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

[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/galle...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/volu...=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=archphotofisher;1651356]

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...ographers.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.