Film Holder Weight per Sheet Data - DDS, Grafmatic, Kinematic, others

[Corran]

PS: In researching this, I note that the vast majority of people refer to these holders as having pressure plates, including you on this forum per this post from 2000. The point is, they have a plate that applies force or "pressure" to correctly place either film or plates against the rails. Let's not get hung up on semantics.

[Bob Salomon]

It pushes the film against the rails. I mean, when the film is in, it is tight up against the rails from the "pressure" applied by the plate. It's not just adjusted to the right depth, which would then allow the film to move freely like a normal holder. What did Linhof call it?

A spacer, if it was a pressure plate you would scratch the film! That is also why the ejector lever is there, to eject glass plates since they would be easily scratched trying to remove glass plates.

[Bob Salomon]

PS: In researching this, I note that the vast majority of people refer to these holders as having pressure plates, including you on this forum per this post from 2000. The point is, they have a plate that applies force or "pressure" to correctly place either film or plates against the rails. Let's not get hung up on semantics.

The vast majority of people are wrong, and, if I said that almost two decades ago, I misspoke, it adjusts the spacing for film and plates!

[Corran]

Who cares? Semantics.

[Tin Can]

I still don't understand why 1/4 plate aka 3-1/4 X 4-1/4 was not the prefered film and camera size over 4X5. The camera body is significantly lighter.

A NOS all wood DDS 1/4 sheet film holder with phenolic DS and metal handles weighs 102 grams.

Very light feeling when compared to the modern 4X5 plastic crap. Less static, better heat/cold adaptation.

I bought NOS in OE box 2X3 and 3X4 each paycheck for a while.

My mistake was not buying enough 3x4 film...2x3 I have!

[Corran]

Randy - I have one oddball 2x3 sheet film holder here that is wooden and I think phenolic DS etc. I measured it out of curiosity - 67g! It looks new. All of the wooden 4x5 holders I had were beaters found at the bottom of old Graflex cases. I gave most of them away to my good friend and mentor who took them on a photographic research trip where he didn't want to load film holders so he brought hundreds of holders.

[Tin Can]

The lightest DDS holders were made for glass plate in many sizes. Often delicate.

The glass became structural and the septum was thin wafer board with maybe a dimble.

Since Jason Lane Glass Plate Negatives, plate holders have become very scarce.

[Drew Wiley]

Mido II double-sheet 4X5 holder 124g. Clamshell adapter 58g (for use with multiple holders).

[Mark Darragh]

Thanks for the info about the Toyo holder.

I was aware of the Mido things that I thought were supposed to emulate the QL / RL system, but I don't quite understand what the Mido DDS is? Did I just misunderstand the Mido system?

The second version of the Mido holders are more like a conventional DDS but with a spacer because they are thinner. More compact but not really much lighter the a typical DDS. They seem to receive quite a lot of flack from some quarters but I find them quite usable for backpacking.

I believe the first version was more like a QL/RL type system.

[ottluuk]

It would be nice if someone could weigh a modern wood & carbon fiber holder from Chamonix. Quoting their website: "All of our holder are lighter and more rigid than commonly available plastic holders."

Personally, instead of an attempt to recreate the Grafmatic with lightweight materials, I would like to see thin single-sheet holders with simple, no-nonsense design that could be scaled to any format. A Mido-like spacer would probably be needed but so what.
Loading the holder could be simplified: make a removable end cap instead of the two taped flaps. Remove cap, push film straight into a slot in the end of the holder, replace cap, done. Make them foolproof to produce and use, sell in packs of ten.