6 1/2 x 8 1/2 cameras?

[Havoc]

Is this a viable format?

I was looking for something larger than 4x5. For some reasons I don't feel that 5x7 would make a large difference. 8x10 would be the next logical step. But for 6.5x8.5 I have at least a lens that covers it to start with. But the other formats do have film available. A lens is a one time cost, film comes always back. (ok, I know it rarely ends with a single lens) That would make 18x24 (metric) a better choice concerning film but not concerning choice of gear.

[Drew Bedo]

I think that 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 was a format called "Whole Plate" in the glass plate era. I know that dry plates are avsilable in that size, but I'm not sure that sheet film or holders are.

Anybody?

[Dugan]

I'm pretty sure you can order WP film from Ilford and Shanghai during their ULF yearly program.
I have a Seneca WP camera, and Richard Ritter made a 5x7 back for it for me.
5x7 is a far more accessible film size, although WP is a lovely aspect ratio and great size for contact printing.

[wager123]

Yes you can order the film with no problems and B&H have it in Delta 100 in stock
I just finished restoring two Seneca 6.5 x 8.5 cameras with new bellows and the backs fitted by Richard Ritter to accept the SS film holders I have along with front lens board adapters If you have an interest in one let me know
Mitch

[cuypers1807]

Chamonix makes them new as well as film & plate holders.

[Two23]

Whole plate is right at the threshold where costs really take off. I shoot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10. I find 4x5 is the most versatile because it's lighter to carry, more lens choices, more film choices, and everything is less money than larger sizes. The 5x7 is a nice size for contact printing and isn't much harder than 4x5. If you shoot color film though you might end up having to buy expensive 8x10 and cut it down yourself. With 8x10 costs quickly multiply in all directions as well as the bulk. Whole plate is slotted between 5x7 and 8x10. I think it depends on what you do with the photos--scan and print or contact print. Also depends on if you are wanting 19th century historical aunthenticity I think. You're going to have to handle a neg from 5x7 and whole plate and maybe the cameras too before you can make up your mind.


Kent in SD

[Ron (Netherlands)]

Imperial formats are great to work with (whole plate and half plate), but in that case you are mostly looking towards the vintage British and US made camera's - which are plenty offered btw, but to acquire whole plate holders for a camera you bought separately might be a challenge - so best to look for camera's that come with matching plateholders.
Other thing to think about is that even if you can acquire matching plateholders, and you want to use sheetfilm, you'll need the hard to get metal film sheats; took me about two years to find some of these at an affordable price.
Everything in smaller formats is much easier to find and a bit cheaper - if you come from 5x4 why not give it first a try in the old half plate format....

Currently have 3 WP camera's but only one with matching original plateholders...the British made Eastman:
https://kpmg0072.home.xs4all.nl/Eastman/20200112_141635.jpg

The other two are the Sanderson A-Pattern, which is still in restoring state, for which I don't have a fitting holder yet, and a Butcher & Son National which is restored and has one fitting (but I don't think original) plateholder.

[Drew Bedo]

Oh for the "Good-Ol'-Days" of the Camera Shows. I went to the Houston Camera "Show twice a year for 15-20 years, Usually bought some LF film from the expired film guy that came down from Chicago. A few bucks each for 8x10 boxes of Tri-X and Ektachrome . A test shot or two and off I went.

The inflation in film prices in the dcades following Y2K are incredible and bruising to my aging psyche. Used to get 20 sheets of 4x5 Velvia for around $20. Now the same box in closer to $100 if you don't shop around.

[John Layton]

Soon after becoming intrigued by whole plate - I measured the coverage of my 5x7 Heiland LED VC head, and while slightly oversized (as it should be) for 5x7, it really would not work for WP...and I cannot see making the investment into yet another (larger) Heiland Head, nor do I really forsee making contact prints from anything smaller than 8x10.

But I do like the Whole Plate aspect ratio...would be perfect for me I think! (hmmm...:confused:)

[Oren Grad]

My favorite format, have been using it for more than 20 years. Makes a beautiful contact print on 8x10 paper, with a margin for safe handling and corner mounting. Because of the slightly smaller coverage requirement, lens selection is easier than for 8x10, and lens sets will tend to be smaller and lighter because you can often get away with lenses in #1 shutter where lenses of comparable specification for 8x10 come in #3. My standard lens for WP is the 210 Apo-Sironar-S, but even the regular 72-degree plasmats in that focal length, which are cheap and plentiful, offer ample coverage for WP.

When I was getting started more than 20 years ago, it was easier to find vintage cameras and holders, often at bargain prices, as hardly anybody was interested. I stumbled across my first WP camera, an Eastman No 2 with a few holders, at a local camera show - was intrigued, took a chance on it, and the rest is history. I think that would be much less likely today. But now you can at least buy the Chamonix WP camera and holders new, and Ilford film is available factory-cut in that size through the annual special order program.

[peter schrager]

I bought a no name Japanese WP camera off Ebay. it's a great camera and very light. I bought holders from Chamonix (not cheap but excellent)
I had Richard Ritter make me a back to fit the holders and the rest is history. It's my favorite camera due to the weight/size ratio.
my advice; start with the largest size you can go for it will save you money in the end and you will make great contact prints from this size.

[Sal Santamaura]

...My standard lens for WP is the 210 Apo-Sironar-S...I know what you'd really like is a 225mm Apo Sironar S. I'm also aware that you're, shall we say, not fond of Fujinon LF lenses' out-of-focus rendering. Nonetheless, here's a bit of information that might be of use to you.

Just last week I decided to try using the rear cell from my 210mm f/5.6 Fujinon W (the single-coated, 80-degree type) to replace the rear cell of my 250mm f/6.7 Fujinon W (the single-coated, 80-degree type). Both are Copal 1 versions. Voilà, an approximately 230mm approximately f/6.3 lens that appeared sharp wide open -- at infinity anyway -- across the 8x10 ground glass I examined its image on. I've not used the hybrid to expose any film, but it might be worthwhile to obtain samples of those relatively inexpensive optics and have a proper aperture scale made if you're still very interested in the focal length.

[CreationBear]

WP has always made a lot sense to me as a contact print/hybrid option--certainly the form factor of the Chamonix is intriguing as well. That said, using a splitter with an 8x10 and getting two 5x8's per sheet might get you close to where you want to go while keeping your options open for other aspect ratios.

[Havoc]

Never thought there would be that much replies. Thanks for your input.

The main reason I found myself looking at the cameras is just being bored and surfing Ebay (very dangerous, I know). But also right now with 4x5 I'm just scanning and doing nothing with the negatives. I don't print as I'm not interested in setting up a printer to do something with the scans. I do have an enlarger but cannot find a working space for it. And when I look at a negative and try to imagine it contact printed... not that much difference from the old 6x9 contact prints of the 60's.

Also as mentioned, I see that the cost of film really takes of at 8x10. So is the cost of cameras. If I look at japanese sites, then 6.5x8.5 is plenty on offer. Sometimes in "well used" condition but I'm ok with that. Film looks to be the issue. There is the Ilford ULF drive but at once in a year... and from the prices I found it is just as expensive as 8x10, sometimes even more expensive. Certainly if you have to cut down from 18x24 which would be the nearest to start from that is relatively easy to find.

What really holds me back is that lately I'm really just not motivated to do anything. I have taken 3 photos this year. So at the back of my head there is a little voice telling me not to be silly and buy another camera that will just sit in a corner.

[RJ-]

It's been a tough year with creativity at risk too of going into lockdown.

Breaking out of the groundhog routine of scaling back creativity, I've found slowing to attend to the photographic process is life restoring. Although I've been out of it for a few years I've had to start getting acquainted all over again beginning with 35mm format :)

The whole plate format very much has its challenges and joys to practice as you've found. Like you, I find scanning to be mind-numbing, yet much less so than imaging on digital capture. Do you need to challenge your 3 photo quota and push for a purpose as a personal format (contact printing) to answer .... to yourself as a photographer? Publish your own process - of capturing and reflecting your own life as a photographer at risk of creative lockdown, and explore the limits of the personal format.

In Europe,the 18x24cm tradition took off with similar sized technology and even plates/film. We're mostly relegated now to choosing one emulsion for 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 inch emulsion - the Ilford FP4+ in the UK (TMax100 less so here)which is fine, given the myriad possibilities of development scope); expired x-ray film, high contr ast duplicating material; Imago positive paper or even straight photographic paper. You won't be lost for imaging emulsion: even as the cost of film rises, the cost of coating your own plates with liquid light has remained constant, as has the cost of 2mm cut glass. Lenses of an image circle of >266mm are far easier to come across and these lenses, excluded by the 8x10inch user, become eminently ideal for the whole plate format. I find the Docter Wetzlar lenses very serviceable - far easier to use than August Sander's Voigtlander Heliar type 36cm lens and Zetor shutter and the barrel lenses.

The Japanese whole plate tradition followed the British engineering lead after the forced technological expansion following the Meiji Restoration era leading to highly skilled craftsmen using some fabulous woods with low warp factor. The Charten export version (similar to the Vageeswari cameras made in India) use tabular notches on the wooden bookform plate holders which are unique and less common for each camera. These field camera types are really lightweight.

Chamonix (China); Argentum (Hungary) and Canham (USA) were still making wholeplate cameras when I last checked following the retirement of Ebony (Japan)'s workshop. Argentum were still making whole plate holders - theirs are a notch better than my Chamonix holders which have light leaked several times since I last visited this board (!).

I think I bought my Chamonix whole plate from the first batch when it was initially released here. I've gone back towards the British tradition (Sanderson, Thornton Pickard) or European (Argentum) mostly and don't use my Chamonix much anymore. Great camera still and very flexible and easy to adore with a wider range of modern double dark slides in far better condition than the older options.

Hope you find some inspiration to push beyond the collapse of the will to image more.

[William Whitaker]

Is this a viable format?

You shoulda been here 10-12 years ago!

[Oren Grad]

Chamonix (China); Argentum (Hungary) and Canham (USA) were still making wholeplate cameras when I last checked following the retirement of Ebony (Japan)'s workshop.

Canham has never offered a WP camera.

EDIT - this is wrong, see RJ's description of a custom-ordered camera just below.

[RJ-]

Canham has never offered a WP camera.

Hi Oren,

Canham did indeed offer a whole plate custom ordered camera is a modular camera made of American black walnut with aluminium fittings designed with triple extension covering 47mm to 600mm focal lengths. Designed with a twin track rack and pinion, using 110mm lens panels scaled on the 5" x 7" model weighing in at 3.20kg.

The design is spectacular: 42 degrees of front swing, 29mm of rise and 51mm of fall with +45/ - 90 degree base tilt in the front standard and 22 degrees of rear swing; 178mm of rear shift with 90/20 degrees of rear base tilt.

I interviewed Keith Canham for a whole plate article, comparing the Ebony, Chamonix, Argentum and Canham whole plate articles (June 2008). I probably still have the article somewhere although it's outdated now that Ebony have retired and Chamonix have probably revised their first version by now. The Canham whole plate camera is modular - built on the essentially modular design of the Canham camera which permits multi-format backs.

Kind regards

RJ

[Oren Grad]

Hi Oren,

Canham did indeed offer a whole plate custom ordered camera is a modular camera made of American black walnut with aluminium fittings designed with triple extension covering 47mm to 600mm focal lengths. Designed with a twin track rack and pinion, using 110mm lens panels scaled on the 5" x 7" model weighing in at 3.20kg.

The design is spectacular: 42 degrees of front swing, 29mm of rise and 51mm of fall with +45/ - 90 degree base tilt in the front standard and 22 degrees of rear swing; 178mm of rear shift with 90/20 degrees of rear base tilt.

I interviewed Keith Canham for a whole plate article, comparing the Ebony, Chamonix, Argentum and Canham whole plate articles (June 2008). I probably still have the article somewhere although it's outdated now that Ebony have retired and Chamonix have probably revised their first version by now. The Canham whole plate camera is modular - built on the essentially modular design of the Canham camera which permits multi-format backs.

Kind regards

RJ

Thanks - happy to be corrected and with full details to boot!

[Chauncey Walden]

Delta 100 in my Rittreck with the whole plate back and the modern Rittreck WP holders makes a great contact plate format. My main lens for it is the Ilex-Calumet Caltar 215 f/4.8. Old Kodak/Ansco holders also work with just a slight image position shift. I have an 8x10 but the format is just too square compared to the WP.

[Nodda Duma]

Whole plate is my favorite format, so whole plate format dry plates will always be available. I’ve been bugging Steve Lloyd at Chroma Camera to produce a WP format camera .. I think it would garner interest.

Shanghai film will also make WP format film during their ULF runs, and I *think* Adox cuts film in that format if you ask. In any case, you can cut down from 8x10 and do all the other usual things 8x10 shooters do to save money.

[Havoc]

In any case, you can cut down from 8x10 and do all the other usual things 8x10 shooters do to save money.

I don't know. Buying 8x10 film (139 euro/25 sheets Adox) and then trowing away 30% of it.... After a box or 2 you have got the difference of the lens back if not faster. And I'm not very enthousiast about cutting film in the dark. Had to do it to get some 6.5x9 (cm) sheets out of 4x5 and that was not a nice job.

So the question becomes how much weight/volume do you save compared to 8x10? Any price difference is quickly made up by the cost of having to cut 8x10 or ordering special sizes.

Another option would be to go to 18x24 but the only camera that seems to exist is the russian FKD. It is affordable but sheet holders are rare. Adox for instance has film for it (99 euro/25 sheets) but that is it as far as film goes unless you go for the special sizes again. Then again, Foma 100 is the same price for 18x24 as 8x10. I do like Foma 100 in 4x5.

The question really turns around film. Ok, you can use paper. Did it once, didn't really like it. You can go ancient forms like wet collodium but I don't have the space to set up an enlarger, so a (dark) chemical lab is also out of the question. Certainly if photography isn't your daily occupation (hobby or otherwise). RX film is mentioned but so far I haven't been able to find any larger than dental film which is about visit card size.

Europe is an expensive backwater for this kind of things.

[Oren Grad]

So the question becomes how much weight/volume do you save compared to 8x10?

Depends entirely on your choice of camera, lenses, holders and other accessories that make up your working outfit.

For those few cases classic and modern where you can make a direct comparison between WP and 8x10 cameras of nearly identical specification, the WP model saves a bit of size and weight. But you're not obliged to make only those comparisons. There such a wide range of camera designs, weights and volumes in both formats, and such a wide range of lenses that are usable on each format, that it's impossible to generalize. Film holder weights vary too, both within and between formats. It also depends on your requirements - how many lenses, of what focal lengths, do you want to carry in your outfit? How many holders do you want to carry? To make a meaningful comparison, you need to be more specific about which cameras, lenses and holders you would realistically be considering in each case.

[Mark Sampson]

I admire the format and would enjoy making whole-plate contact prints. Perhaps someday when the right subject matter appears, I'll give it a try.

[Bessa72]

I altered the back of a japanese 6,5 x 8,5 ( Tachihara?) to fit 5x7 film holders..
I wish there was a smaller size close to 4x5..

215106

215107

[Tin Can]

Nice job!


I altered the back of a japanese 6,5 x 8,5 ( Tachihara?) to fit 5x7 film holders..
I wish there was a smaller size close to 4x5..

215106

215107

[Greg]

Seems to me that a lot of people perceive little difference between the 6 1/2 x 8 1/2 format and the 8x10 format. For me there is a great difference between the formats...
With my Whole Plate 95% of my images are horizontal. With my 8x10 most are vertical.My most used lens for WP is my 90mm SA XL with its IVa center ND filter. Most used lens for 8x10 is a 330mm Wollensack IA Raptar.
For the past maybe 2 years I have been shooting a lot more WP over 8x10.
Architectural - WP. Abstract and Close-Up - 8x10. Waterfalls - 8x10. Photomacrography - 8x10. WP - FP4 plus. 8x10 - HP5 plus. (Film choices were determined more by availability of film rather than personal choice. Ordered a lot of WP FP4 plus through Ilford's yearly special order. Just have always used HP5 plus for 8x10 after Super-XX was discontinued, and then Bergger 200 discontinued). FYI: I also shoot 11x14 but have a hard time comparing it to WP or 8x10... seems to be a function of the final contact print size. For me 11x14 prints are just more grandiose. At one time shot 14x17 with an Improved Empire State, but had a hard time previsualizing my compositions with this ULF, and was offered a sum of money for the camera, lens, and holders that was too good to take a pass on. For both the WP and 8x10 formats have tried to use fresnel lenses but with both formats just prefer using the plain GG, Ah something I have in common with both formats. For both formats scan the negatives and make digital negatives to print from. Cost of material savings for Platinum/Palladium huge. The ability to dodge and burn the images in Photoshop, before making digital negatives, very important to me. So if I had to do it all over again today.... I would acquire a (preowned) Leica S2 or a FUJIFILM GFX? with a system of lenses. Then made digital negatives to print from. So why? Am in my mid 70s and transporting my WP or my 8x10 camera up New England gorges and to remote areas in New England (as I once frequently did in the past) is a chapter of my photographic life not to be repeated.
Comments most welcome...

[Tin Can]

Just got a single WP negative Plate, exposed decades ago

WP is significantly smaller on my 8X10 scanner

I got it for historical reasons, and will be posting the scan later today

I have 1/2 plate film and plate holders of 2 design and cameras to match

[Tin Can]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51129192500_e46cb82c89_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kU7tBJ)CA Whole Plate (https://flic.kr/p/2kU7tBJ) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

[Ron (Netherlands)]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51129192500_e46cb82c89_z.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2kU7tBJ)CA Whole Plate (https://flic.kr/p/2kU7tBJ) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr

very nice one ! - pity we can't appreciate a somewhat bigger scan

[tdicorcia]

Thanks for bringing up WP. One poster in this thread mentioned the flurry of WP activity on this forum. Reading that thread, just last year, got me excited about the format. The thread got really interesting with all kinds of projects suggested, but then it kind of died out.

I'm recently into LF, and I don't have an enlarger, so I do contact prints. But 5x7 is a little small. I live in Japan and bought an unusual camera from a seller that didn't know anything about it. I thought it might be 5x7. It's Whole Plate. So, I've got the camera. Next up, film holders. I've learned to really appreciate industry standards. I now have four different sizes (outside dimensions) of WP holders, but none fit my WP back. Well, one is close enough to modify, I think. This will be a future project, as I need to finish putting together my Toyo-View 5x7 kit and start taking pictures.

By the way, WP in Japan is called yatsugiri (1/8 cut, deriving from an old Japanese paper size). There is a related format in Japan called "yatsugiri-wide," which is 6.5x10 inches. I just passed on a Tachihara back with two pristine holders in this format. The set sold for about $280. I was so tempted, but told myself to focus. Pictures of my WP camera, which appears to be home-made (machined components built into a small attache case) and the yatusgiri wide back and holders that recently sold on Yahoo Auction in Japan.
215175215176

[Nodda Duma]

tdicorcia, what width WP holder does your camera back require? If you measure, I can check my collection which has a variety of different widths.

[Steve Goldstein]

That yatsugiri-wide format is pretty cool. The image-area dimensions would be very close to the golden ratio (if you're into that sort of thing). In that regard it's very close to 7x11 but the camera would be a bit smaller and lighter, especially with a fixed "landscape-mode" back.

[Tin Can]

Try 2X click on image

It works for me, but maybe not for others

The file is 7mb

All faces are soft or motion degraded

But most stationary bits are not

Let me know if double click works

[Oren Grad]

By the way, WP in Japan is called yatsugiri (1/8 cut, deriving from an old Japanese paper size). There is a related format in Japan called "yatsugiri-wide," which is 6.5x10 inches.

For a while I had a Rittreck View outfit with backs for four different formats: 4x5, 5x7, yatsugiri, and sort-of-6x10. (For completeness: there are also 8x10 as well as 6x9 cm adapter backs for the Rittreck, but I didn't have those.) What I'm calling "sort-of-6x10" is probably just the "yatsugiri-wide" that you refer to - the holders were made by Tachihara. The reason I call it "sort-of" is that an 8x10 sheet required two cuts to fit the holders, not one - the long dimension was just enough less than 10 inches that a single lengthwise cut from an 8x10 sheet wouldn't fit. Unfortunately, that made it operationally rather less cool than it would otherwise have been.

[tdicorcia]

For a while I had a Rittreck View outfit with backs for four different formats: 4x5, 5x7, yatsugiri, and sort-of-6x10. (For completeness: there are also 8x10 as well as 6x9 cm adapter backs for the Rittreck, but I didn't have those.) What I'm calling "sort-of-6x10" is probably just the "yatsugiri-wide" that you refer to - the holders were made by Tachihara. The reason I call it "sort-of" is that an 8x10 sheet required two cuts to fit the holders, not one - the long dimension was just enough less than 10 inches that a single lengthwise cut from an 8x10 sheet wouldn't fit. Unfortunately, that made it operationally rather less cool than it would otherwise have been.

Oren,
I didn't expect that about the wide film holders, though not too surprised. That's too bad, as you say.

Not really relevant, but here is a picture of a box of (old) Japanese WP film. 163mm x 213mm. Nominally 6.5x8.5 inches, but 6.417x8.386 inches (by conversion). 163 x 213 is within the range that Sal Santamaura quoted in his post to this forum 1-Aug-2007. Ilford was cutting whole plate film to (162.7 to 164.3) x (213.0 to 214.6). Kodak TMY was said to be (163.1 to 164.1) x (212.9 to 214.9).
215192
"JS" must be for "Japan Standard?
"I wonder if I could find Japan Standards for these formats?
Tom

[tdicorcia]

Thank you. Let me check and post this weekend. I had started to fill in a table of the holders and backs I have. I actually have one more WP back.
Tom

[Oren Grad]

Not really relevant, but here is a picture of a box of (old) Japanese WP film. 163mm x 213mm. Nominally 6.5x8.5 inches, but 6.417x8.386 inches (by conversion). 163 x 213 is within the range that Sal Santamaura quoted in his post to this forum 1-Aug-2007. Ilford was cutting whole plate film to (162.7 to 164.3) x (213.0 to 214.6). Kodak TMY was said to be (163.1 to 164.1) x (212.9 to 214.9).

Compatibility between the Ilford-cut WP film and Japanese yatsugiri holders can't be assumed. As I recall, the fit with the Tachihara-made yatsugiri holders I had for the Rittreck was OK, but I have some Fidelity 8x10-to-WP reducing holders from Japan in which dimensions of the inset flanges for the WP sheet are just a bit too tight. Antique, brand-proprietary book-form holders adapted with film sheaths need to be measured/tested to be sure.


"JS" must be for "Japan Standard?
"I wonder if I could find Japan Standards for these formats?
Tom

You might try inquiring at JCII - perhaps they have something in their library or could advise about where to look.

[tdicorcia]

tdicorcia, what width WP holder does your camera back require? If you measure, I can check my collection which has a variety of different widths.
Jason,
Thanks for the offer of information. The whole plate camera I bought has a back that is 192.5 mm wide. Meaning a film holder would have to be narrower than this. The distance from the "backstop" (the end of the 3-sided area that accepts the film holder) to the far side of the rib channel is 236.8 mm. In other words, the film holder should be <= 236.8 mm from the taped end to the top on the rib.
I am posting a picture of the the four WP film holders I have. The Toyo Cut holder is the only one that has a short enough rib distance to fit. Unfortunately, the Toyo Cut holder is about 3mm too wide.
Since I have several Toyo Cut film holders in OK condition, I think I'm going to increase the width on my camera back to accept the Toyo holders. These are the lightest holders of the bunch. Also, I have a Sakai half-plate, metal field camera. If I ever buy the whole plate expansion back for this camera, it should (I would hope)
215371accept the Toyo WP holders.

[Tin Can]

All this WP chatter got me

Waiting on a kit, which looked good on eNay

2 more weeks or more International

[Nodda Duma]

Jason,
Thanks for the offer of information. The whole plate camera I bought has a back that is 192.5 mm wide. Meaning a film holder would have to be narrower than this. The distance from the "backstop" (the end of the 3-sided area that accepts the film holder) to the far side of the rib channel is 236.8 mm. In other words, the film holder should be <= 236.8 mm from the taped end to the top on the rib.
I am posting a picture of the the four WP film holders I have. The Toyo Cut holder is the only one that has a short enough rib distance to fit. Unfortunately, the Toyo Cut holder is about 3mm too wide.
Since I have several Toyo Cut film holders in OK condition, I think I'm going to increase the width on my camera back to accept the Toyo holders. These are the lightest holders of the bunch. Also, I have a Sakai half-plate, metal field camera. If I ever buy the whole plate expansion back for this camera, it should (I would hope)
215371accept the Toyo WP holders.

What you need are antique Premo Camera plate holders, with a film sheath adapter to shoot film. I can spare one to get you started, though I don’t think I have an insert to load film in it.

215583

215584

215585

[tdicorcia]

What you need are antique Premo Camera plate holders, with a film sheath adapter to shoot film. I can spare one to get you started, though I don’t think I have an insert to load film in it.


Wow. It's amazing to me to see a film holder with just the right width. Unfortunately, at 215mm to the bottom of the rib) it won't quite cover the camera opening at the taped end when the rib is in place. The taped end of the holder just barely comes up to the end of the opening, not even close to the backstop.

I imagine that back in the day, one could find a carpenter that could make up film holders to your exact specification. It is pretty delicate woodwork, though.

Thank you for the kind offer to send me a holder, but I live in Japan, which means parcel post is expensive. I will do fine with the Toyo holders.

Actually, I do have some older wooden plate holders that came with another purchase. I should check those. Some day, I will want to try some of your WP glass plates.

Tom

[Nodda Duma]

You read the length measurement wrong. I’m showing the bottom of the holder, so length from rib to end is 232mm. What you thought is the rib is actually a spring-loaded wood strip inside the holder that retains the dry plate. Sorry about that..I forget not everyone has seen a plate holder up close. :) This is definitely the holder type that fits your camera...length would intentionally be undersized a mm or two from your measurements to ensure fit after manufacturing tolerances.

[Tin Can]

There are an amazing variety of Whole aka Full Plate cameras on eBay right now

However as noted holders and Plate sizes vary

Try to buy holders and camera together and be ready to deal with 'T' variance which can be fiddled

[tdicorcia]

Got it. Yes. It would fit. Premo Camera plate holders. I'm glad its recorded here.

Sorry about the mixup. You're right that I have not spent much time with an LF plate holder. I've not tried to load them.
Thanks for the tike it took to go measure it and post the results.

[Nodda Duma]

No problem and good luck! Whole plate format is a great format. The aspect ratio is really nice.

[Tin Can]

Posted on Show Off Your Camera

ANBA IKEDA Whole Plate

https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!&p=1602993&viewfull=1#post1602993

[Rod Klukas]

For many years in the 19th century, film sizes were set or cut down from Whole plate with the only one left direct in lineage, I believe is 6x9 / 6th plate on 120 film. This is the oldest continuously manufactured film also by the way.

You can find old Daguerreotypes in 1/6 plate sizes. Very Common.

[Dave Wooten]

For many years in the 19th century, film sizes were set or cut down from Whole plate with the only one left direct in lineage, I believe is 6x9 / 6th plate on 120 film. This is the oldest continuously manufactured film also by the way.

You can find old Daguerreotypes in 1/6 plate sizes. Very Common.

Interesting, thanks

[esearing]

Would you consider 8x10 for convenience? You can then crop, use masks, or custom backs for any smaller format if you want dedicated holders. Pricing for annual ULF film order for 6.5x8.5 is not much lower than the 8x10 film stocked year round.

[Tin Can]

I plan to use my new to me, Full Plate camera, with Plates!

I really like I can contact print on 8X10 paper with good margins

The camera is way smaller than any 8X10

[Scott Davis]

I need to save up some extra beans and get Keith Canham to make me a whole plate reducing back for my 8x10. And then get someone to rehab a bunch of my vintage wp holders. If I still had my studio, I'd shoot more of it with my Kodak studio portrait camera, but it's in storage, and the stand for it is too - plus the stand needs the platform rebuilt.

[Kent Phelan]

My favorite format, have been using it for more than 20 years. Makes a beautiful contact print on 8x10 paper, with a margin for safe handling and corner mounting. Because of the slightly smaller coverage requirement, lens selection is easier than for 8x10, and lens sets will tend to be smaller and lighter because you can often get away with lenses in #1 shutter where lenses of comparable specification for 8x10 come in #3. My standard lens for WP is the 210 Apo-Sironar-S, but even the regular 72-degree plasmats in that focal length, which are cheap and plentiful, offer ample coverage for WP.

When I was getting started more than 20 years ago, it was easier to find vintage cameras and holders, often at bargain prices, as hardly anybody was interested. I stumbled across my first WP camera, an Eastman No 2 with a few holders, at a local camera show - was intrigued, took a chance on it, and the rest is history. I think that would be much less likely today. But now you can at least buy the Chamonix WP camera and holders new, and Ilford film is available factory-cut in that size through the annual special order program.

Oren, I am guessing you had something to do with Mike Johnston's foray into this format a few years ago. At the time (I saw Mike as a LF dabbler) I thought it was a bit nuts. Hard to get film, holders, etc. Why not just 5x7? But ever the romantic, he bought into the aura/history of WP. I hope he used it before moving on. PS. Mike is a friend of mine; I don't mean to diss upon him.

[Oren Grad]

Oren, I am guessing you had something to do with Mike Johnston's foray into this format a few years ago.

Indirectly, I guess.

For those who are wondering we're talking about, read these posts in sequence:

https://web.archive.org/web/20171204140144/https://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-about-ebony-sv-wholeplate_09.html

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/11/open-mike-film-format.html

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/01/the-single-use-device.html

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/11/the-single-use-device-is-no-more-of-use.html