PDA

View Full Version : What kind of movements did Sullivan - Jackson - Watkins, etc. have ca. 1870-90s?



Frank Petronio
4-Apr-2009, 23:19
Where they geared asymmetrical or just the friction Orbix?

Seriously, I figure they probably had front rise but I am thinking that is all they had. Anyone know?

When I think about their pictures you don't see a lot of sharp foreground (I think).

I don't really see a lot of movements coming to cameras until the early 1900s but perhaps I am mistaken....

When did the concept of tilt & swings even originate? Was it all due to Dr. Schwempfuphizxdth (I can't spell it anyway)? Or did practical photographers figure it out on their own and it took an academic to "invent" it?

Pete Watkins
5-Apr-2009, 00:56
Frank,
I'm not going back as far as you want but in the Anthony catalogue from1891 they were producing cameras with front rise and what looks like rear tilt (the Anthony Compact camera). In England in 1888 Thornton-Pickard were producing the Tourist model with rear tilt. The Cyclum model was described in an advertisement in The Year Book of Photography for 1888 as having "swing back, swing front rising and falling front and a reversing back". Looking at the not very good drawing that I have of this camera I think that they mean tilting back and front and not swing.
Best wishes,
Pete.

Peter K
5-Apr-2009, 01:23
The first camera on optical bench was buildt by Petzval in the 1850ies. But the concept of tilt & swing was invented for photogrammetry and aerial photography to get correct projections for maps and reconnaisance. So the austrian captain Theodor Scheimpflug invented the double projector to measure stereo pictures, also to get maps for reconnaisance.

Scheimpflug made also most of the early maths to correct the distortion of arial photographs. But I don't know when this was transfered to "practical" photography. Because all this tilt and swing for aerial photography was made not with the camera but with projectors and enlargers.

Of course photogrammetry was improved during time to get easier and also better maps. But as I know the next step for "practical" photography was the invention of the back movement for the "Technika" camera by N. Karpf in 1937.

As lenses with bigger image circles where aviable cameras with an optical bench where buildt by Koch in Switzerland (Sinar), Karpf in Germany (Kardan) and Calumet (Kodak View Cameras).

Gene McCluney
5-Apr-2009, 01:56
The earliest wet-plate photographers did not have lenses with wide enough coverage to use much if any movement, tilt, shift. They also had to shoot wide-open or close to wide open to get enough exposure for reasonably short exposures.

Miguel Curbelo
5-Apr-2009, 02:07
My Sands Hunter (12x15") dates from the 1890s and has front rise/fall and rear tilt and swing.

GPS
5-Apr-2009, 02:46
The first camera on optical bench was buildt by Petzval in the 1850ies. But the concept of tilt & swing was invented for photogrammetry and aerial photography to get correct projections for maps and reconnaisance. So the austrian captain Theodor Scheimpflug invented the double projector to measure stereo pictures, also to get maps for reconnaisance.

Scheimpflug made also most of the early maths to correct the distortion of arial photographs. But I don't know when this was transfered to "practical" photography. Because all this tilt and swing for aerial photography was made not with the camera but with projectors and enlargers.

Of course photogrammetry was improved during time to get easier and also better maps. But as I know the next step for "practical" photography was the invention of the back movement for the "Technika" camera by N. Karpf in 1937.

As lenses with bigger image circles where aviable cameras with an optical bench where buildt by Koch in Switzerland (Sinar), Karpf in Germany (Kardan) and Calumet (Kodak View Cameras).

The OP questions were already discussed in a different thread.
Unfortunately Peter, many of your statements are wrong. Tilts and swings has never been "invented", only empirically discovered with the first loupe - so far back in history that we don't even know when. The first optics authors describing rays behavior were aware of them too.
Primitive optical benches were needed to discover and examine the first optical laws.
Back movements were not used (let alone "invented") for the first time in a Technica camera either, old wooden cameras used them too,.. etc. Cheers!

Frank Petronio
5-Apr-2009, 06:24
I searched but couldn't find it. But the search on the forums is pretty lame.

OK, but when Watkins was making a 20x24 glass plate for the railroad, do you think he had a tilting capability? (front or back)

BrianShaw
5-Apr-2009, 08:02
Frank. A Watkins exhibit recently closed at the Getty Museum. I never made a visit but a friend gave me the brochure. It talks about his negs and prints but no details fo the camera. I recall, however, my buddy telling me that they had one of his camera there. Perhaps it is true; perhaps not... my buddy is a bit senile, as might I be. Perhaps you can contact Getty for an answer to your question.

Oren Grad
5-Apr-2009, 08:09
A quick glance at the indispensable Field Cameras of the United States (http://www.fiberq.com/cam/) site shows that some American field cameras were offering both rear swing and rear tilt by the late 1880s.

Kirk Keyes
5-Apr-2009, 08:17
Certainly by the late 1880s what we would call a field camera had appeared - see this one from 1888:
http://www.photographica.nu/und231.htm

I've looked into some books from the 1870s and they are using simple box cameras at that time.

OK - how about this:
US Patent number: 210445
Filing date: May 2, 1878
Issue date: Dec 3, 1878

"My invention relates to an improvement in photographic cameras; and it consists in the arrangemcnt and combination of parts whereby the ground-glass frame can be adjusted back and forth, tilted backward and forward, and moved around from side to side, as will be more fully described hereinafter."

BrianShaw
5-Apr-2009, 08:20
It looks to me like he had no movements at all:

http://enticingthelight.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/carleton-watkins-at-the-getty-museum/

This is reported to be his actual camera (by my buddy)... or maybe it is really just one that "is like the one he may have used". See the second picture in the article.

or these views:

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

"Watkins also was mechanically innovative. To make photographs he felt were deserving of the grand scale of his subjects, he designed a special camera to hold 21" x 18" glass negatives." http://www.tfaoi.org/aa/1aa/1aa81.htm

"He had a San Francisco cabinet maker create a camera capable of accommodating glass plates as large as 18 inches by 22 inches. The amazingly detailed photographs made with the unique "mammoth plate" camera brought Watkins international renown." http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2008/11/photography_of_carleton_watkin_1.php

Kirk Keyes
5-Apr-2009, 08:27
From the site Oren linked to:
http://www.fiberq.com/cam/scovill/acme.htm manufactuered from c. 1878 until the mid 1880s.

By the way, we could be using "Bergstresser" instead of Scheimpflug if the name of the guy that had the patent I listed above had stuck...

Oren Grad
5-Apr-2009, 08:31
OK - how about this:
US Patent number: 210445
Filing date: May 2, 1878
Issue date: Dec 3, 1878

"My invention relates to an improvement in photographic cameras; and it consists in the arrangemcnt and combination of parts whereby the ground-glass frame can be adjusted back and forth, tilted backward and forward, and moved around from side to side, as will be more fully described hereinafter."

Thanks, Kirk - that's very cool. You can see the patent itself through the search engine at the USPTO. Because it's a very old one, they have images only, not full text, so you need to have a TIFF viewer plug-in to see it. USPTO has a link for download of a free TIFF viewer if you need it.

Kirk Keyes
5-Apr-2009, 08:44
Oh, right, I forgot to link to it:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=aqRLAAAAEBAJ&dq=210445

You can download a pdf from google as well. If you have the full version of Acrobat, you OCR the pdf.

Oren Grad
5-Apr-2009, 08:48
Here we are, with a bit of help from Photoshop:

GPS
5-Apr-2009, 09:01
I searched but couldn't find it. But the search on the forums is pretty lame.

...

I agree Frank, it's almost painful to use it...

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
5-Apr-2009, 09:26
A quick glance at the Eastman House technology exhibit shows front rise in 1864...

http://www.geh.org/fm/toronto/htmlsrc/mR85400001_ful.html#topofimage

Interestingly, this came two years before the invention of the Rapid Rectilinear, the first lens which had the larger image circle and reduced coma to take advantage of rise.

Brian Ellis
5-Apr-2009, 10:03
The Oregon Historical Society based in Portland has (or maybe had) an exhibit of his work in the Columbia River Gorge and compiled a program about it that's been shown on PBS (or maybe just OPB) several times. I attended a travelling program presented by one of the staff who talked a lot about his work and showed slides (yes, they actually still used slides, I guess that's because they're a historical society) of his work. Watkins actually did a lot of work with a stereo camera, which obviously had no movements. His other camera, IIRC, for the Columbia River Gorge work was something like an 11x14 wet plate. They showed pictures of it and it looked pretty primitive to me as far as movements go. I don't know for sure but I doubt that it had front tilts or swings, probably just rise and fall on front. There are several participants here who live in Portland and probably are more familiar with the exhibit and program than I am who might be able to shed more light on his equipment.

Mark Woods
5-Apr-2009, 10:33
Weston Naef (past curator of Photography for the Getty) visited AFI last Thursday and presented a lecture on Carlton Watkins and Eduard Muybridge. I've uploaded an image of him standing next to a replica camera that Watkins used. I did see the show and it was quite amazing. I appreciate it more since I heard Mr. Naef's lecture.

Mark Woods
5-Apr-2009, 10:35
BTW, the camera's wet plate was 22"x17" if I remember correctly. The camera is HUGE.

Kirk Keyes
5-Apr-2009, 15:37
Nice shot, Mark!

Brian, I went to the Oregon Art Musuem show on the Columbia Gorge and they did have a camera there to represent Watkins camera, but I got the impression it wasn't a reproduction, so I didn't pay much attention to it...

While Watkins was a woodworker before a photographer, and I think he made his own mammoth camera, I get the impression it was pretty much a box camera modified to use a bellows. So no tilts on his work, at least with the mammoth camera. No ideas about Jackson and Sullivan, but I think the answer is the same.

I think tilts were used to maintain geometric perspective, and not increase depth of field in those days.

Mark Woods
5-Apr-2009, 15:57
I think you're right. I didn't know Watkins was a wood worker before he took up photography.

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
5-Apr-2009, 17:57
The camera which they had at the Portland Museum of Art's show on the Columbia Gorge was not an original, but the work camera of a current wet plate photographer, whose name I can't remember. I can't recall the size (14x17 maybe?) but it had an appropriate Rapid Rectilinear on it and a 42cm Heliar next to it, which wouldn't cover the format, and certainly was not not period.

Frank Petronio
5-Apr-2009, 20:01
The original inspiration for my question came after reading about some guy fretting about whether his camera had enough movements, whether the $$$ Asym Ebony was worth it, etc. and it made me think, wait, all those 19th-Century guys didn't even apply tilts and swings on purpose, even on those giant cameras!

I can't even imagine the hardships those photographers must have had in the mountains and deserts.

Drew Wiley
5-Apr-2009, 22:50
The Oakland Museum has a considerable collection of prints from Watkins' 18x22
camera. It is possible that for some images he used a board with the lens mounted above center, in lieu of rise. But I don't know if there's any firm documentation for
this possibility. His lens barely covered the corners even at the extremely small
stops he must have been using, so just how much more could have been hypothetically squeezed out is in doubt. His stero images are much more common.