AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY. 
amateur truck through.” I asked what 
“slop” was, and found it was the different 
strengths of developer left by the artist 
thrown into one pan, and in it the poor 
amateur’s plates, without dusting, washing, 
or regard to the length of exposure, were 
dumped. When they showed a fair 
image they were snatched out, given a 
dash under the faucet, and cleared in the 
hypo. A few minutes in running water and 
they went on the drying rack. Any com- 
plaint from the owner was met by “over” 
or “under time” or any excuse to convince 
him it was his fault. 
I told my questioner of this experience, 
’ and then I told him of my home laboratory, 
with its perfect dark room and ruby light, 
its closet full of finest chemicals, and how 
I was taught to weigh and measure them 
by the Deacon, who was an expert chem- 
ist. I told him of my developer, restrain- 
er, and intensifier; how I kept a record 
and mixed differently for time and snap- 
shots, dusted and washed each plate and 
stood over it breathlessly, coaxing it up 
if slow, restraining if too fast, working 
out the shadows, learning by rich ex- 
perience where I was wrong on each plate 
and how to do better next time. I told 
him of fixing baths and washing appara- 
tus, and the afterwork of printing, ton- 
ing and mounting. He said it was the 
most interesting thing he ever heard and 
that he was going to learn to really take 
and make pictures, if it was in him. 
Amateurs must do their own finishing 
if they ever hope for success. And when 
they do it they must go slowly, with mathe- 
matical precision and chemical exacti- 
tude, unlimited good horse sense and a 
knowledge of what they are doing gleaned 
from the text books of the masters of 
photographic art. 
A lens has its limitations, though the 
average amateur does not seem to realize 
it. Too much is expected from one lens. 
There is no sttch thing as a successful 
universal lens. George W. Wallace says: 
“Be careful not to expect one lens to do 
everything. For varied work there must 
be a variety of lenses.” Many expect 
-one lens to do equally good work 
on landscapes, portraits or architec- 
ture. No such lens exists, and several are 
needed for grades of work outside of por- 
traits. - 
I could write a paper as long as the 
moral law, on the subject of lenses, be- 
ginning with the disk of optical glass of 
perfect purity and following it through the 
hands ofthe examiner, after which, if suit- 
able, it goes on the splitting machine, and 
is cuit to the desired sizes. The first oper- 
ation of grinding is called “roughing it;” 
next it goes to the grinder, who, with 
great care, brings the surface. to a perfect. 
ZF 
491 
polish. It is then ground to a true curve 
and once more polished. Then begins 
the process of edging. 
The lens is cemented to a chuck in a 
turning lathe and centered while revolv- 
ing by the light thrown on it from a can- 
dle. If the image of the flame is station- 
ary and free from wobbling, it passes mus- 
ter and the edge is ground. Wilson says, 
in his Quarter Century of Photography, 
“Upward of 2,000 tools or curves are 
used, all ground to such accuracy that the 
curvature of each is known to the fourth 
place of decimals; their respective radii 
extending from 30 feet down to the 1-100th 
of an inch.” The lens is then mounted 
in its brass fitting and sent to the test- 
ing room. The greatest care and _ skill 
are required to produce a lens, which ac- 
counts for its cost. Each photographer 
should own at least 3, one for landscapes, 
one for portraits, and one for architecture. 
In buying a lens avoid any defect in 
color by testing on clear white paper. 
Reject one with bubbles of any size, or 
scratches, or hair lines. Wilson’s test as 
to whether a lens is properly corrected 
is to cut a piece a foot square from a 
newspaper printed with sharp clear-cut 
type, and paste it on a board with a 
smooth surface. Set it before the cam- 
era, with columns vertical but inclined 
in a slanting direction, so that the right 
side shall be 2 inches nearer the lens than 
the left, keeping the board exactly up- 
right. Focus carefully along the central 
upright line, and take it full size. Then 
examine the hair strokes on the letters 
of the negative with a microscope. 
If the lens is properly corrected, then 
the central lines should be in the sharp- 
est focus._ If a part right or left of the 
center is in better focus than the center 
then the correction is faulty. If the sharp- | 
est image is of a part nearer the lens than 
the center, the lens is under corrected; 
if of a part farther from the center, it is 
over corrected. 
In either case it is said to have a chem- 
ical focus—that is, its chemical and visual 
foci do not correspond, a fault of the first 
magnitude and cause for rejecting the lens 
entirely. 
The angle and the focal length should 
always be reconsidered in buying and, 
lastly, use only a chamois skin or the 
softest cloth to clean a lens, and keep 
your fingers off. 
A few months ago I said, “I love my 
camera like a living thing, and if I had 2 
I should widen the sphere of my affec- 
tions.” The time has come to widen. I 
now have 4. Three new ones arrived from 
headquarters, and I was told to “select one 
and return the others.” I am hanging on 
to all of them like grim death and can’t . 
for. the. life of me tell with. which. to part.. 
