On the Origin of the 4x5 Camera

[tgtaylor]

In 1881 the Anthony firm began marketing a 4x5 inch camera outfit for only $10 in the national ad campaign “Dry Plate Photography for the Million.” I believe that this camera was the” Ne Plus Ultra Camera” shown in the 1883 catalogue: http://piercevaubel.com/cam/scovill/neaddd.htm and may well have been the first commercially produced 4x5 format camera. As shown in the catalogue, the Ne Plus Ultra was manufactured by “Scovill A & Co.” The Anthony firm merged with Scovill and Adams in 1902 and later became Ansco. For a historical background on the firm see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._%26_H._T._Anthony_%26_Company

Thomas

[IanG]

In 1881 the Anthony firm began marketing a 4x5 inch camera outfit for only $10 in the national ad campaign “Dry Plate Photography for the Million.” I believe that this camera was the” Ne Plus Ultra Camera” shown in the 1883 catalogue: http://piercevaubel.com/cam/scovill/neaddd.htm and may well have been the first commercially produced 4x5 format camera. As shown in the catalogue, the Ne Plus Ultra was manufactured by “Scovill A & Co.” The Anthony firm merged with Scovill and Adams in 1902 and later became Ansco. For a historical background on the firm see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._%26_H._T._Anthony_%26_Company

Thomas

I assume you mean the first commercial 4x5 camera in the US, 5 x4 cameras were already in use in the UK, after all Dry plates began with Maddox in the UK in 1871 and the first commercial factories producing plates were 1879 when Alfred Harman founded what was later to become Ilford in Ilford, Essex.

It has to be remembered that around that time photography was advancing very fast in Europe and there were significantly more camera manufacturers and plate and later paper factories.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

Ian,

Can you provide any links to that?

Thomas

[IanG]

Ian,

Can you provide any links to that?

Thomas

A link to what, the fact that Dallmeyer and others were selling 5x4 cameras earlier, the fact that Harman set up in 1879 and that he wasn't the only one. It's not a big secret :D

Ian

[tgtaylor]

Yes, I was thinking US made. But now that you brought it up, who manufactured the first 4x5 inch camera? Dallmeyer did make a 8x10 inch wet plate camera in the 1870's http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Dallmeyer-J.-H./Wet-Plate-Camera.html but the earliest reference to a 4x5 inch Dallmeyer was un the 1880's http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Dallmeyer-J.-H./Studio-Camera.html. Scoville was manufacturing a mass market 4X5 inch for the Anthony firm in 1881.

Thomas

[Toyon]

5x4? Preposterous!

[jbenedict]

Well, if you want 4x5, just turn the camera on its side... ;)

[IanG]

Yes, I was thinking US made. But now that you brought it up, who manufactured the first 4x5 inch camera? Dallmeyer did make a 8x10 inch wet plate camera in the 1870's http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Dallmeyer-J.-H./Wet-Plate-Camera.html but the earliest reference to a 4x5 inch Dallmeyer was un the 1880's http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Dallmeyer-J.-H./Studio-Camera.html. Scoville was manufacturing a mass market 4X5 inch for the Anthony firm in 1881.

Thomas


Dallmeyer sold 5x4 (4x5) wet plate cameras in the mid 1870's. British made lenses of that era were often marked with their coverage with the longer side first i.e. 8x5.

A number of British companies associated with cameras, lens, materials manufacture were established many years before Antony, and there were similar companies in the rest of Europe. Dallmeyer began in 1860, Wray in 1850, Ross in 1830, Johnsons in 1743 - still trading as camera importers and repairers they sold silver nitrate and other chemicals to Fox Talbot.

There was no mass market in the 1880's not for plate cameras, you only need to look at the numbers of lenses large manufacturers were making it does increase when dry plates started to become common and the number of camera manufacturers increases in the 1890's.

The mass market only begins with smaller, lighter more portable cameras, faster emulsions, commercial processing, roll films (available in Europe before Eastman Kodak) etc.

Ian

[MDR]

Dallmeyer sold 5x4 (4x5) wet plate cameras in the mid 1870's. British made lenses of that era were often marked with their coverage with the longer side first i.e. 8x5.

A number of British companies associated with cameras, lens, materials manufacture were established many years before Antony, and there were similar companies in the rest of Europe. Dallmeyer began in 1860, Wray in 1850, Ross in 1830, Johnsons in 1743 - still trading as camera importers and repairers they sold silver nitrate and other chemicals to Fox Talbot.

There was no mass market in the 1880's not for plate cameras, you only need to look at the numbers of lenses large manufacturers were making it does increase when dry plates started to become common and the number of camera manufacturers increases in the 1890's.

The mass market only begins with smaller, lighter more portable cameras, faster emulsions, commercial processing, roll films (available in Europe before Eastman Kodak) etc.

Ian

Half Plate Daguerreotypes were already very close to the 4x5 format (4 1/4" x 5 1/2 ") and it seems that 4x5 inch daguerreotype cameras existed This Daguerreotype by ``Mr Kilburn 234 Regent Street by Appointment'' is 4x5in (10x13cm) and set in a gilded, cast brass picture frame with plain matt contained in a red morocco cover case with photographer's details, plus his Royal warrants. It sold in Bonhams for pounds 640." (Auction catalogue) The British Journal of Photography, Volume 130 also talks about a 4x5 portrait Daguerreotype of Nevil Story Maskelyne
Plate sizes weren't really that standardized in the early years of photography.

[IanG]

Half Plate Daguerreotypes were already very close to the 4x5 format (4 1/4" x 5 1/2 ") and it seems that 4x5 inch daguerreotype cameras existed This Daguerreotype by ``Mr Kilburn 234 Regent Street by Appointment'' is 4x5in (10x13cm) and set in a gilded, cast brass picture frame with plain matt contained in a red morocco cover case with photographer's details, plus his Royal warrants. It sold in Bonhams for pounds 640." (Auction catalogue) The British Journal of Photography, Volume 130 also talks about a 4x5 portrait Daguerreotype of Nevil Story Maskelyne
Plate sizes weren't really that standardized in the early years of photography.

Totally agree, I'm sure there were quite a few different 5x4 cameras before the Antony camera and the company chose a logical size already in use.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

William Edward Kilburn was a daguerrotypists that specialized in portraiture and photographed with a quarter plate camera which is smaller than 4x5 inch. For an interesting article on Kilburn with excellent examples of his work see http://image.eastmanhouse.org/files/GEH_1990_33_01-02.pdf
The size of Nevil Story Maskelyne's salt images are not 4x5 inch http://books.google.com/books?id=Z7RDAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&dq=Nevil+Story+Maskelyne+photographer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pVlWVKONH9OWyATI5IFo&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Nevil%20Story%20Maskelyne%20photographer&f=false but appear to have been made with a larger camera.

The dry plate process was a revolution in photography which resulted in significantly increasing the market potential for the photographic suppliers. Both Anthony and Dallmeyer started by ordering cameras from manufactures and re-branding them with their own name and, as already shown, Scoville, which had been making 8x10 inch dry plate cameras since the 1870's, was manufacturing a 4x5 inch model for the American mass market in 1881. Only sales would determine the eventual success and permanence of the 4x5 format and it would appear that the US was leading the charge in that regard.

Thomas

[arca andy]

This is something I have never worked out.... why change from whole, half and quarter plate to 5x4 (not 4x5) and 10x8....? Was 5x4 and 10x8 more popular than the plate sizes in the US back in the day?

[IanG]

I have severe doubts that the US was leading anything in in the Photographic industry in the 1880's, far more cameras were being made in Britain and the rest of Europe and being exported all over the world.

US camera designs lagged behind Europe there was no innovation, you only have to look at the sophistication of early MF & LF SLR cameras in Europe with their remarkably modern focal plane shutters, 2 curtains, self capping similar to the cloth shutters in later 35mm SLRs, then look at Graflex shutters which are crude in comparison.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

This is something I have never worked out.... why change from whole, half and quarter plate to 5x4 (not 4x5) and 10x8....? Was 5x4 and 10x8 more popular than the plate sizes in the US back in the day?

It may have been a “marketing decision.” The dry plate revolution brought many amateurs into the market place that needed to “gear-up” and the manufacturers/suppliers of the day were certainly profit motivated. Why choose an older size which could be had on the used marketplace when the opportunity to market a brand new camera existed? Also the public was ready for a larger image than what was commonly available with the older plate cameras and 4x5 inches was a reasonable size at the time and 8x10 inches, which is larger than full-plate (8.5x6.5 inch) was probably considered the ultimate.

Thomas

[tgtaylor]

I have severe doubts that the US was leading anything in in the Photographic industry in the 1880's, far more cameras were being made in Britain and the rest of Europe and being exported all over the world.
Ian

Consider the history of the Anthony company: http://www.historiccamera.com/cgi-bin/librarium/pm.cgi?action=display&login=anthonyco

Note that "In 1850, competition increased due to the introduction of a new type of silver plate manufacturing by Scovill and by the Paris firm Charles Christofle. This drove Anthony to start the production of daguerreotype cases, camera boxes, and photographic chemicals. Additionally, Anthony sent a representative Samuel Holmes with an assistant on a tour of major inland cities east of the Mississippi, as far as St. Louis. This marketing campaign proved quite successful." Note further that in addition to manufacturing cameras, the Scovill firm was also manufacturing plates.

Also "In 1854 The Anthony factory was located at New York city's, Harlem Rail Road Depot, occupying 1/4 of the building. It was stated in an Anthony catalogue that this factory was the most extensive apparatus and photographic material manufacturer in the wold. Anthony manufactured two cameras of his design, a camera-box and a bellows-box, accomplishing all wood and metal work in this factory. He also had an extensive line of photo cases he manufactured, where he employed young boys and girls to perform simple construction tasks. Additional cameras that he sold were Chapman, Chevalier (Paris), Harrison, Palmer & Longkings and Voigtlander cameras."

A display Ad from 1870: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._%26_H._T._Anthony_%26_Company#mediaviewer/File:E._%26_H.T._Anthony_%26_Co._Display_Ad_1870.jpg

Thomas

[goamules]

I have severe doubts that the US was leading anything in in the Photographic industry in the 1880's, far more cameras were being made in Britain and the rest of Europe and being exported all over the world.

US camera designs lagged behind Europe there was no innovation, .....

Ian

I can think of a few things. In 1880, Eastman patented a dry plate coating machine. In 1880s, the first films (Houston, Eastman). Gray and Stammers, first handheld roll film camera. The Prosch shutter. The Klay Mulitplying back. Others....I have to think a minute.

[AtlantaTerry]

Isn't this sort of a "chicken and egg" situation?

Before a 4x5/5x4 camera could be sold would there not need to be film available? Or did folks simply cut 8x10/10x8 media into quarters?

[IanG]

I can think of a few things. In 1880, Eastman patented a dry plate coating machine. In 1880s, the first films (Houston, Eastman). Gray and Stammers, first handheld roll film camera. The Prosch shutter. The Klay Mulitplying back. Others....I have to think a minute.

The problem is that looking at how photography grows in the US is a very one sided history. most of the innovation was taking place in Europe - France, Germany and Britain. Dry plates were already being commercially made (& machine coated) before George Eastman Patented his own coating machine. The first roll films and associated cameras were made in Germany.

It's true that the Antony Company played an important part in US photography but in world terms they had no impact on the choice of 5x4 as a plate/film format.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

Ian,

"In 1879 a few American businesses had produced dry plates in relatively small numbers and for primarily local markets. By the end of 1883 no fewer than twenty-eight American firms were in this business and were shipping plates to vendors as far away as India and China." Philadelphia Photographer 21, page 49 (February 1884). See also Images & Enterprise: Technology and the American Photographic Industry, 1839 to 1925 pages 66-60.

Please cite your evidence, if indeed you have any, to substantiate your statements.

Thomas

[Dan Fromm]

Oh, dear. UK-centric serious person collides with US-centric serious person.

Could we change the subject to the very important question of how many angels can dance on a 4x5 camera?

[Drew Wiley]

Since the British excel at dry humor, maybe this would account for something.

[tgtaylor]

Dan,

Your observation
Oh, dear. UK-centric serious person collides with US-centric serious person. is ridiculous. This is no collision of UK/US centric serious persons but an answer to a question originally raised on apug about a year or so ago of how the 4x5, 8x10, etc film formats came to be. No one there knew and neither did I at the time. Recently, in my ongoing study on the history of photography, I believe that I came upon the answer as posted above. At the time I was just thinking in terms of the US but since Ian brought it up it clearly would have international implications and I have cited my references.

To discover how things came to be is a worthy endeavor so please no butt talk. If you can't contribute in a meaningful way, keep out.

Thomas

[IanG]

There is a need to have a balanced approach. It's not about being US, UK or European centric. It's about reality. Britain and Germany exported a lot of equipment to North America there was little trade in the other direction.

Thomas, try looking up Paget (dry plates)1881, Ilford - originally the Brittania Works 1879,the Liverpool Dry Plate Company which was wound up in 1867, Mawson & Swann 1860 (first dry plates 1877 - first to make ortho plates 1897) Lancaster (cameras), 1849, Marion & Co founded 1842 early manufacturer of dry plates. Dry plates were being made in just about every UK City. That's just in the UK add France and Germany ans you have to appreciate that Europe was the major force as a whole.

Ian

[Dan Fromm]

Tom, of course you're US-centric. You want to locate all innovation here, pay little attention to developments outside of the US. And Ian is very UK-centric. He's not particularly aware of developments outside of the UK, wants to locate all innovation there.

I don't really understand how knowing who first offered 4x5 (= 5x4) cameras for sale will change anything in my life. When you have the time, please explain why the answer to this question should be important to me.

[tgtaylor]

Ian,

In 1882 a major sea-change occurred: Amateurs, who had always preferred the dry process for its convenience, were growing rapidly in number and between 1882 and 1885 most professionals dropped the wet-collodion process for the new technique. As we have seen in 1881 the Anthony firm began a national marketing campaign featuring a $10 4x5 model manufactured by Scoville that was aimed directly at the amateur market. It is my opinion that the success of those marketing campaigns resulted in the permanence of the 4x5 and 8x10 formats as opposed to the plethora of the other plate sizes then available.

Thomas

[Lenny Eiger]

Are you folks aware there is a PhotoHistory email list on yahoo...?

I happen to be a member, tho' mostly I just lurk. These folks could likely answer this quite authoritatively, there are some real experts on there... I've been impressed often by the depth and breadth of their collective knowledge.

Lenny

[IanG]

Ian,

In 1882 a major sea-change occurred: Amateurs, who had always preferred the dry process for its convenience, were growing rapidly in number and between 1882 and 1885 most professionals dropped the wet-collodion process for the new technique. As we have seen in 1881 the Anthony firm began a national marketing campaign featuring a $10 4x5 model manufactured by Scoville that was aimed directly at the amateur market. It is my opinion that the success of those marketing campaigns resulted in the permanence of the 4x5 and 8x10 formats as opposed to the plethora of the other plate sizes then available.

Thomas

This was a European, UK (and Empire) as well as US surge it's mirrored in all developed countries, it was mass production of consistent dry plates that allowed amateurs to readily enjoy photography at a practical level.

The $10 Antony camera nay have been important in US terms but we already had volume manufactures in Europe, particularly in France, Germany & the UK. A half plate outfit from Butcher in the UK 1880's inc lens, tripod legs etc was 50/- (£2.50) $1 - 20p - £0.20 so not so different price wise.

Certainly the 1880's simplified the formats the US and UK largely using the same sizes, Continental Europe their own metric formats.

Both the US & UK used Quarter plate, when it come s to 5x4 then it's probably not as high a proportion of early LF cameras in the UK compared to the US but it's always there, The big difference is the US goes for 7x5 rather than Half plate, we both used Whole plate and 10x8, then we went 12x10 & 15x`12 the US went 11x14 instead.

Probably the most important advantage of early US plate cameras is you abandoned the book form plate holders early on, so most older US plate cameras can use modern film holders. I do have quite a few LF cameras :D that includes a few US cameras which I do use regularly, so I'm not biased against them :)

Ian

[goamules]

We can pick any decade and select any country (well, any Western or Japan) to be "most influential" in many fields. For photography, in the 1840s I'd say the French started it out with daguerreotypes, the British quickly adapted for lenses and cameras, America perfected the process. By the 1910s America created the amateur market, Germany made nice cameras, and the UK was slipping. In 1930 Germany perfected the 35mm with Leica and Contax, in 1950 Japan put everyone out of business with their excellent cameras and innovation. Who cares? Just historians like me! One country was better at mass production, one at adapting and innovating other country's designs, and a couple rested on their laurels. I'll let you determine who those were. Some countries went down the wrong path, as each decade changed the market. Today, they all are dead....oh, except Japan.

[MDR]

Thomas you seem to forget that Europa was for the most part metric so european mfg. used 9X12cm or stayed with the half-plate instead of 4x5 the braketrough for 4x5 in came much later with Kodak's complete dominance after WWII. 4x5 is a Budget format compared to half-plate there is not a lot of difference in size but if you coat thousands of feet of film or plate those 1/4 and 1/2 in ad up. That's another reason for 4x5 success it was cheaper.

[tgtaylor]

The operative work here Dominik is "origin." In light of the evidence I quoted and linked to above it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of 4x5 format sprang from the attempt to cater to the burgeoning amateur marketplace that came with the dry-plate revolution. The 4x5 format went on to become the amateurs choice and the 8x10 format became the "professionals" choice.

Thomas

[jnantz]

my poor guess is after the dagguerotype 4x5 and other format sizes
probably had to do with cutting down the paper and glass sizes that already existed
since they provided people who were doing everything from
calotype/salt prints to ambrotype/wetplate to dry plate ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size#Traditional_inch-based_paper_sizes
maybe a few oddball photographers were doing it early because they realized
it was nearly the same size as a quarter plate and the image could be bigger
before it was vignetted... and then it sort of caught on

[IanG]

The operative work here Dominik is "origin." In light of the evidence I quoted and linked to above it is reasonable to conclude that the origin of 4x5 format sprang from the attempt to cater to the burgeoning amateur marketplace that came with the dry-plate revolution. The 4x5 format went on to become the amateurs choice and the 8x10 format became the "professionals" choice.

Thomas

To many dubious conclusions from a one sided point of view.

The origin of the 5x4 (4x5) format lies in the UK, the fact that the Antony company chose to use it is important maybe in a US context, but it was already in use, so nothing new . . . . . .

It's rather like the people who say photography didn't exist before Eastman Kodak.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

To many dubious conclusions from a one sided point of view.

The origin of the 5x4 (4x5) format lies in the UK, the fact that the Antony company chose to use it is important maybe in a US context, but it was already in use, so nothing new . . . . . .
Ian

Ian,

Again, please cite your evidence for your statements as I have done.

I am a big fan of Henry Fox Talbot who can be credited with the discovery of the salt print process of which I consider myself a modern-day practitioner of (see below). In fact just today I started a study of British photography from paper negatives (1840-1860) and, although I have only read as far as the first chapter, I am reminded of the hindrance that Talbot placed on British photography by requiring a license to practice it as opposed to the French which "just gave it away." This is somewhat similar to IBM and Apple computer back in the '70's. This issue is not addressed in the first chapter but it came readily to mind.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7467/15690096516_f4a77d619b.jpg

Thomas

[IanG]

There were plenty of 5x4 wet plate cameras in the UK, there's a Dallmeyer 5x4 from 1875 (http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/31491651_dallmeyer-4x5-wet-plate-camera)for sale at the moment which pre-dates this later 1882 model (http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_C374.html).

The Dallmeyer archives are accessible in the UK and list when lens numbers where allocated which dates the first camera to around 1875. Dallmeyer didn't make cameras themselves but would have been working with a leading camera workshop in London. I have a later Dallmeyer Press reflex camera which is in fact a re-badged Houghton reflex.

It appears that as dry plates became into use, which pre-dates Maddox'se introduction of the Dry Gelatin plate in 1871, sizes slowly began to standardise. Dry collodion plates were available earlier as can be seen by the Liverpool Dry Plate partnership being dissolved in 1867.

Most manufacturers in the UK offered cameras in Quarter plate, 5x4, Half plate and Whole plate sizes which were the commonest formats for plate cameras.

If you look on the Earlyphotography website you'll see that many of the larger companies were well established by the time Antony introduced a 5x4 field camera. Watson, Billcliffe, Butcher. Lancaster etc. Lancaster claimed to be the largest manufacturer of cameras in the world in 1898 (BJP Almanac 1898 adverts).

Ian

[IanG]

You might also look at page 18 of Dallmeyers 1881 catalogue (http://www.samackenna.co.uk/Dallmeyer/Records/catalogues/1881catalogue.pdf).

Also look at the 1869 price list lenses for 5x4 plate sizes.

Ian

[tgtaylor]

While searching the internet the other day for the origins of the 5x7 camera, I ran across this:

Field Cameras Origins

Two Americans, W.H.E. and H.J. Lewis patented a new daguerreotype camera in 1841. The Lewis model was the first to use internal bellows from its lens to the glass plate. This allowed the cameras to collapse for easier transport, as many photographers were travelling with their rigs. The new design also allowed them to focus and change the perspective of their pictures. http://fiberq.com/cam/index.html

Thomas