Another little CDV added to the collection, from Schroeder & Rakeman, 344 1/2 Seventh Street. It’s nice to find an image that is identified, even if the subject remains anonymous after the naming. I’ll have to do some digging around to find out who this might have been. Obviously the photo was made post- civil war, as it shows the dome of the US Capitol completed in the painted backdrop. I did look up a map of Washington DC from the 1850s to see if I could find the ‘N.L. Market’ referenced in the photographers’ back stamp. While the building (or place – the market could have been a permanent outdoor location), the address is part of what is now called the “Market Square” office/condo complex, including the Navy Memorial. Another option for the studio would be at 344 1/2 Seventh Street, SE. Which ironically enough puts it within a block of Eastern Market. I can find no reference to Eastern Market as anything other than Eastern Market, however, which throws this location for the studio into doubt.
I’ve found some more photographers to add to the map of New York. Again, you’ve got to love some of these self-descriptions of their businesses. Also interesting is the case of C.D. Fredericks, who ran studios in New York, Paris and Havana. Makes you wonder how he managed three studios in such far-flung cities at a time where steam-powered trans-atlantic crossings were just coming in to being, there was no telephone, and the airplane was still an opium-smoker’s dream.
I’ve reorganized the list in geographic order, with the assorted Lower Manhattan addresses first, then the ascent of Broadway, followed by the odds and outliers, including one in Brooklyn.
|STUDIO NAME||ADDRESS||DATES OF OPERATION|
|R.A. Lewis||152 Chatham Street *||unknown|
|R.A. Lord||164 Chatham Street *||unknown|
|K.W. Beniczky||#2 New Chambers Street, corner of Chatham *||unknown|
|Vaughan’s Gallery||228 Bowery||unknown|
|H. Merz||E. Houston & Essex Streets||unknown|
|Bailey’s Photograph Gallery||371 Canal Street||unknown|
|O.O. Roorbach, Publisher of Dramatic Photographs||122 Nassau Street||unknown|
|Mathew Brady||643 Bleeker Street||(1859-1860)|
|Jaquith, Daguerrian Parlor||98 Broadway||unknown|
|S.A. Holmes, Daguerreotype Studio||289 Broadway||unknown|
|Josiah Thompson, Daguerreotypist||315 Broadway||1849-1853|
|J. Gurney & Sons, Daguerreotype Studio||349 Broadway||unknown – early|
|Mathew Brady||359 Broadway||(1853-1859)|
|E. Anthony, Publisher, Brady’s National Portrait Gallery||501 Broadway||unknown|
|W.C. Wemyss, Dealer in Photographs, Books, &c.||575 Broadway||unknown|
|C.D. Fredericks & Co
587 Broadway, New York
31 Passage du Havre, Paris
108 Calle de la Habana, Havana
|Anson’s Daguerreotype Gallery||589 Broadway||unknown – 1850s|
|Chas. K. Bill||603 Broadway||unknown|
|J. Gurney & Sons||707 Broadway||unknown – mid|
|Mathew Brady||785 Broadway||(1860-)|
|Bogardus||872 Broadway||late 1870s|
|T.J. Maujer, Passepartout & Carved Walnut frame manufacturer, Dealer in Photographs, Artist’s Materials, &c.||953 Broadway & 183 5th Avenue||unknown|
|J. Gurney & Sons||5th Avenue & 16th Street||unknown – late|
|Loud’s Celebrated Album Cards||unknown||unknown|
|Fernando Dessaur||145 8th Avenue||unknown|
|Estabrook’s Ferrotypes||379 Fulton Street, Brooklyn||unknown|
* addresses no longer exist. New Chambers Street & Chatham Street are now approximately where New York City Civic Center and Police Headquarters are now located.
Stereoviews are not something I routinely collect, because there’s gazillions of them out there (I know, gazillion is such a technical term) and they’re already by themselves a hot collectible. I couldn’t resist this one though because I see pretty much the same view from my office’s conference room window every day. The Lutheran church with the statue in front hasn’t changed, but on the left is now the National City Christian Church, and on the right, the trees are gone and replaced by the Washington Plaza hotel. The landscaping in the circle is completely different, as is the traffic pattern around the circle. I think the land area of the circle island is much smaller, to accommodate additional traffic lanes.
I have done a bit of digital restoration on this scan because the original stereoview has seen better days.
Some underwater shots with the Olympus Stylus Tough 6020. Rated to 16 feet. It was remarkably capable – I think 90% of the shortcomings I experienced were attributable to operator error. The biggest hassle/complaint about the camera that I can point to the camera as the source of the shortcoming is shutter lag. While not such a big deal on dry land where you can stand still, but when your own natural buoyancy combines with the motion of the waves and current, it’s hard to hold still and compose a shot. With too much shutter lag, you end up losing a lot of shots. Something I’m neutral about is the built-in owners manual. The camera does not come with a printed owners manual, but instead has a built-in help system for all the features and functions. The upside is you don’t have to carry the owners manual with you and possibly lose it. The downside is it takes battery power to read it, and the camera is not the most efficient at conserving battery power. According to the camera specifications, you get about 200 shots per charge of the battery. I don’t think I got that many, but I did a fair bit of chimping. I’d say I got between 80-100 shots. I’ve got another gripe with the camera I’ll address in another post.
Just a few better images from the trip to Puerto Rico. Definitely NOT with a view camera – everything was shot with a Contax G2, mostly with the 21mm and 90mm lenses, with a couple of 45mm grabs in there. As always, working with the G2 is a joy, and it produces incredible results. Even though it isn’t “as silent as a Leica”, I enjoy the whirring of gears of the auto-focus, and the snick-snick of the shutter.
I’m some kind of obvious when taking photos, as even when I’m using the G2, which is a pretty inconspicuous camera, I seem to attract attention. My father and I were coming back from dinner and I stopped to take a photo, and this panhandler approaches me. He asks, “How much does that camera cost”? I can tell he’s not a photography enthusiast, so I reply, “I don’t remember, I’ve had it for a while. It takes film” – hoping that will discourage any thoughts of taking it. He then states, “I guess you have a relationship with your camera”. DUH. I do, but don’t even THINK about trying to end that relationship non-consensually. I do have a love affair with my cameras, and I’ll happily share that with anyone interested, but I’ll smack you to the moon if you try to mess with that.
This time, I was paying attention to creating abstract compositions, which is easy in some ways because the tropical light is so strong, even early and late in the day you get powerful shadows and directional light, unless you’ve got profound overcast. The wrinkle is color- because our natural perception of the world is color, working with color film tends to emphasize our connection to the reality of the subject and distract from perceiving it as just line and form. I hope I’ve managed with a few images to challenge that limitation. I know for myself as a predominantly black-and-white photographer that switching gears to see and think in color is hard – some of the photos I took on this trip I can look at and see very clearly that they would be better as black-and-white images. Sometimes color creates contrast that we don’t see when we are used to thinking only of tone and reflectiveness, and sometimes what looks good as contrast between light and shadow looks god-awful in color because it’s too harsh and the color is overwhelmed.
For those who are interested, all these were shot on Kodak Ektar 100 (with a few using the new Kodak Portra 400). I think it is my new go-to 35mm film, displacing even my beloved Fuji Reala. I like the palette of Ektar better now- the Fuji’s greens are a little too strong, the blues and reds a little weak compared to the Ektar. I’m also highly impressed with the Portra 400. I brought along two rolls of it thinking I might use it for some night photos. Dummy me didn’t segregate it from general population in the film pocket of my camera bag, and I accidentally grabbed a roll and loaded it thinking it was still the Ektar 100 (BAD Kodak – the design for the canister is identical except for the text label, so you can’t tell easily through the plastic tube which is which). The upside is, I can almost not tell any difference between them, at least in a scan and a 4×6 print. I’ll let you look through the gallery and decide for yourselves which is which. I’m not telling.
Two actors by Chas. H. Spieler, 722 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA. Note the feet of the braces used to keep the actors still during the possibly half-minute exposure. You can tell I’m a real historic photo geek when I get excited over something like the presence of posing stand feet in a CDV.
Anonymous gentleman with top hat, by Bogardus, 363 Broadway, New York. This image has actually inspired some studio design ideas for my own studio – I’m now hunting for rope and tassels like the ones in the backdrop here.
Another CDV added to the collection. My first Mathew Brady CDV with the Washington DC studio imprint. I suspect that she was a circus sideshow performer, because even in the Victorian era when zaftig women were more popular, she is not the kind of zaftig that the Victorians found sexy.
Also note the book under her foot. I suspect it was just a posing prop to give her body some form and dynamic, but it would be interesting to know if there were something meaningful to the book underfoot. Books were a very common studio prop, usually held in the hand, to indicate that the subject was literate and had some kind of intellectual accomplishment. By extension, stepping on a book would seem to imply a deliberately and blatantly anti-intellectual attitude, which would have been at extreme odds with the contemporary ethos, and would seem out of character for a studio like Mathew Brady’s – he went out of his way to cultivate associations with the best and the brightest of his day. So it’s probably just a posing device, no meaning implied.