Theatrical Photography

Included in my pages are very many photographs taken at the time my stars were at the height of their careers. Such are the quality of these photographs that it is easy to forget that photography as an art was still at that time in its relatively infancy. Today we can all take photographs with our digital cameras under almost any conditions, and print as many copies as we require at home with our photo printers. Back then, however, it was a somewhat more scientific process as the following article illustrates.

The 'Daguerreotype', to which the article refers, was the first commercially viable photographic process, details of which were first announced to the public in August, 1839. It was named after its inventor, Louis Daguerre, whose work was based on a process first invented by his then deceased former partner Joseph Niépce. The process required the preparation of a photographic plate by the deposition of a thin layer of silver-halide particles onto a surface of mirror-polished silver. The plate was then exposed to a scene or image through a focusing lens to form a latent image. After a period of exposure, typically 30 minutes, the plate was then bathed in mercury vapours which would condense on those places where the silver-halide had most reacted by exposure to light, and thereby form a visible image. Finally, the plate was dipped in a solution of hyposulphite of soda to make the image permanent. Although it produced excellent results, the Daguerreotype had two major disadvantages, it produced an image which was extremely delicate and had to be kept under glass, and, because it produced a direct image on the original plate, it was not reproduceable other than by exposing another plate to the original scene.

An alternative to the Daguerreotype was the Calotype, invented by Henry Talbot, which was introduced to the pbulic in mid-1841. The calotype recorded its original exposure on a carefully prepared sheet of high quality paper. The paper was first washed over with a solution of silver nitrate and dried of excess moisture by gentle heat. It was then soaked in a solution of potassium iodide for two or three minutes, rinsed and dried. Finally, the paper was coated with a solution of silver nitrate and gallic acid and left to sit for 30 seconds before being dipped in water and then dried with blotting paper. For best results, this final stage needed to be performed within a few hours prior to the paper's intended use (it being most sensitive whilst still slighlty moist). The paper was exposed to light in the camera creating an invisible latent image. The paper was then washed again in a solution of silver nitrate and gallic acid which caused a visible image to form. This was then fixed in place by washing the paper in a fixing solution such as potassium bromide. The result was to produce on the sheet of paper a photographic negative of the original scene. To produce a positive image, a fresh sheet of prepared calotype paper was put into a copying frame with the finished negative laid face down upon it. The frame was then exposed to strong light after which the fresh sheet was developed as before, this time producing a positive image. Although the calotype, initially at least, produced inferior results to the Daguerreotype, it had the major advantages of being quicker, cheaper, and the images were both robust and reproduceable - the negative produced from the original scene could be used to produced many positive copies (especially if it was waxed to preserve it).

Photography in the Edwardian era followed along the principles of the calotype process, although different materials were used. Gelatin, and later celluloid, replaced paper as the substrate for photographic plates for the negative image. In 1889, the development of flexible celluloids for photographic 'film' were developed. Thus, by the Edwardian era, the photographer no longer needed to prepare his own photographic stock, but could instead purchase high quality factory produced materials - although developing the negatives and producing prints from them were still mostly done by the photographer.

The particular problems associated with photographing theatrical subjects at that time are discussed in the article reproduced below.

(The Playgoer, Vol. 1 No. 4 - 15th Jan, 1902)
PHOTOGRAPHY AND THE FOOTLIGHTS.
By H. SNOWDEN WARD, Editor 0f "The Photogram."

In early Daguerreotype days, one was obliged to sit half an hour, in full sunlight and with whitened face, to secure a portrait. Now, a fraction of a second in good studio light is sufficient, and by some of the very latest developments of photography it is possible to actually snap-shoot a performer on the stage with only the artificial light of a well-illuminated evening performance. This latest development is not by any means perfect, and the results obtained up to the present are not all that may be desired, but the mere possibility of the thing is marvellous. This is not the place for a technical description of how the thing is done; all available technical details have been given in 'The Photogram' for September, 1901. Suffice it to say that the new factor is a modified lens, invented by Dr. Grun of Brighton, with which the exposure necessary under given conditions is greatly lessened.

The shortening of exposure, by increasing the sensitiveness of photographic plates and the "rapidity" of lenses, has been the one problem most constantly before photographic inventors, and in no field has it been more desirable than in theatrical photography. The reason for this will be seen anon. The portraying of professionals is, perhaps, even more truly than the photographing of babies, most pleasant, and yet most unsatisfactory. We all know the rhyme of the

"little girl who had a little curl,
right in the middle of her forehead;
An' when she was good, she was very, very good;
An' when she was bad, she was horrid!"

The Dancing Girl

Even so it is with theatrical portraiture. When really all right it is so very satisfactory, yet so often it is the despair of photographer and sitter alike. This arises from no fault of either party. Tbe player is a good sitter because he (and still more she) can pose well, and can maintain a pose so long as is necessary. But so much of the charm of an actor depends upon color, face-play, and the grace of motion, that posed portraits, incapable of representing these, are but travesties of the people tbey should portray. It is even now technically possible to photographically reproduce color effects, and the kinetograph, which everybody knows, reproduces motion in a wonderful way. It is possible that some day, by the improvement of these methods, we may be able to reproduce color and motion together, and by a method that shall not be too expensive.

Meanwhile, and for the purpose of ordinary pictures and illustrations, photographers have endeavored to suggest, rather than to reproduce, motion and color-values. Wonderful results have been obtained in well-lighted studios by the patient co-operation of photographer and artiste; one of the very best examples ever produced being the "Dancing Girl," by Hana, Ltd., a portrait of Miss Ella Chapman. In securing one success so complete as this, with its charming suggestion of life, grace and motion, the photographer must be content to risk scores or even hundreds of failures.

A great difficulty connected with the question of long exposure (though the connection is not at once apparent) is with the backgrounds and surroundings of the figures. Of course, the desirable thing is to be able to photograph figures and groups in their proper stage settings, with costumes, scenery and lighting as arranged by the artist of the stage picture, but the lights in the theatre, brilliant as they seem to the eye, are not photographically active enough to make a picture in any time that even the most stolid of players could maintain their pose and expression. Further, much of the scenery which looks so charming in the glow of light and color, looks very flat and poor when translated into photographed black and white.

To overcome this difficulty many photographers go to very great expense in providing in their own studios, backgrounds, accessories and furniture in keeping with the characters to be photographed. Obviously, this can only be done when a company's pictures are expected to be in great demand, and when some time can be allowed for the preparation of the scenery. Most of the portraits which illustrate our own pages are studio pictures.

Esme Beringer and George Silver at the Palace Theatre

However perfect may be the studio conditions there always remains the desirability of photographing on the stage itself, for large effects and tableaux, and here, again, photographers have spent immense ingenuity and much money. The result, nowadays, is simply a question of cost. If either the management, the illustrated press, or the public will reimburse the photographer for his outlay, he can produce wonderful effects by the lavish use of powerful electric lights in addition to the usual stage lighting. But this work cannot be done cheaply. In the case of a certain large London stage photographed not very long ago, the cost of wiring and fitting up the electric light was over £200, no small sum for temporary fittings to be removed after a few hours use. In this case the whole stage was fully lighted and photographed; an effort which will probably not be repeated until methods shall have been cheapened.

Temporary electric lighting of a small portion of the stage, enough to provide for the photographing of a group of half a dozen or so figures, gets over many of the difficulties and reduces the cost enormously, and a modification of this method, which is ingenious in the extreme, has been very successfully applied by the London Stereoscopic Co. Arranging to light, say, one third of the whole stage at a time, they make three pictures of different parts of a great scene or tableau. An artist combines the three pictures, which thus become one, from which a new negative and any number of copies can be made. This article is illustrated by one such combination (the Cyrano de Bergerac group on the opposite page), and it is only to be regretted that the size of the page prevents it being reproduced on a much larger scale. The original, thirty-eight inches wide, and printed in a rich carbon brown, is undoubtedly one of the most wonderful theatrical photographic pictures ever made. There are also reproduced some other examples showing how stage scenes, when players, surroundings and photographer all work well together, can be made into real pictures. Considering the great value of such fine studies, as records and even as advertisements, it seems most desirable that still further care should be given to securing the best possible photographic representation of every piece that is really worth putting upon the boards. The photographers are willing and anxious to perfect their methods and extend their facilities, and there are many signs that players and managers wish to co-operate more and more fully with them.

And as the photographic hobby is largely extending amongst the profession we have promise of increased ability accompanying the increased desire to co-operate in securing the very best of which the camera is capable.