I shot these two pictures through a window at Disneyland. I thought I knew a little bit about the history of photography, but I’ve never seen anything like this. It really gives new meaning to the term ‘large format camera’. If it’s what it appears to be, then the emulsion must be about 4’ x 4’. Is this how they used to make poster-sized prints?
The general name for that type of camera is the view camera. The photosensitive surface would have been on a glass plate, and could have been sized 4"x5", or 8"x10", or even 16"x20".
Yes and no. I agree that in the case of the camera pictured, it’s likely that glass plates were used. But in general, view cameras have been film-based for ages.
Right – I was just going on what I’ve read of the history of these cameras, going back into the 19th century. I know that they still can be used, but I’ve never seen one in action.
I believe in this case the technical term would be big-assed view camera.
Yes. In earlier times most prints were made by a contact process - i.e. the negative was laid directly over the photographic paper and exposed rather than being projected onto the paper, allowing enlargement, as became the norm as film got smaller. This was in part because early film could not stand the amount of enlargement of latter films without losing image quality but also because enlarging apparatus requires a bright artificial light source whereas contact printing needs only daylight.
I have seen several cameras of that sort of scale but they were all ‘copy’ or ‘process’ cameras used to copy artwork same-size for the creation of printing plates. I suppose it is possible that the photo depicts such a process camera used in an unusual location for pictorial work.
It’s a Casio EX-Z70. Oh, I’m sorry, did you mean the one in the photo?
My first thoughts were going to be some sort of process camera as well, but they normally aren’t even slightly portable.
Back in the early days of photography, there was little standardization of sizes, so if you were willing to take on the task of building a camera, making your own glass plates or film, and processing it, you were free to do it in whatever size pleased you.
View cameras are still in use today. They’ve always been the semi-exclusive territory of artists because the materials are expensive, the cameras are expensive, and they’re generally rather awkward to carry, set up and use. But… a large-format “chrome” (slide film) is a beautiful thing.
I used one in high school for a still-life photo. One advantage besides the large format is that the film can be tilted in relation to the lens. This allows you to angle the camera, yet keep parallel objects like candles and such, parallel in the photo.
There are bigger cameras. Sometimes they are designed as a room you can walk into, with a huge lens on one exterior wall that looks out over the outdoors, and an image formed on the opposite wall. The older name for cameras, namely “camera obscura”, is more appropriate for these. It’s latin for “dark room”. Note latin puts adjectives after nouns, like most other languages.
A four-foot by four-foot camera? I’d wager the OP is familiar with view cameras in general (given the fact he mentions large format cameras), it’s just the immense dimensions of it. I have no idea what it is either.
The biggest view camera I know of is the 20x24 Polaroid, but that was developed in 1977, originally weighing in at 600 lbs, but now a rather slim 235.
Holy cannoli! George R. Lawrence camera, Chicago. The plate was 8 by 4 1/2 feet. It’s not the camera in the OP, but still…
Sorry, no, I was responding to gotpasswords comment about the current use of view cameras in general, not the whopper in the OP. I think the one we had in school used 4x6 or 5x7 film.
That’s tiny, postcards. The biggest camera ever was built from a hangar at the former Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro. Irvine CA in 2006. It was 45’ high, 80’ deep and 160’ wide. The image was 28’ by 108’.