Practicus In The Studio: A Talk About Lighting.

           Lighting the sitter is one of the most difficult subject to discourse upon that could well be chosen, for so narrow is the margin between success and failure that it u not possible to give definite rules which will ensure the same results under different conditions; in fact, so far m this true that there is a legend that one successful portraitist abstains from having his windows cleaned lest the lighting should thereby be rendered to hard.
            Hearty very competent writer on the subject has recommended the study of lighting to be begun with s plaster bust, and with this I heartily agree. The only thing better would be to follow the example of Adam Salomon and have life-sized wax figures with hair and clothes complete. A life-sized bust is not an expensive luxury even in war-time, for I recently purchased one near Hatton Garden for five shillings. It was the head and shoulders of Gibson's Venus, and has not special pretensions to classical beauty; it is just a moderately good-looking young woman with her head well balanced upon her shoulders. Busts having the head in unusual positions should be avoided, as the lighting which might suit them will not be useful for sitters.
            Having got our bust, the first thing to be done is to give it a coat of buff or very pale terra-cotta distemper, so that the light values will be about the same as those of the living model. This u very important, as white plaster reflects far too much light for our purpose. The reason why I advocate the use of a bust instead of a living sitter is that the latter cannot keep still for the time required for study, and the student will quickly see how a slight movement of the head upsets all his plans for obtaining a certain effect.
            The bust must be placed on a table so as to be about the height of an ordinary sitting figure, and in front of a plain medium-toned background. It should be in such a position that a high side light falls upon it, the light being rather to the front of the object. In an ordinary span-roof studio this would mean that the dark blinds or curtains would be drawn over one end of the studio, both top and side, for about five feet The bust should be about three and a half feet from the end wall the next blind should be half-down and the next quite open; the side light is obscured up to nearly five feet from the ground, and is open for about six feet run. If we now examine the lighting we shall find it fairly round, but rather contrasty. This is all for the best, for we can readily see the effect of altering the positions of the bust, the blinds and the camera respectively. One golden rule, by whom originally written I know not, is that "light from the sitter's end of the studio gives contrast, while light from the camera end gives softness." I cannot too strongly impress this fact upon the beginner.
            In ordinary circumstances, if the lighting is too harsh, open more blinds over the camera end; if too soft, close them over the camera and open them near the sitter. This one rule is the key to simple lighting, and its application will prevent much floundering in the early stages. If we do not want to alter the blinds we may move the sitter; if she goes further under the dark blinds we get softness; if she comes forward we get contrast.
            Excess of top-light is the commonest fault in portrait lighting; but there are times when top-light is needed. A flat face with insignificant features calls for it, as Mr. H. P. Robinson says: "I think I should use a good deal of vertical light in taking the portrait of a Chinaman." If the sitter had strong features and deep-set eyes such lighting would be disastrous. We may now try the effect first of turning the bust to and from the light, and you will quickly see how the modeling of the face is affected. As we turn the nose to the light the further check becomes illuminated, while as we turn it away it sinks into shadow. I would ask you to remember that neither the camera nor the sitter is screwed to the floor, so that you can obtain the same position of the head, but with very different lightings, by turning it till the desired effect is obtained, and then placing the camera in the position whence you observed it. Always keep your eyes open for accidental effects of lighting, and note the sitter's position in the studio for future use; some of these "observed" lightings are much better than those carefully arranged. I have nearly always found that the effects obtained with dark blinds and clear glass only are rather too vigorous for the ordinary run of work, hence it is very desirable to have in addition very thin white blinds or curtains so as to diffuse the light a little and tone down the glaring effect of the nigh-lights. If there are no white blinds an ordinary circular head-screen covered with thin nainsook or pale-blue nun's veiling is very useful. The nearer this is placed to the sitter the softer will be the lighting, and vice versa. In studios which are so placed that direct sunlight falls upon the glass during any period of the day white blinds should be used to cover all the glass. I have worked in this way in a studio facing due west, on which the sun shone from 11 a.m. until evening. In such a studio we must not have too large an expanse of white-covered window open at once, or we shall get flat negatives.
            A point which should never be lost sight of is that the actual design or pattern of the studio is of no moment. So long as the light can be made to fall upon the sitter at the desired angle, ridge roof, single slant, top-light, high side-light will all give the same result if properly handled. Much more depends upon outside influences; trees, walls, other buildings all serve to modify the lighting and an arrangement of blinds which will suit the sitter in one studio may fail to do so in another which is differently placed.
            A lofty studio is not to be desired. I remember one clever photographer who said that he would work under a cucumber frame if he could. In a high-roofed studio the light is very difficult to control, as it is too far away from the sitter. Even, soft effects are easily obtained, but when any decided lighting is needed it becomes necessary to close all the blinds and to use the side-light only, and that only in a limited area.
            A few words on unusual forms of studio may not come amiss. When working in a studio which has top-light only, the sitter must be placed well back under the dark blinds, and plenty of light admitted from the "camera end." It is also often advantageous to turn the sitter slightly to one side of the studio and to work the camera close to that side of the studio, towards which he is looking, the background being, of course, placed diagonally across the corner. In a studio with a high side window only it is often necessary to place the sitter as close to the window side as possible, so as to get the effect of top-light. If too low a side-light be used the eyes are filled with light and look flat. What is sometimes called a "miniature-painter's light" is a high front light. This gives a very even, illumination of the face, but if properly managed there should be sufficient shadow and one side to avoid flatness. If it be desired to copy the lighting in an existing photograph or even a painting, if by a good artist, the spark of light in the eye forms a reliable guide as to the position of the dominant light. If this be high or nearly in the centre of the top of the iris, in the position say of 11 o'clock on a watch dial, it denotes a high front light, if in the position of 9 o'clock a low side light, and so on In some fancy lightings it may even be at 6 o'clock, which shows that the light comes from below.
            I will now deal briefly with screens and reflectors. The head-screen I have already dealt with as far as lighting the features is concerned, but it has other uses, such as subduing the light on white drapery. Nothing is more objectionable than to have a white dress brilliantly illuminated, making the face appear too dark and receding into the background. By use of the small head-screen this may be avoided, the shadow being cast where required. In some cases a screen covered with a thin open black material is useful, as it will cast a shadow without diffusing white light in other directions. Reflectors are usually relied upon too much; only when the lighting is nearly satisfactory but the shadows are too dark should they be introduced, and then not placed close up to the sitter. In this position they destroy all the modelling on the shadow side and give an unnatural appearance. It is unfortunately too common for the operator to make a hard lighting and then to use the reflector to even up the face. This is wrong, as it does nothing to subdue the over lighting on the other side. There is no need to be afraid of using a screen or white blind to soften the high-lights, as it does not cut off any light from the shadows which are still receiving front light and reflected light from the studio. If the same exposure be given with the high-lights screened the negative can be developed for the shadows without the high-lights blocking up.
            In conclusion, I would caution the tyro against judging lighting by the eye alone, the negative being the only test. The plate does not always see the sitter in the same way as the operator does. Some plates have a tendency to intensify the light, while others soften it. The lens also has a say in the matter, a short-focus lens usually giving a more brilliant negative than a long focus one does. This is partly due to scattered light in the studio, but it also seems to be caused by the distance between lens and plate. Naturally the operator will see that his lens is clean, his camera well blacked inside, and his dark-room light beyond suspicion before he starts work, or he is simply inviting failure in any attempt to secure good lighting.

PRACTICUS.

Practicus In The Studio: Studio Exposures.

            Correct exposure is one of the most important of the factors in making perfect photographs, yet the majority of portra approach it in the most casual manner, and apparently trust to a sort of sixth sense to tell them how long to keep the shutter open, or as one Mid to me, "It is like taking a dire into water; when I press the bulb, I do not know when I am coming to the surface.” With long practice it is possible to work successfully in this sab-conscious way, but most people will find it desirable to have some definite idea of the number of seconds necessary to give the exact quality of negative which is aimed at. I want you to take particular notice of those last words. There can be no fixed standard of exposure or density in portrait work, or we should all arrive at one monotonous style, without that touch of individualism which now distinguishes our best photographers from one another. Twenty or thirty years ago there was an established ideal of a clear, sparkling negative ranging from clear glass to opacity, and a high-class operator who did not conform to it had little chance of employment. Many negatives which would be appreciated to-day were then thrown aside as failures, because they were too soft or too hard to print in the limited range of media then available, but now we are more free to choose our methods, and can produce negatives to satisfy our own artistic instincts. Therefore it is necessary if we are to be consistently good in our work we must not trust to "flukes" for our successes, but to study the conditions under which our particular class of negatives can be obtained.
            On asking one of our best known outdoor photographers bow he secured such uniformly perfect negatives. I was told that they were obtained by "exposing to suit the developer.” This was in the pre-Watkins days, when no attempt had been made to systematize development and most people believed that the clever worker owed his success to modifying the developer according to the appearance of the imago, often beginning with plain pyro solution, and working up the negative by adding alkali and bromide drop by drop. This idea is now exploded, proving that my friend was a true prophet when he asserted that the prime factor in producing the negative was correct exposure Hurter and Driffield, to whom photographers owe so much, have taught us that the amount of silver affected by light when a plate is exposed is in definite proportion to the length of exposure given, bat this assumes that all the so affected is reduced by the developer, or, in other words, the plate is “developed right out," which is rarely the case in studio work, most portraitists finding that such a procedure produces too much contrast. This fact has been recognized by both plate and developer makers who prescribe different times of development for portrait, landscape and copy negative, the former always being much shorter than the latter two.
            To establish a correct method of exposure we must make a few experiments, working with a standard developer, and a fixed time of development, which may be obtained by the factorial system, the only variation being made in the exposure. It is convenient and economical, besides assuring uniformity of rapidity in the emulsion, to make several exposures on one plate, and this can easily be done in most studio cameras by fixing a small mask in the camera back and marking the slide so as to show when the plate is in position. The easiest size is to work three upon a half-plate, cutting a mask with opening two inches by four and fixing this in the existing carte or cabinet mask. If the slide has notches for single exposures, and also for repeating two C.D.V. on half-plate, the centre notch may be used, but new marks s little farther from the centre must be made for the two end exposures. For my own use I have made a repeating back which allows of four exposures, each three inches by two clear, from the rebate upon a half-plate, and this I find handy for many other purposes.
            The exposures, which must, of course, be upon the same subject, may be varied in any proportion which the operator desires. Usually double at each step will be found as good as any for portrait work, as our negative will then show us the effect of one, two, four, and eight seconds' exposure. The result will be rather surprising to those who try it for the first time; for, supposing that the one-second exposure gives a thin but printable negative, it will be found that the eight-seconds section, although thick and slow to print, will also yield a passable result. That, however, is not my point, which is that the operator should now select the exposure which gives him the quality of imam- he wants, or if none quite pleases him should give an exposure between the two which he judges to be nearest correct. So far so good. Now all depends upon correctly estimating the value of the light, and this can better be done with an exposure meter than by the exercise of personal judgment. If we use an ordinary Bee meter and note the time taken to match the tint at the. time of making our exposures we shall be able to establish a ratio between meter time and exposure for any light or lighting. For example, if we find that our selected exposure is four seconds, and that it took right minutes to get the tint, we haw the proportion of half a second for each meter minute. Naturally I do not propose that anyone should make meter tests while sitter waits, but an occasional test between whiles can easily be managed. The plate speed and lens aperture must be unchanged, or due allowance must be made, or this system will be worse than useless.
            It is often found that when strong effects of light and shade are being tried for that the negatives turn out hard and chalky and do not at all represent the model as seen by the artist. There are two causes of this, both closely connected, under-exposure and over-development, the latter being due to an attempted to force out shadow detail. Now, if development had been done by time without regard to the appearance of the image, we should have retained the detail in the high lights, but the shadow detail would still have been wanting. Longer exposure would remedy this without giving flatness, unless-unite an unreasonable time were given. This class of subject affords an excellent field for the progressive series of exposures already recommended; or if it be thought that the effect cannot be judged from so small s plate two full-sized exposures may be made, one receiving three times as long as the other, both being developed for the same time in the same dish.
            It is important when making experiments in exposure to keep not only to one make of plate, but to the same grade. Emulsions vary in character, and two grades which are, perhaps, marked 200 and 240 H and D, cannot be relied upon to give the same quality of image, even if the difference in speed be accurately allowed for; much more is this the case if two makes of plate he mixed up. For the same reason one developer should be adhered to, and for printing quality land adaptability to various subjects and lightings there is nothing to beat the old-established pyro-sods. Remember that a negative is only a means to an end, and that "pretty" negatives do not always give the best of prints. Although not strictly within my subject, I feed that at the present time of year it is not amiss to on that pyro is less affected in its action by variations of temperature than most other developing agents. I have only recently found the slow action of another developer mistaken for under exposure, with the result that the exposures were increased and flatness resulted.
            A point which mart not be missed is the effect of the distance between lens and sitter upon exposure. This is always allowed for in copying, but is often overlooked in portraiture. Most operators know that a large head requires more exposure than a full length, other things being equal, but perhaps could not toll you why. There are two reasons, one being the increase in the focal length of the lens a the sitter approaches the camera, and the other the flattening of the lighting by the greater amount of atmosphere which intervenes as the sitter is placed further from the camera. Let us consider the former case, assuming that a head measures 9 inches in height and we are making a 3 in. image of it: this adds one-third to the camera extension, supposing we are using an 18 in. lens working at F/6 for infinity; one-third added to the focal length gives us 24 ins - in other words, we are working at F/8, which requires practically double the exposure. When taking a full-length cabinet the reduction would be l/12th, which would only add an inch and a half to the original focal length, and this we could safely ignore so far as exposure is concerned. In the second case the increase in exposure is only apparent, not real. If there is a certain amount of fog over the shadows it covers the bare glass, but there is no more detail in the shadows than there would be if the atmosphere were perfectly clear. In London, where the atmosphere is as thick in winter as it is in most places, many photographers use a lens of shorter focal length than they would otherwise, in order to avoid this flattening.
            In conclusion, let me impress upon the notice that correct exposure is the key to satisfactory results. Leaving colour effects out of the question, any arrangement of light and shade can be correctly reproduced if the proper exposure be given. We can flatten the scale by over-exposure, we can sharpen it by under-exposure, so that if we hit the happy mean we shall get upon our negative what we saw when looking at the sitter. Surely such a consummation is worth taking pains to attain, instead of following the usual "hit or miss" way.

PRACTICUS.