Why Sheet Film is Undersized

[al_kaplan1]

This question seems to come up from time to time. Back in the days of

glass plates the plates were cut to the exact stated size. 4x5 WAS

4x5 and photographers had a bunch of expensive plate holders. When

the much thinner film was introduced the industry came up with a way

to use the film in the existing plate holders. Thin black metal "film

sheaths", which had narrow lip on three sides, were introduced. Film

was made undersized to fit in the sheaths. The sheaths fit in the

plate holder. And yes, they weren't in exactly the same plane as the

front surface of a plate, but close enough when you stopped down to

f/8 or f/11.

 

When cutting large sheet film into smaller sizes I always cut of the

tip of the upper right corner. This works as well as a notch for

figuring out which way to insert it in the holder.

[todd frederick]

When I use my 4x5 I like to make contact prints. I like my contact prints to be 4x5 and I usually keep a bit of the film border on the print...more "artsie" you know! But, it is not a true 4x5. Can we really beleive anything nowdays! ;>)

[ilkka]

In Europe, common view camera format is 9x12 cm, which is much smaller than 4x5". exactly same cameras and lenses are used (but different film holders). So I am happy that my 4x5 is at least bigger than that even if it is not quite 4"x5".

[ardea]

Sort of like a 2x4 (lumber, that is) Richard.

[jason_greenberg_motamedi]

Ahhh, I understand. An excellent historical explaination, thanks Al.

 

It is odd however that the 4x5 Linhof plate/film holders I have won't actually fit plates which are 4" x 5". Rather, they are meant for plates which are the same size as film, about 99mm x 124mm.

 

Were the glass plates used after the (sub)standardization of film undersized? I understand that up to recently glass plates were manufactured by Kodak, were these actually 4" x 5"?