Whole Plate Standardization...

[Jim Galli]

I guess I don't understand the motivation for a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera. I have a whole plate camera, and I love the size. It's a much lighter camera and easier to use than an 8x10. I have 6-7 fiulm holders, and haver brought whole plate film in the past and used it. I added a 5x7 back and use the camera that way quite often. However, a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera gives you the ability to use film that's basically impossible to get, you have to cut 8x10 down. The camera is still heavy, not giving you the weight advantages of a true whole plate camera. You might as well use 8x10 film and get a bigger negative and save the hassle all around.

A 5X7 back on a whole plate camera is sensible but a whole plate back on an 8X10 camera is not. Perfect logic.

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, what are the exterior dimensions of the new WP "standard"? I'm primarily interested in the width, lock-rib distance, and distance between the flap end and the film aperture (I suspect this last is the same as for ANSI 8x10). I'm curious if these holders will fit my WP Seneca. I realize I also need to check the T-dimension of my existing holders against the 8x10 ANSI spec.

I'm sitting here with one of my Chamonix holders and a steel rule. Remember that there's no written "standard," in quotes or otherwise. These measurements are of a single sample, but I haven't noticed any variation in Hass' product.

Overall width -- 198.0 mm

Distance to start of lock rib from flap end -- 233.5 mm. Note that the rib tapers up on this side; to the flat "top" of it is another 1.0 mm The flat top continues for 2.0 mm and then drops perpendicularly back to the holder's face.

Distance between the flap end and film aperture -- I'll call this 30.0 mm, measured as the flap's dimension, and assume the image falls exactly where the flap ends.

Hope that helps. When Gunter at Lotus suggested using the 8x10 standard as a basis, I agreed and never compared the resulting holders to that ANSI document. Didn't seem necessary, since Hiromi built my camera to the holders.

[Iga]

Hi !
I have 4 types of WP holders :
Rittreck, Chamonix, S&S and Kodak (UK)
Hear are my measurements :
Rittreck - W 197mm; Ret.Tab 235mm; T 7,7mm
Chamonix - W 198,5 mm; Ret.Tab 234 mm; T 6,3 mm
S&S - W 195 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 8,8 mm
Kodak - W 198,5 mm; Ret,Tab 232 mm; 7,2 mm

Also one friend of mine sent me measurements of his holders :
Hasemi - W 202 mm; Ret.Tab 238 mm; T 7,0 mm
Toyo - W 194 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 5,4 mm

Hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Igor.

[Sal Santamaura]

...Distance between the flap end and film aperture -- I'll call this 30.0 mm, measured as the flap's dimension, and assume the image falls exactly where the flap ends...

One shouldn't rush when answering this type of question. That was a typo. Flap's dimension measures 20.0 mm, not 30.0.

[Jim Graves]

To add to the list (confusion) ... I have 6 types:

Eastman (1923) ---------------W 207mm; Ret.Tab 250mm; T 7.0mm
Folmer Graflex for EK (1927) - W 196 mm; Ret.Tab 232 mm; T 6.5mm
Eastman (1904) ---------------W 195 mm; Ret.Tab 232 mm; T 6.5 mm
No Name (Patent 4-23-07) --- W 197 mm; Ret,Tab 234 mm; 7.0 mm
Ansco -------------------------- W 196mm; Ret.Tab 234 mm; T 6.0mm
No Name -----------------------W 198 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 7.5 mm

[Steve Goldstein]

The holders for my Seneca are a very close match to Jim's "No Name" holder, even down to the stamped patent date! W 198.4mm, Ret. Tab 233.4mm, T 7mm. I'm not sure I trust those tenths of mm, and I don't have a proper setup to get a more accurate measurement of the T dimension, but I'd say it's much closer to 7.0 than to 7.5.