9x12 ?

Well, having recently asked about 13x18, and its relationship to 5x7 and to
half-plate, I started thinking about other 'minor' formats.

So, is anyone still making 9x12cm film? Or is it in the same situation as
the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format that some Graflexes (and others) used?

Anyone using it? Or has it given way entirely to the 4x5 size, to which it
is so close?

13x18 and 5x7 seem both to be going on, for now at least, but I'm wondering
if the similar 'twin sizes' situation with 9x12 and 4x5 has already been
resolved - with 9x12 going the way of the Betamax?!

Just wondering...


Peter

--
http://www.bard-hill.co.uk

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...

So, is anyone still making 9x12cm film?

Yes: J&C
See: http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?...S&Category=100

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...

[...] Or is it in the same situation as
the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format that some Graflexes (and others) used?

That's still being made as well:
http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?...TS&Category=59

(It's called 3x4, but the dimensions are what you cite.)

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
Well, having recently asked about 13x18, and its
relationship to 5x7 and to
half-plate, I started thinking about other 'minor'
formats.

So, is anyone still making 9x12cm film? Or is it in the
same situation as
the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format that some Graflexes
(and others) used?

Anyone using it? Or has it given way entirely to the 4x5
size, to which it
is so close?

13x18 and 5x7 seem both to be going on, for now at least,
but I'm wondering
if the similar 'twin sizes' situation with 9x12 and 4x5
has already been
resolved - with 9x12 going the way of the Betamax?!

Just wondering...


Peter

--
http://www.bard-hill.co.uk

3-1/4 x 4-1/4 is actually "half-plate" size. Kodak and
Agfa/Ansco catalogues from the 1930's to 1950's show sheet
film being stocked in perhaps 20 different sizes. Most of
these have fallen by the wayside throught disuse, currently
only 8x10 and 4x5 are easy to find. However, specialist
stores still cut and stock many of the other sizes.
Actually, 5x7 is a very nice size. The negatives are
large enough to contact print or to retouch but the
equipment is still small enough to be tractible. Because of
the improvements in film over the last few decades there
probably is not much practical difference in quality between
4x5 and larger formats, at least for ordinary sized prints.
Nonetheless, large cameras are fun to work with.
Actually, the reduction in available sizes also applies
to roll film. Currently, only 120 is widely available.
Again, the old catalogues show something like a dozen sizes
carried in stock.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"2" wrote in message
...
"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...

[...] Or is it in the same situation as
the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format that some Graflexes (and others)
used?

That's still being made as well:
http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?...TS&Category=59

(It's called 3x4, but the dimensions are what you cite.)


Interesting. I wonder what the level of sales is for something like that.


Peter

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
Well, having recently asked about 13x18, and its
relationship to 5x7 and to half-plate, I started thinking about
other 'minor' formats.

So, is anyone still making 9x12cm film? Or is it in the
same situation as the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format that
some Graflexes (and others) used?

Anyone using it? Or has it given way entirely to the 4x5
size, to which it is so close?

13x18 and 5x7 seem both to be going on, for now at least,
but I'm wondering if the similar 'twin sizes' situation with
9x12 and 4x5 has already been resolved - with 9x12 going
the way of the Betamax?!

Just wondering...


Peter


3-1/4 x 4-1/4 is actually "half-plate" size.

Isn't half-plate the 4 3/4 x 6 1/2" size? I have holders that size
that fit into a 5x7 back, and some film for them (Velvia, mostly)
that I am slowly using up.

Kodak and Agfa/Ansco catalogues from the 1930's to 1950's show sheet
film being stocked in perhaps 20 different sizes.
Most of these have fallen by the wayside throught disuse,
currently only 8x10 and 4x5 are easy to find. However,
specialist stores still cut and stock many of the other sizes.

Actually, 5x7 is a very nice size. The negatives are
large enough to contact print or to retouch but the
equipment is still small enough to be tractible. Because of
the improvements in film over the last few decades there
probably is not much practical difference in quality between
4x5 and larger formats, at least for ordinary sized prints.

Yes, I had an ancient 5x7" that I seldom used because of weight and limited
movements, but recently got lucky on a 5x7 converting set for my 4x5 Arcas,
so am using it a bit more now.

I'm thinking of cutting down a darkslide to make two 6x17 (ish) exposures on
a sheet of 5x7 (or 13x18). I do have a 6x17 roll-back, but this technique
would let me shoot the format on any film that I happen to have loaded in a
holder, rather than only what is in the roll-film holder at the time - and
the cut down slide would be _much lighter_, of course. Not a big deal I
suppose, but for the sacrifice of a single darkslide it seems worth the
experiment.

I've often wondered "why 5x7". Psychologically it seems like a halfway
point between 4x5 and 10x8, but at 35 square inches it's actually 'only' 1
3/4 times the area of 4x5. And of course the proportions are different:
longer - not that I mind that, since I rather like the shape of 5x7, and it
fits many commercial applications better than the 4x5 format.

But still, I wonder why it wasn't 5 1/2 x 7, which would have been much
closer to an actual halfway point between the other major sizes.

I do agree about it being a much more portable format than 10x8. And drop a
few 5x7 (or even just half-plate) slides in with a presentation of 4x5 work
and the cleint is suddenly very impressed (unless they expected 10x8, but
few do these days.) But for me the main benefit is being able to make the
occasional monster print for exhibitions. One really big one on the end
wall gets a lot of attention, and while it probably won't sell, it sure
improves sales of everything else. A 5x7 negative will produce a print
taller than the average man with crisp detail that is better than that same
average man is used to seeing in his 6x4" prints from the corner minilab,
which is jaw-dropping enough for most picture buyers without needing a 10x8.
(Not that I don't lust after a 10x8 as well, obviously...)

Nonetheless, large cameras are fun to work with.

One of the other things I find intriguing about 9x12 is the holder
situation. Half-Plate (the 4 3/4 x 6 1/2" size), 5x7" and 13x18cm all (now,
at least) fit holders that will go into the same camera back, which we
Anglo-Saxons generically refer to as a 5x7 camera.

9x12 though seems to have two holder sizes. There's the one with the same
outside dimensions as a 4x5 holder, fitting 4x5 cameras, and there's a
smaller size, somewhere around 15x10cm externally that I've only ever seen
in single sided metal holders. Is that the size of the holders that fit the
early 9x12 folders? I know backs exist to use these on some monorails
(Arca-Swiss made them at one time, but no longer) but I haven't seen anyone
using one.

If those folders had a nice lens (or could be re-engineered to take an
interchangeable lens board) one might make a nice option for lightweight
travel: nearly the film area of 4x5, but a camera smaller than many 6x9
technical cameras. Not many movements, but most had at least front rise.
Using such a camera would seem to me the only reason one would be likely to
want such a back for a monorail, simply to use the same holders in both.

Well, idle musings really.

Actually, the reduction in available sizes also applies
to roll film. Currently, only 120 is widely available.
Again, the old catalogues show something like a dozen sizes
carried in stock.

Yes, my second ever camera took square slides on 828, which is really quite
a nice size. 127 for baby Rolleiflexes would be nice to have too, and 620.

Ah well, I use enough different sizes as it is, I suppose.


Peter

Bandicoot spake thus:

"2" wrote in message
...

"Bandicoot" wrote in message
...

[...] Or is it in the same situation as the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4
1/4 format that some Graflexes (and others) used?

That's still being made as well:
http://www.jandcphoto.com/index.asp?...TS&Category=59

(It's called 3x4, but the dimensions are what you cite.)

Interesting. I wonder what the level of sales is for something like that.

High enough, I hope; I've got a whole slew of 9x12 cameras sitting on my
shelf, ready to go out and take pictures again after the better part of
a century. (All clean and well-working.) I still have most of a box of
Efke 9x12 film (from J&C).


--
Pierre, mon ami. Jetez encore un Scientologiste
dans le baquet d'acide.

- from a posting in alt.religion.scientology titled
"France recommends dissolving Scientologists"

In article . net,
"Richard Knoppow" wrote:


Nonetheless, large cameras are fun to work with.

Indeed: Mainly I feel because the GG is quite easy to formulate an Image
concept on. Increasingly the GG on the 4x5 is tedious whereby 8x10
is a soft TV screen appearance
--
The sometimes insomniac.

www.gregblankphoto.com

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
"Richard Knoppow" wrote in
message
ink.net...

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
Well, having recently asked about 13x18, and its
relationship to 5x7 and to half-plate, I started
thinking about
other 'minor' formats.

So, is anyone still making 9x12cm film? Or is it in
the
same situation as the 'postcard' 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format
that
some Graflexes (and others) used?

Anyone using it? Or has it given way entirely to the
4x5
size, to which it is so close?

13x18 and 5x7 seem both to be going on, for now at
least,
but I'm wondering if the similar 'twin sizes' situation
with
9x12 and 4x5 has already been resolved - with 9x12
going
the way of the Betamax?!

Just wondering...


Peter


3-1/4 x 4-1/4 is actually "half-plate" size.

Isn't half-plate the 4 3/4 x 6 1/2" size? I have holders
that size
that fit into a 5x7 back, and some film for them (Velvia,
mostly)
that I am slowly using up.


My mistake. Full plate is 8-1/2 x 6-1/2, half plate is
6-1/2 x 4-3/4, quarter plate is 3-1/4 x 4-1/4.


Kodak and Agfa/Ansco catalogues from the 1930's to 1950's
show sheet
film being stocked in perhaps 20 different sizes.
Most of these have fallen by the wayside throught
disuse,
currently only 8x10 and 4x5 are easy to find. However,
specialist stores still cut and stock many of the other
sizes.

Actually, 5x7 is a very nice size. The negatives are
large enough to contact print or to retouch but the
equipment is still small enough to be tractible. Because
of
the improvements in film over the last few decades there
probably is not much practical difference in quality
between
4x5 and larger formats, at least for ordinary sized
prints.

Yes, I had an ancient 5x7" that I seldom used because of
weight and limited
movements, but recently got lucky on a 5x7 converting set
for my 4x5 Arcas,
so am using it a bit more now.

I'm thinking of cutting down a darkslide to make two 6x17
(ish) exposures on
a sheet of 5x7 (or 13x18). I do have a 6x17 roll-back,
but this technique
would let me shoot the format on any film that I happen to
have loaded in a
holder, rather than only what is in the roll-film holder
at the time - and
the cut down slide would be _much lighter_, of course.
Not a big deal I
suppose, but for the sacrifice of a single darkslide it
seems worth the
experiment.

I've often wondered "why 5x7". Psychologically it seems
like a halfway
point between 4x5 and 10x8, but at 35 square inches it's
actually 'only' 1
3/4 times the area of 4x5. And of course the proportions
are different:
longer - not that I mind that, since I rather like the
shape of 5x7, and it
fits many commercial applications better than the 4x5
format.

But still, I wonder why it wasn't 5 1/2 x 7, which would
have been much
closer to an actual halfway point between the other major
sizes.

I do agree about it being a much more portable format than
10x8. And drop a
few 5x7 (or even just half-plate) slides in with a
presentation of 4x5 work
and the cleint is suddenly very impressed (unless they
expected 10x8, but
few do these days.) But for me the main benefit is being
able to make the
occasional monster print for exhibitions. One really big
one on the end
wall gets a lot of attention, and while it probably won't
sell, it sure
improves sales of everything else. A 5x7 negative will
produce a print
taller than the average man with crisp detail that is
better than that same
average man is used to seeing in his 6x4" prints from the
corner minilab,
which is jaw-dropping enough for most picture buyers
without needing a 10x8.
(Not that I don't lust after a 10x8 as well, obviously...)

Nonetheless, large cameras are fun to work with.

One of the other things I find intriguing about 9x12 is
the holder
situation. Half-Plate (the 4 3/4 x 6 1/2" size), 5x7" and
13x18cm all (now,
at least) fit holders that will go into the same camera
back, which we
Anglo-Saxons generically refer to as a 5x7 camera.

9x12 though seems to have two holder sizes. There's the
one with the same
outside dimensions as a 4x5 holder, fitting 4x5 cameras,
and there's a
smaller size, somewhere around 15x10cm externally that
I've only ever seen
in single sided metal holders. Is that the size of the
holders that fit the
early 9x12 folders? I know backs exist to use these on
some monorails
(Arca-Swiss made them at one time, but no longer) but I
haven't seen anyone
using one.

If those folders had a nice lens (or could be
re-engineered to take an
interchangeable lens board) one might make a nice option
for lightweight
travel: nearly the film area of 4x5, but a camera smaller
than many 6x9
technical cameras. Not many movements, but most had at
least front rise.
Using such a camera would seem to me the only reason one
would be likely to
want such a back for a monorail, simply to use the same
holders in both.

Well, idle musings really.

Actually, the reduction in available sizes also
applies
to roll film. Currently, only 120 is widely available.
Again, the old catalogues show something like a dozen
sizes
carried in stock.

Yes, my second ever camera took square slides on 828,
which is really quite
a nice size. 127 for baby Rolleiflexes would be nice to
have too, and 620.

Ah well, I use enough different sizes as it is, I suppose.


Peter

Its difficult to know the origin of some sizes.
Supposedly the "plate" sizes are based on standard sized
window panes, but, if so, where did those sizes come from?
There were many excellent folding cameras made from abuot
the 1920's to the 1950's. The first ones were intended to
take glass plates but sheet film holders or adaptors were
made available as were film pack adaptors. A few of these
cameras had roll film magazines allowing the use of the
ground glass back with roll film.
Add to this confusion the fact that sheet film of 4x5 and
larger is actually slightly smaller than the nominal size.
Presumably, this was done to allow the use of sheet film
"sheaths" in plate holders. Glass plates are the full
nominal size.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA