[MF3D.FORUM:97] Re: Watkins Exhibit Review

[Dave Williams <davidrw@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Brian,

Nice report! Wish I could see the exhibit.

I've never been one to downplay 2d photos in favor of 3d.  I do both,
and love both.  And you're right, there are some well done black and
white prints that almost look 3d with their depth and brilliance.

Curious, what is the "pure silver" list you mentioned?  I may want to
subscribe.

Thanks again,

Dave Williams

Brian Reynolds wrote:
> 
> This is a slightly edited article (changes in {} braces) that I posted
> to the pure-silver list (a list for B&W photographers and printers).
> 
> I finally got a chance to see the Carleton Watkins exhibit "The Art of
> Perception" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art (in NYC).  {I think this
> is the exhibit that the New York Stereoscopic society went on a field
> trip to see a while ago.}  Unfortunately this exhibit closes this
> weekend.  If you're in the NYC area I would strongly recommend that
> you try and see this exhibit this weekend.
> 
> This is an incredible exhibit.  Most of the prints are albumen silver
> prints from 18x22 inch glass negatives.  {These are very large contact
> prints.}  A few of them show signs of deterioration (yellowing,
> usually along the left edge).  The prints are really beautiful.
> 
> {I wish that all those on photo-3d who insist that "flat" photography
> has no purpose when you can do stereophotography instead could see
> this exhibit.  There is something about a large, sharp print that you
> do not get from any form of stereoscopic image that I have seen.  The
> print itself is as much a thing of beauty as the scene it depicts.
> 
> Watkins was a stereophotographer and by seeing this exhibit you can
> tell that he knew when to use the stereocamera and when not to.
> People often talk about the depth of large (non-stereoscopic) prints,
> and this exhibit demonstrates it.  These are scenes that would appear
> flat stereoscopically, but the prints look like you are viewing
> through a window because of their size and the scale of the scene.
> These photos are almost 130 years old and were made using techniques
> and materials that would not match modern equipment for sharpness and
> detail, yet you can count the branches on trees on the opposite rim of
> Yosemite valley (miles away).}
> 
> Unlike the Shackleton/Hurley exhibit at the American Museum of Natural
> History last summer, there was plenty of room to stand back and enjoy
> the entire picture, including several panoramic series of large
> prints.  Although there were quite a few people there, the exhibit
> hall did not seem crowded.  It's possible that many people were at
> this exhibit because (like my wife and I) they spotted it while on the
> way to the Egyptian art exhibit down the hall that also closes this
> weekend (and was very crowded).
> 
> The exhibit covers Watkins' trips to Yosemite in the 1860's, the
> Columbia River in Oregon, and various scenes in and around San
> Francisco.  The accompanying placards do a good job of explaining both
> the scene depicted and what had to be done to take the image (e.g.,
> packing a portable darkroom and 18x22 camera and supplies all around
> the rim of Yosemite valley before the modern trails existed).
> 
> Unfortunately the placards were not completely free of modern
> political sentiments.  One of the placards practically forgave Watkins
> for taking beautiful pictures of industrial scenes (various mining and
> railroad scenes) because the sensibilities of the times wouldn't have
> made it seem wrong.  I wonder what the curator thinks of John Sexton's
> "Places of Power" series.
> 
> In addition to the large prints several cabinet style stereoscopes
> (for viewing a sequence of stereocards) were on display.  Unlike many
> museum stereo card displays I've seen, the acrylic display cabinets
> protecting the cabinet viewers and stereocards have cut outs that
> allow the viewer lenses to protrude far enough so that you can view
> the stereo card on display.  Only one of the cabinets on display had
> two cuts outs so that you could view back to back facing cards.  None
> of the cabinets allowed you to change cards.  The quality of the views
> wasn't the greatest, but I may be biased by my experience with modern
> stereoviews and viewers.
> 
> The last room of the exhibit had several computers with shutter
> glasses set up so that you could view more of the stereocards.  I
> didn't get a chance to look at this but my wife thought it was very
> well done.  She mentioned that the images were all arranged so that
> the scene appears in front of screen.  This was probably done by the
> exhibit curators to enhance the stereoscopic (3D) effect, because none
> of the actual stereocards on display violated the stereo window in
> this manner.  My wife, who is generally not a photography enthusiast
> (particularly not a B&W enthusiast), was very impressed with Watkins'
> use of composition to make the most of the stereoscopic depth of the
> scenes shown.
> 
> --
> Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
> reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
> http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
> NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"