Glass plates available!

Not that I can afford it, but is the emulsion orthographic or panchromatic?

 

Good questions. I want that ortho look you get on the old plates.

Then again, I am willing to buy ALL their 4x5 plates that have been improperly coated...cheap...

BTW - Ole, you are a GREAT resource.

 

Hey Robert,
If all you want is that Ortho look, just buy some 4x5 Ilford Ortho Plus. Most people use it for enlarged negs, but I've shot the 8x10 version in camera when I was learning how to process 8x10 film (you can do it with the safelight on) it has a rather nice tonality.

 

Well, if it ain't "supercallifragiortho", I ain't buying it....

 

Robert,

If orthochromatic glass plates are your flavour, why not try coating some plates with Liquid Light? I think it has an ISO rating of around 6.

Cheers,

 

Uhhh....see previous post.

Coating the plates ain't the problem....getting 2mm glass IS the problem...

 

Sorry Robert. I didn't realise that was the problem (can't see a reference to it in a previous post - at least not in this thread ...).

 

Robert, have you tried looking for 1/16th inch glass? This is slightly more than 1.5 mm thick. I would imagine that if the U.S. suppliers are having a difficult time with metric, they may have U.S. Standard. Just a thought.

-Greg

 

hey gang-

just curious, would glass plates have any noticable difference/improvement vs film?

Matt

 

To me they seem sharper......but not 100% more sharp...I am sticking with my $1 per neg film...

 

just a guess, but film flatness would not be an issue. Plates cracking would, however. I suppose it might just be for the sake of using that old camera that has been lying around... I dunno.
EDIT:

Ok, Jorge beat me to it. take his word over mine.

 

Hmmmm..I've got and old 5x8 camera with 6 holders that takes glass plates....

 

LOL!

 

One nice thing about being nosey and checking out people's websites as they join, you remember interesting members and their work. This web site of one of our members might be of interest to you on this thread.

http://www.samackenna.demon.co.uk/samackenna.html

 

I think that it may be worth mentioning at this point that a consideration I would entertain is the T distance of the plate holder as compared to the T distance of the camera. All of the flatness in the world won't amount to much if the point of focus/exposure disagree.

 

I have asked about 1.16th, but maybe if I try a bit harder I can get a result. Jorge has informed me that Mexico, which is only an hour away, uses 2mm as their standard just like the UK and Canada. So I may be heading down there.

Ummm...anyone know the Spanish word for 'glazier'?

As far as I know, the T-distance is pretty much the same. Plates were used until pretty recently. You can even buy a film/plate holder for the old Mamiyaflex and Rolleis. Plus, many people still work in this method.

Ironically all I want is the LOOK of the glass plate. That old orthochromatic look with a LONG exposure time that slightly softens the subject.

I am wondering....If I took some old, unexposed SHEET film, processed it, and THEN coated it with Liquid Light, would that work? I know some people use Liquid Light on unexposed, but developed, PAPER. In theory I'm thinking it should work.

 

Robert,
I don't know the word for glazier but glass is "cristal". You might try to use that.

lee\c

 

robert -

why don't you just expose paper instead of glass?
you won't really be able to make enlargements too well with it, but you can make good contact prints, and if you bees-wax it ( fiber paper), you will less of an exposure time when making the prints.

the main difference you will see if you are shooting paper rather than liquid light'ed sheets of glass is the imperfections in the glass, imperfections in your coating process, and the layer of texture and depth glass offers if you make enlarged prints from them. liquid light is a silver bromide emulsion and paper might not necessarily be silver bromide, but they are ortho, and about asa 6.

 

See, I will be enlarging it. Mylar sounds good. Never thought of that. I might get some tonight.

 

robert

with mylar, put a nice layer of binding agent ( gelatine ) as you would with glass. otherwise, the emulsion won't have anything to anchor onto, and it'll slide down the drain once it is wet/swollen and you are processing it.

if your enlarger is bright enough, you might be able to coat waxed paper and get a good image as well

 

I still think if all you want is an old time ortho look, why hassle with coating mylar or unexposed sheet film with liquid light when you can buy it already made for you. Here is a shot made on Ilford Ortho Plus. I rated it at ASA 25, and souped it in D-76 1:1 under a red safelight. A box of 4x5 (25 sheets) is $16.50 from B&H. To me it is more economical in time and money to just buy the film. That's my 2 cents.

 

Kodak professional copy film is Ortho Also. Only thing I don't like about it is its pretty grainy for an EI25 film. How is the Ilford for grain?

 

Well, this is mainly for portraiture, and I WANT that old look.

Which is why 25 is WAAAAY too fast for me. I need an ASA of 1/2 or 1.

Why? If you notice on a lot of old portraits, the features are very soft. Some of this is the lens, but a lot of it is from the exposure times. I've seen work done with nice, clean modern Rodenstocks on plates that is very soft. Mainly because the model is holding for 1 or 2 seconds. Which gives just enough blur to really make it interesting. Plus the DOF is pretty shallow since you are almost always wide open.

Now, I COULD do this with Ilford Ortho, but I am not inclined to carry around that many ND filters.