Printable View
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!
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. :)
Why is a 2x4 called a 2x4? It once was 2x4 and not 1 1/2 x 3 1/2.
450C Fuji. Lots of movements. Light.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turner Reich
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kasaian
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!
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:):)Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kasaian
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!
Yeah, no doubt. That and 2x4 wooden studs. A 2x4 is a 1 1/2 by 3 1/2 or some damned thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by audioexcels
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?
That's correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by walter23
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.