Whole Plate (6.5X8.5) vs. larger Sized Cameras (8X10 and larger)

[audioexcels]

I'm sure this one has been discussed quite a bit, but I thought a more current time posting would be nice to see what people have experienced over the years and in present time. Some questions I have:

1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with anything larger than whole plate (i.e. 8X10 and larger)?

2) How similar is the experience of shooting with a 6.5X8.5 camera vs. an 8X10?

3) If one is to "primarily" do contact printing, would 6.5X8.5 even be large enough by comparison to the larger sized prints attainable from 8X10 on up?

Any further discussion is greatly welcome. I know my own feelings on this one, but I wished to see what others felt and to see if my own views align/agree and most interestingly, if something I do not know comes around in the discussion because an ancient practice can still achieve learning/knowledge even in this day of age...which is why I proposed the topic with the experienced in the field from past and even in present time.

Thanks all and hope this post is helpful in some way or makes for some fruitful discussion!

[Sal Santamaura]

...1) What are the advantages and disadvantages of shooting with anything larger than whole plate (i.e. 8X10 and larger)?...Advantages: larger contact prints and/or an aspect ratio that appeals to you more than that of whole plate. Disadvantages: more weight/bulk, both camera and holders.


...2) How similar is the experience of shooting with a 6.5X8.5 camera vs. an 8X10?...In my experience, identical except for less bulk and weight.


...3) If one is to "primarily" do contact printing, would 6.5X8.5 even be large enough by comparison to the larger sized prints attainable from 8X10 on up?...Entirely up to you. It's large enough for me and perfect for mounting in an 11x14 frame. However, I'm neither filling huge wall spaces nor selling any work, therefore don't need to appeal to anyone's taste but my own. The market does seem to like large prints these days, so an enlarger still could prove valuable. In that regard, whole plate has another advantage over 8x10 since even a marginal light source in a Beseler 8x10 conversion provides full, even illumination.

[audioexcels]

Advantages: larger contact prints and/or an aspect ratio that appeals to you more than that of whole plate. Disadvantages: more weight/bulk, both camera and holders.

In my experience, identical except for less bulk and weight.

Entirely up to you. It's large enough for me and perfect for mounting in an 11x14 frame. However, I'm neither filling huge wall spaces nor selling any work, therefore don't need to appeal to anyone's taste but my own. The market does seem to like large prints these days, so an enlarger still could prove valuable. In that regard, whole plate has another advantage over 8x10 since even a marginal light source in a Beseler 8x10 conversion provides full, even illumination.


Thanks for you opinion Sal,

One thing that caught me by surprise is a person saying it was much more difficult using his Tachihara (standard/non bellows extension) based 8X10 vs. his Crown Graphic and other 4.5 cameras. Some other words about DOF vs. smaller formats and so on. I personally feel a contact print is the way to go and this is where I am on this fineline of whole plate vs. a camera I have right now that if I could ever have work done to it, would do an 11X14 back without a sweat (It measures 14X17, with the wood portion/cutout being 14X14 and the bellows cutout being 13X13)...so very little to go to get to having the 14" side worked out. At the same time this larger camera can use reducing backs all the way down to 4X5...just as the whole plate can use them down to 4X5. The "only" thing I see as problematic is the whole plate being so easily transportable when it comes to say, travelling around the world with the view...but for hikes/and any travel around here or if I stayed in a place for a good while in Europe, the larger cam woud be no problem at all. I simply love the contact print and that's my only concern with the larger camera...whereas with the smaller/whole plate camera, I would be doing whole plate contacts, maybe occasional enlargement, but also be much more inclined to shoot with 5X7 and 4X5 color film to be scanned and blown up.

One part of me is like, "come on whole plate, be large enough for contact printing!!!...because you are basically 1/2 the size of the big daddy"....the other part of me is like, "this big bad boy is absolutely beautiful and it feels paper thin for the size and construction...who in their right mind would give this gorgeous piece up????"...But I'm not a person to have multiple cams around. I prefer to select one to work with and use different sized backs if I want to shoot in another...of course, yes, the 4X5 back is a little different on a 9lb cam vs. some of the very light 4X5 cams that are basically 1/3rd in size/weight:):):)

Thanks Sal and others...

[Terence McDonagh]

To me, whole plate is a nice step in between 5x7 and 8x10 for contact printing. The whole plate cam I just got is much lighter than my 8x10 and not much heavier than my 5x7, but also has less movements, extension, etc. than either one. But the contact print size is much nicer than 5x7, to my eye.

[Oren Grad]

2) How similar is the experience of shooting with a 6.5X8.5 camera vs. an 8X10?

It depends on your particular equipment. I'd say for me it was very similar, because both my cameras and my backpack loaded with working kit were comparable in size and weight for the two formats. I say was, because I've just started working with a whole plate Century with a 240 Germinar-W, which is a very compact and lightweight combination.


3) If one is to "primarily" do contact printing, would 6.5X8.5 even be large enough by comparison to the larger sized prints attainable from 8X10 on up?

That's such a subjective thing. I find 6.5x8.5 to be qualitatively different from 5x7, while 8x10 just feels like an overgrown whole plate that's a bit too large and square. OTOH, the jump from 8x10 to 11x14 is once again a leap into a qualitatively different space, not just in terms of camera handling but visually as well.

And further to Sal's point, whether whole plate is "big enough" depends too on what you want to do with them - are you making prints to hold in the hand, or to fill a space on the wall?

[audioexcels]

It depends on your particular equipment. I'd say for me it was very similar, because both my cameras and my backpack loaded with working kit were comparable in size and weight for the two formats. I say was, because I've just started working with a whole plate Century with a 240 Germinar-W, which is a very compact and lightweight combination.



That's such a subjective thing. I find 6.5x8.5 to be qualitatively different from 5x7, while 8x10 just feels like an overgrown whole plate that's a bit too large and square. OTOH, the jump from 8x10 to 11x14 is once again a leap into a qualitatively different space, not just in terms of camera handling but visually as well.

And further to Sal's point, whether whole plate is "big enough" depends too on what you want to do with them - are you making prints to hold in the hand, or to fill a space on the wall?


These are all very good points and questions. What I'd like to achieve are prints that I can both enlarge and hang on the wall. Speaking of contact printing, which is why I prefer the whole plate and larger formats (though many feel 5X7 is a great size)...what are more "ideal" looking prints? In other words, you do not like the look of the 8X10 due to its more squarish nature. By that, would you consider an 11X14 or even a 8.5X11.5 or even 9X12 to be more to your liking...more visually appealing?

I wish I had all these sizes and more in front of me to see what seems to just do it for me.

[Oren Grad]

These are all very good points and questions. What I'd like to achieve are prints that I can both enlarge and hang on the wall. Speaking of contact printing, which is why I prefer the whole plate and larger formats (though many feel 5X7 is a great size)...what are more "ideal" looking prints? In other words, you do not like the look of the 8X10 due to its more squarish nature. By that, would you consider an 11X14 or even a 8.5X11.5 or even 9X12 to be more to your liking...more visually appealing?

I wish I had all these sizes and more in front of me to see what seems to just do it for me.

As I've said before, if I had my druthers the formats that survived in commercial use would have been not 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10, but 3.25x4.25, 6.5x8.5 and 7x11.

My experience with 11x14 is very limited to date. I expect that I'll like it more than 8x10, but the proof will be in the doing. The choice of 11x14 as my largest format was in part due to logistical constraints - I might have wanted to try 12x20 instead, but that's more than I can handle either in the field or in the darkroom for now. And in any case I'm fairly nutty about subtleties of optical character, and 11x14 is the largest format I can cover with my favorite lenses. So the Platonic perfection of a format isn't everything. ;)

[Ole Tjugen]

I wish I had all these sizes and more in front of me to see what seems to just do it for me.

I do have "all these sizes", and more...

For me at least the narrower aspect ratio of "the metric" sizes are closer to what I like.
I use 5x7" (or 13x18cm - close enough to be considered the same for this purpose) for both contact prints and enlargements. Larger than that, and the negative won't fit in my enlarger. A bigger enlarger won't fit in my house.

I rarely make prints larger than 24x30cm (about 9.5x12"), so that is the largest negative size that makes sense to me.

I also use an 8x10" camera, but mostly with 18x24cm film. Aspect ratio again.

Same with 4x5" - most of the B&W film I use is 9x12cm. Colour is 4x5", but that's only due to availability.

I have a whole-plate back for the 8x10", and reducing inserts for various plate holders to whole (and half) plate. I doubt I'll ever use them, as the 6.5x9 - 9x12 - 13x18 - 18x24 - 24x30 gives me sufficient variation in negative size.

I also have a 30x40cm camera. Compared to the 24x30 it's a boat anchor, and not something I would even consider carrying for any distance at all. And the film size is larger than 99% of the prints I make, so why bother?

[Oren Grad]

I wish I had all these sizes and more in front of me to see what seems to just do it for me.

One last point - I've done experiments with cutting out pieces of paper in different formats/sizes to see what they "feel" like, but found that the only way to really understand a format is to try making negatives and prints with it.

[Steve Hamley]

I second Oren's recommendation. For example, I made whole plate marks on my 8x10 GG and then asked the question, "Do I want to deal with custom-sized film and custom-sized filmholders ($$$ unless you can find good used ones) to get rid of the difference in size and weight?" To me the answer was no. Basically the choice came down to cropping the negative before the exposure (whole plate cameras and adapter backs on 8x10) versus "cropping" the negative/print after development. After looking at the difference in sizes between whole plate and 8x10, the answer was obvious for me. Save the expense and bother and cut down the 8x10 prints.

If you're really into the whole plate format, money is not an issue (for new equipment), AND know you're SURE don't want to shoot 8x10, then a whole plate camera makes sense. Otherwise, just mark the 8x10 GG and crop the prints to whole plate size.

Steve

[David Karp]

I really can't answer all of the questions, because my experience with an 8x10 camera is limited to using a Calumet C-1 for a while. Here is why I recently decided to purchase a whole plate camera instead of an 8x10.

I recently purchased an Improved Seneca whole plate camera. The size and weight are closer to a 5x7 camera than most 8x10s. It is as light as my Walker Titan 4x5. To me, it seemed like the perfect compromise between a smaller camera that is easier to carry, and an 8x10. Plus, after laying out the size of the negative/contact print on a piece of paper, I found that I liked the proportions, and that they matched the size of some cropped enlargements from 35mm that I have done.

For me, the whole idea is to have a nice sized contact print without having to break my back lugging the camera around.

Also, the lenses usable with whole plate are smaller and often less expensive than many of those used with 8x10. All of the lenses I will use are in No. 1 shutters.

Also, I don't see any reason why not to matt, frame and hang a contact print on the wall. Unless you print to fit a specific size space on the wall, the whole plate size seems (to me) to be plenty large for display, while having the added benefit of being a nice size to hold in the hand as well.

[Jim Galli]

pros - cons:

Film and holders are much harder to get. 8X10 is common by comparison.

I don't find 8X10 unmanageable in the least so the smaller lighter argument holds little if any weight for me at l east.

8X10 2D Kodak has proved my most valuable asset as far as finished product. It's relatively light and takes a 6 1/2" packard shutter inside the camera that works with some semi-giant lenses. Much bigger than a Deardorff would tolerate.

So cake and eat it too is a 6.5 X 8.5 back for the 810 Kodak. That way if I'm in the mood for full plate I can enjoy some pretty eclectic lenses on the more eclectic format.

pros:

may be the not so ordinary size which is becoming ordinarier every time we have these discussions and more old cameras get snapped up.

The contacts just look gorgeous on a piece of 11X14 paper with a mask that leaves the white rebate. They are jewel like.

[Colin Graham]

For me, the whole idea is to have a nice sized contact print without having to break my back lugging the camera around.




Me too. Full plate seems to be the perfect size, generally I enlarge & crop 4x5 to this size. I'm seriously trying to resist making another camera and the film holders to go with it. :-[

[audioexcels]

pros - cons:

Film and holders are much harder to get. 8X10 is common by comparison.

I don't find 8X10 unmanageable in the least so the smaller lighter argument holds little if any weight for me at l east.

8X10 2D Kodak has proved my most valuable asset as far as finished product. It's relatively light and takes a 6 1/2" packard shutter inside the camera that works with some semi-giant lenses. Much bigger than a Deardorff would tolerate.

So cake and eat it too is a 6.5 X 8.5 back for the 810 Kodak. That way if I'm in the mood for full plate I can enjoy some pretty eclectic lenses on the more eclectic format.

pros:

may be the not so ordinary size which is becoming ordinarier every time we have these discussions and more old cameras get snapped up.

The contacts just look gorgeous on a piece of 11X14 paper with a mask that leaves the white rebate. They are jewel like.

For Jim and everyone else that has been responding...thank you very much for all of your views. It is obvious I will be working with 6.5X8.5. I'm now beginning to get a little more curious after what one mentioned with the .5 sizes looking a little nicer than the more standard sizes we have to work with. My memory is terrible for my age, but hopefully I mentioned that I have a 10X12 capable of going 11X14 (though I have no one to build me a back for it and wouldn't know who/where/etc. to start with in having one made). I think I may just have to keep a hold on both of these cameras and start looking for some woodworking types that know how to put together some backs for me so I can start shooting. I've been really heartless without the ability to be out and shooting in these gorgeous places of nature along the Oregon coast...

By the way Jim, those 11X14 shots with the $65 lens are rediculously sharp and amazing. I surely wouldn't mind a few $65 lenses and a custom 11X14 back built for my "large" cam=9lbs with current 10X12 back:):):)

Maybe it's time to post a "wanting someone to build me backs" post;)...

Ahhh...on a last note, I enjoyed seeing the difference of perspective with the 8X10 and 6.5X8.5 shots...it shows what one can expect to see as the difference when shooting the same lens but with only one size smaller/larger film...I think it would be great to see someone post a series of photos of one scene, with backs from 8X10 or even larger down to 4X5 to show the perspective change each time you change the film size/back.

[Steve Hamley]

Build a back? Richard Ritter. Very reasonable and good work.

http://www.lg4mat.net/

Steve

[audioexcels]

Build a back? Richard Ritter. Very reasonable and good work.

http://www.lg4mat.net/

Steve

Hi Steve,

I'm a little worried that it might cost 1/2 as much or as much as what I paid for my camera/s to have a back or two made by him. I'm kinda looking for the middle man that knows his stuff and can do as good of a job on a more bartering type of cost basis. If I had a $2K camera, I would have no problem sending the camera off to Richard or anyone that is well recognized. Hope this makes sense and thanks for the link. He has a very nice site and I will email him in any event just to get an idea. I am going to assume it's the price I paid for my camera, though...

Regards!

[Sal Santamaura]

..."Do I want to deal with custom-sized film and custom-sized filmholders ($$$ unless you can find good used ones)...Each of the two annual Ilford special order periods thus far have seen me purchase whole plate FP4 Plus at prices somewhat lower than those for stock 8x10 boxes of the same film. Fotoman Camera is planning to offer, probably by July, brand new plastic whole plate film holders with a price between those of 5x7 (which Fotoman will also offer) and 8x10. Both film and holders new and competitively priced.


...If you're really into the whole plate format, money is not an issue (for new equipment...In addition to reasonably priced new film holders, I've been told that an Asian camera manufacturer is considering a small run of whole plate cameras, depending on demand. Should anyone have interest, I suggest voicing it early and often!

[Randy H]

Colin, Audioexcels
Check with Scott-- here on this site for custom or standard backs. He just finished a back for his camera, a lensboard for mine and others. His work is excellent quality and extremely well priced.

[Steve Hamley]

Each of the two annual Ilford special order periods thus far ... In addition to reasonably priced new film holders, I've been told that an Asian camera manufacturer is considering a small run of whole plate cameras, depending on demand. Should anyone have interest, I suggest voicing it early and often!

Sal,

I support the whole plate format. I still think that CURRENTLY waiting on custom-cut film is less workable than cutting down 8x10 film which means the method is less workable than cutting down an 8x10 print - camera weight not withstanding. Waiting on an Asian manufacturer to allegedly produce film holders is not viable until the filmholders have been produced and proven in use.

It would be wonderful if the whole plate format revived, especially if filmholders were reasonably priced. BTW, I currently have an 8x10 print to be matted at 6-1/2" x 8-1/2" in an 11x14 mat.

Cheaper than a current whole plate camera, film holders, and film by multiple thousands of dollars. If you're committed to the format without reservation (NOT shooting 8x10), then have at it. But trimming an 8x10 print is clearly the most cost-efficient method especially given commercially available film formats in B&W and color. See Jim Galli's post.

I admire your camera and comittment to the format! I'd like to have one too.

Steve

[Paul Droluk]

Each of the two annual Ilford special order periods thus far have seen me purchase whole plate FP4 Plus at prices somewhat lower than those for stock 8x10 boxes of the same film. Fotoman Camera is planning to offer, probably by July, brand new plastic whole plate film holders with a price between those of 5x7 (which Fotoman will also offer) and 8x10. Both film and holders new and competitively priced.

In addition to reasonably priced new film holders, I've been told that an Asian camera manufacturer is considering a small run of whole plate cameras, depending on demand. Should anyone have interest, I suggest voicing it early and often!

FOTOMAN UPDATE... we are very close to producing our new 4x10 holders, having already seen two pre-production runs and made the appropriate "tweaks" to the molds. As mentioned previously, the 4x10 holders are our guinea pigs. So far all is looking very good indeed. Testing will commence with the samples from the next pre-production run (about 10 days), which puts us on target (July) for the 5x7 and WP holders... assuming testing goes as anticipated.

Other developments... we will be producing both a 5x7 and WP camera to round out our PS series of large format cameras. Also in the works... economical pre-cut 4x10, 5x7 and WP sized B&W film (ISO 100 - ERA Brand). Film testing is in process... if it compares to FP4 Plus (what we've heard from others), film would be available about the same time as our holders.

[David Karp]

Paul,

That is great news indeed.

Do you have any more information on pricing for the WP holders? Will we order through your regular suppliers?

[William Barnett-Lewis]

The WP information is very interesting to me. I'm probably going to be staying at 4x5 for quite awhile due to financing, but I'm paying close attention anyway ;) I'll admit to be less interested in the WP PS camera, but a new proper WP field camera from Shen Hao? With new holders? And inexpensive film? That would have me scrambling to save pennies ...

One thing on ERA that I would be concerned about in regards to thier QC - I have a box of thier 4x5 film that I tested and about 1/4 of the sheets were too long to fit in my holders. I'd be much more annoyed by that in a more uncommon format.

Thanks!

William

[David Karp]

Cheaper than a current whole plate camera, film holders, and film by multiple thousands of dollars. If you're committed to the format without reservation (NOT shooting 8x10), then have at it. But trimming an 8x10 print is clearly the most cost-efficient method especially given commercially available film formats in B&W and color. See Jim Galli's post.

Yes, cheaper than a brand new WP camera. But not cheaper than buying a used WP camera when compared to the cost of most used 8x10 cameras.

I purchased a nice Improved Seneca WP camera from Jim Galli for $175. He said it needed a new bellows, and it did. I had one made and installed by Western Bellows for $267. So, for less than $450, I have a nice and very light wp camera. Is it a lot smaller than an 8x10? Well, it just about fits in the bag I used for a while to carry 4-5 8x10 film holders. So, the answer is yes, it is a lot smaller.

I respect Jim Galli and value his opinion, but it depends on how you use your camera. If you are going to hike with a view camera in your backpack, the wp sized camera is much smaller and lighter than an 8x10. The holders are also smaller and lighter. The print, however, is not much smaller, and I doubt you could tell if an enlarged photograph was made from an 8x10 negative or a wp negative.

[audioexcels]

Yes, cheaper than a brand new WP camera. But not cheaper than buying a used WP camera when compared to the cost of most used 8x10 cameras.

I purchased a nice Improved Seneca WP camera from Jim Galli for $175. He said it needed a new bellows, and it did. I had one made and installed by Western Bellows for $267. So, for less than $450, I have a nice and very light wp camera. Is it a lot smaller than an 8x10? Well, it just about fits in the bag I used for a while to carry 4-5 8x10 film holders. So, the answer is yes, it is a lot smaller.

I respect Jim Galli and value his opinion, but it depends on how you use your camera. If you are going to hike with a view camera in your backpack, the wp sized camera is much smaller and lighter than an 8x10. The holders are also smaller and lighter. The print, however, is not much smaller, and I doubt you could tell if an enlarged photograph was made from an 8x10 negative or a wp negative.

I think another consideration is the lenses that can be used with the slightly less large negative than the 8X10. Many of these lenses will basically cover 8X10 by "enough". But on the WP, you gain quite a bit more in spite you lose the potential wide wide angle (I.E. Nikkor 120SW on 8X10 vs on 6.5X8.5). A lot of these lenses that are made for 5X7 with excellent coverage such as the 115mm Grandagon now become WP lenses with good movement potential. At the same time, these wides are heavy and perhaps not what one would consider taking on the WP field trip. I'm curious how a 6X8 image looks...this would give one the ability to cut 8X10 film into 6X8 and 4X8 film sizes...if 4X8 isn't desired, try 6.5X8.5 and 3.5X8.5 (basically the same ratio as 4X10).

I think it is well worth the wait for the film holders especially since we are talking a matter of a couple of months. That's not much time at all and Era should be producing WP film by then, making the WP a highly viable option cost-performance-useage wise IMHO. As the WP is making its revival, as if it ever was lost, the 8X10 suddenly doesn't look so standard anymore w/exception that you can buy color film for 8X10 and I'm not sure when/if color film would ever be produced in the same manner as for the WP for a 6.5X8.5.

BTW...my WP is just barely 10"by10" total (folds up like a book), with only 2"'s or so thick...weight of 5ish lbs...This is "at least" half the weight of a similarly versatile 8X10 camera...versatile meaning the amount of movements and what can be done with the camera because there are a few of the 8X10's that are less than 10lbs, but offer very little movement and are not quite as sturdy as the WP camera.

[turtle]

For all those saying WP represents such a weight saving, surely if comparing like for like, a WP camera should be smack in the middle of a 5x7 and 10x8 camera???? A lot of the comparisons are not taking the like for like angle it seems. There are very light 10x8s out there as well as very heavy 5x7s...but all things being equal, a WP camera surely sits smack between those formats!!! There may be many light antique cameas out there but would imagine that they dont offer the movements or rigidity of some of the bells and whistles modern cameras in order to achieve that lightweight status. Again, like for like...

[David Karp]

I think another consideration is the lenses that can be used with the slightly less large negative than the 8X10.

This is very true. I picked up a 180mm Fujinon W (oldest single coated version) that covers wp very nicely. A 210mm plasmat design like an APO-Sironar-N, Caltar II-N, etc., will also cover. These make nice wide angles on the wp format, and will not break the bank.

[Sal Santamaura]

For all those saying WP represents such a weight saving, surely if comparing like for like, a WP camera should be smack in the middle of a 5x7 and 10x8 camera????...Yes, that is correct. The cumulative effect of camera and film holder weight/volume reductions is where, even comparing identical 5x7 - 6.5x8.5 - 8x10 outfiits, 6.5x8.5 comes out best in my opinion.

From now on I'm going to call this format 6.5x8.5 so there's no confusion between film and plates. It's a modern film-based alternative, whether used with vintage or new cameras.

[Eric James]

I think another consideration is the lenses that can be used with the slightly less large negative than the 8X10. Many of these lenses will basically cover 8X10 by "enough"...

One good example is the Schneider 110mm SSXL.

On another subject, I'll throw this idea out into the world because I know I'll never be in the position to develop it, but I might benefit from someone who takes the idea and runs with it: Wouldn't it be great if someone devised and developed a DIY quickload/readyload holder for the whole plate format based on the 8X10 film sheet! The extra area on all sides would provide the designer with "handles" to grab the over-sized sheet, load it into the film plane, then unload it into the "exposed" reservoir. If the design were clever enough and machined to appropriate tolerances the photographer could get two shots from one sheet.

The idea here is to design the holder around readily available 8x10 film, taking advantage of the extra area to allow for the holder's loading and unloading of future and latent images.

Okay, this single holder would be bulky, but there you are in the wilderness with a box of 8X10s, a single DIY holder, a bottle of water and a lump of hardtack.

[Daniele Minetto]

What is and what does it means "whole plate"?

[Sal Santamaura]

What is and what does it means "whole plate"?"Whole plate" simply refers to how the 6.5x8.5-inch format originated. That was the size of some glass plates early in the last century. Adapters followed to permit use of sheet film in those plate holders.

Today, conventional film holders permit use of 6.5x8.5 film sheets directly. As mentioned above, it's best we start referring to the format as 6.5x8.5 to avoid this confusion with glass plates. I probably should have insisted that Ebony use my first suggested camera name (SV6585) too!

[Jim Galli]

"Whole plate" simply refers to how the 6.5x8.5-inch format originated. That was the size of some glass plates early in the last century. Adapters followed to permit use of sheet film in those plate holders.

Today, conventional film holders permit use of 6.5x8.5 film sheets directly. As mentioned above, it's best we start referring to the format as 6.5x8.5 to avoid this confusion with glass plates. I probably should have insisted that Ebony use my first suggested camera name (SV6585) too!

The plate designator keeps re-appearing because the longish 6.5X8.5 or even more cumbersome 6½ X 8½ is difficult to keep typing. How about shortening it to simply 6585? Might take a while to catch on but.....

[Eric James]

What is it, and what does it mean - "6585"?

:)

[Sal Santamaura]

...How about shortening it to simply 6585? Might take a while to catch on but.....Do you think we should ask ISO to have a standards committee look into it? :)

Seriously, I'm game; let's ask other interested parties to chime in. Jim, perhaps you'd like to start a poll thread?

[audioexcels]

Do you think we should ask ISO to have a standards committee look into it? :)

Seriously, I'm game; let's ask other interested parties to chime in. Jim, perhaps you'd like to start a poll thread?

I think it's a way cool designation, though 6969 might have been better depending on your preference;):):)

[Steve Hamley]

FWIW,

I just had an 8x10 (that's whole-print size ;) ) matted into an 11x14 frame with a 6.5x8.5 mat opening. Does look rather better than 8x10, but I think I'd still rather currently do this than pop for a new, not used, 6.5x8.5 film camera.

BTW, those lenses that will cover 4x5, 5x7, and 6.5x8.5 but not 8x10, you can still shoot them on 8x10 with the framing marks on the GG then crop the print... It's just like a reducing back without the extra wood blocking your view.

Steve

[Ted R]

I suggest using the letters WP instead of numbers. I've had a "modern" WP Kodak camera for about 15 years, brought it over to the US from UK but have never used it here because I ran out of film. I was using Ilford. I notice that they will supply if one meets the minimum order requirement, which I can't do. The Kodak is black and silver constructed from wood stained black and steel parts painted silver to look like aluminum a nice combination. I guess it was made in the 1950s and has rising front and front tilt, tilt back and swivel back. It is quite light and compact, it was easy to carry folded up, much easier than the Devere monorail studio camera I began with!


I bought into the size as a way of getting large format quality without needing an enlarger, I made contact prints on 10 x 8 paper and they were very fine quality. I collected a set of three older Schneider 4x5 lenses that will cover WP when no movements are needed as with some landscape and portrait work. I still have everything, including Kodak tank, hangers and dark slides. I eventually bought a Kodak 8x10 model B and Symmar lens and did some Polaroid work with that. I don't ever see myself having a large format enlarger but the contact print method is excellent.

Ted

[Scott Davis]

Ted- as an FYI, Ilford is now doing an annual "odd LF film size" order program. You can get WP film through this program, and quite possibly throughout the year as well, from several of the dealers who are acting as agents for this program. Try contacting The View Camera Store in Arizona, Hunt's Photo in Massachussetts, and perhaps Midwest Photo or Badger Graphics (not sure of their participation in the order program). In any case, they frequently have ordered more stock and may be able to supply you with some despite this year's pre-order period being closed. Call them and see.

[Ted R]

Ted- as an FYI, Ilford is now doing an annual "odd LF film size" order program. You can get WP film through this program, and quite possibly throughout the year as well, from several of the dealers who are acting as agents for this program. Try contacting The View Camera Store in Arizona, Hunt's Photo in Massachussetts, and perhaps Midwest Photo or Badger Graphics (not sure of their participation in the order program). In any case, they frequently have ordered more stock and may be able to supply you with some despite this year's pre-order period being closed. Call them and see.


That's good to know thanks. Sounds like the renewed Ilford is being resourceful. I recall when they discontinued it in the UK, my heart sank. I worked in Paramus NJ for eight years on the next block to the Ilford US headquarters, I used to walk past the place most days on my lunch break. The last time I passed by the ILFORD sign had gone but left weathered letters in the face of the building. I'm taking a camera next time I'm in the area.
Ted

[Vaughan]

An update on whole plate: as at February 2022 Shanghai GP3 100 is currently available in 6.5x8.5 on Aliexpress (the web site). Shanghai are also making GP3 film available in a dizzying array of other cut sheet sizes both smaller and larger, and several other older roll film sizes like 127.

I have taken the opportunity to purchase a box of GP3 and picked up a WP back and holders for the Rittreck View. The backs are available for ~AUS$150 including postage often with a holder or two, compared to ~AUS$900 for an 8x10 back.

My experience with GP3 in 4x5 and 5x7 has been most acceptable. I have had some issues but these are likely from poor development at my end (tip: a pre-wash before development seems to solve the problem). Cost-wise the WP is between 5x7 and 8x10. Here in Australia including postage the cost per sheet are in round figures:

4x5 AUD$2.00
5x7 AUD$3.50
WP AUD$4.50
8x10 AUD$5.50

The holders produce an exposed film area of 203mm by 155mm which is a circle of 255mm. Many lenses cover this particularly those from the early Fujinon range, including the SW 120mm (and NSW 125mm) f8. The modest Fujinon W 150mm f5.6 is short only by 5mm and most lenses longer than this will cover. The Fujinon W 135mm f5.6 image circle is 228mm, just 27mm short of the 255mm needed to cover, so it too may be usable at a pinch.

A note on the holders: although these are modern double cut film holders (not book-form plate holders) of the five holders I purchased from the same seller one lot (two holders) were about 1cm narrower than the other three. The larger holders fitted the back. The holders are usually marked "Rittreck View" and have distinctive red dark slides, the back is branded "Rittreck Hope" and is hammered-metal-painted wood on a metal extension, and both the back and holders were apparently made by Tachihara. I plan to shim the smaller holders to the same width as the larger to make them work. Note that both holders fit the same size sheet of film internally.

I'm not sure whether there are two sizes of Rittreck Hope WP back to fit the two sizes of holders, so I recommend when buying backs and holders to confirm with the seller about their size and fitment.

[Kiwi7475]

An update on whole plate: as at February 2022 Shanghai GP3 100 is currently available in 6.5x8.5 on Aliexpress (the web site). Shanghai are also making GP3 film available in a dizzying array of other cut sheet sizes both smaller and larger, and several other older roll film sizes like 127.

I have taken the opportunity to purchase a box of GP3 and picked up a WP back and holders for the Rittreck View. The backs are available for ~AUS$150 including postage often with a holder or two, compared to ~AUS$900 for an 8x10 back.

My experience with GP3 in 4x5 and 5x7 has been most acceptable. I have had some issues but these are likely from poor development at my end (tip: a pre-wash before development seems to solve the problem). Cost-wise the WP is between 5x7 and 8x10. Here in Australia including postage the cost per sheet are in round figures:

4x5 AUD$2.00
5x7 AUD$3.50
WP AUD$4.50
8x10 AUD$5.50

The holders produce an exposed film area of 203mm by 155mm which is a circle of 255mm. Many lenses cover this particularly those from the early Fujinon range, including the SW 120mm (and NSW 125mm) f8. The modest Fujinon W 150mm f5.6 is short only by 5mm and most lenses longer than this will cover. The Fujinon W 135mm f5.6 image circle is 228mm, just 27mm short of the 255mm needed to cover, so it too may be usable at a pinch.

A note on the holders: although these are modern double cut film holders (not book-form plate holders) of the five holders I purchased from the same seller one lot (two holders) were about 1cm narrower than the other three. The larger holders fitted the back. The holders are usually marked "Rittreck View" and have distinctive red dark slides, the back is branded "Rittreck Hope" and is hammered-metal-painted wood on a metal extension, and both the back and holders were apparently made by Tachihara. I plan to shim the smaller holders to the same width as the larger to make them work. Note that both holders fit the same size sheet of film internally.

I'm not sure whether there are two sizes of Rittreck Hope WP back to fit the two sizes of holders, so I recommend when buying backs and holders to confirm with the seller about their size and fitment.

Thank for posting this. I’ve used GP3 in 8x10 and smaller sizes before and I like it. I just checked on AliExpress in 11x14 but at $119 for 10 sheets it’s exactly as expensive as HP5+… which I do find superior…. It used to be more competitive before….

[Vaughan]

Thank for posting this. I’ve used GP3 in 8x10 and smaller sizes before and I like it. I just checked on AliExpress in 11x14 but at $119 for 10 sheets it’s exactly as expensive as HP5+… which I do find superior…. It used to be more competitive before….

There are many films superior to GP3! At least it’s *available* in wp.

An update on the holder sizes: the two smaller ones are not marked “Rittreck” in fact they have no brand or markings at all. I found another post from this site that suggested that Rittreck asked Tachihara to make the back and holders a different size to “standard” (where standard is in quotes because unlike 4x5 and 5x7 there is no ANSI/ISO standard for whole plate holders and backs).