8.5 x 6.5 format

[Sheldon Crook]

I recently acquired two view cameras, an 8x10 and a 5x7. The 5x7 has an extra back, the glass measures 8.5x6.5 inches. I am unfamiliar with this film, is it no longer in use? I have no film holders for that size so it is of little use to me. I also have an extra 4x5 back but don't have any camera which it fits. Do they make a back which would fit a 5x7 view camera but which would have a 4x5 glass and accept 4x5 film holders?
These may be dumb questions but I have never delved into LF, only MF and 35mm, but I hope to build my darkroom soon and get started in LF.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
Sheldon Crook, Chino Valley AZ

[Vick Vickery]

Like you, I am not familiar with the 8.5" x 6.5" format, but there have been many formats tried through the years that would now be considered "non-standard" or "odd".

As to the reducing backs, there have been many 5x7 to 4x5 or even 8x10 to 4x5 backs made; since you don't mention the brand of cameras you purchased, I can't guess whether any have been made for your camera in particular. I would consider picking up a 4x5 back (preferably a grafloc-type back which makes the use of roll film backs simple) and using the 8.5 x 6.5 back as a guide to making a back for your 5x7 or even using the base of that back as a base for your 4x5 adaptation; shouldn't be too hard to end up with a 4x5 back on your camera.

[Christian Nze]

Hi
This was the" full plate" format replace by 8x10. I still use this format for my work. It has the same ration as 8x10 but a little smaller. there is no more film available at this size but it is easy to get some cut by Bergger or but by your self if you buy 9" aerial roll.
So your camera was a full plate ad the user adda 5x7 back to fit the new standard.

Adams use one full plate camera (I think his known photograph of the half dome his make with it
bill brandt also use this format with a special wide angle camera to make is nude. http://www.focusgallery.co.uk/photographers/view.jsp?id=7 (http://www.focusgallery.co.uk/photographers/view.jsp?id=7)
hope this help

[luca_3797]

Sheldon,
if you want I have some film holders to sell....

[Jim Galli]

8 1/2 X 6 1/2 film can be bought from Photowarehouse.biz. It is a lovely size and looks great printed on 8X10 with a black border. Film holders show up on ebay from time to time. I wouldn't rush to rid myself of something I'd wind up wishing for in a couple of years. Yes, there are many reducing backs that allow 4X5 on bigger cameras.

[Ernest Purdum]

As an historical note, full-plate, whole-plate or 1/1-plate, all the same thing, was the original plate size, going right back to the "official" Daguerrotype camera, 1839. In British usage, the larger dimension is expressed first, while the opposite is true in the United States and many other locations.

[wfwhitaker]

Sheldon,

Do not get rid of the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 back or destroy it to make something else. If you ever decide to sell the camera, having both the 5x7 and 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 backs will be a plus for someone interested in your camera.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

As mentioned, full plate is a great size. I use it quite a bit, and really love the shape. It has a ratio of 1:1.3, longer than 4x5 and 8x10, but shorter than 5x7. It makes for great portraits and contact prints. Film isn't available cut to that size, but it can be ordered. I note that Shen-Hao makes a 6x8 (aka 6.5 x 8.5) studio camera, so I assume that film in this size is available in China. Perhaps somebody has a lead on this?

[Bill_1856]

I think that it's a lovely size for contact printing, and near ideal for reproduction in books.

[Mark Sawyer]

The old "whole plate" size was worked out by the golden mean to be a "perfectly proportioned" rectangle, pleasing to the human eye and nineteenth century mathematician's mind. The 8x10 is a little boxier looking by comparison. I'm rather fond of that size, and sometimes consider a whole plate camera, though I don't know how much I'd trust the old film/plate holders...

[David A. Goldfarb]

My impression is that it was a common size of window glass at the time.

[Mark Sawyer]

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...

[Ole Tjugen]

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...

[Charlie Skelton]

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

[Steve Nieslony]

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

[Ole Tjugen]

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!

[David A. Goldfarb]

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.