But, it will be argued, and justly, that sometimes an enlargement is more artistic than the small picture from which it was produced. This is sometimes, but rarely, the case; and when such is the case, it is the result of chance. You would never be able to take a negative in a particular way so that you know for certain it will be improved by enlarging so many diameters, and therein lies the inherent defect which unfits this process for artistic work.
The method.
The actual process of enlarging is very simple, either by artificial light or daylight; but it is in our opinion a needless and undesirable proceeding.
An example.
We have made many experiments in this direction, but we have never yet been able to get an enlargement as fine in quality as the direct photograph. All the little subtleties which give quality to the work are either lost or are only obtained accidentally. Not long ago we saw a beautiful portrait—an enlargement, the print from the small negative of which was very poor, and no one was more surprised at the improvement in the enlargement than the photographer himself, but he could never make sure of doing the same thing again. Therefore eschew enlargements. A picture of fine quality, quarter-plate size, is worth a dozen enlargements 24 × 22.
Tonality.
It is only in certain very limited effects that the tonality will be true after enlargement, and that of course constitutes another fatal objection.
CHAPTER XI.
TRANSPARENCIES, LANTERN AND STEREOSCOPIC SLIDES.
Transparencies.
For industrial and educational purposes transparencies of all kinds are valuable, and we shall touch upon them elsewhere. |Lantern slides.| With lantern slides our art-student has nothing to do. A lantern picture is an optical illusion, and lantern slides are toys when they do not serve lecture purposes. For lecture purposes they are of course invaluable, but they have no place in art, neither have stereoscopic slides. They all rank with the camera obscura, the diorama, and the panorama.