The letter: To The Student was updated slightly for the 1890 second edition of Pictures of East Anglian Life. It is pasted to the recto of the inside back folio board. Emerson explains “I was unable to give specimens illustrating my principles” for his 1889 volume Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art, “since the cost of photogravure is so great”. He explains the photographic plates in this abridged edition “will form a sort of atlas” to Naturalistic Photography.

TO THE STUDENT

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

THESE plates are the results of my views on the practice of artistic photography as laid down in my recent work Naturalistic Photography.* My teachings have been so misrepresented by ignorant critics and unscrupulous and self-interested opponents, that the student will do well to have some tangible results to study. Since the cost of photogravure is so great, I was unable to give specimens illustrating my principles in Naturalistic Photography itself; therefore the plates in this portfolio will form a sort of atlas to that text-book. The author considers these as nearly perfect as he could wish: ⎯ I. “In the Haysel.” II. “The Poacher.” III. ” A Stiff Pull.” IV. “Colts on a Norfolk Marsh.” V. “The Fringe of the Mere.” VI. “A March Pastoral.” VII.” “Where winds the Dike.” VIII. “In the Barley Harvest.” IX. “A Toad in the Path ⎯ Early Spring in Norfolk.” X. “Haymaker with rake.” And of these selected plates, the author considers “A March Pastoral” the best, and “Where winds the Dike” second best. A few notes on the “focus” of the various pictures will perhaps interest the student, as this is just now a vexed question. The first plate is not perfectly “sharp” in any part, and the hay-carts in the distance are just as sharp as they should be. “The Poacher,” here the principal object is not perfectly sharp, and the distant undergrowth is out of focus, but there is no destruction of structure. This plate fully exemplifies my theories on focussing. “Colts on a Norfolk Marsh,” this plate I consider focussed absolutely correctly. The colts are just out of sharpest focus, the tree in middle distance out of focus, yet correct, and distance out of focus, yet correct. “Barley Harvest,” barley and distance out of focus. “Fringe of the Mere,” the lilies in foreground are only suggested by focussing with judgment, the distance is not sharp, yet correct. “A March Pastoral,” this plate I consider to possess every naturalistic quality that I seek. Here perhaps my views on focussing are better illustrated than elsewhere. Look at the distant sheep on bank, they are quite out of focus, yet not fuzzy as I understand it. The judiciously selected foci for various parts of pictures as desired, can be studied here.

“Where winds the Dike,” this is another plate the student wishing to understand Naturalistic Photography should study carefully. The whole picture here is out of focus, deliberately thrown out of focus, and by the judicious use of diaphragms the middle distance and distance are relatively truly rendered. No lens yet made could give this effect by spherical aberration to be introduced by unscrewing back, etc. Dallmeyer’s valuable new rectilinear landscape lens, certainly could not give this effect by focussing sharply and the spherical aberration introduced in its manufacture being, trusted to give it. “Toad in the Path,” here the same effects of focus may be studied. There is nothing sharp in this plate, not even the principal object, i.e., the boys. “Haymaker with rake,” here, too, same principle of focus holds. It must be remembered, however, that true focus is but one point amongst many desiderata for a perfect photograph, and that not the most vital point by any means.

Since I introduced the terms “value” and “tone” into photography, many old fashioned composers of pictures have glibly adopted them, but without understanding them practically. Any parrot can talk of value and tone, but only a long and patient study of tone will enable a man to tell whether a picture is true or false in this regard. As an example I will finish with an anecdote. I was once dining at a friend’s house; amongst the guests was a distinguished Artist.

After dinner we sat over this very book discussing Art. At length we arrived at the plate “The Fringe of the Mere.” “That’s wrong in tone,” said the Painter decisively. “Where?” I asked. “Why! the water is lighter than the sky.” Now as a rule the water is lower in tone than the sky, on account of the absorption of light, but to this rule there are exceptions, and this was one of them, so I answered'” No! it’s alright.” “But how can that be? asked the Artist, who really knew no more of tone practically than any other guest in the room. “Because,” said I, ” there was a thin lamina of mist floating on the water, and it reflected so much light that the water tells lighter than the leaden sky.” “Rare. isn’t it?” said he, apologetically. “Not so rare either,” I replied, and we passed on to the other plates; the “March Pastoral” giving him the liveliest satisfaction.

Apologizing for this short notice, which I trust will help the student in understanding my views on Naturalistic Photography. I beg to subscribe myself gratefully to all those who have been honest and painstaking enough to understand my teachings before they decided for or against them.

Sept., 1889.                                                       P. H. EMERSON.

P. H. EMERSON.

⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯

*”Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art,” Crown 8vo. Cloth 5s. Second Edition.  S Low & Co.