printing, but the exposed preparation is
submitted to the action of water and the film or plaster lightly
worked upon with brush or sponge or jet of water, so as to dis-
engage and remove such portions which, having been shielded from
the light, are still soluble. But the parts rendered insoluble are not
entirely so, and should the photographer desire this or that tone
somewhat lighter than the photographic negative has made it, the
brush or whatever implement is employed can be used to tease the
pigment away from its support in what manner and to such degree
as his judgment may direct. Thus we may have brush marks not
because the photographer has tried to imitate the brush marks of a
painting, but because if they help him to realise his effect they are
a legitimate part of his process. In developing a plate or print
with chemical solutions, these are similarly controlled by the photo-
grapher’s judgment, and the homogeneous nature of the image due to
the flowing of the developer is just as much the sequence of the
method employed as the cross-hatching brush marks or what-not in
the brush-developed print are involved by the tools used ; and, be it
remembered, the drawing and the modelling of the forms and the
light and shade gradations are produced by the automatic action ot
the light through the camera-made negative plate.
In the presence of a Gum Bichromate print, where there is abun-
dant evidence of brush development, one often hears it asked, “Why
did not this man paint his picture at first-hand?” The answer is
quite simple, “Because he could not.” There are men who possess
a fine artistic perception and knowledge but entirely lack the
manipulative skill with either pencil or brush. Photography
relieves them of the necessity of acquiring the latter, and in such a
process as that now referred to furnishes a medium of personal
expression. Nor need the foregoing explanation of Gum Bichro-
mate be regarded as a digression when one remembers how
intimately its practice and a fuller knowledge of its powers have
been associated with the evolution of pictorial photography in the
G 5
mucilage of gum arabic and the desired pigment, and is made
light-sensitive by the addition of potassium bichromate, this
sensitiveness being shown by the pigment and gum becoming
more or less insoluble in proportion as the light has access to it.
The paper thus prepared is exposed to daylight under a photo-
graphic negative which, being opaque or partly so in those places
which should be light in the ultimate picture and relatively
transparent where the picture’s shadows will be, respectively
intercepts and permits the action of the light. No image is visible
as the direct result of printing, but the exposed preparation is
submitted to the action of water and the film or plaster lightly
worked upon with brush or sponge or jet of water, so as to dis-
engage and remove such portions which, having been shielded from
the light, are still soluble. But the parts rendered insoluble are not
entirely so, and should the photographer desire this or that tone
somewhat lighter than the photographic negative has made it, the
brush or whatever implement is employed can be used to tease the
pigment away from its support in what manner and to such degree
as his judgment may direct. Thus we may have brush marks not
because the photographer has tried to imitate the brush marks of a
painting, but because if they help him to realise his effect they are
a legitimate part of his process. In developing a plate or print
with chemical solutions, these are similarly controlled by the photo-
grapher’s judgment, and the homogeneous nature of the image due to
the flowing of the developer is just as much the sequence of the
method employed as the cross-hatching brush marks or what-not in
the brush-developed print are involved by the tools used ; and, be it
remembered, the drawing and the modelling of the forms and the
light and shade gradations are produced by the automatic action ot
the light through the camera-made negative plate.
In the presence of a Gum Bichromate print, where there is abun-
dant evidence of brush development, one often hears it asked, “Why
did not this man paint his picture at first-hand?” The answer is
quite simple, “Because he could not.” There are men who possess
a fine artistic perception and knowledge but entirely lack the
manipulative skill with either pencil or brush. Photography
relieves them of the necessity of acquiring the latter, and in such a
process as that now referred to furnishes a medium of personal
expression. Nor need the foregoing explanation of Gum Bichro-
mate be regarded as a digression when one remembers how
intimately its practice and a fuller knowledge of its powers have
been associated with the evolution of pictorial photography in the
G 5