7x11 and whole plate (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) formats

[Michael Roberts]

I just acquired a whole plate (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) parts camera from ebay (meaning some parts are missing) and am thinking of using the remaining parts to build a 7x11 camera. This raised the question, how many LFers are using each of these formats? I know there are a few who are using each (and both can be purchased new), but I haven't seen any poll or count. Is one more popular than the other?

Inquiring minds want to know (one, anyway).

Please indicate if you are using one or the other (or both) formats or if you are thinking of moving into one or the other.

Also, if you are so inclined, let us know what it is about each format that you like, especially compared to, say, the more conventional 8x10 format.

Michael

[Oren Grad]

6 1/2 x 8 1/2 has been my most used large format in recent years, though I've also made some 7x11 exposures within the last few months. Checking my negative log, I see that I made my first 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 pictures in 1998 and my first 7x11 pictures in 2002.

[Michael Roberts]

Interesting, Oren. How have you dealt with the relative scarcity of holders and film (other than the annual Ilford special order) in these sizes?

[mdm]

Whole Plate is my main format along with 5x7. If you want some kodak whole plate holders and you cant find them anywhere else I may have some for you, because I am mainly using chamonix holders theese days. I think 7x11 would be to long for my taste.

[goamules]

I shoot a lot of wholeplate too. I have 3 good holders, I don't ever shoot that many shots. I often shoot from home, so if I did, I'd just go reload a holder.

[karl french]

7x11 is a nice format to pair with a more 'square' format like whole plate or 8x10. Depending on the potential composition you find, you can choose either format.

[mike rosenlof]

Mike Johnson at The Online Photographer has a lot of good things to say about whole plate. He also says LF is not in his genes and might still be trying to sell his WP camera.

I shoot 8x10 -- but more 5x7 these days. 7x11 seems like a lot of "non standard" bother for a similar size, but I admit there is a different feel to the less square shape.

[Oren Grad]

Interesting, Oren. How have you dealt with the relative scarcity of holders and film (other than the annual Ilford special order) in these sizes?

I've been very fortunate with WP holders. I started in whole plate when I stumbled across an Eastman No. 2 at a camera show and for whatever reason it caught my fancy. That camera came with a handful of holders, though it's been so long now I can't recall whether those were film or plate holders. Anyway, once I had that camera I watched eBay carefully, and over the first few years managed to accumulate a decent number of Eastman film holders, plate holders and film sheaths, and also a handful of Hoffman holders. Usually this was from lots clearly labeled as WP, but I also struck pay dirt once with a generic "bunch o' holders" lot. I sent a handful of the Eastman film holders to Alan Brubaker for overhaul - they came back cleaned and lubricated, with new phenolic darkslides, and were my main "users" for a while. Alas, WP holders seem to be harder to find on eBay these days.

For a while I had a big multi-format Rittreck View outfit, assembled through a series of kit purchases; I accumulated a bunch of Tachihara-made "yatsugiri" (WP) holders with those purchases. However, the Rittreck holders are dimensionally specific to the Tachihara-made yatsugiri back - longer and narrower than Eastman holders. More recently, when I bought a WP Chamonix second-hand, I ordered some new Chamonix holders. I got a bunch more through a second-hand purchase of a WP reducing back kit for my 8x10 Phillips Compact II.

I have only a small number of 7x11 holders, though - a set that Alan Brubaker had overhauled for a previous owner.

As for film, initially I obtained odd sheet film sizes from Photo Warehouse. In those days they used to buy rolls from Ilford and cut small quantities to order in any size. I also obtained one custom order of factory-cut Bergger 200/Fortepan 200 in WP size that was basically a disaster – my least-favorite B&W emulsion ever, and on top of that my batch had a coating defect that was reported by others as well. Finally, with their bankruptcy and reorganization in 2004-2005, Ilford stopped supplying rolls to third-party finishers like Photo Warehouse and launched their own program for special sizes. Since then I’ve obtained all of my odd-format sheet film through the annual Ilford special order period.

[David Karp]

I use WP. 7x11 is intriguing, but I decided enough is enough. 4x5, 5x7, and WP are fine with me. I like the WP size and proportions. Recently, I purchased my first photo inkjet printer. I am just puttering around getting used to working with it. I find that I like cropping some of my digital files to 6.5 x 8.5 proportion and printing that size on 8.5x11 paper.

[peter schrager]

I use WP. got a camera from Japan and had Richard Ritter make me the back to fit the Chamonix holders..simple; elegant; lightweight;
BEST, Peter

[Peter Gomena]

I use WP, and was fortunate to buy a kit that contained 6 film holders. I love the format, and I need to use it more. My camera is a modified Rochester Optical Standard, originally a plate camera. Somewhere in its history, a skilled woodworker converted it to focus on film in Eastman holders. The holders had been modified with 1/8" shims on each side to fit the camera. It's not a perfect fit, but it's light-tight and produces sharp images.

[Bill_1856]

I spent a lot of time, money, and effort getting all set up to shoot the ultimate whole-plate (Gandolfi), and discovered that I much prefer 5x7, (Kodak 2D and/or extension back on 4x5 Nagaoka).

[Michael Roberts]

Bill, what made the difference--the aspect ratio or the smaller size...or both?

[mdm]

It all comes down to preference, and the only way to know for shure seems to be to try it, so don't feel guilty.

[chris_4622]

I made 20 WP film holders for myself to move into that format from 5x7 which I still use at times. I never considered 7x11 but there is an interstate exchange near here that I've seen under beautiful light that I wish I could photograph and 7x11 would be a nice format for that.

[Tin Can]

I have seen your holders. Very impressive!

I still cherish the big yellow flash bulb. Thanks again!



I made 20 WP film holders for myself to move into that format from 5x7 which I still use at times. I never considered 7x11 but there is an interstate exchange near here that I've seen under beautiful light that I wish I could photograph and 7x11 would be a nice format for that.

[Bill_1856]

Bill, what made the difference--the aspect ratio or the smaller size...or both?

Probably both, but mostly the aspect ratio, I think. In retrospect, the Whole Plate seems ... er... "clumsy."
I believe that I could go through life with only a light 5x7 and 10" lens.
Of course if one was limited to contact prints there's no choice -- 5x7 just ain't big enough, and 6.5x8.5 is the smallest size that I find acceptable for contacts. In fact, it was seeing them in the Atget books that started me on my (unfortunately expensive) quest.

[Jim Galli]

Both, although I haven't had the 711 out in a couple of years. The Eastman 7X11 & 8X10 outfit allows both formats with one camera. I do quite a lot of 6.5X8.5 but the reasoning is a bit bizarre. Years ago I bought Aerial Recon imaging film in 9 1/2" rolls. I'm running out of the Panatomic, wo quit cutting into 8X10 which is wasteful. You have to cut the 10" then trim off an inch and a half of waste on the 8" side. Whereas with 6.5X8.5 you cut at 6.5 and trim an inch off. Making the film last longer, and the 6585 has nearly the presence of 8X10. I also bought a Rittreck that has both 6585 backs and 6X10 backs. Haven't played with the 6X10 nearly enough. So many formats, so little time.

[redrockcoulee]

My wife and I have two whole plate camera, a Butcher and Son that we have three or four plate holders for and a Seneca Improved that we have 5 film holders that we got on this forum at a terrific price I think and three or four plate holders. We have 6 film shealths to deal with the plate holders although my wife threatens to take up wet or dry plate some day. We also converted a 8X10 to 5X7 reducing back for the WP so that we can shoot both WP and 5X7 but the ground glass is no longer in one piece, or should say it is in one piece but because it is taped together. I know that I bought two of the lenses for it off this forum and I might of even bought the camera itself here as well. Not a smart move checking out the for sale section.

I had bought a few years ago a box of WP film but have not used it as the whole plate needed some work etc to get functioning for us in things like lenses and holders. We have shot X-ray film with it as a 14X17 sheet makes either 4 WP or 6 5X7 sheets. We are planning on ordering either FP4 or Delta 100 if Ilford has the special order again this year. My wife also plans on shooting 14X17 pinholes with a full sheet of the Xray film as that is possible in an Iams cat food canister and perhaps a double sheet of it in a Iams dog food one.

The lensboard was an awkward one to change and too small to make an adapter for Linhold Technica board so and several of the lenses had the same flange. My solution was to get a millwright at work to make adapters so that I can screw in Copal 0 and 1 shutters into the flange therefore the one lens I have that is not for a flange just screws in and the 0 shutter that I got that I think was brand new is now a shutter for zone plate and pinhole lenses mounted on a piece of matt board that slide into the front of the shutter. The second flange is mounted on a Technica board so that I can use the Turner Reich or the pinhole/zoneplate on my 4X5.

[Scott Davis]

I've spent some time acquiring whole plate holders - I've got I want to say 13 of them (enough to load up and shoot an entire box of film at a turn). That capability was important to me because I was using it a lot in the studio with my great big Century Master portrait camera. I haven't been using it as much since I've lost my studio space, but it is my favorite format. I have a pair of Seneca "black beauty" whole plate cameras, one of which took a tumble over a waterfall and is now in need of restoration. All my holders are vintage Eastman-Kodak type, which, while not a universal standard, are the most common size/style of whole plate holders. They fit all three whole plate size cameras I have, and all the film I have in the format (FP4+, Tmax 400) has always fit.

[mdm]

They are so beautiful those Kodak WP holders, each with a story in the fibres of the wood. I am afraid a new Chamonix holder is sterile in comparison. A plastic holder is a dead thing, having never lived. I love WP for the holders most of all. Their tactility and proportions.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I am afraid a new Chamonix holder is sterile in comparison...Do you think a wholeplate Ebony holder


http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=2_82_176&product_id=3927

is sterile too? :D

[mdm]

Yes I do, until its been around a while. Spent some time on the job.

[redrockcoulee]

Do you think a wholeplate Ebony holder


http://www.badgergraphic.com/opencart/index.php?route=product/product&path=2_82_176&product_id=3927

is sterile too? :D

They cost twice what I paid for my Seneca. I too like holders to have character, and a more affordable price tag, mostly the latter. ☺

[papercam]

I don't have a WP camera but do have a 7x11 back for a 11x14 camera.

[Michael Roberts]

FWIW:
Just to get a visual on the size differences between whole plate and 8x10 and between 8x10 and 7x11....

Of course, whole plate and 8x10 are nearly the same aspect ratio (76.5% v. 80%).

One might think the differences between 8x10 and 7x11 would not be all that different, either--after all, the area is very similar (80s.i. vs. 77s.i.).

Some folks ask why bother with 7x11 (implying it is not much different that 8x10). But, for me at least, these cut-outs are obviously very different in perspective (80% v. 63.6%).

[karl french]

Yes, it's quite different. Very close to the golden mean. Much less trouble than 12x20.

[chris_4622]

When I was looking at moving up from 5x7 I made some cut-outs in different sizes; 11x14, 7x11, and 6 1/2 x 8 1/2. I decided on the WP, for now. But looking at the cut-outs again the other day I'm struck how nice the 7x11 format is to my eye.

[papercam]

I never warmed up to WP, it was too "boxy" and there must be some truth to 7x11 being close to the golden triangle because I can take the absolute worst photograph and it still looks nice. Truth be told, Beyoncé's song 7x11 and my love of the game "craps" were the real reason I got into 7 by 11.

[chris_4622]

I never warmed up to WP, it was too "boxy" and there must be some truth to 7x11 being close to the golden triangle because I can take the absolute worst photograph and it still looks nice. Truth be told, Beyoncé's song 7x11 and my love of the game "craps" were the real reason I got into 7 by 11.

I'd like to see some photos in that format.

[karl french]

146040

146041

Both shots from my Morito 7x11. The first with the 476mm component of the the Cooke Series XVa Convertible and the second with the Nikon Nikkor-M 300m f9.

[Michael Roberts]

Karl,
I particularly like the horizontal photo. You did a great job of composing near-far and following the coast line to lead the viewer all the way through the photo. Lots of detail in the sea foam and smaller rocks and stacks, too.

This sweeping coast line is a great example of the panorama format.

Thanks for posting these!

[chris_4622]

Thanks Karl for posting these. The format seems well suited to the horizontal panorama, but I'm not so sure the vertical works. If I proceed with an 11x14 camera and holders I will make a back for this format too.

[karl french]

I think it's an interesting format for verticals. It obviously lends itself to horizontal compositions, especially landscapes. But of the 11 sheets of 7x11 I've shot so far I'm running a nearly 50/50 ratio of horizontal to vertical. I'm intending to shoot some figure studies with the camera and the big Heliar 360mm f4.5. That will certainly bump up the number of vertical compositions.

[peter schrager]

I think 7x11 is bomb..I have wp size and that is amazing as well

[jnantz]

it is easy for me to cut a 11x14 sheet of paper in half
with WP i don't know what i would do, but i'm guessing
if i used whole plate, i'd figure it out.

[karl french]

WP is just the thing if like a border with an 8x10 piece of paper.

[peter schrager]

my WP camera weighs nothing compared to most 8x10's
best, peter