168 
who admired them greatly and did not 
criticize those views among the lot which 
were imitations. Afterward I said that 
some of the pictures were made up from 
photos taken with an ordinary hand cam- 
era; and they went over the whole collec- 
tion again, but could not find out which 
were which till I pointed them out. Then 
it was a case of: “Well, it is wonderful 
we did not notice it before! Now we see 
the difference clearly.” After that, they 
seemed not to care for my made up stereo- 
scopic pictures, though some of them are 
exceedingly beautiful. 
Given a pair of perfectly matched prints, 
that is, identical in depth and in tone, the 
next question is what size to cut them, 
how to trim and how to mount them so as 
to obtain the desired stereoscopic effect. 
I take 3 inches wide by 3% high as about 
the standard. Selecting some point in the 
picture from which to take the necessary 
measurements for the width, trim one print 
so as to get that point 3-16 of an inch 
farther from the left edge than in the 
second print. In the second print, add this 
space of 3-16 inch to the right margin, 
measuring, of course, from the same fixed 
point. That is, designating the different 
parts of the print thus: A, the strip to 
the left of the arbitrarily chosen starting 
point X; B, the strip to the right of that 
point; and C, the 3-16 inch wide strip; the 
right hand image has the following for- 
mula: C -+ A +B; and the left hand 
image, A + B+ C. See diagram. 
Mount the 2 prints on the stereoscopic 
blank. To do this properly requires but 
average care and ability. The most impor- 
tant operation is to get the base lines of 
both prints perfectly true. Next comes the 
trimming of those edges which will come 
into juxtaposition in the center of the 
blank. A _ space a trifle over 1-16 inch 
wide may be left here, but I usually mount 
the edges close together. 
There is, perhaps, no novelty in this 
style of making up stereoscopic prints from 
single ones. If this should happen to be 
the case, I can only say that I never have 
come across a description of it, or heard of 
it. All there was to learn about it I have 
worked out by myself, “rule of thumb” 
fashion. The deductions came afterward. 

MAKING THE PRIZE WINNERS. 
Regarding the winner of 3d prize, Bob 
White by Flashlight, reproduced on page 
104 of this issue, I wrote Mr. Beegle as 
follows: 
Will you kindly tell me all about the 
conditions under which the quail picture 
was made? Was the photo made from a 
live bird or from a mounted specimen? 
RECREATION. 
, 
It appears to me to be from a live bird, but 
if you have been reading RECREATION, you 
will know that as soon as the picture 1s 
published some critics may bob up and 
claim it is from a mounted specimen. 
The second question is, if the bird was 
alive, was he in his wild state or in domes- 
tication, or in confinement. If at large, 
you have been exceedingly fortunate in get- 
ting so fine a picture of him. 
The judges, in awarding the prizes, would 
immediately raise all these questions, and it 
will be well to have a full statement from 
you with the picture. 
To this, Mr. Beegle replied. 
My photo of a quail was made from a live 
wild bird, not domesticated, although it 
was a captive several days, and after the 
photo was made flew away, perhaps to be- 
come the prey of some gunner. To assert 
or imply that it was a snap shot of a quail 
in the grass, taken by going afield with a 
camera, would be more than ridiculous; but 
it is exactly what it represents, a live wild 
bird, free and unhampered, released and 
photographed in a tuft of grass, without 
any strings or other contrivances to keep it 
confined. It seems to me that any man 
who ever saw a quail can tell from the nat- 
ural expression of the bird, the alertness, 
etc., that no taxidermist could duplicate it. 
Those who might think it a photo of a 
mounted specimen I should under no cir- 
cumstances try to convince. They would 
not have the intelligence to know a live 
quail from a stuffed one, and they deserve 
no consideration whatever. To those who 
have done any of this work I stand ready 
to demonstrate that possibly even better pic- 
tures may be made than the one submitted. 
This photo was taken with a Goerz lens, 
I-10 second exposure, and printed on Velox 
paper. 
S. L. Beegle, Orange, N. J. 
The photo of the caribou stag on the bar- 
rens of Newfoundland was taken October 
24, 1903, at 50 feet, as the animal was com- 
ing slowly toward me. The camera used 
was an Eastman Cartridge Kodak, No. 4. 
Mrs. William B. Lee, Rochester, N. Y. 
This photo is reproduced on page ror of 
this issue. —-Eprror. 
Ernie: No, shé€ isn’t going to marry 
Claude, after all. 
Ida: But they say he can quote Emerson 
and Browning. 
Yes, but the other young man can quote 
Sugar and Steel—Chicago Daily News. 

RECREATION is the best magazine pub- 
lished. J. M. Kyle, Cedarville, O. 

