What great artists elsewhere have thought of photography is shown by the following extract from one of J. F. Millet's letters to his friend Feuardent. After asking Feuardent to bring him some photographs from Italy, Millet continues, "In fact, bring whatever you find, figures and animals. Diaz's son, the one who died, brought some very good ones, sheep among other things. Of figures, take of course those that smack least of the Academy and the model - in fact all that is good, ancient or modern."

The daily use made of photography by artists is another proof of the good opinion in which it is held by them. You could not get these men to say a word in favour of chromo-lithography, because that is a hybrid craft with few possibilities. These questions being disposed of, we will proceed to discuss an assertion of Mr. Hamerton's, that photography is like a reflection in a mirror. Now from what we have shown in this book, means are at the artist's command to influence the final picture in every stage of its development. If an artist such as Carolus Duran, say, were thoroughly versed in photography, and a craftsman, like one of the numerous operators employed by the large photographic? firms, were to be placed together, say on one of the Norfolk Broads for a week, according to Mr. Hamerton's reflection theory, they would both return with work of the same quality, differing only in points of view; for Duran's reflections would be the same as the craftsman's, point of view always excepted. A theory that allows such an absurd application needs little comment, one remark only will we put forward. In what ignorance of optics Mr. Hamerton has allowed himself to remain! when every one knows that a reflection in a mirror is a virtual image, and does not exist. By pushing this theory to its logical conclusion, a monkey with a camera could produce as good pictures as Mr. Hamerton could make with the same instrument.

In "Thoughts on Art" Mr. Hamerton speciously compares photography with painting. Why not compare it with etching? It can never be compared with painting until photography in natural colours is an accomplished fact. Mr. Hamerton, after speaking of the limited scale of light in all art, goes on to say, "But look at poor photography's scale compared with the scale in painting." Just so, but it has a much greater scale than any other black and white method, far greater than the scale of his pet etching. Why did he not state this? Why did he ignore it? Further on Mr. Hamerton enunciates that if we expose for the glitter of the sea, everything on the bank will be without detail. It is unnecessary to say this is not so, and any good photographer can easily prove this statement. Of course the only excuse for these untrue statements is that such marvellous strides have been made in what is called "instantaneous photography" since Mr, Hamerton committed his last criticisms to paper (in 1873), that probably he does not know that photographs can now be taken at midnight by a flash of light in a fraction of a second, and with very fair results, as any one can prove for himself. Mr. Hamerton finds too that the sum of detail in good topographical drawings is greater than that in a good photograph. Well, Mr. Hamerton may do so, just as some people see green as red, but all good photographers will laugh at the statement, and we challenge Mr. Hamerton that we will produce a greater sum of detail in a photograph of a set subject than he will by any amount of drawing, and consider it no great feat either. But this has nothing to do with the artistic value of photography, or with its comparison with painting. Mr. Hamerton is here comparing it with architectural drawing.

Mr. Hamerton next says the drawing of mountains is false in photography. If that were so in 1860, it was Mr. Hamerton's fault for ignorantly using his lens, for, as we have shown, lenses are true perspective delineators if correctly used.

Finally Mr. Hamerton, in 1873, sums up his objections to photography from the purely artistic point, as follow: -

I."It is false in local colour, putting all the lights and darks of natural colouring out of tone." With the aid of orthochromatic plates it does no such thing, as any reader can prove for himself by getting a chromograph with yellow, red, blue, or any other bright colours, photographed by Mr. Dixon, of 112, Albany Street, London.

II. "It is false in light, not being able to make those subdivisions in the scale which are necessary to relative truth." This is not so. It is false in light so far as all art is false in light, but photography can make more subtle distinctions in the scale than any other known black and white method.

III. "It is false in perspective, and consequently in the proportions of forms." It is not. This remark convicts Mr. Hamertonof ignorance of optics and the proper use of photographic lenses. Vide Cap. II.

IV. "Its literalness, incapacity of selection, and emphasis, are antagonistic to the artistic spirit." Photography is not literal, as the flexible technique shows; it is capable of selection almost to any extent, though, of course, it is incapable of leaving out a tree, and putting in an imaginary man. What an incapacity for emphasis means, we neither know nor care to know.