Artists On Retouching

It is now fifty years since Daguerre publicly announced Niepce's discoveries, and on the scientific and industrial side, photography has results to show nothing short of marvellous, but what has it to show on the artistic side? Of the thousands who have practised photography since 1839, and who are now dead, how many names, stand out as having done work of any artistic value? Only three. One a master, who was at the same time a sculptor, namely, Adam Salomon; one a trained painter, but without first-rate artistic ability, Rejlander; and one, an amateur, - Mrs. Cameron. Beside these three there is no name among the numerous dead photographers worth a mention. And have matters improved? Well may it be asked by those who have the good of photography at heart, whether it will always be thus. We hope not; but if it is to be otherwise, some radical change must be made, and the blind no longer lead the blind. We have said, then, that of all the thousands of craftsmen who have practised photography and are dead, three names only stand out as having produced works to which we can apply the title artistic. Now let us see what those three have to say to the matter of retouching.

Adam Salomon

Mr. Adam Salomon, though he strengthened certain parts of his negatives by artificial means, which in the hands of an accomplished artist like himself, was admissible, condemned retouching altogether. He says,

"Eschewing retouching with brush or pencil on the film, risking the further deterioration of the negative, I make light finish the task it has, from want of time, or bad quality, insufficiently done, and in such a manner that no hand can hope to rival its delicacy and precision, and this is the only plan that a lover of his calling can justifiably pursue." So we see that a highly-trained sculptor, like Adam Salomon, dared not retouch, but only sunned down violent contrasts at first, and then printed in all the picture, so that it could not be detected; yet Adam Salomon, in our opinion, could have quite legitimately worked on his negatives, being as he was a highly-trained artist.

Rejlander

Rejlander, not being a painter of great ability, but having a painter's training, tried all methods until he arrived at the legitimate scope of photography, then he came to the conclusion that retouching was inadmissible, and it must be remembered that Rejlander was more capable of retouching truthfully than any retoucher has been since, and yet he says, "I think the practice of retouching the negative a sad thing for photography. It is impossible, for even very capable artists, to rival or improve the delicate, almost mysterious gradations of the photograph. Magnify the photographic rendering of, say, the human eye, with a strong lens, and it is found to be almost startling in its marvellous truth. Magnify the retouched image, and it will look like ccarse deformity. It ceases to be true. I have sometimes seen a touched photograph which looked very nice, but it possessed no interest for me; I knew it could not be trusted. I have been charged with sophisticating photographs because I combined and masked and sunned prints. But there is a great distinction between suppressing and adding; I never added. I stopped-out portions of the negatives which I did not require to form my picture; I sunned down that which was obtrusive, and where one negative would not serve, 1 used two or more, joining them with as much truth as I could. But I never attempted to improve negatives. 1 never believed that I could draw better or more truly than Nature. I consider a touched photograph spoiled for every purpose." This, then, was Rejlander's verdict, and though from this we gather he had not yet thrown off the fallacy of combination-printing, yet he subsequently abjured that also. Even when he did use combination-printing, he practised it in a manner never equalled by his imitators, for like all imitators they have copied the bad qualities and left all the genius behind.

Mrs. J. Cameron

Mrs. Cameron, the last and least of the three, had knowledge and feeling enough also to eschew retouching, none of her work is retouched, just as she had knowledge enough to use a rapid rectilinear lens, although working in the wet-collodion days, for she evidently saw what escaped so many other workers, that the drawing was truer with that lens than with the quicker portrait lenses.

When it comes, by the means of retouching, to straightening noses, removing double chins, eliminating squints, fattening cheeks, and smoothing skins, we descend to an abyss of charlatanism and jugglery, which we will not stop to discus. That such things pay and please vain and stupid people, no one denies, but so do contortionists please a certain public, so do jugglers and tight-rope dancers, and such like, but all that is not art.

Doctoring Negatives

There are various practices of doctoring the negative by using paint and other mediums on the backs, or by grinding the backs of the negatives. These are, in our opinion, all unnecessary and harmful, the remarks on retouching apply equally well here. Such artifices may easily deceive and even please the uneducated, but the artist only sees them to despise and condemn them. The technique of photography is perfect, no such botchy aids are necessary, they take the place of the putty of the bad carpenter.

Spotting

Of course, spotting does not come under the head of retouching. The spotter does not attempt to modify structure or tone, but merely to render an unavoidable and accidental "blemish" less patent. All spots should be filled with red paint mixed with a little gum and water, but care must be exercised in this operation, to put on only just enough paint to fill the hole.

Our parting injunction, then, to the photographer who would be an artist, is, avoid retouching in all its forms; it destroys texture and tone, and therefore the truth of the picture.