Share your favorites on Show & Tell

LeClear

In Photographs > Cabinet Card Photographs > Show & Tell.
Cabinet Card Photographs164 of 429HattonCassey & Whitney
2
Love it
0
Like it

vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
aghcollectaghcollect loves this.
Add to collection

    Please create an account, or Log in here

    If you don't have an account, create one here.


    Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate


    Posted 11 years ago

    LansingMic…
    (39 items)

    This is an odd sized photograph. It's 4"x4".
    If anyone could tell me about this style/size photo that would be great!
    This is yet another example from the LeClear Studio of Lansing, Michigan.

    logo
    Cabinet Card Photographs
    See all
    100 CABINET CARD Cab Photo SLEEVES Pack/Lot ARCHIVAL SAFE Quality 1.5 Mil Poly
    100 CABINET CARD Cab Photo SLEEVES ...
    $11
    Lot OF 100 Original Random Found Old Photographs B&W Vintage Snapshots Pictures
    Lot OF 100 Original Random Found Ol...
    $23
    LOT OF 100 PHOTO ORIGINAL RANDOM SOVIET UNION FOUND B&W VINTAGE FROM USSR
    LOT OF 100 PHOTO ORIGINAL RANDOM SO...
    $39
    100 CDV+100 CABINET CARD Photo SLEEVE Pack/Lot ARCHIVAL SAFE Quality 1.5mil Poly
    100 CDV+100 CABINET CARD Photo SLEE...
    $22
    logo
    100 CABINET CARD Cab Photo SLEEVES Pack/Lot ARCHIVAL SAFE Quality 1.5 Mil Poly
    100 CABINET CARD Cab Photo SLEEVES ...
    $11
    See all

    Comments

    1. rniederman rniederman, 11 years ago
      In regards to your image format question, there was no standard plate or sheet film format for something square such as 4 x 4 inches. Given it’s a studio image, I’ll rule out roll film as a possibility.

      The simplest approach to get something like this is to shoot the portrait on a commonly available format (i.e. 4 x 5 or 4.25 x 5.25 inches) and then enlarge to a desirable size. However, enlargers were not all that common at the turn-of-the-century. Additionally, image quality degraded when an image was enlarged (i.e. they lost a bit of tonality and fine details got fuzzy). Yet it was a very cost effective option.

      Another approach would be to shoot a normal portrait that was cut diagonally to get the square [diamond] format. If a normal back was used on a studio camera for a portrait shot, the plate or film format would have to cover the widest part of your image - about 5.75 inches (or so). The nearest standardized format covering this width would be whole-plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches). But that's a lot of wasted photographic material.

      Another thought is LeClear could have owned a specialized piece of camera equipment. A builder by the name of Mathias Flammang patented a rotating back that could turn a full 360 degrees. Flammang’s back was available for studio cameras made by American Optical and Scovill as well as their field camera models. You can see an example of this rotating back attached to a field camera on my website at: http://www.antiquewoodcameras.com/flrear01.html

      If LeClear had an American Optical or Scovill studio camera equipped with Flammang's rotating back turned to about 45 degrees, a standardized plate or film format of 4.25 x 5.5 inches (1/2-plate) could be used with minimal waste. Although the camera on my website dates to the 1880s to late 1890s, this rotating back was used into the early 1900s. Photographers often kept their cameras and upgraded lenses over time.

      IMO, any of these approaches were possible and more research into LeClear would be needed to understand his studio habits.
    2. LansingMichCollection LansingMichCollection, 11 years ago
      Wow! Thank you very much, rniederman. I wasn't expecting that much information, but I'll gladly take it!
      By the way, your website it great!

    Want to post a comment?

    Create an account or login in order to post a comment.