Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,557   Posts: 1,545,210   Online: 934
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    44

    Backs for 9x12 cameras?

    Hi Tim:

    Thanks, I've never heard of this before. Did you get them on eB*y or someplace else? Sounds like a good solution, although I think I've managed to find 4 9x12 sheet film backs that will fit my "new" Vag from a dealer in Germany. They'll cost me 5 Euro each and shipping will be another 20-22 Euro which isn't cheap, but given that I can't find any here in Hong Kong, that may be the best solution. None-the-less, I would still like to find out more about your solution. Do you have the name of the manufacturer and a picture or two you could post?

    Craig

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2
    Hmm... this is honestly the first time anyone has mentioned the existance of 9x12cm film. I've been trying to identify the film format and holder for this oddball of a large format I have here for weeks. 4x5 is too large, 3x4 too small. The camera uses a slide-in slot rather than a spring back, which means that the holder *has* to fit. Does anyone have the measurements for the 9x12cm carrier itself so I could see if this is the right film holder for this camera?

  3. #13
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    As I mentioned earlier, there were at least six different styles of 9x12cm holder, and they are not interchangable. It is often easier to identify the camera and find out which type of holder would fit from that!
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2
    It was built by Seneca after 1910 but before 1914, but other than that, there's absolutely nothing to identify the camera. No name plate, no model #, nothing.

    I've been torn about just ripping the back off and building a normal 4x5 or 3.25x4.25 back for it.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Surrey, England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    337
    Images
    10

    Building new backs...

    I've recently got hold of a Wallace Heaton 9x12 camera that uses plate holders and whilst I can cut the few millimetres off of the 9x12 sheet film to fit in these holders, I had wondered about converting the back to accept 5x4 sheet film holders instead. I believe the camera is very similar to the Voigtlander Avus - has anyone already modified one of these yet? I want to do it, but I'm also slightly reticent about doing it!

    David.

  6. #16
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,551
    Images
    15
    Were plate sizes in numbers? No.2 for example or No.5?
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  7. #17
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    No, plate sizes (at least in Europe) were not numbered.

    Lenses were numbered, with a numbering system which varied from maker to maker, and also from series to series from any one maker.

    It's all very confusing, but there are a few general "rules": A No.1 lens was usually intended for 9x12cm; No. 2 for 13x18, and 3 for 18x24. Unless there was a No. 2 for 10x15 - if not, there just might be a No. 1a. No. 0 was often for 6.5x9, unless that was the No.1 size. For wide angle lenses, the numbering was different and the shortest lens covering 9x12 might be a No. 00, and my No. 3 covers 24x30cm. But not necessarily...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

  8. #18
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,551
    Images
    15
    Thanks Ole, that clears up what was numbered; lenses and not plates in a 1,2,3, etc. numbering system. I won't get into that feet, inch thing. I was told decades ago in elementary school that the US would be all metric before we were out of middle school. It never happened, at least in the general population, science and engineering uses it and we are cursed by having two sets of tools; SAE and Metric.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  9. #19
    Ole
    Ole is offline
    Ole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Bergen, Norway
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    9,281
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Curt View Post
    ...science and engineering uses it and we are cursed by having two sets of tools; SAE and Metric.
    Only two? In my job, I sometimes need to measure the same thing in meters, feet/inches and feet/(feet/100). Those one-hundredth-of-a-foot tape measures are hard to find, especially when you need one...
    -- Ole Tjugen, Luddite Elitist
    Norway

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin