I would never use my 9X12cm cameras if I had to chop film to use them, but I do use them often with bought Foma and Ilford films in 9X12cm. It's just as easy as shooting 4X5 that way. Plus, it gives you the feeling of really stepping back into the past.
Don,These days, we once again also have the option to use our 9x12 cameras with glass plates. Advantages: no search for film sheaths if yours didn't come with them, even more of the "back in time" experience, can develop by inspection under red safelight. Disadvantages: relatively slow, and effective speed change through the day (due to light color change with ortho or blue-sensitive emulsion). In the USA, J. Lane (@Nodda Duma here) sells these in blue-sensitive 1870 style, or in ortho "speed plate" a la 1890s; in Europe, you'll save a lot of shipping by buying Zebra Plates from a guy in (IIRC) Serbia, but they're blue-sensitive and slow only, he doesn't offer ortho and ISO 25.
Yes, part of the reason the Patent Etui (or even more conventional, box-shaped 9x12 plate cameras) can be so much smaller than the smallest 4x5 is that the plate holder has very little extra structure -- either in thickness (one plate and just enough metal to hold it) or on the edges (still just enough metal to hold and mate with the camera mount. Most of these cameras did originally have ground glass backs, but many of these have been lost or discarded by the ignorant in the 80+ to 120 years since the cameras were made (as is the case with detachable accessories of any sort for any camera). This is the same reason it's so much "fun" to find film sheaths, but at least those aren't brand dependent; any 9x12 sheath will fit any 9x12 plate holder.
@Bill Burk I think what you're after is called a "sandbag."
There are so many beautiful 9x12cm cameras out there and at least some film for them, that I’m puzzled why more folks aren’t using them or have little interest in them.
I agree about the film dilemma and would love to see TMY or Delta 400 in 9x12. Maybe Shanghai will come to the rescue with its 100 and 400 in 9x12cm? JohnWI find them interesting, but I don't use mine much because there's so much more to keep a watch on with a 90-100 year old camera even vs. my 80 year old Anniversary Speed Graphic. Instead of being built to stand up to decades of press use, the plate cameras were built to be compact, lightweight, and elegant -- and they tend to have corrosion in critical friction points (where the plate holders slide or latch in). I can use my Annie with film holder that were new as recently as five or ten years ago, made of plastic (no corrosion), instead of being stuck with plate holders that don't always come with film sheaths (took me more than a year to find enough film sheaths for the plate holders that came with my Zeiss Ideal) and were made in the 1920s.
Not to mention I can only readily buy one emulsion in 9x12 (Foma 100) -- it's good enough film, but I don't have a choice of faster or slower, conventional or tabular grain, and so on. And have you looked for a 9x12 negative holder (for either enlarger or scanner) recently?
I still have my two Ideals (one with 135 mm, the other with 150 mm), but I don't use them much because with only one film readily available, it's not really worth it to me to spend dozens of hours (that I really don't have to spare) restoring the leather and cleaning up rust and recoating the plate holders.
Maybe Shanghai will come to the rescue with its 100 and 400 in 9x12cm? JohnW
there are several 9x12 cameras which have already interchangeable mounts. the cheapest are the ICA like https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_ideal_246.htm or https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_icar_180.htm or https://www.oddcameras.com/ica_toska_215.htm . they usually don't come with a second lens, but as they are dirt cheap, just buy 2 or 3 of them, you have your mounts and you have spare parts. try to stick to one model, between the different models the mounts differ slightly.Don,
I agree with all you said above and will someday try my hand at coating glass plates. I still scratch my head a little when it comes to the subject of 9x12cm cameras and film. There are so many beautiful 9x12cm cameras out there and at least some film for them, that I’m puzzled why more folks aren’t using them or have little interest in them. I find them very interesting, very well made(most), and very capable. I really think if folks tried these 9x12 cameras out they might just like them. I’m working on a 9x12cm project right now. I have an extra camera that I’m going to rig with an interchangeable lens Mount so I can use a standard, wide and slight tele lens. I’ll have it done by Spring if I make it to Spring. Ha-ha! JohnW
My thought was along the lines of using something like the Pentax Screwmount/m42. I plan on taking the base mount for the camera from an old Zenit camera I have or from and old junk Pentax spotty camera. For the lens side I have plenty of old junk lenses to steal a mount from. As for attaching the mount to the face of the 9x12 camera I’d use screws. To attach the mount to the lens itself I’ll use JB Weld, but this is just for a prototype to see how things work. If things work the way I want them to then I’ll connect the m42 mount to the lenses original retaining ring. I’ll be going at this right after Christmas and might just doa series of posts with pictures if anyone is interested. I actually think this will work pretty good. Of course I’ll be stuck with lenses and shutters on the small side, but they are out there. Small Schneider Angulons for the wide end and something like the Kodak Anastigmat 170mm f7.7, along with the cameras normal lens should be a good setup.I've got a pair of Ideals -- one Ica, one Zeiss -- with bayonet mounts. Unfortunately, they're different diameter mounts; the 150/4.5 is in a larger shutter than the 135/4.5. The actual mount hardware seems the same, though (just mounted at a different radius), so getting multiples shouldn't be a problem as long as they're all the same brand. Drilling and tapping the shutter case for the bayonet seems nerve-wracking, but I guess you'd remove all the moving parts before doing so...
BTW I love the spirit of the Foma guys, triple like for them. Absolutely romantic (in a good sense) keeping the 9x12 format alive in affordable prices. I just wish someone to dare to produce it with color film, although we already know that this is a utopia
I will be ordering some Foma 200 when it comes in stock. Should be a good film for day to day shooting with my 9X12cm cameras. JohnWFotoimpex have Adox CHS II 100, Foma 100, 200 and 400, Ilford FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 100 in 9x12, from good price to highest quality. That's all you need to try out a 9x12 camera and for getting serious with the format.
That's OK. Seems like 9x12cm Foma 200 might be becoming popular and maybe why it's not in stock anywhere???? I'm pretty well set with other emulsions in 9X12, but would really like to get some Foma 200. Patience I have plenty of. JohnWSorry realized its 100, not 200
Your assumption about the actual speed of Foma 400 is pretty much in agreement with many others. I've used Foma 200 in 35mm and it seemed to be close to box speed, but still a little under. I like the tonality and grain look of the 200, but Foma 100 has a very nice look to it too. For me, I'd rather use HP5+ or even Ultrafine Extreme 400 over Foma 400. That's just me of course. JohnWIve only used Foma 400 before, and it seemed like it was really a 200 speed emulsion. I wonder if the 200 is really 100 speed. I have 100 as well, but havent used enough yet to get a feel for how it behaves.
I just went through a 100ft roll of Ultrafine Finesse 400 35mm and I was pretty impressed with it. I liked it a lot more than the other $50/100ft usual suspectsFor me, I'd rather use HP5+ or even Ultrafine Extreme 400 over Foma 400. That's just me of course. JohnW
I have only tried Adox CMS20II in 35mm, but the CHS100 might be worth a try also. JohnWI have never tried the Foma films, but they are popular. The Adox CHS II 100 is very nice, and the grain improved compared to the old Efke PL100, so it's more like Efke PL50.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?