tration. But that did not satisfy me, for here the wall, although irregularly constructed, made a severe base-line, while a sign-post, plus an apartments ditto, introduced so many disfiguring details that the rustic beauty of the whole was conspicuously reduced.

Therefore I went rather further away and found myself in the middle of a five-acre field without a single stick or stone to relieve the monotony or break up the wall's horizontal lines. The case appeared almost hopeless. But my eye caught sight of a fence, and an overhanging pollard ash, so moving to a still more distant position, the elements arranged themselves much more harmoniously-the wall became an insignificant detail, while the house itself reaped much pictorial advantage from the

more remote point of view, since it was "set" so as to show the beautiful scenery around.

What applies to walls, applies also in the case of hedges, though to a smaller extent. Hedges are more irregular, both in height and width, and consequently their lines fall less awkwardly even when crossing pretty well at right angles. But with a hedge one can sometimes do what would be absolutely impossible where a wall is concerned: that is, bring it into the immediate foreground, and so hide a large portion of the vacant field beyond.

My last picture is a practical example of this somewhat bold arrangement. It will be seen, of course, that the extreme and delightful irregularity of the hedgerow, whose budding shoots project in the most varied fashion, make the composition particularly successful.

And so, whether we are prepared to go "all the way," as they term it, and look upon the camera as an instrument for rivaling the painter, or stand firm at some intermediate position, we cannot but admit that mere selection of point of view can accomplish great things: can enable one man to produce far more pleasing prints than another; and since selection itself is an art of no mean order, then photography in like degree becomes a pictorial art.

THE NECK IN PORTRAITURE.*

FIG. I.

BY FRANK M. SUTCLIFFE.

IN our previous article we spoke of the feet, but these only de

mand our attention when full length figures are taken. We now come to the neck and shoulders, which appear in almost every portrait, whether full length, three-quarter, or bust. A view of the face only is rarely seen. If ladies only knew of what great importance the drapery about the neck is to the production of a satisfactory portrait they would give it a little more attention before sitting for one. In nine cases out of ten the sitter, whether male or female, hides his or her neck with a collar-a collar which rests on the shoulders and reaches to the chin. This collar prevents any movement of the head. Now, as gracefulness depends on subtle and delicate movement, the photographer who tries to make his sitter appear natural, meets with an obstacle in the shape of a collar. If the sitter is slender, there may be room for a slight turn of the head, but if the case is otherwise the photographer, not wishing to give the sitter bodily pain, has to make his picture of an apparently stiff neck. In the case of ladies this

* Previous Article of this Series: "The Feet," March, 1900.

A. Wande.

stiffness is still further emphasized by the sleeves and shoulders of the dress, which stand up on either side and make the imprisoned neck appear still more a prisoner. Till lately the writer had an idea that it was only English people who choked themselves with tight collars, and who added deformities to their shoulders for he had been told that foreigners considered no face complete without the support of its natural pillar, the neck; but he has seen lately the portrait of a modern Greek lady, which proves that other people dress as badly as we do.

There was more neck visible in this portrait than is usually seen in these isles, but the shoulders are quite equal to ours. Well might Ruskin say that "It was once the aim of all education, and of all dress, to make the human form stately and lovely. Now it has become the task of grave philosophy partly to depreciate or conceal this bodily beauty." Then he adds, "Man has become, upon the whole, an ugly animal, and is not ashamed of his ugliness." As the photographer has in most cases to take his sitters as he finds them, let us set to work to find out how to make the best of our sitters' collars and shoulders.

The first thing we notice is that the nearer the camera is to the sitter the more apparent and objectionable do the high shoulders and tight collars appear. Therefore, when a bust portrait only is wanted, the photographer's work is really more difficult than when the whole figure is included. figure is included. When the sleeves are high and the camera near to the sitter, it is seen that,

when the shoulders are turned away from the camera, the sleeve hides much of the shoulder and sometimes hides part of the face; we must then, if the sitter appears to be all shoulder or sleeve, turn her more round to the camera. Here another difficulty crops out. The immense buttons on the dress, which before showed only their edges, now appear like a row of full moons. Consoling himself with the thought that the retoucher's knife can remove their brightness, the photographer has to decide whether the shoulders and neck look better when the sitter is seated or standing. If the neck is long and the shoulders sloping, in most cases it will be found better to ask the sitter to be seated, but if the neck is naturally short and the shoulders well made, it is well to take the sitter standing. Many people, too, appear more animated when standing than when seated. Some full-blooded people seem inclined to snatch forty winks when comfortably seated in the photographer's chair. In the early days of photography people did occasionally go to sleep during the long exposures. When the sitter stands there is less fear of the chin doubling, but double chins can be avoided by allowing the head to lean forward. This plan is sometimes

the only possible one with sitters whose noses incline upwards and whose chins are inclined to become doubled.

It is interesting to note that the head of the sitter may be made to appear larger or smaller by the amount of neck and bust uncovered or

covered. When the dress is darker than the face, a high collar makes the face appear large; a lady in fashionable evening dress without any drapery over the shoulders has an apparently smaller head than she has in a morning dress, prcvided that it is a dark one. No doubt the reason why statues appear to have heads of better proportion than the average woman is due to this fact. The reason why a milkmaid or laundrymaid dressed in white or pale blue or pink appears to have a better-shaped head than her mistress is also due to this. When the face and hands are the only uncovered parts of

FIG. 2.

them appear at their best in their pictures? It is the same with the hairdressing; just now everyone, whether they wish to be taken in profile or not, have their hair arranged in such a way that it looks the best from the side. When the sitter is taken from the front the hair is often hardly seen at all.

To return to the necks of our sitters, which may be divided into three classes-average, short, and long. For some unexplained reason, people often wish to appear in their portraits otherwise than what they really are. Instead of going to Sandow, or some other expert on the development of symmetry, to have the muscles on their thin necks developed and the excess of tissue reduced from their stout ones, they expect the photographer to do what exer

cise only can do. The photographer then tries to persuade his

sitters to dress in such

a manner as to hide,

and so leave to the imagination, any peculiarities of form. By means of loose drapery, or even a hat or bonnet. string, a long thin neck may be partly covered in such a way that does not catch the eye, for it is only when peculiarities are allowed to do this that they are objectionable in a picture. If the photographer can emphasize other parts or lead the eye away from those features which are not well developed, then his portrait is considered successful. A skilful dressmaker can so arrange the lines of the dress of even the stoutest woman that her stoutness is not noticed.

FIG. 4.

It is a mistake to suppose that a thin neck is made to appear thicker by being covered up; the shape of the opening of the dress has more to do with the apparent thickness of the neck than the amount covered or uncovered. See the difference between the two necks in figs. 2 and 3, and 4 and 5.

One of the most fatal mistakes a lady can make in dressing for

a portrait is to have too much clothing on the top of her spine. The portrait, fig. 2, shows how the weight of clothing on the lady's back makes her appear quite round shouldered; the clothes appear to add the weight of years.

FIG. 5.

Much depends on the way the neck is lighted, whether it appears thick or thin. Take fig. 3 as an example of a thin neck lighted from the front, and fig. 4 as an example of a medium neck lighted from the side. It is only wasting words to point ont the difference; it is apparent to all.

Much of the dignity and stateliness of a portrait depends on the neck; if this is quite hidden with clothing it is difficult to make our sitters look like Queens. Just imagine all the débutantes at a Drawing Room with their shoulders covered with a bundle of clothing. In my next article I shall speak of the arms. nose, lips, and mouth.

FUZZY PHOTOGRAPHY A FAD.

T

BY ROMYN HITCHCOCK.

HERE are fads in everything and photography is not free from them. Their contaminating influence is made evident in the May number of the PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES.

Artists are apt to be faddists more or less, but it is an open question whether the highest art is fostered by the encouragement of affectations, although these may for a time find favor among a few critics and an uncritical public which is easily led to affect admiration for almost anything, good or bad. Most of the reproductions in the May number of the PHOTOGRAPHIC TIMES

impress me as rather unsuccessful imitation efforts rather than as good photographs. From one point of view, the proposition that there are no sharp lines in nature is true enough; but there are many lines which are sharp to the eye, and the highest skill of the optician has been exercised in the production of photographic lenses which will accurately portray them. The requirement is, that every line and gradation of light shall be reproduced with the utmost possible fidelity.

But now, it is becoming a fad with some photographers to make fuzzy photographs, with no part in focus, believing that thereby they are cultivating a higher phase of art. To the ordinary mind they are merely producing untruthful results, and the eye is unconsciously strained in an endeavor to see the picture as clear and sharp as the scene itself would appear.

These efforts indicate a striving after effects which the camera is not capable of giving. The aim seems to be to imitate oil paintings, but the camera cannot successfully yield the same effects as the brush.

Take the picture on page 194 for example. It is not a portrait, it is an "effect" and not a pleasing one either, because the camera can do so very much better. The next illustration is fine in everything except the technical execution-it is fuzzy. The plate opposite page 196 is not pleasing because of the long, white dress of the babe. On page 199 is another "effect." The face is strong and well modeled indeed, but in a portrait one would like to see not a mask but a head. The peculiar manner in which the face gets all the light and the hair remains a nebulous mass of shadow merged in the background is not naturai.

On page 202 the artist is apparently working in the dark. True, the pose is admirable and the face expressive, but the darkness is incongruous for the pose.

If I had taken the picture facing page 205, "Sheep in Pasture," I would consider it a failure. One knows they must be sheep, but we do not see such fuzzy sheep in nature. Compare this with the excellent photograph of sheep on page 213. On page 206 is another "effect;" but as a picture there is nothing in it. The under-exposed sunset on page 215 is not very pleasing

to my eye. Neither do I care much for the pretty bit on page 221, simply because it could be much better done.

The plate opposite page 222, first bronze medal "Study of a Child," is fuzzy and out of

focus, and the face is not well lighted. It is another "effect" but not a good portrait.

One does not know what to say of the poster or book-cover effect opposite page 228. Doubtless it is admirable of its kind, but the kind is very bad and only to be tolerated because we have recently become accustomed to that flat kind of picture.

On page 230 is another bronze medal picture, but evidently the artist neglected to touch out the white spots, which are highly detrimental.

My contention concerning the portraits referred to is that they are affectations as photographs. The landscapes are unlike anything in nature or art.

Doubtless such criticism as this may be roundly scored by those who favor the particular kind of photographic work herein referred to; but I still maintain that the proper use of the camera is to show things as they are, as the eye sees them, and not to juggle in the focusing in an effort to get something different. At the most the result cannot be more than a very imperfect imitation of hand painting. Why not then make photographs sharp, clear, and as true to life and nature as possible? The portrait on page 208 is good camera work. That on page 209 would be excellent but for that horrid big hat and ribbon bow which the misguided woman wears.

Photographers have it in their power to do a deal of good if they would only refuse to make portraits of women with enormous headgear and costumes which, though in fashion, may be offensive to elegant and refined taste.

We have made room for the above article, not because it any way coincides with our opinion, but because it expresses the sentiments of many amateur photographers towards the new or pictorial movement. The whole amateur photographic world is now divided into two camps, the larger one being totally against the work of the new order-failures as they called themand in many cases without even willingness or broadness of mind enough to listen to the arguments of the other party. This lack of broadness is also very noticeable in the smaller camp, which will often refuse to acknowledge the sterling value of many pictures made according to old ideas, that is, purely mechanical pictures, where composition and choice of subject are about the only means of individual expression. There is much to be said “pro and con," and we gladly open our pages to a discussion of the matter-(EDITOR.)