506 



NOTES AND QUEEIES. 



[No. 186. 



agree. For instance, an angle of 15° is spoken of 

 as being equivalent to the measurement 1 in 5. 

 An angle of 10° is said, or implied, to be the same 

 as 1 in 10. This is far from being the fact. Ac- 

 cording to my calculations, the following are the 

 real equivalents : — 



An angle of 15° is equal to 1 in 



12° 

 10° 



6° 

 5° 

 4° 



1 in 5. 

 1 in 6. 

 1 in 9. 

 1 in 10. 

 1 in 12. 

 1 in 15. 



Will any of your readers oblige me by solving the 

 above anomalies, and by giving the proper angles 

 or measurement under which objects should be 

 taken when near, moderately distant, or far re- 

 moved from the camera ; stating, at the same time, 

 at how many feet from the camera an object is to 

 be considered as near, or distant, or between the 

 two ? It would be a great assistance to beginners 

 in the stereoscopic art, if some experienced gen- 

 tleman would state the best distances and angles 

 for taking busts, portraits, groups, buildings, and 

 laoidscapes. 



It is said that stereoscopic pictures at great dis- 

 tances, such as views, should be taken "with a 

 small aperture." But as the exact dimensions are 

 not mentioned, it would be equally serviceable if, 

 to the other details, were addjed some account of 

 the dimensions of the apertures required for the 

 several angles. 



In the directions given in the work from which 

 I have quoted, it is said that when pictures are 

 taken with one camera placed in different positions, 

 the angle should be 15° ; but when taken with two 

 ■cameras, the angle should be 10°. Is this right? 

 And, if ^o, why the difference ? 



In the account given by you of Mr. Wilkinson's 

 ingenious mode of levelling the cameras for stereo- 

 scopic pictures, it is said the plumb-line should be 

 three feet long, and that the diagonal lines drawn 

 •on the ground glass should be made to cut the 

 principal object focussed on the glass ; and " when 

 you have moved it, the camera, 8 or 10 feet, make 

 it cut the same object again." At what distance 

 is the object presumed to be ? 



Any information upon the above matters will be 

 a great service, and consequently no slight favour 

 conferred upon your constant reader since the 

 photographic correspondence has been commenced. 



^. 



Photographic Portraits of Criminals, Sfc. — 

 Such experience as I have had both in drawing 

 portraits and taking photographs, impels me to 

 hint to the authorities of Scotland Yard that they 

 will by no means find taking the portraits of gen- 

 tlemen that are "wanted" infallible, and I an- 

 ticipate some unpleasant mistakes will ere long 



arise. I have observed that inability to recognise 

 a portrait is as frequent in the case of photographs 

 as on canvass, or in any other way. I defy the 

 whole world of artists to reduce the why and 

 wherefore into a reasonable shape ; one will de- 

 clare that " either " looks as if the individual was 

 going to cry; the next critic will say he sees 

 nothing but a pleasant smile. "I should never 

 have known who it is if you hadn't told me," says 

 a third ; the next says " it's his eyes, but not his 

 nose ; " and perhaps the next will say, " it's his nose, 

 but not his eyes." 



I was present not long since at the Ihowing a 

 portrait, which I think about the climax of doubt. 

 " Not a bit like," was the first exclamation. The 

 poor artist sank into his chair ; after, however, a 

 brief contemplation, " It's very like, in-deed; it's 

 excellent : " this was said by a gentleman of the 

 highest attainments, and one of the best poets of 

 the day. 



Some persons (I beg pardon of the ladies) take 

 the habiliments as the standard of recognition. 

 I do not accuse them of doing it wilfully ; they 

 do not know it themselves. For example, Miss 

 Smith will know Miss Jones a mile or so off. By 

 her general air, or her face ? Oh no ! It's by 

 the bonnet she helped her to choose at Madame 

 What-d'ye-call's, because the colour suited her 

 complexion. 



These are some of the mortifications attendant 

 on artistic labour, and if they occur with the edu- 

 cated classes, they are more likely to happen even 

 to " intelligent policemen," as the newspapers 

 have it. If I dissent from the plan it is because 

 I doubt its efficiency, but do not deny that it 

 is worth a trial. If the French like to carry 

 their portraits about with them on their passports 

 to show to policemen, let them submit to the 

 humiliation. I doubt very much whether the 

 Chamber of Deputies would have made a law of 

 it : it appears a new idea in jurisprudence that a 

 man must sit for his picture. Any one, however, 

 understanding the camera, would be alive before 

 the removal of the cup of the lens, and be ready 

 with a wry face ; I do not suppose he could be 

 imprisoned for that. 



Both plans are miserable travesties on the 

 lovely uses of portrait painting and photography. 

 Side by side with Cowper's passionate address to 

 his mother's picture, how does it look ? 



" Oh, that those lips had language ! Life has pass'd 

 With me but roughly since I saw thee last." 

 And, 



" Blest be the art that can Immortalise." 

 If photography has an advantage over canvass, 

 it does indeed immortalise ; (the painting may 

 imitate, and the portrait may be good; but there 

 is something more profoundly affecting in having 

 the actual, the real shade of a friend perhaps long 



