7 i6 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



number. Let any one examine the majority of the photographs 

 of the white Royal Monument in the Thiergarten at Berlin. The 

 monument is excellently given, but the background of trees is a con- 

 fused black mass, without details, without shades of tone ; the archi- 

 tecture and other features are there, all except the splendid foliage 

 that delights the eye at that spot. Still more numerous are the pho- 

 tographs of rooms, in which the dark corners, quite discernible to the 

 eye, present nothing but pitchy-black night. There are other cases, 

 besides these, of photographic incorrectness. 



Suppose we are looking at a mountain landscape. A small village, 

 inclosed on both sides by woody hills, occupies the centre, its houses 

 extending along the declivities and scattered picturesquely among the 

 trees. A ridge of finely-broken mountains in the background, their 

 summits shining in the setting sun, frames in the wonderful picture, 

 whose effect is only injured by one object a ruinous pig-sty close to 

 the spectator, with a dung-heap beside it. A painter, wishing to paint 

 this scene, would certainly have no scruple about altogether leaving out 

 the pig-sty, or leaving it so indistinct and dark that it would not injure 

 the landscape. But what is the photographer to do ? He cannot pull 

 down the offending object. He seeks another position ; but there the 

 greater part of the landscape is concealed by trees. He ends by ad- 

 mitting the pig-sty, and what kind of picture is the result ? On account 

 of its vicinity, the pig-sty appears of colossal size in the picture. On 

 the other hand, the landscape, which is the principal thing, appears 

 small and inconsiderable. A still more fatal adjunct is found in the 

 dung-heap occupying almost one-fourth of the picture. As the most 

 brightly-lighted part of the photograph, it immediately attracts the 

 eye of the beholder ; it diverts his glance from other important points ; 

 it acts as a disturbing influence. The photograph obtained does not 

 appear as a picture of the landscape, as it ought to be, but as a view 

 of the pig-sty ! The accessory has become the principal point. The 

 picture is untrue. It is untrue, not because the objects it represents 

 were not present in Nature, but because the accessories are presented 

 too glaringly and too large, while the principal parts appear too small, 

 indistinct, and inconsiderable. 



This brings us to a weak point in photography, which represents 

 accessories and principal features as equally defined. The plate is 

 indifferent to every thing, while the genuine artist, in reproducing a 

 view of Nature, gives prominence to what is characteristic, and en- 

 tirely keeps under or softens off accessories. He can dispose and 

 manage it with artistic freedom, and he has a perfect right to do so, 

 because, by his giving prominence to what is characteristic, and drop- 

 ping what is accessory, he is truer than photography, which gives 

 equal prominence to both, and often more to what is accessory. 

 Reynolds says of the portrait of a lady in which an apple-tree was 

 most carefully painted on the background, " That is the picture of an 



