Whole plate demise and renaissance

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

Why did the whole plate format fall out of favour some 50 years ago? All of the George Eastman view cameras in the USA, Kodak, Korona, Folmer, Century, etc. were available in 6.5x8.5". Gandolfi and other British makers made them. If, as said by many, it is such a sublimely proportioned size, why the demise? It is clear from the level of interest on this forum and the LFP one that there really is a WP renaissance occurring.

Anton

 

[Nick Zentena]

There was an old Anthony and Scovill catalog around [that I can't find -(] that used to show all the different formats they made. At that point it seemed they made virtually everything in 0.5" steps up. I guess at one point they started cutting back to the more popular sizes.

Why did full plate lapse? Better question is why not? With better film and enlarging what was the point of full plate? You could enlarge smaller formats to a full plate print and most would be happy. If you're making contacts why not go a little bigger and use 8x10?

When MF became the more or less standard what was the market for LF? Why would whole plate be better then the smaller or bigger sizes?

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

wp

Why did full plate lapse? Better question is why not? With better film and enlarging what was the point of full plate?
Quality?
You could enlarge smaller formats to a full plate print and most would be happy.
Not everyone. What about making books with a 1:1 size print?
If you're making contacts why not go a little bigger and use 8x10?
Bigger is not necessarily better.
When MF became the more or less standard what was the market for LF?
I don't know
Why would whole plate be better then the smaller or bigger sizes?
Aesthetic choice? Not a case of it being 'better' i think. I was looking at a book I have of photos by Atget, absolutely beautiful. He used 18x24cm plates I believe, but in the book most of them are reproduced at about just over 6x8 inches (I do prefer inches), which is nearly whole plate of course, and the size is very arresting.

Thanks Nick, interesting points. I wonder what other people think?

 

[waynecrider]

Probably like all things manufactured today, something came along that was newer, cheaper to manufacture, supposedly better/improved as hyped by advertising companies and most decidedly lighter for carrying if need be. Case in point, my old Motorola brick phone being replaced my new smaller mobile.

 

[John Kasaian]

Perhaps for the same reasons that 127 roll film cameras suddenly dissappeared a decade of so later?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Why did full plate lapse? Better question is why not? With better film and enlarging what was the point of full plate?

Quality?

You could enlarge smaller formats to a full plate print and most would be happy.

Not everyone. What about making books with a 1:1 size print?

If you're making contacts why not go a little bigger and use 8x10?

Bigger is not necessarily better.

When MF became the more or less standard what was the market for LF?

I don't know

Why would whole plate be better then the smaller or bigger sizes?

Aesthetic choice? Not a case of it being 'better' i think. I was looking at a book I have of photos by Atget, absolutely beautiful. He used 18x24cm plates I believe, but in the book most of them are reproduced at about just over 6x8 inches (I do prefer inches), which is nearly whole plate of course, and the size is very arresting.

Thanks Nick, interesting points. I wonder what other people think?

Excellent refutation of Nicks "points," Harry. I'd only add the following.

• MF didn't become a standard for all genres, only wedding and some commercial work. View cameras, including 4x5s and 8x10s, were used by a large number of studio photographers until very recently and continue to be used by many of the art and amateur photographers you'll find here.
• A 6.5 x 8.5-inch contact print on an 11x14 mat feels just about perfect to me. I've got 8x10s on 14x17, 11x14s on 16x20 and 16x20s on 22x28; none of those "standard" combinations excite my senses as much.
• Contact prints have a quality I've not been able to duplicate (nor have I seen others duplicate) in enlargements.
• The aspect ratio of 8x10 is too square for my taste.

I don't know why 6.5 x 8.5-inch disappeared, but suspect that there were commercial reasons. Those old enough to remember the 1980s will recall that, although Beta was technically better, VHS won out. In mass markets, business factors seem to trump technical ones. Fortunately, this renaissance is not related to a mass market of any kind. With three additional manufacturers introducing or on the verge of introducing 6.5 x 8.5-inch cameras and/or film holders, it is very satisfying to see a critical mass that I hope will result in a sustainable niche market for hardware and film.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

If I'm correct, I think "plate sizes" is a set of measurements that comes from the world of engraving (copper plate &c). Daguerre used these sizes because that's what was readily available then, and the daguerreotype is a silvered copper plate.

I would suspect that part of the reason for the demise of plate size would be the standardization of tooling in the industry. Suppose your machinery is calibrated using whole multiples, and your raw stock is cut accordingly, then you don't want to have waste from cutting down into imperfect fractions the raw stock.

Think of paper, for example. In North America, the Letter and Legal sizes are vestigal sizes, and not proportional to each other. Their origin is somewhat obscure, but the force of habit (and Ronald Reagan...) made them stick. In comparison, the ISO standard (A-sizes) was built from the ground up for minimal waste and homothetic proportions. A single sheet of A0 can contain all the other sizes. What's more, all the sheets have the same aspect ratio, so it works great for photocopies. By folding an A4 sheet in two, you get two A5 sheets. (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size)

In the context of the ISO standard paper sizes, North American Letter and Legal sizes fall between the cracks of optimal breakdown. If a manufacturer were to use reams of paper calibrated for A-sizes, he would lose money cutting it down to Letter and Legal sizes, because of the leftovers.

Applying the same reasoning for film sizes would make sense. I hope someone has historical data about that, because I'm speculating here!

 

[Jim Noel]

IN my memory, which is getting old, 6.5 x 8.5 was uncommon in this country by the time WWII started. Although I remember 3 1/4 x4 1/4 being a popular size until after the war, 6.5 x8.5 was not.

the 6.5x8.5 popularity has little to do with size, it has more to do with ratio as it is very close to the "Golden Mean", 1hile 8x10 is not.

 

[Nick Zentena]

Excellent refutation of Nicks "points," Harry. I'd only add the following.

I don't think he did

Take the quality issue. Is a whole plate contact higher quality then a 4x5 or 5x7 enlarged to whole plate? Okay lets accept that as a given. But if it's 1960 and you're comparing an enlargement made with the latest greatest film versus a contact you made in the 1940s would the contact have been much better then the enlargement? I still think higher quality films plus common access to enlargers made whole plate a very niche product.

• MF didn't become a standard for all genres, only wedding and some commercial work. View cameras, including 4x5s and 8x10s, were used by a large number of studio photographers until very recently and continue to be used by many of the art and amateur photographers you'll find here.
• A 6.5 x 8.5-inch contact print on an 11x14 mat feels just about perfect to me. I've got 8x10s on 14x17, 11x14s on 16x20 and 16x20s on 22x28; none of those "standard" combinations excite my senses as much.
• Contact prints have a quality I've not been able to duplicate (nor have I seen others duplicate) in enlargements.
• The aspect ratio of 8x10 is too square for my taste.

Yes but why use whole plate in commerical settings? I see plenty of big monorails with reducing backs. Which implies that smaller film was good enough for many jobs. When it wasn't good enough then they had 8x10.

Whole plate is also too square for me. For the people that don't like square why not 5x7? Or 5x8 which seems to be having it's own rebirth?

Also it wasn't just whole plate that went away it was also 3x4 etc. I think it gets back to the gain wasn't enough for most people.

It's nice today we can get anything we want but I can see why people made the choices they did.

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

WP

Regarding nick's comments, I was merely trying to be objective in my criticisms! BUT,
I still think higher quality films plus common access to enlargers made whole plate a very niche product.

I don't that so-called higher film quality is the truth. Why do so many 1900-1950 photographs look so beautiful? I have a book of portraits by Imogen Cunningham, the clarity, depth and excellence shines out. Were these taken on modern film stocks?
I think the answer to the WP demise is more complex........

One reason that industry keeps developing new products that are supposedly better and more advanced (some are of course) is in order to make a profit. Do we really need a new car every year? Etc.

Sadly quantity over quality.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I suspect it was in the push for standardization - WP is halfway between 5x7 and 8x10, both in size and in proportion. If you want rectangular, you go to 5x7. If you want portability, you go to 5x7. If you want square proportions, or you need more square inches, you go 8x10.

 

[k_jupiter]

1/4 plate...
3.25x4.25 went away becuase it's main reason for being was it's ability to be contact printed onto a printing plate for exact column width of newsprint. As prepress machinery got better, press photographers soon found carrying a Rollie or a Nikon a much more attractive proposition than a 3x4 Speed Graphic.

While I understand the allure of ULF formats, I don't understand the renewed manufacturing of full plate format (or 1/2 or 1/4 plate if anyone is doing that). It's not enough different from the 5x7-8x10 world to justify it in my mind.

How critical in your artistic vision could those fractions of an inch be?

Strange little world we live in.

tim in san jose

 

[darinwc]

Maybee weight was an issue...
Glass plates are heavier thus more expensive to ship from supplier, also heavier and bulkier to carry in the field.

Manufacturing proably had more to do with it as well.. with film they can coat a a 32 inch wide roll of film 100 feet long (or whatever size the machines make) and then cut it down to required sizes easily. With plates maybee they can do a large plate and then cut it down but id imagine it would be terribly fragile.

-Does anyone have any old catalogues that list prices? if plates were 2x the price of similarly sized film i dont think it would last long.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Darwin-

there was, and now again is, whole-plate sized film.

Tim in San Jose -

whole plate size has a very different visual impact, especially at contact print size, than either 8x10 or 5x7. The proportion is in-between, as is the square inches. It just makes for a really nice size and shape. Try enlarging an image to 5x7, 6.5x8.5, and 8x10 and stick them all up on the wall together to see what the difference is.

 

[Whiteymorange]

I
the 6.5x8.5 popularity has little to do with size, it has more to do with ratio as it is very close to the "Golden Mean", 1hile 8x10 is not.

Isn't the Golden Mean 5x8? Seems 5x7 is as close as 6.5x8.5. The next step up is 8x13 and then 13x21.

Paper sizes (writing and drawing paper, not photo) are based on old paper-making tools, called Deckels. They were made to whatever ratio the deckel maker decided and they tended to standardize rather early on (1600's in Europe.) Deckel making was a specialized craft and a good craftsman could corner the market in a given area. You have a whole bunch of odd sizes coming down to us from Jolly Olde England like "Double Elephant" that still show up in some artist's paper. It's an odd world. Writing paper and computer paper are 8.5 by 11, drawing paper is 9x12, watercolor paper is often 15x22.

I think the decision made by one or two people about a format that is "good" for them to manufacture will drive the market rather than the market driving the manufacturers. Ther doesn't seem to be any logic to the situation at all. Of course, I could just be ignorant of an underlying rational for it all, a grand plan... but I don't think so. In the end, it's just somebody's idea that wins out at the conference table.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Is a whole plate contact higher quality then a 4x5 or 5x7 enlarged to whole plate?...

In my opinion and the opinion of many others, yes.

...but why use whole plate in commerical settings?...

I've never suggested anyone should and don't expect they will.

...For the people that don't like square why not 5x7?...

Too rectangular and too small for framing with most images.

...I can see why people made the choices they did.

I'm not sure the 4x5 / 5x7 / 8x10 "standard" sizes resulted from anything other than commercial pressure to reduce how many choices were available to people. However, that's all long in the past. Right now I'm enjoying the positive present and future of 6 1/2 x 8 1/2.

 

[k_jupiter]

Tim in San Jose -

whole plate size has a very different visual impact, especially at contact print size, than either 8x10 or 5x7. The proportion is in-between, as is the square inches. It just makes for a really nice size and shape. Try enlarging an image to 5x7, 6.5x8.5, and 8x10 and stick them all up on the wall together to see what the difference is.

Perhaps this is why I am more of a technical type photographer. I don't see the difference. Certainly not enough that would affect my work.

If the market can bear all these different sizes, so be it. I am still royally torqued about the new current demise of 1/4 plate film. It WAS nice for awhile having a choice of what to load in my beautiful old press and reflex cameras.

tim in san jose

 

[Uncle Jim]

Tim
What demise of 1/4 plate film? I recently got 4 boxes (200 sheets) from Freestyle. Check them out.
uncle jim

 

[k_jupiter]

I bought some there too. But that's not a choice. That is one film.

I want my Efke 25, my Efke 100, my Classic 200, and a couple of choices of 400 film.

Greedy I suppose.

tim in san jose

 

[Richard Kelham]

Why did WP die out? Purely economics – it costs manufacturers money to produce a wide variety of (essentially similar) formats. That goes for the camera makers, particularly of the precision metal cameras like Sinar and Linhof etc, as well as the film makers who don't want to be cluttered up with excess and slow moving inventory.

All the plate sizes gardually disappeared along with most of the metric ones, leaving just 5x4, 7x5 and 10x8 – and even 7x5 was getting squeezed. Commercial studio photographers were perfectly happy with this state of affairs as they didn't want to have to carry surplus inventory either. 5x4 and less often 10x8 did all they needed, so why complicate things. Most of the work was probably done with a Hasselblad anyway. Then came digital.

While it might be 'fun' to revive a few old cameras and their odd formats, I am concerned that a shrinking market for film is being impossibly fragmented, though I suppose if Ilford etc are prepared to do annual (pre-ordered) special cutting sessions and can still make a profit...



Richard

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

wp

Richard
For some photographers I do not believe that it is a matter of being 'fun'.
Choice of format can be a critical and essential aesthetic necessity. It seems to me that the market for 'normal' film sizes, 35mm, 120 and 5x4 etc. will maintain. I personally feel that I have the right (if possible) to demand the availability of 'odd' sizes. Demanding the availability of so-called odd sizes could have the reverse effect and actually be healthy for the dwindling film market. A whole plate renaissance actually seems logical to me. As you point out commercial concerns and a standardization seems to have contributed to the whole plate demise. But there are other types of non-commercial photographers and artists who need the odd sizes for specific work. If it is a matter of cutting film and packaging it to size, I don't see this as being a hugely complex matter for photographic companies.

Anton

 

[k_jupiter]

But there are other types of non-commercial photographers and artists who need the odd sizes for specific work. If it is a matter of cutting film and packaging it to size, I don't see this as being a hugely complex matter for photographic companies.

Anton

You are .... sh*tting me.

Have you absolutely no clue as to modern industrial economics?

No freaking company in the world is going to produce 7 packets of film in one particular size.

We... are on the downside of a dieing industry and you wish to present the idea that companies will produce a film size that most likely they will eat 75% of the production run because nobody shoots it any more?

I WANT 3x4 film. But I do realize that the demand for this film is almost nonexistent. To think that film producers will supply a film (whole plate) that perhaps 500 people actually shoot is... ludicrous. Even if you could get them to buy it at the price it would cost to set up and distribute.

(shaking his head)

tim in san jose

 

[Anton Lukoszevieze]

WP

Hello Tim

thank you for your points. I may well be a tad innocent and ignorant when it comes to modern industrial economics (not my specialism when I was at school and college), but I was not, as you so eloquently put it, shitting you. I was merely trying to make sense of the situation. If things are so bad why do Fotoimpex Berlin, Wephoto, Era, Ilford, etc. all still make odd sized formats, including whole plate?

Yours, optimistically, still,

Anton

(head still and contemplative) Norwich

 

[Ole]

One great advantage to living in (or rather on the outskirts of -) europe is easy access to ALL the formats which can be used in the same sized cameras:

4x5" - 9x12cm
5x7" - 13x18cm
8x10" - 18x24cm
10x12" - 24x30cm

Note that with the exception of 5x7"/13x18cm all the "metric" sizes are narrower than the inchy equivalents. The difference is not great, but sufficient to make a great difference in the visual ratio!

 

[Removed Account]

Tim, how about a hypothetical scenario? Let's say a manufacturer is willing to take orders for odd-size sheet film. They will produce a large roll, and cut it down to the sizes ordered. To make it profitable enough to be worth the companies time they need an order of $100,000 minimum If there are 250 people interested in such products, from 2x3 to 20x24, then an average of $400 each would be sufficient to meet this. Anyone purchasing multiple boxes of ULF film would have no trouble in far surpassing the $400 average, bringing the requirement down further for those purchasing 2x3, 3x4, whole plate, 7x11 etc...

Now, I pulled the $100,000 number out of my arse, but in concept is this not what Ilford is doing? Or Kodak would do, if the order justified it? Am I incorrect in my belief that "Modern Industrial Economics" just means that if a company can make enough money by doing something to justify the effort, they will do it? "Boutique" manufacturers are especially geared toward this sort of thing. Ebony and K.B. Canham have already shown they are willing to produce small runs of unique cameras, albeit at a fairly hefty cost. Sheet film is also much easier to cut to unique sizes than trying to get an order together for some 70mm, 127, 110, and other odd roll film sizes that would require greatly differing set-ups for each type of film.

If I am mistaken, please show me where.

- Justin