Wholeplate 6 1/2 X 8 1/2 Rochesters - information on film and plate holders

[goamules]

Many people have bought wonderful old Rochester wholeplate cameras.

https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8022/7615612952_af26e38226_b.jpg
Rochester Universal

The problem is, Rochester cameras (Universal, Carlton, and others) in that format came during the dryplate era, and finding a film holder is difficult. Plate holders are somewhat common. The solution is to use film sheaths, that fit in wholeplate plate holders. I actually enjoy loading these much more than a conventional, modern Lisco holder. In the dark, they are easier to hold and feel where the film is sliding in. Then, it's easy to drop the sheath into the plate holder, and close the darkslide. Fumbling with a film holder seems much more difficult, after you've used one of these adapted dryplate holders. You can get them in wholeplate size, and even with an adapter to step down to 5x7.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7083/27498881821_dcb5eeeb93_b.jpg

The other challenge is finding a Wholeplate holder that fits your camera. No, they are not all the same. Rochester, Century, and other camera companies made unique holders, particular to just their camera. They were not standardized, though the film size was. A Rochester takes an 8 inch wide holder, without the "catch" strip of wood near the top. Other cameras use wider or narrower holders, that won't work. Other holders have the catch, which fits into a thin groove in the camera back. In practice, the holder locks into the camera, so you can remove the dark slide without pulling the holder along with it, ruining your film. But that was a lesson learned, and Rochester in the 1890s didn't put a catch strip on their holders. They slide in and out easily, you just hold them in with your thumb when removing the slide.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7531/27498882501_13b68cfa44_b.jpg
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7764/27472692802_4fe1a8a802_c.jpg
Sheath installed

[Tin Can]

Interesting and useful information.

Do you have any ideas why the entire plate system was replaced? I like, use 1/4 plate and the typical camera of that format is much smaller and lighter than 4x5.

Especially true for Press cameras.

[goamules]

You're talking about sizes. Quarterplate is 3 1/4 X 4 1/4, and smaller than 4x5. So of course their cameras are lighter. "Plate" was the term used for sizes before there was film. The largest regular sized plates were "wholeplate." By the film days, other sizes became more popular, and they started calling them by their size, in inches. They dropped the "plate" reference.

[Mark Sampson]

I bought an 8x10 ROC Carlton about 35 years ago for $100. A lovely thing, (as is your example), it had the most beautiful mahogany cabinetwork I have ever seen on a camera, and bad original bellows; no lens. The camera, perhaps, had never left its home town. At the same time I had an ugly gray Ansco 8x10 in working condition... so the Carlton never got restored or used. I never tried to put a holder in it so I don't know if a modern one would have fit. (After ten years or so on the mantel I sold it to a camera collector.)
Somewhere in one of his books, Ansel Adams talks about how in the 1920s 8x10 replaced whole-plate as the preferred size for professionals... so fashion may have caused the decline of the 'plate' film sizes. At least in the USA.

[Peter Gomena]

Yes, the whole-plate format, in the USA at least, seems to have died not long after WWI. Quarter-plate, 3-1/4 x 3-1/4, stuck around in press cameras for quite a while longer. I don't know that half-plate was ever that popular here. 5x7 seemed to be the format of choice for a lot of portrait studios.

[goamules]

Good stories and info! Keep in mind we are talking a period of many generations. The quarter, half, and whole plate sizes were created back in the 1840s Daguerreian era. Polished silver plates were expensive, as were early Petzval lenses. So there were also 1/9th plate and 1/6th...etc. Later, before the Civil War, wetplate took over. Some wanted larger sizes, and glass wetplate negatives allowed printing Cabinet cards and such. Still, those "plate" sizes remained in use, for another few generations. Cameras grew, then shrunk then grew again as amateurs entered the profession. At some point, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 just made more sense, then those other sizes became obsolete. Of all the "plate" sizes (there were actually quite a lot more of them, lots of variations), it's interesting that until the end of the film era (now), there are two still being occasionally used, 170 years later.

[Mark Sawyer]

The quarter, half, and whole plate sizes were created back in the 1840s Daguerreian era. Polished silver plates were expensive, as were early Petzval lenses. So there were also 1/9th plate and 1/6th...etc. Later, before the Civil War, wetplate took over. Some wanted larger sizes, and glass wetplate negatives allowed printing Cabinet cards and such. Still, those "plate" sizes remained in use, for another few generations...

The whole plate size had been around a long time before Daguerre adopted it. It was the standard size for copper plates for the engraving/printing industry, and plating a thin layer of silver over the copper was the most economical way to make a "silver" plate. We owe those beautiful proportions to the early artisans of the printing press.

Whole plate really is a lovely size, and the cameras are quite a nice size to work with too; noticeably smaller than an 8x10, but giving a sufficient-sized negative for contact printing. It's a shame the film is so hard to get these days...

And with that Cooke RVP on the front, Garrett's camera would have been right at home in the Photo Secession! Alfred Stieglitz, Clarence White, and Gertrude Kasebier used very similar equipment.

[goamules]

Thanks for that deeper history of the size. It really is a nice format. I need to get some film out and use it again soon.

[premortho]

Film is no problem, just cut it down from 8X10. I use Kodak Carestream backed single sided x-ray film, cut down to fit my 5X7. It is an ortho film, so much easier to handle in the darkroom.

[Jody_S]

I use an ROC Universal like in the photo, but 8x10, with modern film holders. It is considerably lighter than the 'Dorff I parted with, which is more important to me than the additional movement afforded. Since the ROC holders are larger than modern standard ones, I made a U-shaped wooden piece the thickness of my holders with I place around the holder before inserting it. And I cut a groove in the ROC back for the rib. Works like a charm, though I admit I have ruined a couple sheets through carelessness. It is by far the lightest field camera I have ever held. I could use my heavier lenses if I rigged rods from the back to the front standard as others have done.