Tintype Dark Slides?

dorcasmallorcus

dorcasmallorcus

Messages
79
Edit My Images
No
Does anybody know if tintype plates required plate holders in the same fashion as double dark slides for ordinary film plates?

I mean, just ordinary mahogany double dark slides, except they'd be of tintype plate dimensions internally.
 
dorcasmallorcus said:
Does anybody know if tintype plates required plate holders in the same fashion as double dark slides for ordinary film plates?

I mean, just ordinary mahogany double dark slides, except they'd be of tintype plate dimensions internally.
Click to expand...

That will depend on how thick the tintype plates are. I’m guessing they’re thicker than standard sheet film though, so they won’t fit into a standard DDS holder.
 
Tintypes or glass plates won't fit in traditional film holders, look out for some MPP holders with the removable film holder or some dedicated wet plate holders.
When you find a good wet plate holder let me know, it's hard enough trying to identify which is best
 
Karl.t1965 said:
Tintypes or glass plates won't fit in traditional film holders, look out for some MPP holders with the removable film holder or some dedicated wet plate holders.
When you find a good wet plate holder let me know, it's hard enough trying to identify which is best
Click to expand...

I’m in the process of building a pair of custom 4x10 wet plate holders for a guy in America.

4x10 wp holder top.JPG

image0.JPG

Once I get through the current batch of camera builds, I’m going to be building the first 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 versions of the same holders, ahead of launching them for retail.
 
Hi there, many thanks for the replies. I now realise my OP is flawed.

Mods: Feel free to edit this post and turn it into a new thread, otherwise let it roll within this thread l guess


Pursuant question:

Mainly going by appearances, can you name the distinguishing features between:

1. DDS (l know they are for cut film, but what's the distinguishing appearance - just thin-ness?)
2. Glass photographic plate holders
3. Wet plate / Tintype holders (assuming these are the same thing)
4. Ambrotype holders
5. Daguerrotype holders

Feel free to add any other holders, so long as it's to do with blank photographic media . . .
 
Last edited:
Note that a DDS isn't a thing for film, it's any kind of plate or film holder that has two dark slides.

So far as I'm aware, they're named in terms of what they're holding rather than the process. The main differences seem to be in thickness and stiffness.

Modern film holders have to hold something thin and very flexible, and do it by using very thin grooves around the edges to hold the film flat against the septum. The plate holders I have accommodate a thicker and much stiffer thing, and push it against a frame at the image plane by means of a leaf spring type of affair in the middle of the septum. I'd imagine tintypes and Daguerrotypes would both be on relatively thin metal with decent stiffness. I'm not aware of any specific holders for these, and it might be possible to use a glass plate holder if the spring is able to push the thinner substrate far enough for it to be held against the frame at the image plane. If not, then I'd guess either a plate type holder for a thinner substrate, or something like a film holder, maybe with wider grooves.

I don't know if there's anything special about wet plate holders, and can't think of much other than being made of materials that can withstand the effects of the chemicals (silver nitrate can react strongly with metals). Can't think of anything that might make a holder for an Ambrotype any different from a normal glass plate holder.
 
Thanks, so, it's all about thickness?
And any of them can technically be called DDS even if an anachronism?
 
dorcasmallorcus said:
Thanks, so, it's all about thickness?
Click to expand...

Well, thickness and stiffness, but yes, it seems that way to me. There were several processes or coating types on a handful of substrates. Unless a particular process had a special need, I don't see why a given holder would be more or less suitable for one coating type compared to another provided it can hold the coated substrate in the required manner (ie, at the image plane, decently flat, and in the dark until it's time to make an exposure). An Ambrotype is a wet collodion negative that's displayed in a certain way (against a black background). The making of the Ambrotype negative is the same as for a negative to be used to make, say, albumen prints, so there doesn't seem to be any reason to make a different holder.


And any of them can technically be called DDS even if an anachronism?
Click to expand...

I don't know when the term "double dark slide" came into use, but a plate holder for two plates has two dark slides. That said, a plate holder for one plate isn't called an SDS, and neither is a film back/magazine for a medium format SLR, even though they both have a single dark slide. It seems to me that "DDS" is a misnomer that probably came about because it's quicker to type. They are properly called a plate holder, film holder, etc. That's what Fidelity called theirs...

Film Holder Box.jpg
 
Ok so here's my proposal:

I shall just call these things dark slides if l don't know whether they are for film or plate.

I shall assume that anything thicker than a Kodak cut film holder is a plate holder.

If l know they are for film or plate l shall either suffix with "[sheet / cut / cut sheet] film" or "plate" or just call them "film-" or "plate holders"

I shall assume plate can loosely cover antique formats like ambrotype, tintype, daguerrotype.
 
Last edited:
Before the fidelity type double dark slides came into fashion. The usual choice Was between the single metal plate or film holder, mostly used in Europe. And wooden book form slides that folded open in the middle for loading. These were mostly used by British camera makers and would have been used for glass plates of all types,and can have individual sheet film inserts. And single sided versions for wet type plates were also made.. Book form slides were still made for Gandolphi cameras into the 60's. They were very easy to use.
The difficulty with all old plate holders is knowing the register, as there was no standard. Even MPP had thee different registers to suit their various models. Eventually people standardised on the fidelity register for use in international backs. And was the same register for roll film backs.
Register is of course important if focus on the emulsion is to match the focus on the screen.

Gandolphi was notable for always using plywood loose tongues into both parts, when joining panels in their construction. It guaranteed flatter and lightproof joints that would not warp. And are safer than joining with tongue and grooves which can split along the grain.
 
Last edited:
@stevelmx5 has designed wet plate dark slides with another guy, as ChromaGraphica (I think). He would certainly know more about this issue. Very good point about the registration, Terry @Terrywoodenpic . I believe there's a difference between depth of field and depth of focus that might be relevant here?
 
ChrisR said:
@stevelmx5 has designed wet plate dark slides with another guy, as ChromaGraphica (I think). He would certainly know more about this issue. Very good point about the registration, Terry @Terrywoodenpic . I believe there's a difference between depth of field and depth of focus that might be relevant here?
Click to expand...

Cheers Chris. The ChromaGraphica holders that myself and Jason (Pictoriographica) have manufactured are double dry plate holders. They are essentially the same design as Fidelity etc sheet film holders (bottom load through hinged lids) but have 3mm thick slots with integrated springs plates below the glass plates. They will also hold sheet film (using an adaptor plate) and are designed around ANSI/ISO standards for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 holders. 'Standardisation' across manufacturers seems to be pretty relaxed across many large format accessories, including Graflok/International standard holders.

The register is the distance between the face of the holder (that faces towards the lens) and the film plane. This has to be the same as the distance to the ground glass to ensure consistent focusing. For example, standard 4x5 holders are 5mm.
 
Last edited:
ChrisR said:
@stevelmx5 has designed wet plate dark slides with another guy, as ChromaGraphica (I think). He would certainly know more about this issue. Very good point about the registration, Terry @Terrywoodenpic . I believe there's a difference between depth of field and depth of focus that might be relevant here?
Click to expand...

Depth of field and depth of focus both refer to the distance over which sharpness is acceptable.

Depth of field measures how much the subject can move backwards and forwards.

Depth of focus how much the film can move.

Viewed geometrically, depth of field is in front of the lens, depth of focus behind.

Depth of field is dramatically reduced at very close focusing distances (think macro.) Depth of focus is the reverse. That's why (again, macro) you have to rack the lens in and out A LOT to see any change, and why focus slides are used.

And for the same reason, depth of focus is very small with wide angle lenses. Mike Walker makes his wide angle large format cameras with fixed backs because wide angle lenses require more precise zeroing of the back's position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top