What Lens(es) Did Watkins, O'Sullivan Use?

[Richard K.]

Does any forumite know, perchance, what lenses and what format cameras Timothy O'Sullivan and Carleton Watkins used in their fine Western photographs?

[Don7x17]

Does any forumite know, perchance, what lenses and what format cameras Timothy O'Sullivan and Carleton Watkins used in their fine Western photographs?

Watkins used several formats -- Mammoth Plate(18x22), 14x21 inch, Imperial(9x13), 8x10, whole-plate and stereo images all exist. Watkins is known to have used a Grubb-C lens, Harrison & Schnitzer American Globe lens, and had a Dallmayer later (not soft focus). see http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/3633920

[Monty McCutchen]

If the Watkins show at the Getty was any indication of truth then he definitely had a least one Petzval that would cover his 18 x 22 on display as it was mounted with a Dallmeyer 8D (at least its my understanding the 8D is a petzval--maybe some of the gurus can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong). The term HUGE comes to mind. I've been lusting after it ever since for my 20 x 24 but evidently hens teeth are easier to come by.

Monty

don't know other than that what else he shot with.

[Bill_1856]

Probably:
http://www.engr.udayton.edu/faculty/...pid/rapid.html

[Don7x17]

If the Watkins show at the Getty was any indication of truth then he definitely had a least one Petzval that would cover his 18 x 22 on display as it was mounted with a Dallmeyer 8D (at least its my understanding the 8D is a petzval--maybe some of the gurus can chime in and correct me if I'm wrong). The term HUGE comes to mind. I've been lusting after it ever since for my 20 x 24 but evidently hens teeth are easier to come by.

Monty

don't know other than that what else he shot with.

Monty
Did the Getty exhibit explicitly say the camera and lens were from Watkins? (Weston Naef would know). If so, this is excellent news. In private discussions with Peter Palmquist in 1997, he told me that all of Watkin's equipment had been destroyed in the earthquake/fire of 1906. That would mean that the camera had provenance from the earlier bankruptcy to Taber?

Exhibitions at San Francisco in the 1990's and from Portland (Oregon) last winter, both had cameras/lenses that were "of the period" as examples.

Best regards
Don

[Monty McCutchen]

Hi Don,

It was my understanding that it was his camera and lens, but let me be clear about some things that may have led to mistakes on my part--

I shoot wet plate and i shoot a 20 x 24 camera. I was pretty excited that day to be seeing work from a master that used similar materials so incredibly well while I bumble around with the same materials, and was more or less soaking it all in, emotional ether fumes if you will. I very well could have missed the period piece notation. I left believing that was his camera and lens though and since I had been looking for an 8D for quite some time it was cool to see such a monster in person.

I would now of course love to know myself! I'll look into this and if I get any news I'll repost.

Thanks for posting your understanding of the situation

Monty

[Tracy Storer]

Re: the camera on display at the Getty....The very same camera was on display during another show a couple years ago, the "Genius of Photography" or someething like that curated/assembled by Naef.
I don't think it is Watkins camera, but I will also do a little homework.

[Ernest Purdum]

A Dallmeyer 8D was a 37" f6, the largest of the type. It was rated for 21" X 22" plates. It was seriously expensive, $444.00 with Waterhouse stops. $464.00 with an iris diaphragm. This at a time when an 8" X 10" Century No.2 View cost $26.00. Some of the expense could be related to the fact that the lens was 6" in diameter.

[Kerik Kouklis]

I was told at the Getty exhibit that the camera and lens were from their collection and did not belong to Watkins. I asked if I could borrow it and they said no for some reason...