Focal Encyclopedia of Photography

[Tom Kershaw]

I notice Amazon.co.uk is currently discounting this book. Any comments on content or usefulness?

Tom

 

[Anscojohn]

I think it began as the Ilford Encyclopedia.....My copy of the Focal is, perhaps, 20 yearsold. Dated, but always a good read; there is much obscure information.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The current edition appears to be from 2007.

Tom

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I think it began as the Ilford Encyclopedia.....My copy of the Focal is, perhaps, 20 yearsold. Dated, but always a good read; there is much obscure information.

John

You must be thinking of the 'Ilford Manual of Photography', which is now called the 'The Manual of Photography'. 'The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography' was always call that. The 1st edition is from 1958. The current 4th edition was published in 2007.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I notice Amazon.co.uk is currently discounting this book. Any comments on content or usefulness?

Tom

Tom

I may not be the most objective person to answer that, because I wrote 30 pages of it, but I use this book frequently myself to find more detailed information about all areas of photography than one can find in more general books. It also includes a CD will pdf files covering the entire book, which is a fantastic search engine and far better than any index.

It's usefulness for you depends on what you're looking for.

 

[Anscojohn]

John

You must be thinking of the 'Ilford Manual of Photography', which is now called the 'The Manual of Photography'. 'The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography' was also call that. The 1st edition is from 1958. The current 4th edition was published in 2007.

*******
Thank you. The binding on my Focal is getting a bit weak. perhaps I should consider buying the latest edition.

 

[AgX]

One nerver can have enough encyclopediae in house. But the Focal (3rd ed.) is the one I use least.

But, there is not much choice anyway.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Tom

I may not be the most objective person to answer that, because I wrote 30 pages of it, but I use this book frequently myself to find more detailed information about all areas of photography than one can find in more general books. It also includes a CD will pdf files covering the entire book, which is a fantastic search engine and far better than any index.

It's usefulness for you depends on what you're looking for.

As a general reference on photography for when one doesn't want to get bogged down on the internet for a several hours researching a topic.

Tom

 

[RalphLambrecht]

*******
Thank you. The binding on my Focal is getting a bit weak. perhaps I should consider buying the latest edition.

Sorry John, I meant 'it was always called that' not 'also called that'. I fixed it in my original post.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

One nerver can have enough encyclopediae in house. But the Focal (3rd ed.) is the one I use least.

But, there is not much choice anyway.

The 4th edition is totally different from the 3rd. The 3rd was an alphabetic listing of topics. The 4th is an arranged collection of reference articles.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

As a general reference on photography for when one doesn't want to get bogged down on the internet for a several hours researching a topic.

Tom

I use it for that.

 

[Mick Fagan]

Ralph, my edition of "The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography", is a revised 1960 reprint of the first edition, which was October 1956.

It is a two volume edition and cost me the grand sum of 20 cents at my local primary school fete many, many years ago. Possibly my best ever, value for money photographic purchase

I have in the past opened a page and found something interesting, then find that about 2 or so hours have gone by in a flash.

I also have the Ilford Manual of Photography, fifth edition May 1958, the 7th reprint was revised in March 1966, my edition is the 8th reprint, March 1968.

Mick.

 

[Ross Chambers]

Isn't it pleasing to see the publishing history of these volumes recorded plainly in their introductory pages; try that with many digital technology guides, they seem to have a policy of obfuscation in currency for some reason.

Regards - Ross

 

[Tom Kershaw]

try that with many digital technology guides, they seem to have a policy of obfuscation in currency for some reason.

Regards - Ross

Ross,

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Tom

 

[AgX]

I guess this is a bit in the line of Ross' comment: I regurlarly come across documents on the net (especially pdf's) that are not dated, because the original text had been scanned with some ignorance. But a printed matter is not necessarily better. I own a lot of books, especially dutch ones, which are not dated. Being historically minded, I find that quite annoying.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I guess this is a bit in the line of Ross' comment: I regurlarly come across documents on the net (especially pdf's) that are not dated, because the original text had been scanned with some ignorance. But a printed matter is not necessarily better. I own a lot of books, especially dutch ones, which are not dated. Being historically minded, I find that quite annoying.

Have we learned from this and date our photographs?

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Ralph,

I've now ordered a copy of the book.

Tom

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ralph,

I've now ordered a copy of the book.

Tom

If everything else fails, you can always use it as a door stopper!

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Your presence on this thread has reminded me that I should get back to working on calibrating my DeVere 5108 colour head.

Tom

 

[Ross Chambers]

Ross,

Could you explain what you mean by that?

Tom

As a fairly keen reader of fiction and non fiction books the publication history is of interest to me. Most books not related to computer information have an original publication date, revision date, edition dates.

Some (and I probably exaggerated, just seems to be the ones I consider purchasing) books covering digital matters have no indication of their vintage, which, in the fast moving world of updates, makes their relevance iffy. I usually don't buy them.

Maybe there are rules and the Library of Congress would supply publication dates.

Maybe I got it wrong?

Regards - Ross

 

[Mick Fagan]

Ross, I agree with you completely regarding the publication history of a publication, especially non-fiction.

Ralph, yes a good reminder to date pictures, I have a family portrait taken in-between 1851 to 1853, we only know this because the photographer visited Australia on a ship that only ever came to this country in both of those years. She arrived and left on the same ship!

Interestingly the picture which is of my great, great grandfather and his missus, shows that I look extremely like him, so much so, that most people think it's a period picture of myself taken when I was in my early thirties.

Mick.

 

[Steve Smith]

As a fairly keen reader of fiction and non fiction books the publication history is of interest to me.

I don't know why but I always want to know when a book was first published. Whenever I start reading a book, by the time I have read two or three pages, I have gone back to look at the publication date.


Steve.

 

[Clay2]

I picked up Volume II (Mach to Zoom) of the Sept. 1960 Caxton reprint at my local
thrift shop last year for 25 cents. Been looking for Volume I ever since!

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[Clay2]

Ross,
Just saw your query re dates of publication. Mine says:

First published Oct. 1956
Reprint Aug. 1957
Reprint Dec. 1958
The Caxton edition June 1959
Revised reprint June 1960
Caxton reprint Sept. 1960

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[Anscojohn]

Ralph,

I've now ordered a copy of the book.

Tom

***********
so have I.