Exellent news! I am a big fan of whole plate and never understood why it went out of use when we had so many format around half-plate sort of size that were almost the same...
That's true Stephen.....I don't think whole plate went out of use - it just went underground rather than remaining a popular bling thing.
Although I haven't used it in decades, I visit museums in England where whole plate collections are on exhibition - most of us don't realise that most of the vintage images we recollect were done on whole plates or its derivations.
Maybe it hasn't been popular for photographers due to film availability? The monster ergonomics of the 10x8" is too overwhelming as you say. By far the most memorable quote about the whole plate format that rings in my ears is that it is a "personal format" with the size and handling appropriate for agony free contact printing.
The half-plate remains popular due to its convenience and presence as a contact print (Eastern Europe & Far East Asia). The quarter plate seems to be fading fast (world-wide) although 3"x4" enthusiasts will correct me and state that this film was produced only as recently as a year or two ago by Agfa (and still is by other companies).
Once it gets down to 1/6th plates and 1/16th plates I tend to lose track: the plate terminology gets abandoned for ' 2"x3" format ' or ' 6x6cm ' square format which both thrive happily in another reincarnation on 120 roll format instead of plates.
I have at present a couple of whole plate cameras, an English tailboard type camera of late 19th century, and a more modern Seneca, with rear-track extension. Both are very light and good users, though without some of the movements of contemporary cameras. Seneca and Eastman cameras that I have seen accept a standard size holder. The English tailboard type accepts holders of different size, as do many other whole plate cameras built prior to about 1920.
There was some discussion of whole plate film holders in this size on the LF forum recently, with a few messages about S&S. We made a batch of these holders many years ago, as Oren noted on the LF forum. This was even before we started producing S&S holders as a business. We eventually sold all of the batch, though it took some time. I plan to produce another batch in the near future, in part for my own needs. They will be to the Eastman standard in terms of width, T-dimension and rib-lock position, the intention being to provide a reasonably priced alternative for Eastman standard vintage cameras.
Hi Sandy,
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm familiar with LP Forum but not so much Apug.
The Seneca & Eastman wholeplate cameras: if these are an 'American standard', I wonder how they differ from British whole plate cameras, such as Sandersons, Thorntons, Gandolfis. Really what I'm asking is, is there any overlap in compatibility between the (varying) British plate camera backs and those of Seneca & Eastman (USA). There seems to be very little cross-over between British standards (Gandolfi/Sanderson/Thornton/Coronet/ Camelots/Lancasters) & Japanese field cameras (Nagoka, Charten). To say nothing of the European variations...
One of the problems facing a whole-plate camera revival is indeed the non-standardisation of the plate backs amongst manufacturers and country of manufacture. The only consistency I have seen is from within manufacturer to manufacturer, yet many manufacturers did not manufacture their own whole plates.
Too many of these beautiful plate-cameras are butchered and warped into 5x7" format or even mutated into 8x10" Frankenstein type hybrids. No doubt these decisions were made after frustration with:
1. lack of fitting rear plate/film holders
2. lack of film choices and/or the need to cut down one's own film from 8x10"
Scouring the internet, references and details on the standard widths of:
1. book form plate holders (dry)
2. book form plate holders (wet)
3. double dark slide film holders
4. single plate holders [sheath style] (rarer)
for whole plate cameras are hard to come by. I've realised that only the internet savvy user who knows how to search for an item is likely to yield success.
It would be great to have a repository where plate users could reference sizes of plate holders, or at least use the measurements and refer to a reference table, and work out which whole plate camera the plate holder is likely to work with and/or how much modification work would be required to render it usable.
Unfortunately the main problem is that the plate photography user is generally isolated with a distinctly solitary tendency and also has little collaborative input from others without the internet forum as a resource. Looking at this forum, I also recognise many of the names from the LF forum from those who post on plate photography: at best, it looks like around 10-15 active posters, 10-20 curious posters and a lot of views, probably from within the same groups wondering where everyone else is: looks like the numbers of those interested in plates is a small fraction of the population of APUG. The responses to Paul's venture for whole plates suggests that whole plate users are viable to think about as an economic venture. However if the number of whole plate users doesn't grow, then this set of users is going to shrink and remain underground as it has done for the past 30-40 years.
Onto your plans for a future batch of plate holders: one aspect I appreciate with plate photography users is that they are clearly not doing it for economic reasons - clearly they are doing it for the love of whole plates and film photography. For this reason, I think people like Paul Droluk, Oren Grad & Sal Santamaura deserve a lot more respect than the internet can offer. Thanks guys
The Eastman standard holder project which you are proposing is unlikely to overlap with Paul's whole-plate film holder availability (since both cover different eras and different whole plate standards).
is it possible to compile a list of cameras which this will work with? I presume that this is for a specific era of camera (i.e. geographical and specific manufacturer niche). For instance, with respect to half-plate cameras, the Kodak Specialist of the 1930's is very different in format from the Kodak Specialist II/III of the 1950's, even if both use half-plates.
Not sure why I'm rambling on this forum. Guess I'm working it out
http://plate_camera.livejournal.com