Re: plate holder woes (again)

This reasoning does not seem logical. If the tin plate holder is properly
constructed, the front surface of the tin plate will be exactly in line
with the original film plane. The thickness of the plate has nothing to do
with it, since the extra thickness extends backward from the film plane,
not forward somehow into the camera. If all other sources fail, the
instructions for making plate holders in t he book "Primitive Photography"
could be modified to make a rather crude but serviceable single sided plate
holder.

Jack Reisland

Robert Newcomb wrote:

> Glass plates are about 1/16th (.060) thick, film is about .005 thick.
> So if you put a glass plate in a standard spring back, the emulsion
> will be too far forward (closer to the lens) as compared to the
> groundglass focus screen. You can have an 8x10 glass plate holder
> made, but you would also need to have a new grounglass panel made as
> well so the focus planes match up.
> From what I've seen, wet plate holders were a good bit thicker then dry
> plate holders or film holders. That may be what the Star company
> person is saying, a wet plate holder would be too thick and a double
> sided would be way too thick even to physically fit in a standard
> spring back.
> It can be done though, you just need a holder and a back.
> Robert Newcomb
> On Jul 6, 2004, at 3:17 PM, Gregory Popovitch wrote:
>
Received on Tue Jul 6 14:25:13 2004