31S 



KN()\VLi:i)Gj;. 



August, 1912. 



make a f»-w <niitf simple rxporiiiUMils tlic slight tnuiljlc involved 

 wciiilil lie wril repaid. 



Willi a view lo simplifying matters I select four small 

 shells, wliich are here shown 

 ma)^iiified about three diameters, 

 111 illustrate four typical classes 

 of such subjects. 



On our rit,'lil .i siiiootli, 

 shiny, white shell (.At: to the 

 extreme left .i yellnwish^ray, 

 rotiah shell (HI; at the top 

 a moderately smooth - surfaced 

 specimen, showing red and yellow 

 markings (C) ; below a speci- 

 men having a slightly ribbed 

 surface, and also a portion where 

 the outer layer has broken 

 away, laying bare the iridescent 

 nacreous layer (1)1. 



By a pin's head touch of 

 seccofinc these specimens are 

 affixed to a piece of matt sur- 

 face (so calledl black paper, 

 which in turn is pasted on to an 

 ordinary micro-slip. 



It is not unnatural to think 

 the stronger the light the better 

 will be the result. Figure 352 

 shows the effect of a strong' direct 

 sunlight falling sideways on the 

 object from a narrow window 

 on our left. In this case we get 

 a loss of detail in the strongly- 

 lighted parts and intense cast 

 shadows, both undesirable 

 features ; but we may note 

 where this sidelight catches 

 small prominences, in B or D, 

 for instance, we get the con- 

 trast effect due to cast shadow — 

 a point worth remembering for 

 occasional use. Moving the 

 object just out of the path of 

 direct sunlight, yet retaining side 

 illumination, we get the effect 

 shown in Figure 353. Again the 

 contrasts are strong, but the 

 shadows are not so sharply 

 defined. On the whole this 

 scheme of lighting is preferable 

 to the first method, as it gives 

 us the one advantage of the 

 first method without its two 

 other disadvantages. This print 

 has purposely been made rather 

 too contrastful by over-develop- 

 ing the negative, with the idea of 

 drawing attention to this very 

 general fault with this lighting. 



In the next example (Figure 

 3541 the apparatus was revolved 

 so that the window lighting was 

 midway between a " side " and 

 a "back" lighting. It may be 

 noted that the cast shadows on 

 the background are less wide 

 than in the second position; the 

 surface details in B and D are 

 better rendered in every way by 

 delicate contrasts of light and 

 shade ; the roundness and sur- 

 face-glinting, retlectinglight of A 

 indicate its form and smface. 



Colour contrasts in C are here better shown. .Ml things con- 

 sidered, this is the most generally useful lighting apart from 

 special effects required. Figure 355 gives us the effect of 



light from a large window falling on the object from 

 behind, i.e., over the top and at both sides of the camera. 

 This is a very common, but very seldom satisfactory, plan. 

 The common notion is " the 

 more light the better." but one 

 may recall the pregnant saying 

 of William Hunt, the artist. 

 " There is only one way to have 

 light. Have darkness to make 

 it on. Nothing exists without 

 a background." Most photo- 

 graphers when photographing a 

 cathedral or even a human 

 being recognise the necessity for 

 both light and shade, but when 

 dealing with little things shade 

 is forgotten. Mooding a small 

 object with light does not neces- 

 sarily bring out character. In 

 Figures 354 and 355, for 

 example, we may compare the 

 rendering of the delicate surface 

 ribbing on specimen D, noting 

 how the shadows cast by these 

 ridges in Figure 354 show far 

 more character than in the 

 back • lighted example (Figure 

 355). 



Doubtless the reader has noted 

 that I said we were here using 

 matt surface, j.t'., non-shiny black 

 paper, but that in the accom- 

 panying figures the background 

 looks rough, coarse-grained and 

 anything but uniformly black. 

 One may notice that in Figure 

 352 we get a very noticeable 

 difference between the sunlit and 

 cast shadow parts of this black 

 paper. As one would naturally 

 expect, we get least granulation 

 with a back lighting. Figure 355, 

 when the incident light falls into 

 the tiny valleys of the paper 

 surface, and most surface in- 

 dication in Figure 352 when the 

 strong side light throws cast 

 shadows from the little elevations 

 of the paper surface. It should 

 not be forgotten that while we 

 are enlarging the images of the 

 shells we are at the same time 

 enlarging the surface grain of 

 the paper. And, further, when 

 this background is in fairly 

 sharp focus, one is tempted to 

 notice this enlarged granularity. 

 Later on something further may 

 be said about focusing and 

 definition, but not to distract 

 the reader's thoughts from the 

 lighting topic it may suffice for 

 the moment to say that our 

 general aim should be to get 

 the object in sharp focus but 

 to let its background be slightlv 

 less sharply defined. This for 

 two reasons. The difterence of 

 definition helps the idea of 

 ditVerent distances and so aids 

 modelling, relief, and roundness, 

 .'\lso, as the eye naturally is 

 attracted by those parts of the 

 picture which are in sharpest definition, the sharply focused 

 object gets more eye attention than the less sharp background, 

 which is as it should be. The beginner will find it a great help 



L kl- jOJ. 



