Whole Plate format observations. Please join in with yours.

[Greg]

My experiences include:

Cutting 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inch film from 8x10 sheets in total darkness has been a real pain to do up to now. Consistently cut the 6 1/2 inch dimension a mm too much and film won't load in holder. Finally... my special order of Whole Plate film from Ilford arrived the other day.

The Chamonix Full Plate camera and their full Plate film holders have been such a pleasure to use. Their customer service has always been the best. I really can't say enough about them.

Beautiful final print size for an 11x14 inch frame. I print Platinum/Palladium, and the cost savings verses printing 8x10 negatives was actually quite substantial. I shoot 11x14 and Whole Plate formats. My stash of Bergger 200 film (silver content approaching Super XX) finally ran out and now am using Ilford FP-4. D-Max of FP-4 not quite up to what's needed for Silver or Platinum/Palladium printing requirements so have accepted to make Digital Negatives to contact print. With the addition of a step wedge aside the image, if the first print isn't a keeper, the second usually is. With this, the savings in printing 11x14 inch platinum/palladium prints is substantial. FYI: I use Diafine to process my FP-4 negs to be scanned.

Observation: There must have been no universal standards for vintage Full Plate holders. Film size may have always been 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inches, but each manufacturer seemed to make proprietary holders that fit only their brand of cameras. 3 times have purchased vintage Whole Plate film holders on EBay, and none of them could be used with my Chamonix Full Plate camera. Now am in the process of trying to alter them to fit the Chamonix since they were won on EBay for bargain prices.

Lenses:
Ultra and real wide angle: Has been a real challenge. Finally settled on a 105mm Fuji SW (bought one just days ago) and a 120mm WA Nikkor. Fortunately they both take the same size central grad. ND filter. In the past have bought 2 vintage really wide angle optics which based on what info I could research, should have covered the format but actually ever so slightly didn't. My experiences have been that lenses reputed to cover 115 degrees or slightly less, consistently cover way less.
All of my lenses over 305mm are the ones I use on my 11x14. Because these lenses have such large circles of coverage, a lot of image light ends up landing on the interior of the bellows. This has presented me lot of times with the problem of film edge fog. Have come up with the following: Took an older Sinar Norma Auxiliary frame and removed the bottom rail attachment. Now it screws directly into one of the front standard female mounting points in front of the lens standard. I attach to it Sinar's Bellows hood mask 2 (533.11). It makes a phenomenal adjustable rectangular "lens hood". In practice takes time to set up the "extra standard", but then adjusting the 4 adjustable masks takes no time.

Have been trying to obtain a classic Petzval optic, but they seem to command excessively high prices on EBay and alike. Also the term "Petzval" optic seems to be very, very loosely used in lens descriptions on EBay. Will be trying to use a way less expensive Buhl projection lens instead. Have adapted a Sinar Copal shutter to fit the front standard of the Chamonix. Since Buhl projection optics are usually f/3.2 or faster, using a ND filter is usually required.

Fresnel lens: am in the process of cutting one from an 8x10" fresnel lens and adapting it to my Whole Plate Charmonix. Much more of a project than I first thought.

Got an older Linhof viewfinder and labeled the focal length markings to match my Whole Plate format lenses. A bit imprecise but works great in the field.

Would love to hear experiences from other Whole Plate users...

thanks
Greg

[Sal Santamaura]

...Beautiful final print size for an 11x14 inch frame...So I thought for a long time. However, I recently decided to mock up alternatives, increasingly feeling that things were too "pinched." I've now settled on framing them 12x15. Oh well, if one is going to suffer the trials and tribulations of a non-standard film format, a non-standard frame format probably has to go with it. :)


...Bergger 200 film (silver content approaching Super XX)...Maybe, maybe not, but no gold content like Super-XX. :)


...There must have been no universal standards for vintage Full Plate holders. Film size may have always been 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inches, but each manufacturer seemed to make proprietary holders that fit only their brand of cameras. 3 times have purchased vintage Whole Plate film holders on EBay, and none of them could be used with my Chamonix Full Plate camera. Now am in the process of trying to alter them to fit the Chamonix since they were won on EBay for bargain prices.Correct, and there was never an ANSI standard for whole plate. This thread


http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?80644-Whole-Plate-Standardization


is but one of a number in which the history of today's defacto "standard" is detailed.


...All of my lenses over 305mm are the ones I use on my 11x14. Because these lenses have such large circles of coverage, a lot of image light ends up landing on the interior of the bellows. This has presented me lot of times with the problem of film edge fog...I use Fuji 360A, 450C and 600C lenses on my Ebony SV Wholeplate along with Chamonix film holders. I've never had any problem with bellows reflection-induced fog. Perhaps the Chamonix bellows design is more susceptible to it.


...Fresnel lens: am in the process of cutting one from an 8x10" fresnel lens and adapting it to my Whole Plate Charmonix. Much more of a project than I first thought...I replaced the Ebony's stock ground glass with a Satin Snow ground glass when those were still offered. Later, I added a Maxwell fresnel over the glass. Maxwell doesn't make his combination frosted screen / fresnel any larger than 5x7, since his opinion is that in those sizes it would flex excessively. Intead, he sells a pure fresnel for bigger cameras. I placed mine between the ground glass and my eyes, since I'm so nearsighted that a "loupe" is implemented by simply peering over ever-present spectacles. Consequently, there's no danger of damaging the acrylic fresnel's surface with a magnifier.

[peter schrager]

Greg..fp4 works just fine for all alternative processes. .use Pyro it's a snap

[mdm]

FP 4 should be fine, change your development. HP5 may not be. Cutting film is a chore but its not that bad, ocassionally I have a sheet cut from aerographic film that is too long for the holders but that is floppy and really difficult to deal with compared to normal film. Chamonix holders are fantastic. Kodak holders seem to fit my chamonix well enough for me, the t distance seems very close and the scanned film seems to be in focus in the right places, so I have hung onto all mine. I use the chamonix holders most of the time, I have 6 of them which is mostly enough. Whole plate is my favourite format with 5x7 a close second. I would love to get my hands on whole plate delta 100, but foma 100 is available from lumiere in germany, sold as wephota np22.

[chris_4622]

I mount prints to 13x15 mats, the same size for 5x7.

[toki]

Apologies for just leaping in (long-time lurker, first-time poster - hello!), but has anyone got a current link for Lumiere?
I've searched both google and this site, and only come up with lumiere.de, which appears to be a cinema.

Any hints very much appreciated!

Oh, and to stay on topic:

I recently acquired a Rittreck View with whole-plate back and am looking for ways to avoid cutting down 8x10 film if I can.
Although I think I'd quite like to try 8x10, cash flow dictates I hold off for now unfortunately. However, I've read very encouraging things about whole-plate both here and other sites (eg. TOP).

Lee.

[Bill_1856]

I developed a passion for Whole Plate after seeing the MOMA books on Atget. It is said that he shoot with a 8x10, but the books reproduce them to 6.5x8.5.
I waited patiently until something real good came up, then pounced like a spider, although the price was high.
GANDOLFI, perhaps the most perfect view cameras ever constructed, it came complete with a large number of modern double film holders (Kodak?), and several boxes of Ilford FP4.
It needed the brass polished, and the bellows which had been advertised as needing some minor patching turned out to be total disaster and I got it replaced by WesternBellows (a beautiful job -- not too expensive). A new ground glass was added -- wish I could afford a Maxwell for it.
Add my 6 1/2x 8 1/2 Centar Series II (Rapid Rectilinear -- the images are staggering) in an Eastman/Century shutter just back from the magic hands of Carol at Flutofs. She calibrated the speeds, and I gotta admit that it does need a new Copal, although it will probably be used mostly on "T."
I have to think of this as the most perfect Large Format camera that one could have (eat your hearts out Ebony and Chaminoux). Total cost about $1600.
The only problem: I actually prefer shooting with my old 5x7 Kodak 2D.

[IanG]

Mirko at Adox/Fotoimpex has said they'll cut their films to any sizes required. It may be worth contacting him, he posts fairly regularly on APUG.

I have a couple of British Whole plate field cameras that I need to finish restoring and need to find some plate holders, then test them out with film.

Ian

[StoneNYC]

Sal and Greg,

Regarding the reflection on bellows / edge fogging.

I've also experienced this on my 8x10 Chamonix while using the 600C in very bright sun. Interestingly, I know it's not light leak because I've also used EFKE IR 820 (IR filtered) and didn't have the fogging, which tells me the IR light isn't reflecting but the normal light is. I've also left it closed in a test sheet of the IR in direct sunlight, but the slide pulled so I know it's not from non-IR proof bellows.

I didn't realize what was causing it until I built a 14x17 camera and was checking the coverage of my 450mm and realized because the reflection was so strong when I stuck my head in the camera ;)

I don't have a good solution for this, except to try and light block the not-in-shot area of the image. I've considered getting a bellows style lens "hood" but unlike the Toyo45A I used to have, the Chamonix doesn't have one made by Chamonix and the others made by others seem a bit finicky on how to attach to the Chamomix.

Anyway, just saying I have observed thus phenomena, but it only happens in bright sunlight areas where reflection at the edges are higher.

[Greg]

From my initial post: "Took an older Sinar Norma Auxiliary frame and removed the bottom rail attachment. Now it screws directly into one of the front standard female mounting points in front of the lens standard. I attach to it Sinar's Bellows hood mask 2 (533.11). It makes a phenomenal adjustable rectangular "lens hood"." 2 Sinar parts off EBay ran me under $100 because both the Aux standard and the Hood Mask were broken but easily reparable.

I should have been a bit more specific about the edge fogging... I have no fogging problems with most of my lenses. The ones that gave me problems were the optics that I used on my 11x14 with their huge coverage, especially shooting winter scenes with snow.

Greg

[Cor]

Greg,

On the FP4+ not enough density for Pt printing: try PyrocatHD. I actually use HP5+ for 8*10 , process it in Xtol, and if I feel the image would work in pure Platinum I bleach the negative and re-develop in PyrocatHD. Prints fine for pure Pt, albeit sloooow (aprox. expose for 1 hour...).

best,

Cor

[redrockcoulee]

Has anyone contacted Freestyle about providing Aristu.edu in whole plate size?

We have just started using our whole plate Seneca now that we have the 5X7 back made and obtained 5 whole plate film holders off this forum. Currently using Xray film. I have developed a couple of sheets in a Orbital developer in which we added some of those bubbles to the bottom as was suggested here as well.

[Jim Galli]

Your original entry is so complete and factual as to be a bit intimidating. I've gotten lazy and careless in my old age. But I do love the format. (and a whole bunch of others too) I cut my film from old Kodak long rolls of 9.5 inch aerial recon film. This stuff used to show up on ebay once in a while when that industry was all going digital, but I suppose it's all getting a bit long in the tooth now. I have a bunch in the freezer and hope to use it for as long as I'm around. That means ultimately every sheet I shoot has been cut on all 4 edges. A LOT of handling and . . . it shows. But I can't make the jump from maybe 38 cents a shot to $6 bucks, so I live within those means.

I'll assume you've read Sandy King's articles about Pyro-Catechol on Ed Buffaloe's site (http://www.unblinkingeye.com/). Easy to mix. Easy to use. Dead cheap. And it gives me the desired range, although, I just eyeball it. Worth a look. I mix the Part A and Part B and it sits in old liter pop bottles for a year at a time, and never lets me down.

I originally got interested because I stumbled onto a large box of old film holders in a junk store years ago. All of them 1910's and '20's Eastman's. 6.5X8.5 film, and 7X11 film. Since then I've added Agfa and even some Burke and James to the mix and they all mix and match pretty well.

My camera is a rather banged up Eastman 2D 8X10. Years ago on Ebay a fellow was selling an original Eastman Kodak of Great Britain Ltd. reducing back from 810 2D to full plate. So one camera can do either format very well.

For no particular good reason, I load 125 asa film in the 8X10 backs and 32 asa Panatomic in the full plate. Easy to keep track that way. Plus the Panatomic just explodes. Wish it was available.

Sadly, I'm in old Ford mode these days and the camera stuff is languishing. Haven't made a serious print in a couple of years. But that doesn't mean I won't come back to it. Check my web pages when you're bored. I've been fairly prolific over a long - ish period.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I can't make the jump from maybe 38 cents a shot to $6 bucks...To nitpick, wholeplate Ilford via the annual special order program comes in at around $4.00. Still a lot more than 38 cents, but also slightly less than Ilford 8x10 per sheet. :)

[StoneNYC]

Has anyone contacted Freestyle about providing Aristu.edu in whole plate size?

We have just started using our whole plate Seneca now that we have the 5X7 back made and obtained 5 whole plate film holders off this forum. Currently using Xray film. I have developed a couple of sheets in a Orbital developer in which we added some of those bubbles to the bottom as was suggested here as well.

Arista EDU is Foma brand film that's re-branded (and cheaper than Foma, probably because it's bought in bulk) so because whole plate is a specialized format that isn't shot as much, it'd highly unlikely that freestyle would financially benefit from carrying it and it would probably not cost any different than the Foma offering. Best to go with Ilford, their quality control and reciprocity rates are much better than Foma/Arista EDU.

[redrockcoulee]

Yes 8 am aware of that and do shoot both Atista and Ilford products in 4X5 and 5X7 and have a box of FP4 in WP. Choice is good though

[Fr. Mark]

One entry in WP format contact prints is to put WP frame-lines or corner indicators on an 8x10 ground glass then mask ?cut? the 8x10 neg down after developing. There are more 8x10 cameras and way more 8x10 holders, too. Avoids cutting film in the dark.

BTW cutting film in the dark is easier with Xray film, you can have dim red lights on. My favorite is Ektascan B/RA from zzmedical but cxsonline has other kinds. These cost something like 90 and 40 cents a sheet delivered in 8x10.

14x17 Xray would yield 4 sheets of WP with 3 cuts. Similar to 2 5x7s from 1 8x10 takes 3 cuts.

Rotatrim is probably the best tool for this but I can't afford one yet and regular guillotine cutters can be used with dim red lights with proper stop blocks and care to keep the moving blade firmly against the stationary one at the same time keeping the film from moving.

Admittedly, this approach does leave you carrying around a bigger 8x10 camera and bigger holders and using marginally more processing chemicals.

And, having all that 14x17 film around will probably make you wish you had 14x17 ULF camera to use w/o the hassle of all the cutting of film.

[Greg]

Some initial info on 2 additional lenses I just purchased:

90mm f/14 Berthiot Paris Perigraphic No 2 Serie VIa. Couldn't pass up on this "buy-it-now" optic in truly mint condition. Stops down to f/56 with its dial aperture ring. Educational guess is that it has 100+ degrees coverage. Corners go dark with a rather sharp cut off. This really doesn't bother me all that much and cost me less than 1/10 the cost of a Schneider 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon XL. Not worth putting in a shutter, so will use it closed down with a "dark slide" shutter.

Scovillle Mfg. Co Waterbury lens. Again price paid was too good to pass up. No specs on it in the Vade Mecum and Google searches turned up essentially empty. Has a front wheel aperture control, f/15 maximum aperture and stops down to f/60. Proved out to be a single double meniscus lens behind the aperture wheel. Focal length approximately 250mm give or take a handful of mms. When I received the very simple lens, I really thought "why did I buy this?"... one element in a very rudimentary brass lens mount. Rotating aperture control though was a plus. Turns out the lens had superb Bokeh, actually for me much preferred to the Bokeh of a Petzval optic. Seems to easily cover 8x10 and may even cover 11x14!!!! which would so totally please me. Will use this optic mounted in front of an adapted Sinar Copal shutter... a Rube Goldberg contraption but it just works. I think I really hit it big with this optic.

Greg