My impression is that it was a common size of window glass at the time.
My impression is that it was a common size of window glass at the time.
The earliest plate holders were made for daguerreotypes, and the unsensitized silvered plates most often came in the standard "whole plate" size. These were often cut down to quarter-, sixth, and eighth-plate size by the photographer.
Early glass plates were wet plates sensitized by the photographer, and common glass was cut to fit whatever plate-holder he had, often a daguerrean plate holder. Glass whole plates followed in the footsteps of daguerrean whole plates.
The daguerreotypes looked best in smaller sizes as the surface was so reflective that viewing a large print meant probably losing big areas to reflections. Whole plate is about as large as could be practically viewed in a daguerreotype. Paper prints had less detail (even in a contact print) but were practical for viewing in larger sizes.
I remember reading later glass dry-plate sizes in an old journal; there were whole plates, imperial plates, elephant plates, double-elephant plates... We're just stuck with 4x5, 8x10, 11x14; how unpoetic...
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
The sizes of full-plate, half-plate etc. depend on in which country the camera was made. The sizes were determined by the standard size made by the best local maker of copper plates for printers.
So English, German and French half-plates were slightly different sizes...
I have and use a full plate camera. Maco make film for it, available in the UK from Mr. Cad. It's a really nice size to use and my Camera is much smaller and lighter than my 10x8 too!
With the readjustment of the film market away from the mainstream commercial, perhaps these formats will become more available, there certainly seems to be more availability of wacky film sizes than there was when I got into LF 7 years ago.
Cheers
Charlie
As the folks above have stated... this is a nice size. Large enough for contacts and the camera is smaller and more portable then an 8x10. Since you are likely to contact print - many good coverage 5x7 lenses will cover easily. I use a 165 Angulon, 240 Dagor, 330 APO-Raptar and 420 Artar.
On holders... be aware that some people mistakenly will sell plate film holders and in reality they are glass plate neg holder. Easy way to tell is when looking at the picture, where normally the flap is you will see an arcing cut-out.
Steve
Even if your holders ARE plate holders, all is not lost: I use plate holders in my 18x24cm camera simply by placing a sheet of glass (off a picture frame) behind the film. It's heavy, but it works. And if the weight bothered me, I wouldn't shoot that size anyway
I also have four 4x10" plate holders, and intend to build a back to take these. Then I'll do 4x10" too!
If you hunt around, you can also find film sheaths designed for converting plate holders. I have them in a 5x7" plate mag and two 5x7" plate holders for my 5x7" Press Graflex.
It wouldn't be too hard to fabricate new film sheaths from sheet metal. I know someone around here has had that done.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks