Timothy O'Sullivan's Camera

[Richard K.]

I read somewhere (maybe even here but I can't find it) that Timothy O'Sullivan used, among others, a 10x12 camera. Can someone confirm this and quote the source? I once (when I was young - in my 50s) planned on travelling Canada coast to coast with a 18x22 to do a Carleton Watkins thing but now realize that that is no longer feasible for me. OTOH, I think I can handle the light-weight 10x12 Chamonix I have on order and mount the 10x12 Pt/Pd prints on 18x22 board. Not quite the same thing, I know...:) I don't need to channel Timothy but it's nice to have the communion. Thanks for any information. Any other photographers used 10x12?

[cowanw]

adrian tyler in
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=36061

has a copy of "the photographic artifacts of timothy o'sullivan" by rick dingus. Perhaps that book has your answer.
Eastman house has prints 8X11 inches or smaller.

[Scott Davis]

IIRC there were a number of 10x12 prints in the Timothy O'Sullivan show that was in DC last year.

[BarryS]

Yes, that's right--The bulk of the prints in the extensive O'Sullivan exhibition were 10x12 albumen contact prints from wet plate negatives. His early survey work was a little smaller, either 8x10 or something close. I think 10 x 12 prints are a very satisfying size for landscapes--just large enough that details can be examined without straining your eyes.

[Richard K.]

IIRC there were a number of 10x12 prints in the Timothy O'Sullivan show that was in DC last year.

Ah! THAT'S where I got the idea, thanks!

[Richard K.]

Y I think 10 x 12 prints are a very satisfying size for landscapes--just large enough that details can be examined without straining your eyes.

My thinking exactly. The fact that that is now pretty much the largest format I can manage is just serendipity... :D

[cowanw]

I just found this
http://iphf.org/Hall_Of_Fame/Inducties_Bios/Timothy_H_OSullivan_Bio.html