Pictorial Photography in America Vol 4 (1926)

»«• i ' '

m'm

, "n

•

| i ^ •»!'•

' . .vO r "jc*

It'i -.'.III

mmm ir.:-,.-.:-.::.:

r.

,v.^,

id

H-l

•'.z:

viuAJWla»<I. v. \

1't •''<

,

««V:: ^1'

: :.

<irr::r.-

. ' V."v.>"•,•'• fc-'''' *

•,.v.

" "jvJ T.jl

f:i5

1:1

fK 'V-'tl"

, ..v.;;,..,...; ;.] »' <

/••••:

4Si-V*V •I*

•i-v

Mymd

y

t.

;,.U. •/ -I'V"'' ' '• • '. •\ .• • • v. w*

. •

te..

-.1^

I- .V • .' - • '

i- • 'l'

lA

P4

.J

T^A

The pj-oblem of photographic reproduction, as stated by L. A. Jones, is to ascertain "... the exact

extent to v^-hich it is possible by the photographic process to produce a pictorial representation of an ob ject which will>when viewed, excite in the mind of the observer the same subjective impression as that

produced by the image formed on the retina when the object itselfis observed."

The rrjore limited problem of tone reproduction, is to ascertain the extent to which brightness and brightness differences can be reproduced by the photographic process. But correct tone rendering requires

more than ''correct reproduction in the picture ofthe actual physical brightness ofthe original, and ofthe

actual contrast relations existing between various areas of the subject." For agiven brightness or con trast may produce an entirely different subjective impression, depending upon the state of adaptation of the observer's eye," both when viewing the original and the reproduction.

L A Tones divides the problem into two parts: "... the objective phase, dealing with the reproduc

tion of the actual physical brightnesses and capable of being completely solved by purely physical

methods- • and the subjective phase, including a consideration of those factors which determine the nature of t^he subjective impressions produced by the action of given physical stimuli under various con ditions and requiring the use of psycho-physical methods and data for its adequate treatment."

Deali 2with the physical data, which may be obtained by sensitometnc means at each stage of the

DhotoEranhk process, from brightnesses of the original object to reflective densities of the Prmt. and with

theTsychcJogical data (which includes contrast sensitivity of the eye at the adaptation leve both ofviewinn the oSt and the reproduction), he first evaluates what he calls the material reproduction in terms f the °m terial object," and then the "subjective reproduction mterms of the material renroLcTun by meL ofwhat he callsevaluates the "subjective relative-contrast function.

The biecdve reproduction,so concerns the toneasreproduction problem, isthe thatsame idealsubjective reproducThesxjbje • minH nf far i-heasobserver" so far concerns brightness

tion thatwil WerTrbe

r

image formed on the retina when theobject itselfis observed." ^m of the artist invariably to reproduce subjective reality, that is to make apic-

hich excites the same psycho-physical response mthe mind of the observer as does the original

rbrectt^be analytical method of A.

^ ^rfattrnTthfottftr'otiSI^^

rTrodL'tTn''p""eXVou^^f"rLh the photographer with standards for the perfection ofhistechnique and the critic with criteria in absolute terms.

But even mthe school of the most rigid realist,

subjective reality. His aim is to repro

sion of

artist's coi^sciousness.

But

^

is the ultimate aim of the artist to reproduce vouchsafed him, the inner comprehen-

termed artistic reality. This glittering

w"uld"be^ai vague as Lr understanding of the mechanism that operates in the •

•

rpnroduction problem provides a means for evaluating

J

. .^biective reproduction. And since an artist, with his technique, the actual reproduction will differ from the

entering m

artistic rea.\\^y of subjective differences can be given exact

JJjned above, the factors of brightness and brightness termed the artistic

ness differences, and the would

cLr factor, W Side

ttoTs a^o an artL with standards for the perfection ofhis technique, and the art with criteria

Such -inalytical methods, whose future acv

be predicted from the instrumental nature

facility to the other graphic arts; and, with a

of the phonographic process, might _chologist, the critic's equipment of tools would be comstudy of artistic behavior by the psy , • gj for all the arts—changing criticism from the

Tf Gr flmd ^is, analytical methods might be dev' plete. „,„o„,„cy to a productive application practice

Davis Robinson

m

%

/

1.

Glimpse

by S. K.. Katsu Los Angeles, Calif.

I

'U

€'9m

V

.

••

^

I

Mm

2. The skyrocket

fy Frances M. Bode Neil York City

K

fy Adalbert Bartlett 5. In Palestine

Los Angeles, Calf

by VVilliam Mortfiivsen

II. Vanities

11'-'"

Holh"woo<l, Culif.

1

12. Les Mains du Docteiir

h Kdward H, Rehnquist Nen:. York City

% -i

•j

•k

\

â&#x20AC;˘erffTT"

j3. Seeing New >ork

by Karl Da\ is Robinson AVa- York Cit\

t

%

14. Sanctuary

hy Anne Brigman Oakland^ Calif.

-..i.-.i

-ll .

.. J

s: • • Vw

M'-i'

W-w-; - ^.. . ••; • •

,

-'(jV..'-;'.;- 'v,;.. • Ta-' -.'a-.

-.1

i

:U- 'iv'\

Arnold Genthe

15- Dancer

New York City

T â&#x20AC;˘y

ly. Autumn Light

byM. Kokubun Los AngeleSy Calif.

I

ig. Early Morning

ky K. Ota Pasadena, Calif.

Vi

I. The Cottage by the Firth

fy C. J. Crary Wiirreu, Peii/ia.

/V

%

'.^v: •

2 2. Winter's Charm

hv C. Frankenberger Chictigo, ///.

-...

••

-L- —