Carleton Watkins: The Stanford Albums

[Gordon Coale]

This book arrived today. If you are a Carleton Watkins fanboy this is a must have. The prints are about 9 1/2 x 12 1/2 which means they are reduced to about 2/3s the size of the original prints. It's a shame it couldn't be full size but then I wouldn't be able to lift the book. Beautifully done with many essays. It's at a very reasonable price.

It's amazing what a master can do with wet plates and albumen prints.

[Darin Boville]

Heading to the show Thursday evening--my kids wanted to go so I held off going...will buy the book there if they have it. Can't wait...

--Darin

[richardman]

Note that they closed the Cantor museum book store a while ago. If the book is available at Stanford, you will have it get it from the University bookstore.

[Doug Howk]

Available at Stanford University Press (http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24627) or at the big online retailer for a few dollars less.

[Darin Boville]

Note that they closed the Cantor museum book store a while ago. If the book is available at Stanford, you will have it get it from the University bookstore.

Oh, right. I was at their closing sale....hmmmmm. Thanks. I'll try the University bookstore first.

--Darin

[tgtaylor]

Terrific exhibition - one not to be missed. You will be shocked at how good some of the prints are! In fact, I pushed Albumin printing forward on my agenda which makes sense since I have been making salt prints for the past several months or year now and have become proficient with the process.

The catalogue is sold at the Kiosk for $45 in the Cantor lobby (behind the info desk) 11-4PM only. The kiosk is not manned after 4pm. I don't think it is available at the bookstore but I didn't check. There are sample catalogues in the exhibit hall and frankly it doesn't compare with the prints and is not the same quality as the Charles Marville catalogue which I highly recommend.

Thomas

[Vaughn]

Just ordered it on-line. Hope to see the show!

[sanking]

Wish I could see this show. I saw a display of mammoth size albumen prints by Watkins at the Harry Ransom center at the UT Austin a number of years ago and was blown away by the quality and grandeur of the format. I think even a great catalog won't come close to doing this size justice.

Sandy

[Andrew O'Neill]

Is he the one that used that gigantic camera which took several people to operate, to shoot a train?

[tgtaylor]

No. His big camera was an 18x22" that he had specially made. He also used a stereographic camera. Came to SF in 1850 at 20 yrs of age and found employment in a photo studio where he apparently learned the trade. Opened his own studio 6 years later on Montgomery Street but didn't do portraits. He made ends meet by working commissions and selling his own prints in his studio. Fascinating individual well worth studying. The prints on display at the Cantor are truly magnificent.

Thomas

Thomas

[Darin Boville]

Show is very good. Never seen anything close to that many Watkins in one place. If you can't make it but the catalogue--inexpensive and good quality. Not as good as seeing the prints but it will get you 80% of the way there...$33...

http://www.amazon.com/Carleton-Watkins-The-Stanford-Albums/dp/0804792151

--Darin

[Jim Jones]

Thanks, all, for the heads up. This has become one of my favorite books on photography.

[Doug Howk]

Received my copy today and am very disappointed. All images look anemic and washed out rather than the warmtone of albumen prints - very poor reproductions. Thinking of returning the book.

[Darin Boville]

Received my copy today and am very disappointed. All images look anemic and washed out rather than the warmtone of albumen prints - very poor reproductions. Thinking of returning the book.

Look at the book's images in dimmer light, like you might find at a museum. Maybe not quite that dark.... They look great for a $33 book! Did you get a chance to see the show?

It would be interesting to compare the reproductions in the book directly with those at the Cantor. Maybe I'll lug this big book back on my next visit.

--Darin

[Doug Howk]

Thanks, Darin, for the suggestion of lowering the reading light level. It helped, so I'm keeping the book.

[ROL]

Thanks, Darin, for the suggestion of lowering the reading light level. It helped, so I'm keeping the book.

I wholeheartedly concur. Inspection of visual art is best done at light levels low enough that it cannot be seen.





:confused: …or was that just something mentioned about my work specifically? Oh well.

[Henry Yorke]

I received the Stanford Albums and the Charles Marville book that Thomas mentioned in the last couple of days - both are really, really worth having. As far the the Marville book goes, I struggled to find a decently priced copy - the copies on Amazon.com are going for over $150! I called the Met and was told that the book is being reprinted, but apparently just for the museum and nowhere else. It's supposed to show up again sometime this summer. If you want to get it now, Amazon.uk has a few copies at a reasonable price (that's where I got mine) but no other site seems to have it in stock. Thomas is right - it's an exquisite book about a photographer who should be way better known.

[Doug Howk]

I ordered the Charles Marville book directly from the publisher (U of Chicago Press). They are shipping it now. I did have an order with Amazon, but canceled it because I felt like they were giving me the Hatchette-style run around.

[Roger Thoms]

I just got home from the exhibit and must say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have seen a few Carleton Watkins prints in the past but never so many in one spot. The Canter did have a copy of the book at the exhipit and I felt the reproductions in the book compared favorably to the originals, especially considering the price and size of the book (11"x14" & 280 pg.), and the fact that it is hard bound. Let's face it, the book is $45.00 at the museum and just over $30.00 at Amazon so I wasn't expecting the finest print quality.

Roger

[tgtaylor]

Here is a photograph by Watkins that is not in the Stanford Albums:

116467

It's an albumin print of Mission San Carlos http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_San_Carlos_Borromeo_de_Carmelo taken in the 1870's I believe when the mission was in a state of disrepair.

Thomas

[Andrew O'Neill]

No. His big camera was an 18x22" that he had specially made. He also used a stereographic camera. Came to SF in 1850 at 20 yrs of age and found employment in a photo studio where he apparently learned the trade. Opened his own studio 6 years later on Montgomery Street but didn't do portraits. He made ends meet by working commissions and selling his own prints in his studio. Fascinating individual well worth studying. The prints on display at the Cantor are truly magnificent.

Thomas


http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.ca/2012/02/carleton-watkins.html

Scroll down a wee bit...

[Darin Boville]

http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.ca/2012/02/carleton-watkins.html

Scroll down a wee bit...

WOW. I'd never seen that last shot before. Thank you...

--Darin

[tgtaylor]

http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.ca/2012/02/carleton-watkins.html

Scroll down a wee bit...

I don't think that is his camera which looks a lot larger than 18x22 format.

Thomas

[dasBlute]

But that was *not* watkins camera, which makes me wonder if that is
actually Watkins in the smaller photo, very little provenance is given for
anything in the article... :(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._Lawrence
http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

[Vaughn]

A bad error on the part of the author. The large camera was made in 1900 by George R. Lawrence to photograph a steam engine and carriages. (4.5 feet x 8 foot negative). Watkins had nothing to do with it.

The image of Watkins being lead away I have seen reproduced as such many times.

[Andrew O'Neill]

And I see that the blogger has been corrected. Note to self: check more than one source.

[blueribbontea]

the blogger also claims Watkins invented the stereo camera! The whole thing smacks of make believe.

[Darin Boville]

The image of Watkins being lead away I have seen reproduced as such many times.

Funny, that's the first time I can remember having seen it. An amazing photo. I wonder what kind of camera *that* one was shot with. :)

--Darin

[BradS]

Went to see the exhibit today. Was a little overwhelmed by the size of the show....even with the comments here, I did not expect to see *that many* prints. I liked the photos from Oregon the best.

[David Schaller]

+1. I went today, and only had an hour and a half. There are so many prints! I had purchased the book, but the prints are truly exceptional. I was most impressed with Watkins's compositions in nearly every image, and the depth and separation of tones in the the lower zones. It is certainly worth the effort to go, if you are in he neighborhood. The museum was not crowded at all by my East Coast standards, so it was a very pleasant atmosphere.
Dave

[richardman]

Personally, I think artistically speaking, Watkins is somewhat lacking - but I blame it on the need to carry heavy plates and needing to coat them right then and there. That must limit his choice of views. I agree with the assessment that "Cape Horn" is the best work. Kind of gloomy though.

Stanford Cantor Museum is one of the best reasons to live close by :-)

[karl french]

I think you need to look again.

[Robert Opheim]

Watkins lived an amazing and difficult life - I wonderful read. My favorite books are: Charleton Watkins the art of perception - San Francisco Museum of Modern Art - Abrams 1999, and an wonderful book written by Terry Toedtemeier (who worked at the Portland Art Museum) and John Lauresen the book: Wild Beauty - photographs of the Columbia River Gorge, 1867-1957 - Oregon State University Press 2008. Sadly Terry died while promotion this book in a Hood River bookstore. There are a number of beautiful Watkins images in this book. Watkins mammoth plate images are unbelievable. Taken between 1865 or so and the 1980's they document much of California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Nevada......

[dasBlute]

It is an error, in my opinion, to view historical photographers [or artists] through the modern lens. Watkin's work is an interesting
blend of art and documentation. His conception of what he was doing and why, might indeed be far from what is accepted and taught
today as "Art".


Personally, I think artistically speaking, Watkins is somewhat lacking - but I blame it on the need to carry heavy plates and needing to coat them right then and there. That must limit his choice of views. I agree with the assessment that "Cape Horn" is the best work. Kind of gloomy though.

[richardman]

It is an error, in my opinion, to view historical photographers [or artists] through the modern lens. Watkin's work is an interesting
blend of art and documentation. His conception of what he was doing and why, might indeed be far from what is accepted and taught
today as "Art".

That's sort of my point, actually. By contemporary standards, especially after all the great ones that follow, some people, such as myself, may find Watkin's photos lacking. However, given the historical context, then it's very different. He was a true pioneer that few of us could aspire to become His technical printing skills were also excellent, as the photo where some studio got hold of his negs and printed them demonstrate: it was just not as good as Watkin's.

Of course, this is IMHO and I'm sure there are people who like Watkin, even without any historical context. YMMV etc. etc. Certainly not meaning to lessen Watkin's stature and impact.

[Robert Opheim]

The other point of what Watkins was doing was documenting. And the volume of his work was huge. The mammoth prints of the 1863 Yo-Semite survey were sent to Washington DC and went to be seen by then President Lincoln and Congress. They help persuade the Congress to pass legislation to preserve Yosemite Valley which was signed by President Lincoln. Much of what Watkins was doing was documenting the wondrous and wild West. In their day they were spectacular (they still are)! I was luck enough to acquire an 1868 mammoth print of Glacier Point in Yosemite some years ago. In 1864 Fredrick Law Olmstead consulted with Watkins, as to how to preserve Yosemite. Watkins joins the California State Geological Survey and packs 2,000 pounds of materials - enough for 100 mammoth images to photograph is Yosemite - by mule. Hand coating the emulsion on the glass and developing the plates in a tent. Then packing the developed plates over 18x22 inches to San Francisco to have albumen prints made from them. Watkins images win the Grand Prize at the Paris. In 1866 his work is published widely in the press (info from Peter Palmquest's wonderful Chronology at the back of Carelton Watkins the Art of Perception. Mr Palmquest is one of the great authorities on Carelton Watkins). Watkins goes broke and losses many of his earlier negatives in the bankruptcy in 1875 (Tabor gains ownership of Watkins earlier negatives). He travels and photographs extensively in the West, Arizona, California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Montana. In 1895-96 he is unable to pay rent and lives with his family in an abandoned railroad car for 18 months. After this period he is nearly blind - his prints are made by his son and Charles Beebe Turrill. In 1903-04 his photographs are exhibited at the Lewis and Clark Exposition - on behalf of the State of California. In 1905 the California State Library purchases some of his work. In 1906 he is wiped out by the San Fransisco Earthquake - where everything is destroyed. 1909 his is declared incompetent. 1910 he is committed to the Napa State Hospital for the insane. He dies in 1916. In this period of time in the west his contemporaries were documenting as well: Muybridge, Vroman, Sullivan, etc.