8X10 Holder Weight and Why 8X10 is called 8X10???

[audioexcels]

1) What is the lightest weight wood based holder and what is the weight of the modern plastic types? (film only of course)


2) Why is the 8X10 or any format called 8X10 when the film exposed is only 7 5/8" X 9 5/8"?


3) Why make a GG that is 8X10 when the film area is almost 1/2 an inch off of the 8X10 size? Why isn't the GG made to be 7 5/8" by 9 5/8"?



As a side note, what are the lightest lenses that cover the format and produce excellent results with good enough movements?


Thanks all!

[John Kasaian]

1. Darn if I don't have a scale handy. My wooden holders marked Graflex made for Eastman Kodak are quite bit lighter than my plastic Lisco Regals and Regal 2 holders. Lots lighter.

2. Something has to fit into the grooves in the film holder to keep the film flat and from falling out into the bellows. :eek:

3. Depends on the camera, I'd say. The gg on my 'dorff looks to be true to whats on the film.

side note) "good enough movements" is a subjective term---some subjects require a lens with whole lot of movement to be "good enough" while other subjects require hardly any, if at all to be "good enough."

240mm, 270mm & 305mm G- Clarons are nice lightwieght lenses with quite a bit of wiggle room when stopped down. Aluminium barrel Artars are extremely light if you can work without a shutter and a 16-1/2" or 19" have generous image circles.

I hope this helps. :)

[Turner Reich]

Why is a 2x4 called a 2x4? It once was 2x4 and not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.

[Nick_3536]

450C Fuji. Lots of movements. Light.

[audioexcels]

Why is a 2x4 called a 2x4? It once was 2x4 and not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.

I was just thinking that the entire area of a glass plate can be the same size as what will be exposed, so maybe that's where it began.

[audioexcels]

1. Darn if I don't have a scale handy. My wooden holders marked Graflex made for Eastman Kodak are quite bit lighter than my plastic Lisco Regals and Regal 2 holders. Lots lighter.

2. Something has to fit into the grooves in the film holder to keep the film flat and from falling out into the bellows. :eek:

3. Depends on the camera, I'd say. The gg on my 'dorff looks to be true to whats on the film.



I have had everything below 8X10 and the GG measures exactly that size of what should be the exposed area on the frame (or what we view through the glass)...though, the GG is in fact larger. With the smaller sizes, it seems they have a much closer look to the GG than the larger sizes (at least with WP and what I know gets exposed with an 8X10).

Definitely agree with you on the film grooves part, but why not make the holders larger so that the film is say, 8.5X10.5 and slotted in for a true 8X10 image?

If you can find that scale in the attic somewhere, I'd love to know the weight difference:)

From what I recall, a modern 8X10 holder is something like 1.5lbs. I could live with an 8X10 holder that was something like .75lbs;):)

Cheers and thanks!

[John Kasaian]

I took one of my wood holders into the kitchen.
Loaded with film, it is ever so slightly heavier in my guesstimation than a can of Dole Pineaple Chunks in Juice---8 0z (227g) net wieght is what it says on the can.

I hope this helps :)

Maybe its time for a snack??? 13 grams of sugar----dare I???

[audioexcels]

I took one of my wood holders into the kitchen.
Loaded with film, it is ever so slightly heavier in my guesstimation than a can of Dole Pineaple Chunks in Juice---8 0z (227g) net wieght is what it says on the can.

I hope this helps :)

Maybe its time for a snack??? 13 grams of sugar----dare I???

LOLOLOL:):)

That's "very light" IMHO. 1/2 a pound!!!

One more for you after your snack. Can you find a jar of uhhhh...something else and compare that to the modern holders?:)

Out of curiousity, if you were to take a guess, how much heavier is the modern type holder? Twice as heavy orrrr...more than twice?...orrrr...a little less than twice as heavy???....hehehe.

Thanks and enjoy your snack and I hope you'll be back!

[walter23]

2) Why is the 8X10 or any format called 8X10 when the film exposed is only 7 5/8" X 9 5/8"?


Yeah, no doubt. That and 2x4 wooden studs. A 2x4 is a 1 1/2 by 3 1/2 or some damned thing.

Dumb imperial naming conventions.

Oh, Reich beat me to the 2x4 thing.

Isn't it because it gets planed down from a rough cut 2x4?

[Ole Tjugen]

Isn't it because it gets planed down from a rough cut 2x4?
That's correct.

And in the case of 8x10", it's becayse the 8x10" glas plates were exactly 8" by 10". Then when sheet film was introduced, there were film adapter sheaths made so that you could use cut film in plate holders. Since these need an edge to hold the film in place, the film size was reduced by a few millimeters each side to accomodate this.

It's the same with all sheet film sizes: They are just a few mm smaller than the nominal size. And it's for the same reason.

[audioexcels]

Any old wood holder people out there with a weight of the lightest 8X10? Also, dimensions of the holders from measuring only the wood part and not the septums or wood handles?

[eddie]

when i cut down 8x10 film i cut it 7 15/16 and 9 15/16. so you are not loosing a 1/2 inch. only an 1/8

eddie

[audioexcels]

when i cut down 8x10 film i cut it 7 15/16 and 9 15/16. so you are not loosing a 1/2 inch. only an 1/8

eddie

So when you have a contact print in front of you, it (actual photo size) measures 7 15/16 by 9 15/16?

[Ole Tjugen]

Any old wood holder people out there with a weight of the lightest 8X10? Also, dimensions of the holders from measuring only the wood part and not the septums or wood handles?

I have some old 18x24cm plate holders with metal darkslides, compatible with "modern" 8x10" cameras. They are sinificantly heavier than new plastic holders, even without plates of film inserts in place.

[Richard Kelham]

The weight of a modern Fidelity Elite 10x8 dark slide is 620gm. Sorry, don't have any wooden ones. If you want pounds and ounces you'll have to do the maths yourself!



Richard

[eddie]

i checked at the PO. just the holder with no slides 13 oz. with one metal (the entire DS is metal) it was 1 pound 2.46 oz. i would guess that should get you in the neighborhood,

eddie

[audioexcels]

The weight of a modern Fidelity Elite 10x8 dark slide is 620gm. Sorry, don't have any wooden ones. If you want pounds and ounces you'll have to do the maths yourself!



Richard

Richard,

Do you and other 108/810 shooters happen to know how easy or difficult it is to cut film to 4X10/6X10 and use the film centered in the frame/GG? My only interest with 8X10 is to have the occassional full 8X10 sheet, but prefer to have 4X10/6X0, and other smaller sizes such as 5X8/6X8, etc.

"Ideally", I'd like 6X10 as my rear standard, but custom holders for this are a lot!

[audioexcels]

i checked at the PO. just the holder with no slides 13 oz. with one metal (the entire DS is metal) it was 1 pound 2.46 oz. i would guess that should get you in the neighborhood,

eddie

Thanks Eddie...read below what I just posted and let me know your thoughts on this one.

Regards!

[Don Hutton]

I have a set of Lotus 8x10 holders - they weigh just over 1 pound each (1lb 1oz if I remember correctly). Toyo 8x10 holders are the heaviest of the currently available holders (they are 4 oz heavier then the Fidelitys). A Phillips Explorer with a 210 Kowa/Computar, 300 Fuji C and a 450 Fuji C on a Gitzo 1228 is an incredibly light and functional outfit. If you want wider a 158 Cooke VIIb is tough to beat and if you need a long lens, the Fuji 600C is light for a Copal 3 mounted lens. My current 8x10 travel set-up is basically those lenses with a Phillips Compact II, 6 Lotus holders and some other bits and pieces. It all fits into a Lightware backpack which is "airline safe" to check.

[eddie]

o do not cut the film i just use a cut DS to give me 4x10. it is not centered but you can draw a line on the the GG if you needed. same fro the 6x10 you may not want. i would just cut down a DS so it masks 6x10. you could even cut it a bit bigger so you were sure to get your full 6x10.

as for your question about the actual size of the image. i think i have some black lines about 1/4inch caused by the rails that hold the film onto the golder.

in a previous thread i asked about a cool thing i found. it is a one sided 8x10 holder that had glass on it. that would give you an entire image on the GG with no other marks. (search up the threda if youlike)

i sold one yesterday and i was thinking that i would keep the other for myself....it is rare and expensive for sure! :)

eddie

[audioexcels]

I have a set of Lotus 8x10 holders - they weigh just over 1 pound each (1lb 1oz if I remember correctly). Toyo 8x10 holders are the heaviest of the currently available holders (they are 4 oz heavier then the Fidelitys). A Phillips Explorer with a 210 Kowa/Computar, 300 Fuji C and a 450 Fuji C on a Gitzo 1228 is an incredibly light and functional outfit. If you want wider a 158 Cooke VIIb is tough to beat and if you need a long lens, the Fuji 600C is light for a Copal 3 mounted lens. My current 8x10 travel set-up is basically those lenses with a Phillips Compact II, 6 Lotus holders and some other bits and pieces. It all fits into a Lightware backpack which is "airline safe" to check.

Sounds precisely like what I will be doing. Thanks a lot for this post. It is very meaningful for me. The only part of it I do not like is the list of beautiful lenses and the nice light Lotus holders:):):)!!! Of course these are things I'd love to have. I dare to wonder what the Lotus holders go for...


Thanks Don!

[audioexcels]

in a previous thread i asked about a cool thing i found. it is a one sided 8x10 holder that had glass on it. that would give you an entire image on the GG with no other marks. (search up the threda if youlike)

i sold one yesterday and i was thinking that i would keep the other for myself....it is rare and expensive for sure! :)

eddie

That is very interesting as it eliminates the double sided holder, though it has to have glass in it=some weight, but giving you a full sheet of film. Now "that" is an in camera negative!

[G Benaim]

Following on this thread I just measured my 8x10 back and my holders and found a 4/16 inch difference along the long side, where the film's held down in the holder's guides. That's a significant difference between wys and wyg, so now I have to figure out a good way to crop my back. Any ideas? It's a magnesium C-1, fwiw.

GB

[Don Hutton]

I dare to wonder what the Lotus holders go for...
330 Euros each - or about $515 - can't imagine they'd be selling too many into the US at the moment!

[Really Big Cameras]

As a habitual ounce counter, I went through a similar exercise several years ago. Here's what I recall...

I weighed several Kodak wooden 8x10 holders. These were well made holders and not too terribly ancient. They were wooden body, but had a thin metal septum dividing the two halves and metal plates across the light traps where the rib lock is located. I weighed several and they were all in the 18.5 - 19 oz. range. You may be able to find even lighter, wooden holders, but they would be even older, all wood construction with pressed paperboard septums and darkslides. However, in my experience these ancient style holders are much more susceptible to warping and light leaks and you'd probably only save another ounce or two per holder. I have some 7x11 holder of this type and they will need to be sent off to AWB to be re-built before they are even close to usable.

I also weighed all my Fidelity Elite and Lisco Regal II 8x10 holders. These are all modern, plastic and metal holders with plastic darkslides that were purchased new, or in near new condition. They all weighed between 20.5 and 21 oz. each - or on average 2 oz. more per holder than the wooden Kodak holders.

I'm about as obsessive about weight as you can get, but after this exercise, I decided it was definitely worth the extra 2 oz. per holder to carry the modern Fidelity and Lisco holders. They are durable, dependable and light-tight. I'd rather carry a little more wight for the peace of mind I won't lose a great image due to a light leak or warped holder. I mean, if I'm going to go to the trouble to carry around a big, heavy 8x10 outfit, the last thing I want if fogged film due to unreliable holders.

That said, if somebody offered me a great deal on some 8x10 Lotus holders, I'd snap them up in a heartbeat. I have several 4x10 Lotus holders (that I got a great deal on years ago) and I must admit they are the nicest film holders I've ever used. Extremely well made and smooth as butter to use. There is really no comparison between the Lotus holders and 50 - 100 year old wooden holders. The only problem is that Lotus holders have never been cheap and they are currently out of my budget range due to the incredibly weak US dollar.

I also weighed a Toyo 8x10 holder and a Fidelity holder with the "unbreakable" metal darkslides. I don't recall the exact weight of these two, but I'm pretty sure both were in the 24 - 25 oz. range. So, for my money and for my back, I just stick with the Fidelity Elite and Lisco Regal II holders in the 8x10 size. Besides, if you think these are heavy, try lifting a 14x17 Fidelity holder sometime. Then your 8x10 holders will feel light as air by comparison.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[ic-racer]

3. Depends on the camera, I'd say. The gg on my 'dorff looks to be true to whats on the film.



Similar findings with the Century. The vertical view is almost identical to the exposed film's height and the horizontal view is perhaps 1/16" wider on each side. Seems pretty darn good for a 100yr old camera and a contemporary film holder.

[audioexcels]

330 Euros each - or about $515 - can't imagine they'd be selling too many into the US at the moment!

Cough/choke/uhhhh...wow...:eek:

[audioexcels]

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com


Completely agree with you about using the modern type if we are talking 2 ounces. It takes carrying 8 to have an extra lb in the bag...nothing to consider. I envy the Lotus people now:):):)

Did you see John Kasaian's post? He has some that are just a pinch heavier than 8 ounces...now that would be something.

[Really Big Cameras]

Completely agree with you about using the modern type if we are talking 2 ounces. It takes carrying 8 to have an extra lb in the bag...nothing to consider. I envy the Lotus people now:):):)

Did you see John Kasaian's post? He has some that are just a pinch heavier than 8 ounces...now that would be something.

I think you're reading a little too much into John's post (me, too - when I read it I get hungry). He didn't actually weigh anything. He said one of his holders "felt" a little heavier than an 8 oz. can of pineapple chunks. A film holder is a lot less dense than a can of pineapple. Denser objects tend to FEEL heavier than less dense objects. For example even though they weigh exactly the same, a pound of lead FEELS heavier than a pound of goose down.

Also, that can of chunk pineapple was 8 oz. NET weight. That doesn't include the weight of the can, and probably not the water/juice those chunks are floating in. I don't have a can of chunk pineapple, but I just weighed an 8 oz. can of crushed pineapple and it weighs 10 oz.

Point is, until John actually weighs one of his holders it not a very accurate data point. I'd be surprised if they were under 14 oz., probably closer to 16 oz. My old Ansco and Eastman 7x11 are some of the lightest constructed holders I've ever seen and they weigh between 16.5 and 17.5 oz. each. I can't imagine any 8x10 holder, other than something made by Mido, being significantly lighter.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[audioexcels]

I think you're reading a little too much into John's post (me, too - when I read it I get hungry). He didn't actually weigh anything. He said one of his holders "felt" a little heavier than an 8 oz. can of pineapple chunks. A film holder is a lot less dense than a can of pineapple. Denser objects tend to FEEL heavier than less dense objects. For example even though they weigh exactly the same, a pound of lead FEELS heavier than a pound of goose down.

Also, that can of chunk pineapple was 8 oz. NET weight. That doesn't include the weight of the can, and probably not the water/juice those chunks are floating in. I don't have a can of chunk pineapple, but I just weighed an 8 oz. can of crushed pineapple and it weighs 10 oz.

Point is, until John actually weighs one of his holders it not a very accurate data point. I'd be surprised if they were under 14 oz., probably closer to 16 oz. My old Ansco and Eastman 7x11 are some of the lightest constructed holders I've ever seen and they weigh between 16.5 and 17.5 oz. each. I can't imagine any 8x10 holder, other than something made by Mido, being significantly lighter.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

True. Mido would definitely make a light one but...Lotus, oh Lotus!!!!

BTW, you just made me hungry now. I think I smell pizza...hmm...a burger and fries?...ehhh...I'm still able to keep the weight down while eating these fine treaties:)

[Really Big Cameras]

Here's my recommendation for a four lens set of ultralight lenses than cover 8x10 with room for movement:

159mm f12.5 Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle - Post WWII, coated sample in Rapax shutter

210mm f9 Computar - Coated in Copal No. 1 shutter, gobs of coverage on 8x10. For a little less coverage, but still plenty for most applications, try its cousin the 210mm f9 Graphic-Kowa

300mm f8.5 Fujinon C - Multicoated in Copal No. 1 shutter

450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - ditto, and you'll never run out of coverage on 8x10 with this lens

These are all shutter mounted lenses that weigh between 8 and 10 oz. each (or a little over 2 lbs. for the four lens kit). They all cover 8x10 with room for movement (the 159mm f12.5 has the smallest image circle, but still allows a fair amount of movement on 8x10).

Of course, there are several other excellent compact lenses than cover 8x10 (various Dagors and wide angle Dagors, Angulons, G Clarons, Fujinon A series, etc.) but this is a nice focal length spread for landscape photography. It includes and ultrawide, a wide, a normal and a long lens.

If you favor really tiny ultrawide lenses the Series V Protar and it's derivatives are downright diminutive and cover up to 110 degrees when stopped down to f32 or smaller. There was a 141mm (or 14cm) focal length that was originally made for the Whole Plate format, but it covers 8x10 stopped down. Unfortunately, I've never seen a coated sample in this focal length. Probably because the Whole Plate format went out of style (or shall I say went dormant as there has been a recent revitalization) before lens coatings were developed. The Rodenstock f12 Weitwinkel Perigon is a derivative of the Series V Protar and was made in the late 1950s and is single coated. I have a 130mm sample that is a direct fit in a Copal or Compur No. 0 shutter. In a late model Compur 0 it barely weighs 100g (about 130g in a Copal No. 0). It covers 8x10 with room to spare (although illumination fall-off starts to be an issue if you use too much front rise). I don't know if I've ever seen a smaller lens that covers 8x10.

Oops, I just saw Don Hutton previously recommended almost the exact same set of lenses (great minds and all that, Don). The only difference is he recommended the 158mm f6.5 Cooke Series VIIb as an ultrawide. I went with the 159mm f12.5 Wollensak instead as it's much more common, affordable and usually comes in a shutter. The Series VIIb was originally sold in barrel and was not a direct fit in any standard shutter. On rare occasion, one shows up mounted in a shutter, but it's a re-mount job. Of course, shutters were a huge part of Wollensak's business. So, it makes sense that most of their general purpose taking lenses after WWII were sold mounted in shutters.

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

[Mike Castles]

At first, thought you had been looking in my lens bag, Kerry. The Fuji 300mm and 450mm are there, but a 240mm Germinar in place of the 210mm (Thank you Kerry). What is missing is the Exterme Wide lens. Do have an old unmarked Series III lens (most likely a Wollensak) in a Regno shutter that has lens cells for a 61/2 and 8 inch. Would be great except the Regno is sort of a pain to work with, and are not coated.

All cover 8x10 and double as a nice set for the 7x11. Hoping to add a more modern Exterme Wide Angle after the wallet recovers from the new 8x10/7x11 Ritter camera :)

Thanks for the info on the EWA, it will help when I start looking.

[Ole Tjugen]

My "ultralight 8x10 lens kit" requires slow film and poor light - there's not a shutter in sight!

150mm Busch WA Aplanat
270mm Meyer Aristoplanat
300mm Rodenstock Hemianastigmat
The longer cells and combinations of a Vade Mecum casket set
Not lightweight, but a 640mm Suter Aplanat ser. B no. 6 is nice too. ;)

But I'm more likely to carry a 121mm f:8 super Angulon (clips the corners of 8x10", but covers 18x24cm well), 165mm and 210mm f:6.8 Angulons, a 300mm f:5.6 Symmar, and a 355mm f:9 G-Claron. I don't carry the 360mm f:5.6 Symmar anywhere. :p

[tim atherton]

Here's my recommendation for a four lens set of ultralight lenses than cover 8x10 with room for movement:

159mm f12.5 Wollensak Extreme Wide Angle - Post WWII, coated sample in Rapax shutter

210mm f9 Computar - Coated in Copal No. 1 shutter, gobs of coverage on 8x10. For a little less coverage, but still plenty for most applications, try its cousin the 210mm f9 Graphic-Kowa

300mm f8.5 Fujinon C - Multicoated in Copal No. 1 shutter

450mm f12.5 Fujinon C - ditto, and you'll never run out of coverage on 8x10 with this lens

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

Mines' pretty similar

except a 210mm Kowa Graphic and a 165mm WA Dagor

I use the Phillips Compact II instead of the Explorer (Explorer was nice and light and small, but just not quite flexible enough for me - and I couldn't justify two... not even to myself, never mind the missus)

+ a dozen or so Mido holders (slightly finicky, but very light)

[RichardRitter]

My "ultralight 8x10 lens kit" requires slow film and poor light - there's not a shutter in sight! :p

I carrier neutral density filters and stop down on barrel lenses.

On a second note it felt so good yesterday to be able to pick up the 15 pound tripod and the 12 pound 8 x 10 camera and throw it up over the icy snow bank onto the road. Lens was in my back pack safe and sound. Cremation services will be this summer sometime.

Now I need a new 8 x 10 something lighter. So I can use a lighter tripod.

[Gene McCluney]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

In my collection of film holders, I have found that the oldest standardized wood film holders are the lightest, by a significant amount. They are (of course) not the most robust. Generally the vintage film holders that are externally finished in natural wood finish are the lightest, rather than the later wood black colored holders. These earlier (but standardized) holders are often not as long in external dimension, particularly in the light-trap area, and often have fibre centers, rather than the later metal center septum. But can work just as well as later holders, and do conform to the correct dimensions for current 8x10 films and cameras.

[audioexcels]

As a habitual ounce counter, I went through a similar exercise several years ago. Here's what I recall...

I weighed several Kodak wooden 8x10 holders. These were well made holders and not too terribly ancient. They were wooden body, but had a thin metal septum dividing the two halves and metal plates across the light traps where the rib lock is located. I weighed several and they were all in the 18.5 - 19 oz. range.
Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras
http://reallybigcameras.com

These are the ones with the "plastic" darkslide, all silver parts along both sides and at the end of the holder to hold the film (silver septums)? And this type in the photo weigh in at 18.5-19.5oz?

See attached photo.

[audioexcels]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

In my collection of film holders, I have found that the oldest standardized wood film holders are the lightest, by a significant amount. They are (of course) not the most robust. Generally the vintage film holders that are externally finished in natural wood finish are the lightest, rather than the later wood black colored holders. These earlier (but standardized) holders are often not as long in external dimension, particularly in the light-trap area, and often have fibre centers, rather than the later metal center septum. But can work just as well as later holders, and do conform to the correct dimensions for current 8x10 films and cameras.

Gene,

See the photo I posted, or I'll just post again and ask if you have used/measured the weight on this type..

Thanks guys for all your recommendations on holders, lenses, etc. It's greatly helpful!!!

[Ole Tjugen]

8x10 is called 8x10 because an 8x10 negative will print an 8x10 contact print with standard 1/4 " white borders (if you mask) with only minimal cropping. The same can be said for all the sheet film sizes 5x7, 11x14, etc.

Nice theory, but proved wrong by the size of old glass plates. The paper sizes are the same as the glass plate sizes, not the other way round.

[Clay Turtle]

Why is a 2x4 called a 2x4? It once was 2x4 and not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.
I believe the rough cut lumber is 2x4 but in the process of cut & dry, the smooth finish is reduced to the standard size.