DRY PLATE holders, largest size ?

<p>aside from modern ones, what is the largest size for dry plate holders?</p>

 

<p>My understanding of this is as follows : Aside from monster cameras with little practical use the largest normal size I am aware of was the Banquet camera which was usually 7x17 inches or 12 x 20 inches. The reason for their existence (up to early 20th century) in the dry plate era was the call for large formal group photos and the relatively poor quality of wide angle lenses especially towards the corners of the plate. <br /> My McKeowns gives these sizes :<br /> 6.5 x 8.5 inches whole / full plate<br /> 8.5 x 13 inches double whole plate<br /> 7 x 17 - inches banquet camera<br /> 11 x 14 inches large studio size<br /> 12 x 20 inches banquet camera<br /> 13.5 x 16.5 inches mammoth plate (double double whole plate) This size is listed but I have not found an example of it in use.<br>

....and then a range of sizes beyond that up to 80cm x 100cm which existed but may not have been in any regular use. <br /> The use of these very large banquet cameras tended to die away with the rise of less formal group portraits and the advent of better wide angle lenses.<br /> There were also Skyscraper cameras which allowed a huge amount of front rise so ideal for taking pictures of skyscrapers. Folmer and Schwing made one. I am not sure what size the plate holder was though.<br /> <br /> The other large camera in regular use was the process camera where the plate was often masked to allow small sections of the plate to be used separately. These were large static cameras for industrial use such as the reproduction of graphic materials for printing. So they may not be what you are thinking of.</p>

<p>I've seen a historical 16x20 (or so) albumen print, which was a contact print. But quite unusual.</p>

<p>thanks for your help(s).</p>

<p>that listing is pretty extensive, i knew upto 11x14 <br>

but i didn't know they were made bigger. i've never seen plate holders bigger than 8x10 either.</p>

 

<p>Seems that it doesn't count for dry plate, but there is the story of wet plate photographs on 20x24 inch glass negatives of Yellowstone, which were shown to congress so that they would create the first national park. Those negatives were made in 1872.</p>

<p>I don't know why they wouldn't have gone to dry plates later, when they became available. </p>

<p>hi glenL:</p>

<p>maybe the reason they were still wet plate images is old habits die hard and the photographer who made them had been using wet plate since 1851 and didn't want to have to get the bugs out of a new process. just like someone wouldn't pick up a box of film and a developer or a new lab, or new process he/she has no experience with to do a job, the work and reputation of the photographer would suffer. </p>

 

<p>I have collected dry plate cameras from India in different sizes. The largest is 12x15 and they all use dry plate book form holders. Some are on sale you know where. alexpk I think</p>