jim_gardner4 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p>I recently heard of someone selling a Gandolfi camera. The biggest camera I have at the moment is a 5x4 but i love the idea of doing bigger contacts. I phoned him today to ask the film size, 10x8 or full plate and was told the film measures about 9, 3/4 inches by 7, 3/4 inches. <br> So my question is, does "10x8" actualy measure 10inches by 8 inches or is it slightly smaller? Many thanks.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_watson1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p>My understanding is that 8x10 <strong>plates</strong> were actually 8x10. When film came out, people converted plate cameras by converting the plate holders. This required a film holder sleeve which could be as big as the plate on the outside, but which of course had to be somewhat smaller on the inside. So 8x10 film is somewhat smaller than a full 8x10 inches. I'm told that the actual outside dimension of a piece of 8x10 film is actually 7 15/16 x 9 15/16 inches. The image area is smaller still because of the film holder rails that hold the film in place. Image area is about the size you were quoted: 7 3/4 x 9 3/4 inches. Since film holders vary somewhat you may get some variance, perhaps +/- 1/16 inch or so.</p> <p>This is true of 4x5 film also -- it's somewhat smaller than 4x5 inches, and the image size is around 3 3/4 x 4 3/4 inches.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_gardner4 Posted May 22, 2009 Author Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p>Bruce, thanks for that. Any idea what the film is that the seller measured at 9.75 x 7.75? or has any one out there got a piece of 10x8 film that they could measure for me?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucecahn Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p>8x10 film is 8x10. The size you were given was probably the picture area after the borders created by the strips holding the film in place (part of the holders) were cropped out.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_graves1 Posted May 22, 2009 Share Posted May 22, 2009 <p> Bruce is correct ... film is 10x8, photo area is ~ 9.75x8.75. </p> <p> One other note to add to the confusion ... the term "full plate" (more commonly "whole plate") refers to 8.5x6.5 film (8.25x6.25 photo.)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickc1 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>Films <strong>and plates</strong> are smaller than the nominal size - I first discovered this when cutting 10x8 paper down into quarters for use as paper negs in a 5x4 camera. Trying to then trim 1/16 off two edges was not fun in the dark!<br> The British standard for 10 x 8 plates, and cut films in 10 x 8 is in fact 9 15/16 x 7 15/16as has been mentioned and as I am not aware that films sizes differ across the world, presumably this is also true in the US (or how could Ilford and other European films be used....)<br> This 1/16 less all round is close enough to the measured size to make me think that this is a '10 x 8' camera.<br> Information from the Focal Press Photo Amateur's Pocketbook 1956 edition.<br> Nick</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_graves1 Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p> Well ... after Nick's note above ... I took the "10x8" negative out of the plastic sleeve to measure (I didn't do that yesterday) .... and sure enough ... it's 9 15/16 x 7 15/16 just like he says. Doh!!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted May 23, 2009 Share Posted May 23, 2009 <p>The one 8x10 negative at hand has an image area of 19 x 23.8 cm; 7.5 x 9.4 inches. (Film area is 19.6 x 24.5 cm, 7.7 x 9.6")<br> <a href="http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/large">http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/110305157/large</a><br> It's a tad old and may not be representative of more recent film and equipment, though.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAn Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 <p>David, the photo is wonderful! What lens did you use?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_littleboy__tokyo__ja Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 <p>My memory of that period is a bit hazy: it was taken 32 years before I was born...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark cortella Posted June 3, 2009 Share Posted June 3, 2009 <p>Just an educated guess-1920 negative taken with an 8x10 inch camera-standard lens for 8x10-210mm to 300mm? Just a guess. Does anyone know what they considered a standard lens for an 8x10 in 1920?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
profhlynnjones Posted June 5, 2009 Share Posted June 5, 2009 <p>I still have the ASA specs for 8x10 from about 30 years ago so it might not be currently accurate. 7 62/64ths x 9 62/64th plus or minus 2 64ths. The same was true in 4x5, 3 62/64ths x 4 62/64ths, plus or minut 2 64ths.</p> <p>Also since you are saying 10 x 8 I assume that you are from the UK and I don't know for sure whether the the specs are the same from the RPS.</p> <p>Lynn</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now