Printable View
Hi guys and gals
I saw on a YouTube video a 10x12 back fitted onto a Dorff V8. This appeals as a wetplate photographer I have plate holders and backs (mostly international backs from other cameras) 5x4, half plate/5x7, whole plate and of course 10x8. Does anyone have one of these backs that could send me measurements which I could give to my woodwork guy? You can see one at 1min into this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTXuO9MRfR4&sns=em
Thanks
John
Which dimensions do you need please John. I have a Deardorff 10x12 back but it is buried and I would prefer not to dig it out if I do not need to. Not actually that sure where it is to be honest. I do however have a Dorf 10x12 reducing back to 10x8 to hand so the external dimensions could be got from that if those are the dimensions you need. Incidentally I am localish to you in West Kirby on the Wirral. The back is 14 1/2 inches square.
I have a worn Deardorff Studio 10x12 back. The outer dimension is much bigger than a field camera I think. I can find mine, which dims do you want, I guess there are three, T, width and rib distance.
Anything else before I do this?
Hi guys
Thanks for your responses. Just to be clear, I don't want you digging about looking for something that isn't what I'm after! The 10x12 back fits on the 8x10 camera by the four pins. It's an increasing rather than a reducing back if that makes sense. Is that what either of you guys have?
Must meet up Roger!
J
Hi John
I have a Deardorff 10x12 spring back which was once upon a time attached to the back of a Deardorff field camera. That is in the loft somewhere. I also have a Deardorff 10x12 to 8x10 reducing back which has the same external dimensions and presumably once fitted a similar if not the same camera.
Earlier this year I decided I wanted to make a reducing back from 10x12 to 8x10 to fit a Gandolfi 10x12 camera. Not wanting the hassle of sourcing another 8x10 back in order to do this. I decided to make use of the one from the Deardorff back. So I have a 10 x 12 Deardorff reducing back frame now minus it's back to hand.
Upon closer inspection this evening it appears that this reducing back was homemade utilizing a Deardorff 10 x12 field camera back the hole in the centre of which was partially filled in to make the hole smaller and the supporting frame for the 8x10 back was inserted into and secured into the smaller hole.
So it would appear that what I actually have here is a 10x12 back minus it's springs and ground glass frame. I am very happy to measure any of the dimensions of that for you. The only dimension that we would then be possibly short of is the T distance. We would need the complete back for that. Which I suppose could be findable but I am not sure you would gain much from knowing that dimension as it is unlikely to match any holders that you might be able to source. There is no ANSI standard for 10x12. Holders were I suspect made for individual cameras.
The good thing is given the greater depth of focus due to the relatively long lenses used with 10 x12 this is unlikely to prove to be a problem for you unless you like to use fast short lenses.
Do you have any particular reason for wanting to use a Deardorff 10x12 back? The reason I ask is they are or could be considered to be wider and heavier than they really need to be.
Roger
No, my 10x12 Deardorff studio back is a reducing back for the Studio camera. I thought you needed dims to make the plate holder GG frame. My SC11 backs are outside dim 18.5" square. I have 4 backs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadJake
Thanks Randy and Roger. Yes Randy it not a reducing back I'm after rather an increasing back.
Hi Roger, I'm not looking for a Deardorff increasing back per se, I don't even know if one was made by Deardorff. I think the one in the video was homemade. Attachment 105683It's really the concept and measurements. I would assume that the difference between where the Dorff 8x10 back sits and the 10x12 back sits may have been for several reasons, standard lens focal length, interference with focussing & movements and vignetting from having the back to close to the rear standard. I wasn't aware there wasn't a standard ANSI for 10x12. That's not necessarily a problem as one of my woodwork guys a photographer and damn good woodworker and t'other an old school cabinet maker so T distance isn't a problem if I give them the plate holder. The plate holder is a late model and certainly looks like an international standard type similar to all the other black glass plate and film holders I have.
Cheers
John
The reason for the back extension is you cannot fit a 10x12 back to 10x8 camera because the back is too big . A 10x12 back is approx 14x14 inches square.
A Deardorff one is 14 1/2 inches square making it impossible to fit and even difficult to adapt to other 10x12 cameras.
Most 10 x 8 cameras have a back which is 11 inches square or thereabouts hence the need for the wooden extension piece which flares out to the dimensions of the larger back.
It is much easier to work the other way round to make a reducing back for a larger camera. The result is much lighter too.
The back extension needs to be quite long in most cases to avoid vignetting ...makes it unwieldy in the field, not even talking about the weight. I've been contemplating the same challenge for my 8x10 Century Master ... trying to come up with an 11x14 back. After calculation I would need to use a 6" extension to minimize vignetting with the long focal portrait lenses I envision to use.
Not always practical.
Thanks for your responses guys, you've given me good advice and ideas for things to think about and overcome if I take this route. I do have a couple of 10x12 cameras and a 12x15 to but they have no real movements and only have bookform holders rather than the modern film/plate holders. I want to use the Dorff to shoot from 5x4 to 10x12. Weight isn't a major concern for me unless it compromises the camera which I can see it might do with wood. I'll rethink but I certainly want to have a go. Maybe a wooden frame covered with stiffened black canvas. The actual film/plateholder back and T measurement itself isn't a problem.