What about this format?

[Petzval Paul]

There are even more practical reasons for shooting whole-plate: firstly, Louis Daguerre determined that 6 1/2" x 8 1/2" was the largest size which he could hole in one hand and he made that the "whole" plate and everything else was a fraction thereof. Petzval lenses, which were pretty much all one could use for portraiture during the Daguerreian era, are very large and heavy, so every step-up in format size meant a big jump in size/weight/expense for the lens. Then add the weight and bulk of the plates and the necessary equipment to process them, the expense of the silver plates and gold-toner, etc.

For wetplaters, too, those are also two big reasons to stick with the 4/4 format. The benefit of being able to manipulate the plate in one hand comfortably during processing cannot be over-stated. I also believe that there is a certain intimacy to viewing an image which is small enough to be held in one's hand that gets lost as soon as that threshold is crossed (as with an 8x10) and one has to stand back and view it from a distance to take it all in. That's debatable, but just something I have felt.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks for the info. My question was more about why would someone prefer this over the more popular 5x7 or 8x10 formats. Are that many using glass plates in their cameras? The fact that camera makers bother building models for this size indicates that there is a market for it.

I've been using WP cameras for more than ten years, since I first stumbled across a whole plate Eastman No. 2 and discovered that the format felt just right. There's been a small group of photographers using older WP cameras all along. But you can read a bit more about the origins of the current mini-revival here:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...eplate_09.html

[David Karp]

Lots of lenses cover WP that fall just short on 8x10. Lenses like your 210mm Plasmat will make a very nice gentle short focal length with plenty of movement. No need to buy a bunch of new lenses to move up in format size.

[Steve Hamley]

Whole plate is an enigma. It is a wonderful format as Ansel Adams noted in "The Making of Forty Photographs", referring to his Korona 6-1/2 x 8-1/2.

There are compelling reasons for the format; 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 mats wonderfully into a standard 11x14 frame, it's even better for contact prints than 5x7, and the cameras and holders are noticeably lighter than 8x10.

The downside is that neither cameras or film or holders are standard, so you're into cutting film or special orders, understanding historical film holder manufacture and refurbishing, or paying out the wazoo. When you look at the 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 lines on an 8x10 ground glass, it's hard to justify, compared to a lighweight Wehman, Ritter, or Phillips 8x10 and a 6-1/2 x 8-1/2 mat, which I find preferable.

If you're a LF geek and come along a bargain at a shop or estate sale, go for it (as I did) if you're wanting bang for the buck, a Ritter, Wehman, or Phillips lightweight 8x10 is a better bargain.

Cheers, Steve

[Sal Santamaura]

It's bizarre, I agree. Crazy photographers.

...But you can read a bit more about the origins of the current mini-revival here:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspo...eplate_09.html

I'm feeling validated now that Frank classifies me as a "crazy."

Hope you read what Oren linked to.