I just thought I'd congratulate Steve for this month's journal which I thought was a complete winner. The article on Don Worth, the Texas Tintypes, Ron Rosenstock's piece, Kerry Thalmann's 4x10 article, and the Irving Penn. I especially enjoyed Arne Croell's article on the Grandina Large Format lenses, which I thought was a masterpiece in any way. Packaging and page design outstanding as well.
Yeah, and the two articles on digital LF were good, too. Keep it up!
I thought that the most recent issue demonstrated major progress on the matter of careless proofreading and layout. Bravo to Steve. There were still a few errors (two that I saw in Steve's own article), but not nearly so many. I hope that we continue to see progess.
I noticed the inconsistency that commas and periods were placed inside of quotations marks, following American usage, except in Arne's article. But I'm not sure that it's really a problem if the European practice is left unchanged in articles by European authors. Another thing for Steve to think about is the usage of underlining vs. italics. I've always thought of underlining as a compromise measure followed in the olden days when we were using typewriters, and italics were not available. I would use underlining very sparingly in a printed magazine, if at all.
Of course, "Voightlander" is still there in the Lens & Repro advertisement, but after all these years of seeing that dumb mistake, I am starting to feel some affection toward it.
As for content, my favorite articles are usually those by Kerry Thalmann, but this time I would give him second place after Arne Croell's fascinating article. I'm a sucker for lens articles, I guess.But I thought that the whole issue was a success. Keep up the good work Steve, and keep working on the proofreading issues. The progess is obvious, and I think that the large format community likes to be able to take pride in "their" magazine.
If I had a choice between a thoughful and interesting magazine covering Large Format photography or a copy of Pedantic Proofreader's Periodical, I know which one I'd go for.
"If I had a choice between a thoughful and interesting magazine covering Large Format photography or a copy of Pedantic Proofreader's Periodical, I know which one I'd go for."
Why in the world should one have to choose between good content and competent editing? I don't see why we can't have both, and it looks as if _View Camera_ is getting there. I can only repeat my congratulations to Steve.
I tend to get a bunch of different subscriptions to magazines for all my various hobbies, and View Camera is the one that I have consistently renewed over the years. I actually have purchased back issues through Steve in the past. This months issue contains many articles that I want to continue to read, especially the tintype article.
As for the proofreading, this magazine is much better about proofreading than the others that I recieve, and I just don't feel the need to care too much about it. If I did care about it I know that I will only have to loose sleep for a couple of months till the next one comes out. If the articles are about something substansive and the magazine has a variation of the subject that the articles are about, I will keep buying and enjoying it.
Well I guess it is about time I subscribe to this wonderful publication! I know I will become obsessed with collecting every issue. When did "View Camera" start? Are the early issues hard to find? Here I go again.....
JP,
Steve may have back issues available for sale. Otherwise, I see them on EBay quite often....just try not to outbid me ok? ;-)
I just thought I'd congratulate Steve for this month's journal which I thought was a complete winner. The article on Don Worth, the Texas Tintypes, Ron Rosenstock's piece, Kerry Thalmann's 4x10 article, and the Irving Penn. I especially enjoyed Arne Croell's article on the Grandina Large Format lenses, which I thought was a masterpiece in any way. Packaging and page design outstanding as well.
Tom,
I'm glad you enjoyed the issue. I hesitated to respond to this thread. As a regular contributor to View Camera, my opinions certainly do not come without bias. However, I've been a View Camera reader a LOT long than I've been a contributor. So, I still always look forward to each issue and I also found this one to be one of my favorites - and not just because I finally got around to finishing my 4x10 article (that I've been working on for over two years).
As for content, my favorite articles are usually those by Kerry Thalmann, but this time I would give him second place after Arne Croell's fascinating article. I'm a sucker for lens articles, I guess.
Charles,
I'm in complete agreement with you on this one. While I have a strong emotional attachment to the 4x10 article, I was also blown away by Arne's article on the Grandina lenses. One very rare occasion, I'd see these little-known lenses pop up on eBay - with Arne always the lucky high bidder. As a bit of a lens buff myself, I was fascinated to learn the history behind these rare lenses. To think, the only thing that really kept them off the market was the availability of the shutters. They were certainly far ahead of their time and would have rivaled or exceeded anything else available at the time (and for several years thereafter). Bummer they never made it to market. It certainly would have altered the LF lens market, and it would have been interesting to see how the other lens manufacturers would have responded. Not only was the story extremely interesting, but the article was very well written and obviously well researched. Big kudos to Arne.
Kerry
Thanks everybody for those kind words. I am glad people enjoyed the article, as I enjoyed the research. I have to say that I would give the kudos to Zeiss Jena for making their archive publicly available and now having an online catalog going back to the beginning of the company. Without that, I would not have been able to find that information. Just imagine having the archives of all the other lens companies available like this......
Following the publication of the article, some interesting additional information about these lenses has been sent to me by David Lindquist. He found that all the lenses were listed in a 1979 industrial photography supply house catalog that he kept (Thanks, David!).
He wrote: "All five lenses are listed as available in either a No. 1 Copal or a No. 1 Copal Electric shutter. Smallest aperture is not given. Though the table listing these lenses has a column for film size covered at maximum aperture at infinity, that information is left blank for these lenses." .... "Prices mounted in a Copal No. 1 were: 135mm Biometar: $325.00 210mm Biometar: $475.00 65mm Lamegon: $795.00 90mm Lamegon: $975.00 270mm Tessar: $295.00 In all cases the Electric Copal No. 1 was $50.00 more. By way of comparison, this same catalogue lists the 65mm f/5.6 Super Angulon in a No. 0 Copal for $910.00 and the 90mm f/5.6 Super Angulon, also in a No. 0 Copal, for $1200.00. Both these lenses were multicoated." (End quote)
That time frame is consistent with the serial number of the one 90mm Lamegon in Copal electric that I found. But still, those Copal versions must have been super rare, just judging from the used market. Has anybody else ever seen one?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks