AMATEUR PHOTOGRAPHY. 



79 



In answering on this point, Mr. Balch 

 says: "The shutter was set at its slowest 

 speed, which would not be far from one 

 second." In answer to question No. 6 Mr. 

 Balch says: "There were a few light, 

 fleecy clouds and the sun had just gone 

 down, or behind one of the clouds, when 

 I snapped the camera." 



I think every expert photographer in 

 the world will agree with me when I say 

 it would not be possible to get such sharp 

 detail in the picture of a dark subject, 

 like a beaver, as are shown in this photo 

 with an exposure of one second, at or 

 near sundown. 



Mr. Balch says he started for the woods 

 about the middle of November: It seems 

 that several days were occupied in reach- 

 ing the Penobscot river, where this pic- 

 ture was made. I wrote to Hon. L. T. 

 Carleton, chairman of the Maine State 

 Fisheries and Game Commission, inquir- 

 ing as to the approximate strength of day- 

 light in the Maine woods at 4 o'clock in 

 the middle of November when Mr. Balch 

 says the picture was made. Mr. Carleton 

 replies as follows: "The sun practically 

 sets in this State November 15th at 4 

 o'clock." 



In answer to question No. 3, Mr. Balch 

 says, that the beaver on the right was 

 about 9 feet from the camera, and the one 

 on the left about 11 feet; yet the one on 

 the right measures one inch in length, on 

 a 4x5 plate, exclusive of the tail. I be- 

 lieve every expert photographer will agree 

 with me that in order to show at that size 

 on a 4x5 plate the beaver must have been 

 within 2 feet of the lens. The expert I 

 quote above, who has made hundreds 

 of good photographs of live wild ani- 

 mals, says, "The size of the beaver on the 

 plate corresponds to that of large deer on 

 my 4x5 plates at 15 feet." How can Mr. 

 Balch or anyone else explain this dis- 

 crepancy? 



I have repeatedly stated that I hav^. no 

 desire to wrong Mr. Balch. I would 

 rather have made him a present of $100 

 in the begining and have left this picture 

 out of the competition than to have ques- 

 tioned his honesty. From the outset I was 

 anxious to believe in him. Mr. W. T. 

 Hornaday, one of the foremost naturalists 

 of the country, called at my office a day 

 or 2 after I received the photograph. I 

 showed it to him, and after examining it a 

 few minutes he pronounced it a fraud. 

 Up to that time I believed the beavers 

 were alive and argued the case with Mr. 

 Hornaday at some length from that stand- 

 point. I- did not then notice the string, 

 or what appears to be a string, on the 

 beaver's foot. Neither had I studied out 

 the other features of the picture, which I 

 have discussed in this letter and which 

 several of my readers have discussed. You 



may readily understand that after 'having 

 expressed my opinion that the beavers 

 were alive, I disliked to have to admit I 

 had been mistaken. I would much rather 

 now be convinced I was right at first, and 

 be placed in a position to send the prize 

 to Mr. Balch, than to still be compelled 

 to admit my first judgment was wrong. 



The only evidences of fraud to which I 

 attach any importance are those shown in 

 the beaver picture itself. These are dis- 

 tinctly scientific facts, and it is not satis- 

 factory to me or to any other careful stu- 

 dent of the subject for Mr. Balch to say 

 he does not know what causes certain re- 

 sults shown in the picture. The lens and 

 the camera plate have simply recorded 

 what was before them. They would not 

 make a beaver appear as large on a plate 

 at 9 feet from the camera as if it had 

 been only 2 feet away. The lens would 

 not show a string around a beaver's foot 

 unless it was there. If what appears to 

 have been a string was a twig, or if same 

 extended above or below the beaver's foot, 

 the lens would show it so. No lens can 

 do impossible things. And no lens has 

 yet been made that will make an instan- 

 taneous picture as sharp as this is at sun- 

 down in the middle of November, and in 

 the great forests of Maine. 



Neither the judges nor myself are will- 

 ing to take the responsibility of wronging 

 Mr. Balch in this matter, nor of awarding 

 him a prize for a picture which may or 

 may not be other than that which it pur- 

 ports to be. We have, therefore, decided 

 to submit all these questions to the read- 

 ers of Recreation. By readers in this 

 case I mean bona fide subscribers. I have 

 decided to ask all subscribers who were 

 such prior to January 1st, 1901, and who 

 have read this beaver controversy care- 

 fully from start to finish, answer in one 

 word the question, 



"Shall the first prize in Recreation's 

 5th annual photo competition be awarded 

 to Mr. Balch for his beaver picture?" 

 The answer shall be "yes" or "no," and 

 no vote will be counted unless the voter's 

 name appears on my subscription list as 

 of date prior to January 1st, 1901. I hope 

 this arrangement may prove satisfactory 

 to you and to all others councerned. 



G. O. Shields. 



N. B. — See blank ballot, printed on page 

 xviii of this issue of Recreation. 



DEFENDS MR. MOULTHROPE. 



Winnipeg, Man. 

 Editor Recreation: 



In looking over the amateur photo de- 

 partment of March Recreation I notice 

 some rather hasty criticisms on Mr. Moul- 

 thrope's photo and "An Ideal Outfit." I 

 am an enthusiastic amateur protographer 



