In Wildest Africa ^ 



is lost. The use of the process, however, was necessary 

 tor various reasons. 



There can be only two ways of securing the best 

 possible result in the execution of pictures of such subjects. 

 The ideal method would be for heaven-sent artists, after 

 vears of studv, to Qrive us works of this class, and combine 

 in these masterpieces the strictest truth with the finest 

 craftsmanship. But this requires a thorough study of 

 each separate species of animal seen from afar and at 

 close quarters — and how is this possible, seeing that one 

 crets onlv momentarv ofHmpses ? The other method is 

 that of photography, the picture on the negative, which 

 can claim the advantage of documentary accuracy, and at 

 the same time leaves a certain scope for the artistic sense 

 of the operator. So the greatly improved photographic 

 methods of to-day can step in, at least as a substitute and 

 makeshift, in the absence ot works ot art such as the 

 genius of one man ma}' yet give us. Considering the 

 extrenie difficulty of taking portraits of living animals in 

 their wild, timid state, such pictures can only in a few- 

 instances lay claim to technical photographic perfection. 

 But at least so far as my own taste goes, a certain lack of 

 sharp definition in the picture (often delil^erately sought 

 for in taking other objects) is not only no disatl\antage, 

 but is even desirable. As a confirmation ot this idea of 

 mine, I may mention the opinion ot an Anu'rican Journalist, 

 who declares that my picture of a hertl of wild animals 

 given on i>age ;^2 7 of ll'i//i F/ash/io/il and Rifle to l)e the 

 most perfect thing of the kind he has seen, and the most 

 pleasing to him, and c()m[)ates it to the work ol a Lorot. 



90 



