Origins of 4x5?

[Brassai]

I've been doing some google searches but still haven't come up with the history of 4x5 format/film. Near as I can tell, it was an American invention and probably from somewhere around 1898. Was this a proprietary size by Kodak that took off with the Graflex cameras? Or, did it just sort of appear, out of the mist of time? I assume that going into the 1890s the sizes were mostly the old English plate sizes (half plate, quarter plate, ....) or the European metrics (9x12 etc.) But then again, I'm not finding anything telling me when the metric sizes got started either. I'm guessing that when sheet film began getting popular then these new sizes began to appear, around 1900? Only the English kept the plate sizes for another ~50 years? Was there a first 4x5 camera?

[Leigh]

It started around 100 BI (Before Internet), and thus there is little surviving documentation.

- Leigh

[Richard Johnson]

5x4 is an even greater mystery....

[Brassai]

It started around 100 BI (Before Internet), and thus there is little surviving documentation.



The 4x5 would be older than 1914 because I have a Century cycle camera using 4x5, made around 1905. And, Petzval started well BI but there's tons of stuff on it (lens) and him (Josef.) How did 4x5 seemingly come from nowhere around 1900 to very common by 1920? There's a story here somewhere.

[Brassai]

5x4 is an even greater mystery....

The 5x4 comes from dyslexic people, the ones who like to add a lot of extra "u"s to their words. They were too busy making half plate cameras to have invented 4x5 anyway. Probably didn't start using 4x5 until they ran out of wood to make their half & full plate cameras, around 1950.

[Leigh]

There's a story here somewhere.
It was a marriage of convenience.

8x10 was too large to use outside the studio, so it was drawn and quartered.

- Leigh

[DannL]

My British made Sands & Hunter Exhibition 5x4 plate camera is from 1882-83. I suspect that the 5x4 (4x5) proceeds that be a bunch.

I found this reference to 5x4 . . .

Notes and Queries - 1853 - London
Will photographers who are chemists turn their attention to obtain sensitive dry glass plates ? For I think there can scarcely be any doubt of the advantage of glass over paper for small pictures (weight, expense, &c, are perhaps drawbacks for pictures larger than 5x4 inches) ; but the desideratum is a sensitiveness nearly equal to collodion, and a plate that can be used dry.
Thos. Lawbesce

[Bill_1856]

It was a marriage of convenience.

8x10 was too large to use outside the studio, so it was drawn and quartered.

- Leigh

To the GALLOWS for that one. In fact: Off with his head!

[Harold_4074]

To the GALLOWS for that one. In fact: Off with his head!

Oh. So that is where the use of of pyro-gallol in photography comes from...

[Kirk Gittings]

It was a marriage of convenience.

8x10 was too large to use outside the studio, so it was drawn and quartered.

- Leigh
:)

[ROL]

The '4' is Hindu–Arabic (same with '5', I believe), the 'x', probably Latin.


We're a helpful bunch, aren't we? ;)

[jnantz]

My British made Sands & Hunter Exhibition 5x4 plate camera is from 1882-83. I suspect that the 5x4 (4x5) proceeds that be a bunch.

I found this reference to 5x4 . . .

Notes and Queries - 1853 - London
Will photographers who are chemists turn their attention to obtain sensitive dry glass plates ? For I think there can scarcely be any doubt of the advantage of glass over paper for small pictures (weight, expense, &c, are perhaps drawbacks for pictures larger than 5x4 inches) ; but the desideratum is a sensitiveness nearly equal to collodion, and a plate that can be used dry.
Thos. Lawbesce

i heard / read something similar.. it was 16x20 and 8x10 and 4x5 because of glass sizes and then it was quartered ....
very much like whole plate half plate quarter plate

[Drew Wiley]

It all started in the Precambrian when little molecules of silver nitrate were floating around. Then the earth got bombarded for hundreds of millions of years with
asteroids composed of pure gelatin, and all those little silver nitrate molecules started coming together. So the first films were actually microscopic. Then eventually
bigger formats came along, which ate the smaller ones, until still bigger ones arrived and ate them. During the Jurassic and Triassic ultra-large formats were worldwide. But then a massive asteroid made out of pixels collided with the earth, and only little whiskery diggiroos living underground in burrows managed to survive....

[ic-racer]

First described in the Lyaw of Æthelberht

[Brassai]

So, nobody really knows. Here's what I think. It (4x5) did exist before film, but was not as popular a size. And really, format size wouldn't have mattered much when you were coating your own glass or paper. After the invention of film and pre-made plates, there was a need for standardization. Maybe the new people who were attracted to photography found the odd sizes such as 4.25 x 6.75 (or whatever it is) to be confusing. Something simple such as 4x5 is easily understood. It looks like early one 5x7 was more popular, maybe for two reasons? First, it makes a bigger contact print. Second, the holder can fit half plate cameras. So, my guess is that 4x5 existed before ~1880, but got a big boost as film/plates became standardized. After all , 4x5 is a nice usuable size and existing half plate lenses easily cover it, and quarter plate lenses barely will. Maybe it just caught on after 1900 because of its convenience and simplicity?

[jnantz]

here is a list of a few sizes to help fill in the blanks
http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Plate_Sizes

[Brassai]

Another thing that puzzles me a little are the three common "survivor" sizes-4x5, 5x7, 8x10. I can see how 4x5 (20 sq. inches) and 8x10 (80 sq. in.) fit together, but 5x7 (35 sq. in.) seems like it should have been 5x8 instead. Maybe it was made 5x7 because that allowed the holders to fit the popular half plate cameras when all of this was falling into place around 1900?

[Leigh]

Being familiar with inches rather than metrics - and having one hand with a finger missing after an accident -
4x5 was a simple matter of counting fingers to come up with the new film size.
I've heard of old wives' tales, but...

That wife was old before the Civil War.

However, if it's true...

I'd hate to meet the dude who invented 16x20. :rolleyes:

- Leigh

[Teodor Oprean]

It's just a historical accident that 4x5 became popular enough to endure to the present day whereas many other formats of similar size were discontinued long ago. A look at the wikipedia article linked to in this post shows some really crazy and seemingly inexplicable choices of aspect ratios and dimensions in the baffling list of film formats that were invented over time. A perennial component in Kodak's strategy aimed at increasing sales volume was to introduce a confusing mess of new film formats all the time. They kept doing that all the way til the end of the 20th century with APS, 110, Kodak Disc etc. It worked for that purpose for a while, but eventually things settled and the variety of film sizes matured into a few enduring formats, with lots of dead formats littering the path.

Here's another point of view about 4x5: I started photography with the 135 format. When I first started reading about large format photography, my reaction was: "Why it is 4x5 and not 4x6?" If the idea is merely to scale everything up in size, you could easily build a camera that produces a 4x6 inch negative, and you'd feel right at home if you got comfortable with 35mm cameras.

There was a Kalart press camera specifically designed for the 3x4 inch format. Given that press photographers frequently cropped 4x5 inch negatives down to 3x4 or even smaller, the reduction in weight and size makes a lot of sense. So why is 3x4 dead while 4x5 is invincible? Just because that's how history worked out.

So in short: Why is it 4x5? Just because. Someone picked those dimensions arbitrarily at one point and the product survived over the long term. If there are rational justifications, they are probably just trying to make it seem logical after the fact when in truth it's just a matter of convenience. Either it was easy to manufacture initially with existing factory equipment or there were previous products already on the market that were close to that film size, so it was not an overly disruptive new product.

[jnantz]

I've heard of old wives' tales, but...

That wife was old before the Civil War.

However, if it's true...

I'd hate to meet the dude who invented 16x20. :rolleyes:

- Leigh

allegedly ... 16x20 was a regular size for large glass sheets
around the time of wet plate was when the non metric sizes
came about ... the whole plate half plate &c were from the daguearrian-times
based upon the 6.5x8.5 "plate" and the "newer" sizes were based on pane glass ...
(one industry fed the other) ...
and the current film sizes were spin offs of the glass-plate sizes
but a teeny bit smaller because of the septum they had to fit dry plate holders in
to be able to use sheet film ... and even though fewer and fewer people were using dry plates into the 20th century
the film companies made the smaller than plate sizes because they really had no reason to stop since new film holders were
constructed with the smaller than 4x5 ( for example ) dimensions.
i still kind of remember a handful of years ago when j+c had a whole bunch of film for sale that didn't fit in holders
because it was 1/32" off, like when people forgot to tell photowarehouse to cut+notch film for film holders
and the buyer had to trim it all in the dark themselves ...

but the other sizes ... cabinet cards ... who came up with that size and why ?

[Leigh]

I do believe the popularity of 4x5 in the US is a direct result of the US military standardizing on that size for photography during the Second World War.

As with most military procurements of that era, there were huge surplus stocks available after the war ended, very cheap.

- Leigh

[Bill_1856]

Before WW2, the 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphics were more popular than 4x5.

[DannL]

i heard / read something similar.. it was 16x20 and 8x10 and 4x5 because of glass sizes and then it was quartered ....
very much like whole plate half plate quarter plate

Yep, I do the same when making 5x4 plates for the Sands & Hunter plate camera. I buy 8x10's for the 8x10 camera and cut them into quarters for the 5x4, as needed.

[Teodor Oprean]

I do believe the popularity of 4x5 in the US is a direct result of the US military standardizing on that size for photography during the Second World War.

As with most military procurements of that era, there were huge surplus stocks available after the war ended, very cheap.

- Leigh

This is very intriguing. If the 3x4 press cameras were more popular, why on earth would the military choose the 4x5 version? 4x5 film must have been more expensive than 3x4 since it's usually priced by surface area. It makes sense that 3x4 would be more popular because the standard stock lens was specifically designed for 3x4. It's a total surprise for me to learn that it was military demand that pushed 4x5 press cameras into ubiquity. Very odd.

[Leigh]

If the 3x4 press cameras were more popular, why on earth would the military choose the 4x5 version?
We don't know whether that was the case or not. The assertion was made by one individual.

I have worked with both the military field camera kits and the equipment that was used to maintain them, and it was all set up for the 4x5 format. I don't know why. I was not consulted when the decision was made. ;-)

- Leigh

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello from old Europe !

Off-topic since not related to plate formats in inches,
but the archives of our French MF+LF forum tell us what follows about metric glass plate sizes at the end of the XIXst century. (http://www.galerie-photo.org/n2-f1-85037.html)

Metric Plate Size Dimensions as of Photographic Congresses of 1889 & 1891, compiled by André G. for http://www.galerie-photo.info
All dimensions listed below are in centimeters; one centimeter =~ 0.4 inch

Series 2/3 (extinct)
32x48
24x36 [centimeters, not millimeters!]
16x24
12x18
8x12

Series 3/4 (this is the only series very partially surviving today for cut film, with formats 9x12 cm and 18x24 cm)
36x48
24x32
18x24
12x16
9x12

Series Square (extinct)
48x48
36x36
24x24
12x12
8x8

--

Hence I would not be surprised if 4x5" plate size was actually defined by one of those congresses as Imperial standard plate sizes at the end of the XIX-st century.

Another historical fact evoked in the above mentioned discussion on the French forum, and perfectly relevant since we are celebrating the 70-st anniversary of D-Day, and directly related to the US military cut film size choice during WW-II, is that 4x5" was unknown on the European continent (but certainly not in Britain? not sure, since there is full-plate, half-plate and quarter-plate), professional photographers used 9x12 cm, 13x18 cm [not listed above] and 18x24 cm.

Hence, like chewing-gum and a certain dark, sweet and sparkling non-alcoholic beverage, 4x5" was brought to the European continent at the same time and for the same reasons!

Some old passionate amateurs in France continued to use 9x12 cm glass plates up to the fifties.
French and German professionals continued to use 9X12, 13x18 and 18x24 cm cut film up to the 1970's-1980's.
But as of 1949, Paul-Émile Victor who served during WW-II as a pilot and Arctic expert of the USAF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul-%C3%89mile_Victor), had 4x5" cameras in the equipment for his first civilian and scientific Greenland expedition on the Inlandsis.

My guess is that the now called 'international back' was adopted just after WW-II with 9x12cm cut film holders identical in their "oustide' dimensions to American 4x5" cut-film holders (and 13x18 cm similar to 5x7" and 18x14 cm holders similar to 8x10" holders in external sizes)

[jnantz]

Before WW2, the 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphics were more popular than 4x5.

makes perfect sense to me .. magic lantern / quarter plate size ...

[Dan Fromm]

Before WW2, the 3.25x4.25 Speed Graphics were more popular than 4x5.

Why do you believe this? I ask because I took a quick look in the non-book and found ~ 16,000 3x4 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41 and ~ 32,000 4x5 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41.

[Jac@stafford.net]

This is very intriguing. If the 3x4 press cameras were more popular, why on earth would the military choose the 4x5 version? 4x5 film must have been more expensive than 3x4 since it's usually priced by surface area. It makes sense that 3x4 would be more popular because the standard stock lens was specifically designed for 3x4. It's a total surprise for me to learn that it was military demand that pushed 4x5 press cameras into ubiquity. Very odd.

The military operated as a Demand Economy in WWII, expensive be damned. Larger than 4" roll film was typical for aerial recon photography. On the civilian side, look to the spacing of column rules (no longer used) for typical sized images made via contact prints.
.

[Brassai]

All of this is now getting interesting! Maybe 4x5 existed in the 19th century as just another format, but when sizes started to become more standardized around 1900 and the use of film it became a winner. If 4x5 was the most popular size for those shooting a Graflex and Speed Graphic, that would be a lot of film. It would also have some cachet among amatuers as the size professionals used. No doubt 4x5 is partly an accident of history, and partly its inherent convenience as a size. Not too small that you lose detail in contact prints, not so big you can't handhold the camera. One of the truths in camera evolution seems to be that portability and convenience trumps ultimate image quality. The 4x5 is easy to carry & use, and image quality is good enough.

[Teodor Oprean]

Why do you believe this? I ask because I took a quick look in the non-book and found ~ 16,000 3x4 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41 and ~ 32,000 4x5 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41.

You have access to facts. That's wonderful. Please post additional figures for subsequent years if you can find them.

[Bill_1856]

The reason that the Army picked 4x5 is pretty stright forward. We tend to forget that in those days no "press" photographers used plates or sheet film -- everybody used film packs, and the largest practical film pack which could be used to make contact prints was 4x5.

[Bill_1856]

You have access to facts. That's wonderful. Please post additional figures for subsequent years if you can find them.

Could be. My information comes from conversations in the 1950s with camera store workers from pre war years, when trying to decide which size wagon to hitch my horses to. I'm not sure when they started making 3x4 Speeds and Graflexes -- they were MUCH smaller and lighter and the film cost was about half, while still large enough for contact prints.

[Leigh]

I took a quick look in the non-book and found ~ 16,000 3x4 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41 and ~ 32,000 4x5 Speed Graphic serial numbers assigned before 12/41.
That's the most definitive answer anyone could possibly provide.

Twice as many 4x5 cameras as 3x4.

- Leigh

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, Leigh: 3x4, 4x5 and 5x7 Speed Graphics were made from the beginning.

Graflex Inc. and predecessors made other types of cameras, most notably Graflex SLRs. If I were really curious I could put all of the records in the non-book into a database and look at size mix by camera type, ... But I'm not that curious.

I'm also not that curious about post-WW II production and anyway getting the Crown/Pacemaker split right is nearly impossible because after early 1951 the records in the non-book don't differentiate between Speeds and Crowns. The sample of serial number by type in the questions/answers tabulated in the "shutterfinger" list isn't large enough to allow good estimates of the split.

Bill, re contact prints, 6x6 is big enough. I still have 2.25" x 2.25" contact prints from film I shot with a plastic Brownie in '53. By the mid-50s 4x5 press cameras seem to have been on the way out. 3x4 and 2x3 too.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

Hello all !

Thanks Dan for your facts & figures regarding Graflex press cameras.

Regarding early 4x5" cameras, I found a reference to a Kodak camera,
"1893-1897. 4x5 glass plates (or rollfilm) camera. B&L Iris shutter."

http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Kodak-Eastman/Folding-Improved-No.4.html

Hence no mystery, 4x5" cut film like 9x12 cm cut film sizes come from glass plate sizes.

This brings-in another question :
When did cut film start to replace glass plates for non-rollfilm cameras ?
For European cameras, I would say, some time before WW-II, and there were some film-pack options, in the 1930's.

I have found a digital copy of the proceeedings of Congrès International de Photographie held in Paris in 1889
http://www.cineressources.net/images/ouv_num/106.pdf
at the same time as the Exposition Universelle (when the Eiffel Tower was built) and the honourable congressmen tried to promote 18x24cm as the master plate size, yielding 12x18 cm and 9x12 cm by cutting in halves, twice.
12x18 cm was supposed to replace 13x18 cm but actually never did.
Another tentative photographic standard proposed in Paris in 1889 is to promote a metric thread equivalent to a modern metric ISO M10x150 as "the" standard photographic thread. Same useless recommendation ;)

Another 1889 document can be read here (in French ...)
http://www.cineressources.net/images/ouv_num/063.pdf

Too bad for the metric guys of 1889, another Congrès International (the 'net says : Brussels, 1910, but I have no direct reference to quote here) eventually decided in favor of 3/8"-16 (9.5mm - 1.6 mm pitch), and I suppose that at the time it was British Withworth threads with 55° of angle .. .

[StoneNYC]

Guys you have to think practically WAY before film existed...

When photographers were first starting out and developing emulsions that they had to coat the glass plates with, where do you think they got the glass plates from?

It wasn't exactly an industry to produce them at the time so what do you think they did? I'm pretty sure what they did is go down to local Windowmaker and buy pieces of glass of the hell ready been cut for popping into windows, the reason that certain sizes are standard are because they were available as windowpanes... And it was really the only way they could get access to pieces of glass unless they were to commission someone to make them a specialized size, something that would just be a rational if you're an inventor trying to make something you're not going to spend big bucks on something that could be easily had an already made in a certain size...

Well that's my take on it...

As for why other sizes might have stuck around, that's all just simply happenstance, maybe there was one camera that was really popular and that camera was so popular that it only came in a certain size and that size stuck around while the others didn't, much like the press cameras which all seem to 4x5, some were a little bit smaller, but who wouldn't want a larger image for the newspaper instead of having a smaller image with the 3x4's so 4x5 was used more, couple that with the military cameras mentioned above, and that locked in 4x5, as for 8x10, well it's easier to make that and not waste if you're already making 4x5 and cutting it.

5x7 is just enough bigger than 4x5 and has a pleasant ratio, that extra inch can be used for 35mm so it stuck around, while half plate cutting leaves waste.

Again, that's my take on it...

[Tin Can]

All I know is when I pick up a 3x4 Speed and a 4x5 Speed, I wish 3x4 had won out.

Nice size camera and film.

[Emmanuel BIGLER]

I wish 3x4 had won out.

Today, 3x4 is actually the winner ...
.
.
.
.
... as far as instant film in packs of 10 is concerned ;)
(and until New55film actually comes to the market)

[jnantz]

here is another old thread with some links regarding old plate sizes .
information on PRINT sizes ( height ) too ...

is this thread about when 4x5 started, or became part of a standard system ?
i think there are a few different answers ...

[DannL]

Here's a bit of info shedding some light on one of the earliest plate sizes . . . .

The Saturday Magazine - Dec. 12th 1840 . . .

"M. Daguerre and Sir John Herschel have expressed opinions that the object-glass of the camera should be perfectly achromatic, i.e., capable of. focalizing light without producing coloured fringes, in order to produce the photogenic effect; but the American professor deems this achromaticity unnecessary, because the different colours which compose the spectrum take different spaces of time to produce their effect on the iodide of silver, and the plate may be removed before the slowly-acting rays have time to act upon the drawing. Many of his drawings were produced with a common spectacle-lens, of fourteen inches focus, arranged at the end of a cigar-box as a camera; with this humble camera, he produced highly-finished plates, measuring four inches by three."

I now suspect the 5x4 came about because someone emptied a cigar box that was a bit larger than the previous.

[jbenedict]

The reason that the Army picked 4x5 is pretty stright forward. We tend to forget that in those days no "press" photographers used plates or sheet film -- everybody used film packs, and the largest practical film pack which could be used to make contact prints was 4x5.

Once again I say: "I wish film packs were still around". 16 shots in the size we make two shots now... Two holders (One for N, one for N-1), a couple of spare packs and, maybe, a couple of holders with some kind of color in it. Or a roll film back and a few rolls of color if lots of color subjects are anticipated. A light camera (think Crown Graphic) a set of light lenses (90 Angulon, whatever came on the Crown (127 or 135), 205/7.7 Ektar) a Tiltall, 2 or 3 filters (your choice), goodies (cable release, dark cloth, small flask of whiskey, ham sandwich, hiking emergency kit.) Put it in a bag and you're good to go. My goodness! That's my kit!

Alas, no film pack... "I wish film packs were still around..."

[jnantz]

forgot the link
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?48221-Plate-sizes-to-standard-sizes

[StoneNYC]

Once again I say: "I wish film packs were still around". 16 shots in the size we make two shots now... Two holders (One for N, one for N-1), a couple of spare packs and, maybe, a couple of holders with some kind of color in it. Or a roll film back and a few rolls of color if lots of color subjects are anticipated. A light camera (think Crown Graphic) a set of light lenses (90 Angulon, whatever came on the Crown (127 or 135), 205/7.7 Ektar) a Tiltall, 2 or 3 filters (your choice), goodies (cable release, dark cloth, small flask of whiskey, ham sandwich, hiking emergency kit.) Put it in a bag and you're good to go. My goodness! That's my kit!

Alas, no film pack... "I wish film packs were still around..."

Film packs were horrid! The film is so thin it's impossible to process using any kind of rotary system, it can be used in a crappy sloshing or dip/dunk tank but I think anyone who wants to work with that floppy film is insane haha sorry...

I do get quickloads though, at least that makes some kind of sense to me.

[Jim Rice]

I long ago read somewhere that the popularity of 4x5 stemmed from a contact print in landscape being two newspaper columns wide.

[jnantz]

where's ole when you need him ?!
he always knew answers to questions
like this ... and even though i searched ( here and apug )
for the answer he gave ( and i tried to paraphrased it from memory )
the last time this exact question was asked ... i came up empty ...

[Rapidrob]

While an old post, I do have two 4x5 glass plate negatives in my collection from the 1880's.

[Jim Andrada]

The '4' is Hindu–Arabic (same with '5', I believe), the 'x', probably Latin.


We're a helpful bunch, aren't we? ;)

Interestingly eough some of the arabic numerals look like our current numerals, except they mean something different. the arabic 0 = our 5 and the arabic 7 = our 6. I learned this one night watching a video of the suites on Etihad's A380's and noticed that one was labeled 7 and 6. Sure enough, they both mean VI - sorry, 6.