[PRCo] Re: Pittsburgh - Then and Now

[Fred W. Schneider III]

I just pulled my copy Pittsburgh Then and Now from the shelf to see if
my initial opinions changed.

Initially I was of the opinion that there were some very good early
pictures taken with large format cameras which were matched with images
of lesser quality taken with 35mm cameras.  As I look back through it, I
find that there are also many images from 75 to 125 years ago that are
from previously screened halftones (copied from other books), some from
improperly made copy negatives, some from copies of copies, and even
some older pictures made from original sharp negatives.  There are a who
series of pictures of the Point from Mount Washington that are not of
ideal sharpness.  The photo quality of the earlier pictures varies from
excellent to below average. I still feel that the contemporary images
were made with all too pervasive 35mm cameras, rather than spending the
money to work in a larger format, and therefore the quality is average. 
In deference to using 35mm cameras, interchangeable lenses allow the
photographer to choose 35mm to 35mm lenses to match most of the earlier
normal lens coverage.   (One would need 42mm and 53mm lenses for 2 1/4 x
2 1/4 cameras to match those, and they simply are not made today.) 

The author did an excellent job of locating the original photographers
position, standing on it, and replicating the same angle of coverage
that the earlier photographer used.  There was a lot of effort put into
the book ... probably close to a half time job for a year just locating
the sites and photographing them. 

Bob Netzlof is correct when he points out that the "stately homes" and
what is there today don't really work well as then and now pictures. 
We've had the same problem with some pictures we wanted to use in then
and now displays at Arden ... a picture of a trolley passing a mine
patch on the West Penn in 1949 doesn't work if the patch is nothing but
a woods today. It doesn't work because the viewer cannot relate.  

And it is pretty hard to relate Shadyside, Point Breeze, and Highland a
hundred years ago when Pittsburgh generated more money per capita than
any other American city with those same neighborhoods now that the
mansions have been torn down and replaced by apartment buildings.

It's not a trolley book.  One sneaks in every now and then in the
distance.  But that wasn't the purpose.  It is a reminder to us of how
the city has changed.  

If I had any non-photographic complaint, it would be that Arthur Smith
shunned those neighborhoods that were poverty stricken ... I guess he
didn't want to go there either.  I'm reminded of my dad's image on Wylie
Avenue of a little black boy sitting on the stoop ... Smith didn't go
anywhere near Herron Hill.  He also avoided the blue collar (and later
much less fashionable) Homewood and Brushton.  

His work also stopped at the city border: therefore the large homes on
Oakwood St. in Wilkinsburg (that are now mostly boarded up or battered
to death) are missing.  The vibrant shopping street in Homewood (that
collapsed with the U S Steel in 1982) isn't there.  Braddock is
missing.    

Would I still buy it?  Yes, because we buy that kind of book to refresh
our memories. 

And I would also still like Stefan Lorant's book on Pittsburgh history.  

 

robert netzlof wrote:
> 
> --- Fredbruhn at aol.com wrote:
> > I saw the above title listed in Amazon books last
> > evening.  Can anyone on the list
> > comment on the book,
> 
> Author: Arthur G. Smith
> Published in 1990 by Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.
> 
> I bought a copy in Greensburg several years ago. Just
-- Trailing quotes stripped by Listar --