PDA

View Full Version : Whole Plate Standardization...



Erich Hoeber
13-Sep-2011, 16:42
I'm thinking about getting a whole plate back for my 8x10 camera.

Are the modern crop of WP filmholders / backs - from Chamonix, Argentum, Ebony - compatible/interchangeable with each other as far as holder dimensions and T-distance?

In short, has WP finally been standardized for "modern" gear and is that standard published somewhere?

Thanks in advance!

Erich

Sal Santamaura
13-Sep-2011, 18:58
...Are the modern crop of WP filmholders / backs - from Chamonix, Argentum, Ebony - compatible/interchangeable with each other as far as holder dimensions and T-distance?

In short, has WP finally been standardized for "modern" gear and is that standard published somewhere?...Lotus, Chamonix and Ebony -- yes. Argentum -- I don't know.

The "standard" isn't published. It resulted from my work to have Lotus build the first modern holders, which I then sent a sample of to Ebony, from which it built the first modern camera. I later sent one of those holders to Chamonix, which duplicated the dimensions when designing its holders. Later yet, Hiromi made his own holders which, since they work with the camera, also meet the "standard."

We started from a Lotus 8x10 holder and simply shortened/narrowed it to achieve the desired image dimensions. T-depth and lock rib location are just like the 8x10 ANSI standard.

Erich Hoeber
13-Sep-2011, 20:02
Thank you, Sal. Extremely helpful!

Jim Galli
13-Sep-2011, 20:09
Oren Grad is the fellow to ask I think. When a firm in Japan was getting close to making new plastic holders in 6585 Oren did a bunch of measurements for them the final plan was to make holders compatible to the last Eastman Graflex holders that were made in the 1920's and '30's. Eastman standard if you will. I believe Cham followed suit and it sounds as though the others did also.

I have a decent old eastman back to sell if interested. No extra holders though. The new ones never got made.

Oren Grad
13-Sep-2011, 20:31
Sal's word should be definitive on this, since he was responsible for the specs of the Lotus holders and then provided one as the pattern for Chamonix.

We worked for a while with Paul Droluk of Fotoman on specifications for new metal-and-plastic WP holders and got to the point of evaluating a prototype. Unfortunately, it became necessary for Paul to discontinue the Fotoman business, and the WP holder project ended as well.

Although I don't own any of the Lotus WP holders, I do have a set of Chamonix. For those considering using them in older cameras, they fit nicely in my Eastman and Century cameras, with the caveat that T-distance is always hit-or-miss with the old cameras. So if getting that within very close tolerances matters, one needs to be prepared for the possibility that some shimming or shaving of the back will be required.

Sal Santamaura
13-Sep-2011, 20:31
Oren Grad is the fellow to ask I think. When a firm in Japan was getting close to making new plastic holders in 6585 Oren did a bunch of measurements for them the final plan was to make holders compatible to the last Eastman Graflex holders that were made in the 1920's and '30's. Eastman standard if you will. I believe Cham followed suit and it sounds as though the others did also...When Oren finished evaluating the Fotoman prototype he forwarded it to me. I checked it out and sent it back to Fotoman in China.

Oren's plan was to get Fotoman's design compatible with my "Lotus standard" as well as some vintage cameras. Neither Chamonix nor Ebony followed that 'universal' path; their holders are exactly the same as Lotus, i.e. 8x10 T-depth and lock rib location, but overall length and width shrunk to achieve the smaller image area.

Sal Santamaura
13-Sep-2011, 20:32
Great minds think alike. And within the same minute too. :)

Oren Grad
13-Sep-2011, 20:41
Here's the rest of the story, for whoever's interested in the revival of WP cameras:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2007/04/more-about-ebony-sv-wholeplate_09.html

rjmeyer314
14-Sep-2011, 11:24
I guess I don't understand the motivation for a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera. I have a whole plate camera, and I love the size. It's a much lighter camera and easier to use than an 8x10. I have 6-7 fiulm holders, and haver brought whole plate film in the past and used it. I added a 5x7 back and use the camera that way quite often. However, a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera gives you the ability to use film that's basically impossible to get, you have to cut 8x10 down. The camera is still heavy, not giving you the weight advantages of a true whole plate camera. You might as well use 8x10 film and get a bigger negative and save the hassle all around.

Steve Goldstein
14-Sep-2011, 12:11
Sal, what are the exterior dimensions of the new WP "standard"? I'm primarily interested in the width, lock-rib distance, and distance between the flap end and the film aperture (I suspect this last is the same as for ANSI 8x10). I'm curious if these holders will fit my WP Seneca. I realize I also need to check the T-dimension of my existing holders against the 8x10 ANSI spec.

Jim Galli
14-Sep-2011, 13:07
I guess I don't understand the motivation for a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera. I have a whole plate camera, and I love the size. It's a much lighter camera and easier to use than an 8x10. I have 6-7 fiulm holders, and haver brought whole plate film in the past and used it. I added a 5x7 back and use the camera that way quite often. However, a whole plate back on an 8x10 camera gives you the ability to use film that's basically impossible to get, you have to cut 8x10 down. The camera is still heavy, not giving you the weight advantages of a true whole plate camera. You might as well use 8x10 film and get a bigger negative and save the hassle all around.

A 5X7 back on a whole plate camera is sensible but a whole plate back on an 8X10 camera is not. Perfect logic. :rolleyes:

Sal Santamaura
14-Sep-2011, 17:56
Sal, what are the exterior dimensions of the new WP "standard"? I'm primarily interested in the width, lock-rib distance, and distance between the flap end and the film aperture (I suspect this last is the same as for ANSI 8x10). I'm curious if these holders will fit my WP Seneca. I realize I also need to check the T-dimension of my existing holders against the 8x10 ANSI spec.I'm sitting here with one of my Chamonix holders and a steel rule. Remember that there's no written "standard," in quotes or otherwise. :) These measurements are of a single sample, but I haven't noticed any variation in Hass' product.

Overall width -- 198.0 mm

Distance to start of lock rib from flap end -- 233.5 mm. Note that the rib tapers up on this side; to the flat "top" of it is another 1.0 mm The flat top continues for 2.0 mm and then drops perpendicularly back to the holder's face.

Distance between the flap end and film aperture -- I'll call this 30.0 mm, measured as the flap's dimension, and assume the image falls exactly where the flap ends.

Hope that helps. When Gunter at Lotus suggested using the 8x10 standard as a basis, I agreed and never compared the resulting holders to that ANSI document. Didn't seem necessary, since Hiromi built my camera to the holders. :)

Iga
15-Sep-2011, 09:43
Hi !
I have 4 types of WP holders :
Rittreck, Chamonix, S&S and Kodak (UK)
Hear are my measurements :
Rittreck - W 197mm; Ret.Tab 235mm; T 7,7mm
Chamonix - W 198,5 mm; Ret.Tab 234 mm; T 6,3 mm
S&S - W 195 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 8,8 mm
Kodak - W 198,5 mm; Ret,Tab 232 mm; 7,2 mm

Also one friend of mine sent me measurements of his holders :
Hasemi - W 202 mm; Ret.Tab 238 mm; T 7,0 mm
Toyo - W 194 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 5,4 mm

Hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Igor.

Sal Santamaura
15-Sep-2011, 20:15
...Distance between the flap end and film aperture -- I'll call this 30.0 mm, measured as the flap's dimension, and assume the image falls exactly where the flap ends...One shouldn't rush when answering this type of question. That was a typo. :o Flap's dimension measures 20.0 mm, not 30.0.

Jim Graves
15-Sep-2011, 22:13
To add to the list (confusion) ... I have 6 types:

Eastman (1923) ---------------W 207mm; Ret.Tab 250mm; T 7.0mm
Folmer Graflex for EK (1927) - W 196 mm; Ret.Tab 232 mm; T 6.5mm
Eastman (1904) ---------------W 195 mm; Ret.Tab 232 mm; T 6.5 mm
No Name (Patent 4-23-07) --- W 197 mm; Ret,Tab 234 mm; 7.0 mm
Ansco -------------------------- W 196mm; Ret.Tab 234 mm; T 6.0mm
No Name -----------------------W 198 mm; Ret.Tab 233 mm; T 7.5 mm

Steve Goldstein
19-Sep-2011, 16:00
The holders for my Seneca are a very close match to Jim's "No Name" holder, even down to the stamped patent date! W 198.4mm, Ret. Tab 233.4mm, T 7mm. I'm not sure I trust those tenths of mm, and I don't have a proper setup to get a more accurate measurement of the T dimension, but I'd say it's much closer to 7.0 than to 7.5.