Which lenses did Carleton Watkins use in 1861 for his mammoth plate camera

[pgk]

I'm currently researching a number of photographers and trying to tie them into to the existent optical technology of their time. Whilst this question has been asked before, I'm interested in what lenses were used for the early 1861ish mammoth images, as some of the lenses that I've seen attributed to Carleton Watkins use were almost certainly not available for his first trip into Yosemite. So what was he using to cover this large format? If anyone can help a source of the information would be really helpful. Thanks.

[Greg]

https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2008/10/carleton-watkin.html

[jp]

Perhaps Emil Schildt's ash tray? (8:44)


https://youtu.be/W6PYiWxod9w?t=524

[Greg]

"a Grubb-C Landscape Lens, (a 15-inch achromatic doublet rated for 8x10 to 10x12),
a Harrison & Schnitzer 16-inch Globe lens, (rated for 19x23),
and an unknown Dallmeyer."

from the thread at
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?139981-Carlton-Watkins-Equipmwnt-and-In-General

[pgk]

Yes, but. the Harrison and Schnitzer wasn't patented until 1862 and Dallmeyer only started making lenses in late 1860 (mostly stereo from what I can find out so far and his Triple Achromat seems to have been produced in 1861 so was unlikely to have been available to take to California immediately). The Grubb I do know about and this was available from 1858, but was only intended for up to 10" x 8" lens although it could be used at 12" x 10". Which seems to leave a gap in the lenses used in Yosemite in 1861.

[Scyg]

It wouldn't surprise me if these were custom-made lenses with no patent or brand name.

[pgk]

The problem from my point of view is that there is information which mentions specific lenses but I find it difficult to find any confirmation of any claims. My interest is trying to see how technology drove the imagery and its very difficult to link specific innovation in lens technology to specific imagery.

[archphotofisher]

The last book that was written about Carleton Watkins the plate size was mention to be 18" x 22", a camera he built himself, otherwise, I saw no other comments about equipment throughout the book.

"Making the West by Tyler Green"

Find your research a good one to pursue.

[Drew Wiley]

Whatever lens it was for 18x22, it was poorly correctly toward the corners, just as one would expect during that era.

[cowanw]

I also think your project of linking lens technology to imagery an excellent idea. You might want to find the lens, then the photographer and then look for images. Good luck!

[Two23]

You may only be able to determine lens type by studying the images. My guess is he used standard achromatic doublets.


Kent in SD

[pgk]

Well, sometimes the photographer was very helpful. Samuel Bourne of Simla shot snowscapes in the Himalayas in 1865, and at 18,600 feet (highest altitude for photography at the time) and noted in his articles of the time that he used a Grubb C lens to do so. He also had a Grubb A0 and a Dallmeyer Triple Achromat. So he was using very recent (1857 & 1861) 'landscape' lenses and he went on to explain that the Grubb C could be used to cover 12" x 10" rather than 10" x 8" which it was specified for, and this is why he chose it. Grubb lenses were available in Allahabad. So it all works together well. And FWIW he recounted a tale of meeting a photographic Rajah whose marvellous collection of equipment looked unused - so gear heads have been around since photography began too! This all illustrates that like today, the latest equipment was bought and used to try new things and produce new images. Carleton Watkins is supposed to have used a Grubb C lens too but I can't actually tie this down to any specific reference as yet and this is what I would like to do, and also find out what other lenses he was using. This is, sort of, my starting point.

[Mark Sawyer]

The only mammoth plate lens Watkins is ever known to have used is the 16-inch Harrison & Schnitzer Globe Lens. Here it is on Watkins camera in Yosemite. The British patent for the Globe Lens is dated 1860, so the lens was available by the time of Watkins 1861 Yosemite trip.

BTW, the image of the Mammoth Plate camera in a museum display is a modern reproduction with a lens that, though perhaps period-correct, almost certainly wasn't used by Watkins.

[goamules]

Many Americans and British daguerreotype then wetplate photographers used French landscape lenses. Typically Hermagis or Jamin pillbox types, they were common for more than a decade before the Globe came out. I imagine that Watkins started out, or was at least familiar, with those before the Globe was invented. But like people said above, he's known for a Harrison Globe for his big plates.

Lenses like this would have been used prior to the Dallmeyer Wide Angle Rectilinear, Triple Achromat, and the Globe.

https://apenasimagens.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/hermagis_landscape_front_in_board.jpg

[goamules]

I've asked a few Watkins scholars I know if they know what lens he used in 1861 on mammoth plates. There was a lot of discussion and inputs on the old Civil War collodion forum, now gone. Even the more active forum that replaced it, Quinn's Collodion.com that I moderated, closed last week for good. All that great info and scholarship and help files....gone. Here is a print from an 1861 plate he did.

http://www.carletonwatkins.org/views/mammoth/06205301_JPGM_84.XM.493.17.jpg

[Drew Wiley]

My garsh, Garrett, I was just looking at two of my own 8x10 negs of that same tree yesterday! It's not far from my hometown area. Never knew he was there, but within 20 yrs a logging rail was in there cutting down almost every big tree except that one (nobody had a saw long enough), so it wasn't exactly a secret place. He would have encountered the trail into that grove when heading into Yosemite on the route from the south, so it makes sense, really. It's the biggest tree in the world according to Forest Service rules, which are based upon girth at eight feet above ground. But Park Service rules are based on cumulative board footage, limbs n all, which makes the General Sherman tree in Sequoia NP the world's biggest in their eyes. An even bigger one was cut down in Sequoia and the stump turned into a dance platform. Watkins had to deal with almost exactly the same background clutter I did. I recognize specific trees. And even a big chunk of the same fallen foreground limb remains. My own compositions were vertical, but I cheated with a generous dose of red dye on the neg to block out the distracting background. It's been about 15 yrs since I last printed it. My babysitter as an infant went into Yos Valley that direction as little girl not long after that shot was taken. I was too young to remember her stories, but my parents did, and her daughter, already elderly woman herself, told them to me when I watered her garden as a kid. Indians resident in the Valley were still unclothed, and obviously not driven out yet. I've seen ambrotypes. But Yos Indians were Sierra Miwok, and that particular Sequoia grove was in Paiute-descent Monache territory, who weren't always kind to the Miwoks. Somewhere in the family collection there is also a pile of Watkins stereo prints of Yosemite, but those aren't regarded as highly collectible like the big individual prints. He mass marketed those.

[Two23]

Looks like a copy of that photo is for sale on ebay for $515.


Kent in SD

[archphotofisher]

If you haven't read this book "Making the West" and like Carleton's work and want to understand where he has photographed don't hesitate to buy it. It not only open my mind to ultra formats but gave me an understanding of what type of life my great grandparents and grandparents' environment was, as they grew up in the bay area at that time.

I wouldn't have found this book if i hadn't read a post on this forum where the fellow member talked about the book.

Gregory

[Drew Wiley]

I had that book once. It didn't impress me as having much insight into his mode of perception or composition, but did provide historical context. It wasn't truly the frontier anymore. He was primarily sponsored by the railroads for sake of fostering Western tourism business. His life is pretty well known here in the Bay Area due to his tragic encounter with SF earthquake of 1906, which destroyed most of his print inventory and sent him to an insane asylum. The best early Calif photographic collection is housed by the Oakland Museum.

[pgk]

Fascinating. Looks like I need to do more digging. And FWIW one of the things I have found out is that patent law in Britain changed in 1852 making it easier to patent inventions. I suspect that this has a bearing on the 1860 patent in Britain of the Globe lens. But I am still looking for confirmation of the other lenses Carleton used in Yosemite in the early 1860s.

Having had a look at the formats he used I can see that he shot on his mammoth camera, stereo camera and also produced some ~12" x 8" prints. Plus some smaller prints. Working backwards it seems to me that the mammoth would have used the Globe lens, then the 12" x 8" could have been from the Grubb 'C' which covered this, and smaller prints might just have been from using a stereo lens with better coverage than needed. Unfortunately photos have missing dates and so its like trying to decipher a code by looking for clues here and there. We all take for granted that travelling into Yosemite with a ton weight of gear was exceptionally difficult, but finding out just what that gear was is proving difficult.

If I can add in another query, the Grubb C lens is pillbox style like the Hermagis in post 14, but I've seen some with a reduced length tube where the washer stops are placed. Using the lens with the stop in its rearmost position and with a reduced tube sticking out in front probably increased its angle of view and coverage. I wonder just what coverage it might have been capable of with a small stop?

Finally found a reference: Tyler Green “Carleton Watkins Making the West American” Chapter 5 Page 85 mentions ‘cutting edge Grubb-C lens” for his 1861 trip into Yosemite.

Another reference is from a letter to editor Wilson in which Watkins says 'most' of the mammoth prints were from a Globe lens, but implying not all. I wonder which others?

[goamules]

My garsh, Garrett, I was just looking at two of my own 8x10 negs of that same tree yesterday! It's not far from my hometown area. Never knew he was there, but within 20 yrs a logging rail was in there cutting down almost every big tree except that one (nobody had a saw long enough), so it wasn't exactly a secret place. He would have encountered the trail into that grove when heading into Yosemite on the route from the south, so it makes sense, really. It's the biggest tree in the world according to Forest Service rules, which are based upon girth at eight feet above ground. But Park Service rules are based on cumulative board footage, limbs n all, which makes the General Sherman tree in Sequoia NP the world's biggest in their eyes. An even bigger one was cut down in Sequoia and the stump turned into a dance platform. Watkins had to deal with almost exactly the same background clutter I did. I recognize specific trees. And even a big chunk of the same fallen foreground limb remains. My own compositions were vertical, but I cheated with a generous dose of red dye on the neg to block out the distracting background. It's been about 15 yrs since I last printed it. My babysitter as an infant went into Yos Valley that direction as little girl not long after that shot was taken. I was too young to remember her stories, but my parents did, and her daughter, already elderly woman herself, told them to me when I watered her garden as a kid. Indians resident in the Valley were still unclothed, and obviously not driven out yet. I've seen ambrotypes. But Yos Indians were Sierra Miwok, and that particular Sequoia grove was in Paiute-descent Monache territory, who weren't always kind to the Miwoks. Somewhere in the family collection there is also a pile of Watkins stereo prints of Yosemite, but those aren't regarded as highly collectible like the big individual prints. He mass marketed those.

That is very cool Drew, thanks for the info. I know a guy that loved Watkins, and started wetplate before many others had resurrected it in recent times. Bob Szabo, shot some plates at that tree too. He's one of the guys that would know what lens Watkins used....I asked one other guy first, I can't find his email any more. He used to run a big CW tintype forum, that got me turned onto learning wetplate, and in turn....large format.

PGK, I'm sure you've been here: http://www.carletonwatkins.org/gallery_display.php?keyword=101&smode=OR&tmrg=n&p=3&s=50&c=25&v=list

I think there are a couple Grubb experts on this forum. I know one has one in mammoth size.

[pgk]

In case anyone is interested, there is a contemporary report (August 15th 1863) on the Globe lens here: https://archive.rps.org/archive/volume-8/724646-volume-8-page-169?q=Grubb%20globe (and complete with sticky tape repairs!)

[pgk]

Just reviving this thread. Having tried and failed to pin down exactly where the information about Carleton Watkins using a Grubb C lens comes from, I'm wondering two things.

1. Did he actually use a Grubb lens, and, if so
2. Could there have been a transcription error and could he have used either a Grubb F or G lens rather than C, both of which would have covered his "Mammoth' plates?

I suspect that there is the possibility of checking this because the angle of view of each lens can be ascertained and any comparison with the views today (where possible) would help decide which was the best fit.

[archphotofisher]

[QUOTE=pgk;1552534]

Finally found a reference: Tyler Green “Carleton Watkins Making the West American” Chapter 5 Page 85 mentions ‘cutting edge Grubb-C lens” for his 1861 trip into Yosemite.


found this back on page two.

[pgk]

I have the book. There is no indication about where this information came from though. As it can't just have appeared, there must be a source and this is what I am trying to find. And why single out the Grubb as being 'cutting edge'? The H&S Globe lens was equally 'cutting edge' and if he had used the American Globe lens for the 'Mammoth' camera then this would have been a big deal at the time (even then people already knew the value of marketing based on well-known or promotable photographers). I'm shifting towards the view that it might just be that a Grubb G lens may have been used on the "Mammoth' in 1861/2 and the Globe was obtained later. Both were 'widish-angle' lenses, both gave enough coverage. I'd be interested in any views on this suggestion.

[Jim Noel]

[QUOTE=pgk;1552534]

Finally found a reference: Tyler Green “Carleton Watkins Making the West American” Chapter 5 Page 85 mentions ‘cutting edge Grubb-C lens” for his 1861 trip into Yosemite.


found this back on page two.

I can verify that statement. the complete sentence is, "In addition to the usual costs of a trip to the valley, Watkins spent plenty of god coin on photographic materials, a cutting edge Grubb-C lens, provisions and pay for his assistants."
I have found no other mentions of this or any other lens.

[Mark Sawyer]

The Grubb C lens was a 15-inch focal length meant for 8x10 to 10x12. It would not have covered anywhere near the 18x22-inch mammoth plates. Watkins generally travelled with multiple formats. The 16-inch Globe lens is the only known lens he had for mammoth plate.

[pgk]

That's all good information but does anyone have any source references?

[Mark Sawyer]

That's all good information but does anyone have any source references?

Post 13 in this thread shows Watkins' mammoth camera in Yosemite, with what is unmistakably a Globe lens. Photo from:

http://www.undiscovered-yosemite.com/yosemite-photographers.html

If you google "Carleton Watkins, Globe Lens", you'll find lots of references.

[pgk]

Thanks. Yes, but no firm evidence of dates. I've done enough research to know that you never assume things. If in doubt check and check again. Most of the 12" x 10" photos by Watkins, when dated, are later than his first expedition into Yosemite, which is the one I'm trying to look into.

[Mark Sampson]

Since Mr. Watkins' studio, containing most of his photographs (and presumably records) was destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, you may have great difficulty finding much more information.
Curses and imprecations upon all authors who fail to properly footnote, and do not provide proper references!
We'll never know what f/stop he used either, more's the pity.;)

[pgk]

Curses and imprecations upon all authors who fail to properly footnote, and do not provide proper references!
We'll never know what f/stop he used either, more's the pity.;)
Creating metadata the old way was time consuming and apart from location and photographer, often deemed irrelevant!

Very occasionally I have come across an absolute confirmation about a specific lens being used for a specific photo - both Frances Bedford (who also said that his 5/8" stop was best for this photo :)) and Samuel Bourne have actually stated that they used a Grubb C lens for specific and identifiable images which still exist. I have gleaned this from digitised copies of the contemorary British photographic press and I was hopeful that the USA press of the time might just have a reference or two about Carleton. I am aware that he used a Globe lens but not from when and it is the tracking down of the source of the suggestion that he used a Grubb C lens which is proving difficult.