In Wildest Africa -^ 



d 



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

 for 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 

 years of study, to give 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 

 gets only momentary glimpses ? 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 of works of art such as the 

 genius of one man may yet give us. Considering the 

 extreme 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 deliberately sought 

 for In taking other objects) Is not only no disadvantage, 

 but Is even desirable. As a confirmation of this idea of 

 mine, I may mention the opinion of an American journalist, 

 who declares that my picture of a herd of wild animals 

 given on page 327 of With Flashlight and Rifle to be the 

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

 pleasing to him, and compares It to the work of a Corot. 



90 



