PDA

View Full Version : 8x10 or 11x14



jesse1996
19-Sep-2016, 00:16
Hi everyone! I've posted to the site before regarding cameras. Im saving up for an LF camera. initially i figured "oh 4x5 would be plenty for the massive prints i eventually want to do" then i read on the forum about the massive increase in detail and tonality with 8x10 (if done properly) and i figured "well if i get a half decent 8x10 set up it won't cost much more" and now with a few hundred saved up with my end goal being $3k, my friend asked "well if you want 8x10 for detail then why not get an 11x14!?!?"
I've looked at and really fallen in love with the toyo810M and canham 8x10 but have no idea where to begin on 11x14 since the price jump is quite sharp between the two formats.

the reeling of the continuously increasing sizes and narrower margins of error have led me to ask the sages up ULF on here, for someone who wants to print images akin to Massimo Vitali if not larger, is 8x10 plenty? The same friend gave me some of his own advice stating "one great square inch of film will give one great square foot of print" is there any base in this? if so I would imagine that 8x10 foot prints is big enough for even the most heavy stickler of presence and print nosing.

Any help is appreciated and free stuff is too yay

Leigh
19-Sep-2016, 02:48
One major concern is the selection of lenses available for each format.
The selection drops dramatically as you go up from 4x5 to 8x10 to 11x14.

There many high-quality modern lenses for 4x5, which will yield excellent results.
A high percentage of these allow significant shifts and movements for perspective control.

The number of similar lenses that cover 8x10 is far fewer, and movements are limited with most.
That becomes even worse as you go to 11x14 or larger formats.
Many of the suitable lenses are old, with simple or even no coatings, mounted in old shutters

What kind of work do you plan to do? That will influence the features you need in the camera.

Then look at the selection of films. For optimum quality you want very fine grain and high acutance.
Again, the selection at 4x5 is broader than in the larger formats.
Some folks might suggest using a faster 8x10 or larger film, but that has larger grain, so what did you gain?

Then, what are your darkroom facilities? You can do 4x5 easily in a rather modest setup.
Developing 8x10 film is more of a challenge, and 11x14 even more so.

Then, you can enlarge 4x5 easily. 8x10 enlargers are far fewer and take much more room.

Many generalities here, but that's what you must consider when selecting a format.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
19-Sep-2016, 03:10
Research 5x7, many like it as a good format 'shape' and just right size for enlarging.

Lachlan 717
19-Sep-2016, 03:56
If colour, 8x10".

John Kasaian
19-Sep-2016, 06:03
What took me out of 11x14 was the cost of the film holders. If you can find a kit with a good stack of film holders, so much the better.

What is it you want to be able to accomplish? Traditional enlargements? Color prints? Contacts?
Each format you mention has it's positives and negatives(bad joke!)

My niche is 8x10 b&w contacts, but you may be looking for something else. Regarding 8x10:

---Grain isn't an issue unless I screw up the temperature of my chemicals, which is difficult to do.

---Loading and unloading film holders, as well as larger trays require more counter space in the dark room but if you're enlarging prints from 4x5, you'll need the room for the larger trays anyway.

---Color 8x10 film is prohibitively expensive for me. YMMV)

---Film, lenses that will cover 8x10, and chemical costs will be more expensive than 4x5 or 5x7, but not as much as with 11x14 or banquet formats.

I hope this helps.

Luis-F-S
19-Sep-2016, 06:38
If you're going to make big prints, how do you plan to enlarge them? 4x5 enlargers are plentiful, as are 5x7 enlargers-think Durst L138's. 8x10 enlargers are few and far between, much larger, costlier and harder to find and transport. 11x14 enlargers are nearly impossible to find and very very expensive once found. I'd stick to 4x5 or at most 5x7 due to enlargers. Also, most labs that still print film are still printing 4x5. As mentioned above, the cost of film also goes up exponentially. If you're planning to scan the negatives (something I don't do), then 8x10 may be an option, but I'd sure stick to 4x5 or at most 5x7 especially if you have no experience with large format! L

Ari
19-Sep-2016, 07:02
I went through this very same argument with myself earlier in the year: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?131539-ULF-What-Increase-in-Image-Quality-Over-8x10
The fact that I already had a great camera, lenses and scanner for 8x10 made the decision to stick with that format a lot easier, but you can put together a good 8x10 outfit for $1000 or so; there's an 8x10 Cambo for sale at $250 right now.

MAubrey
19-Sep-2016, 07:13
I moved up to 4x5 last year and then added a 5x7. I'm only contact printing and using Harman Direct Positive. I'm in the process of building an 11x14 camera.

I can only back up everything written here. I'd add: 5x7 is a really nice format, where a contact print is sufficiently large to enjoy on its own and you're not yet worrying about film flatness, which starts to be an issue with even larger formats. You don't get more detail with a larger negative when your film plane is curved in the holder.

jnanian
19-Sep-2016, 07:14
hi jesse1996 :

aside from the good questions and advice you have been given
one thing that is often overlooked is the actual making the photograph.
as you go up in format, wind and camera shake / stability become more of an issue
i know from you original post / intro here you like photographing architecture/elements &c
with a 4x5 it is easy to set up, as you go up, 8x10 is and 11x14 are more of a burden
slogging the gear around, setting up a big bellows is like a mainsail on a boat ... and $$ of materials
unless you are shooting xray film, paper negatives or ektascan/ektapan
(non panchromatic, and a lot of people don't like the grey scale )
films screw ups add up to being broke. and in addition to cost of film
the way you have to process the film might be a hurdle as well. with 4x5 there are handfuls of ways to
develop a negative - tray, hangers, combi plan, fr and the newer methods, as you go up in format, to 11x14 it
becomes 1 sheet at a time and sometimes in an open tray unless you have large hangers and a nitrogen burst system
or something equally as automated. the camera+format are just a small piece to the puzzle ..
as randy said 5x7 is a great format, it is often times overlooked, but it is one of those
formats that once you start using it, you love it. the dimensions make everytihng look good, portraits, architecture, still lives ..
the lenses that cover 4x5 sometimes will also cover 5x7 so the additional $$ of giant + expensive lenses evaporates,
film holders are cheap ( a few dollars vs a few hundred for a 11x14 ) processing is easier to deal with, and you can still
find enlargers that aren't too expensive to enlarge 5x7 film.

good luck !
john

LabRat
19-Sep-2016, 07:32
I too went through the internal conflict of what LF format to shoot, but I came to my senses about continuing to use my 4X5 as it had more movements, wider lens range, easier to carry/set-up, easy to enlarge, cheaper to feed the holders, more DOF, less problems with vibration, faster to set-up/shoot, and get out of there, and I had the rig that I was using for commercial photography... (And I couldn't convince clients to pay more for 8X10's when the 4x5's looked great already...)

I had considered stepping up to 8X10, but I liked the 11X14 format so I pondered... (I had shot 8X10 chromes in the commercial studio, but next to the 4X5 chromes, they were bigger, but just as sharp on the lightbox...) But I realized I could have about the same format with 5X7 OR 6X9 (sheet), but since I enlarge, it was my choice...

If I were just contact printing, then the bigger the better...

Hint; it's in the process, and how you hit the sweet spot... ;-)

Steve K

DrTang
19-Sep-2016, 09:16
I shoot all of 'em - of them..my 5x7's come out consistently the best..but oh my - when an 8x10 or 11x14 'hits' - - nuthin better

I'm shoot B&W of course, and in a studio - if I had to cart this stuff about..I'd probably stick to 4x5 or 5x7

Corran
19-Sep-2016, 10:24
Jumping into LF with 11x14 sounds crazy to me.

If you are shooting landscapes, stopped way down for DOF concerns, you likely won't see any appreciable resolution increase from 4x5 to 8x10. If by "massive" prints you mean 5+ feet, yes maybe 8x10 with a really good scan will show a bit more detail if shot perfectly. You might have a chance at getting more resolution in other situations where you aren't shooting at f/64 or smaller.

Realistically, with a couple hundred bucks, I think you should get a Crown Graphic and decent lens and shoot a bunch first to see what you get, and then what you need. IMO past 8x10 is the domain of contact printing. Even 8x10 really but since I have a good scanner I can realize a bit more resolution than your run-of-the-mill Epson. Having hauled a huge 8x20 camera many miles before and lost all 4 sheets shot to an atrocious light-leak, I really would advise not dropping thousands on a huge camera until you know what you are getting into. If you are dead-set on 8x10 stick with that but not larger.

Peter De Smidt
19-Sep-2016, 10:35
Just as a for instance, I recently shot 8x10 in the field. It was way harder than using a 4x5, mainly because of a 10-15 mph wind. Sure, if you have someone to hold a wind blocking umbrella, this wouldn't be a problem. Will you have that person? The main issue was the darkcloth constantly blowing in front of the screen. That made viewing the composition difficult and frustrating. With 4x5, I have a Maxwell bright screen, and so I could've done away with the darkcloth, or I could've used a monocular direct or binocular reflex viewer, but those are rare options for 8x10. One other consideration is that 8x10 film holders are 4x bulkier and heavier than 4x5 ones. If you're shooting near the car, that's not a problem, but if you get farther afield it could be.

John Kasaian
19-Sep-2016, 12:19
When I'm out shooting my 8x10 and the wind picks up----it's time to pull out my hip flask, sit down and wait a spell :o

Luis-F-S
19-Sep-2016, 14:10
Jumping into LF with 11x14 sounds crazy to me.

+ 1000!!!!

Randy Moe
19-Sep-2016, 14:19
Nonetheless some do it.

I always encourage creative insanity if legal. Big cameras are legal most places.

Why to people that have never ridden a motorcycle buy the fastest one made?

That's crazy and I know many to have done it, despite my every objection. I learned on 65cc Honda.

Size matters...

Leigh
19-Sep-2016, 14:31
Randy,

People do all sorts of things, some more "reasonable" than others.

All we can hope to do when advising a newbie is to present options that have a high probability of success.
We can't get inside his brain to evaluate and understand his experience and abilities.

- Leigh

Luis-F-S
19-Sep-2016, 14:44
Sure go for 11 x 14 just please buy a good one so when you're totally disgusted in six months someone in the forum can pick it up at a good price!

Drew Wiley
19-Sep-2016, 16:09
Unless you intend to contact print, at a certain point you will have diminishing returns. It is rarely practical to enlarge 11x14, and special film cuts are required,
affecting availability. How do you intend to use the gear? Unless you're shooting in a studio or rather close to a vehicle, the combined weight of camera, sufficient
tripod, and film holders goes up proportionately. Have you ever lugged this kind of thing around?

Luis-F-S
19-Sep-2016, 17:14
How do you intend to use the gear? Unless you're shooting in a studio or rather close to a vehicle, the combined weight of camera, sufficient tripod, and film holders goes up proportionately. Have you ever lugged this kind of thing around?

I suspect these are questions the OP has not even though of, particularly since he has not chimed in to this discussion that he started. I suspect he's going from 35 mm to 11x14. You mean I really have to haul 50+ pounds of stuff? Makes perfect sense doesn't it?

jesse1996
19-Sep-2016, 17:33
sorry for the delay chaps but I've been out running errands all day! I have shot with 4x5 before and really enjoyed the experience, it was very calming and i feel the photo turned out great before i misplaced the negative...
to help narrow down id be hiking a few miles tops from the vehicle to get a good location, longer tracks would probably have a friend with me to haul camping gear and extend the trip.
And yes it is a little crazy to even consider going from a few tries with 4x5 to considering 11x14, but given everyones explantations in terms of lens choices and bellows vs. wind. I may just get a nice Shen-Hao, Toyo or Canham set up unless i find a steal of a deal with 8x10. especially considering i enjoy architectural and landscapes with some more confined spaces in the mix.
I know id definitely prefer a metal camera since i will be out in the elements a lot most likely but if i find a good teak camera i'll snatch it up, thanks for the info so far!

Leigh
19-Sep-2016, 17:38
... i enjoy architectural and landscapes with some more confined spaces in the mix.
If you do architecture, you definitely want significant movements (which require large lens image circles).
Finding 8x10 or larger camera systems with those features would be a real challenge.

Landscapes are at the other end of the requirements scale unless you're shooting Mt McKinley from the base.

- Leigh

Fred L
19-Sep-2016, 17:45
4x5 to start and you may find it's all you need and are happy with. As pointed out previously, 4x5 enlargers are easy to find whereas 8x10 beasts can be found if you keep your eyes peeled. but that's rare and usually involve driving to seller to break down and pick up.

I use 4x5 and 8x10 but currently giving the larger format a workout since I'm using Impossible Project 8x10 film. Unless you're making very large prints, I don't believe you'll see *much* difference between 4x5 and 8x10. as usual ymmv ;)

jnanian
19-Sep-2016, 18:01
You mean I really have to haul 50+ pounds of stuff?


i have / use a 11x14, not even close to 50lbs.
the camera on the centennial stand ... maybe,
but the portable one ... nope.

Corran
19-Sep-2016, 20:28
Let's do a thought experiment. Say you decide to buy a high-quality camera and a few good lenses with plenty of movements, if possible.

11x14:

Chamonix 11x14 - $4250 (new), maybe less if you can find a used one, but that's doubtful
4 film holders - $600 maybe, just a guess
Nikkor 450mm f/9 normal lens - $650
Computar 305mm f/9 wide-angle - $1000, if you can find one at a decent price in a shutter
Artar or similar 24" lens - $1000, in shutter
25-50 sheets of film - $500+ depending on new or secondhand deals, just a guess
------------------
$8000+ and you will be burning a lot of cash on film as time goes on.


How about 8x10?

Chamonix 8x10 - $3200 (new), around $2500 used, and they do come up for sale on occasion here. There's also a lot of options on the second-hand market, down to even $500 or less for an old Korona or similar, which are still good cameras.
4 film holders - $200 used
Schneider Symmar-S or similar 300mm f/5.6 normal lens - $300 or cheaper and easy to find
Graphic Kowa 210mm f/9 wide-angle - $450 or so
Nikkor 450mm f/9 - $650
50 sheets of film - $250 or so for FP4+ straight from B&H, and you don't have to wait for a once-a-year run or try finding secondhand
------------------
$4500 max and if you go with a cheaper used 8x10 perhaps as low as $2500 for the whole kit.

Now assuming you are digitizing your negatives and are an expert at that already, your typical $500-1000 scanners can't fit an 11x14. So now you need to spend lots of money on outsourcing scans or maybe get a high-end flatbed and spend another $1000-2000 outfitting that, if you are lucky.

Just running some numbers for fun. I almost bought an 11x14 camera a long time ago. It was pretty inexpensive as 11x14 cameras go, but I didn't. I'm glad I didn't and when I found a 8x10 for peanuts it was fun to jump into a bigger format. 4x5 is still the bread-and-butter of my LF passion. I personally do not find it lacking, and I've made some pretty big prints - as big as I can reasonably make and mount without spending a fortune on presentation. A 36-inch wide print from a well-done 4x5 negative has detail even with your nose pressed onto the print. I wouldn't hesitate to go bigger - though I also have an excellent scanner which makes pulling that kind of resolution off a negative easier.

Randy Moe
19-Sep-2016, 20:45
It's only money and not that much.

Still less than the average car.

Less than a full on, latest DSLR rig.

Way less than MF Digi.

But I doubt any of this is really what OP wants. In his first post here he stated big prints are the goal. I think as big as sheets of plywood.

Even Clyde Butcher seldom prints that. Hasn't he gone DSLR?

Jesse, where you going to put all those huge prints?

I sure hope and wish you have a great plan. I mean that. Good luck!

Corran
19-Sep-2016, 20:49
What people do with their money is not my problem, but if one is "saving" for a camera purchase, it stands to reason that a much cheaper option that is affordable much sooner would allow for more actual photography. That would be my reasoning.

Clyde is using a Sony A7 of some stripe, maybe the 42mp A7iir? It's amazing how cheap such a camera is - just $3200 new, so the same price as a Chamonix 8x10! :) He has the Canon 17mm TS-E ($2200) I believe.

Randy Moe
19-Sep-2016, 20:53
Addendum.

Go to any Mall, high end is best. Study the huge images on the walls. All digital. I was amazed today at the plywood sized soft focus images at a cosmetics store. Dreamy, get lost in the depth and looked great from a foot away.

That's the competition, not Clyde. I like Clyde!

Leigh
19-Sep-2016, 20:57
Way less than MF Digi.
The current top-of-the-line Hasselblad is $46,000 without a lens.

- Leigh

Randy Moe
19-Sep-2016, 21:06
Yep and I would love one.

Yesterday a guy told me and he was very serious that a Pro Chicago catalog outfit now used 3 Red video cams for their still work. Meanwhile 4 guys were trying to operate the latest Drone, but it was FCC restricted and couldn't do much off my roof.

http://www.red.com/



The current top-of-the-line Hasselblad is $46,000 without a lens.

- Leigh

Jeffrey Arthur
19-Sep-2016, 22:08
Ah but the simple joys of alternative process options with ulf and contact printing.

jesse1996
19-Sep-2016, 22:14
I am after pretty big prints, and honestly theres a decent market here in nashville given all the tourism and the massive amounts of gentrification, in the last 7 years the areas that are "nice" have pretty much tripled. Most of these people have nice remodeled modern homes and love their big prints, i dont know why people in the area love massive prints, they also have a habit go really nosing the prints at the galleries. So i would like plenty of detail. The end goal is to compare to Clyde or Massimo Vitali who really got me hooked on large as life prints. Around 8'x10' enough for a group of people to view at once.

on that note, thoughts on the aforementioned "one good square inch of film gives one good square foot of print"? whats the largest some of you guys have printed with still sharp results?

jesse1996
19-Sep-2016, 22:15
The current top-of-the-line Hasselblad is $46,000 without a lens.

- Leigh


for that sort of money i could buy a camera in every format with money to spare for top lenses and a car to haul ass in

jesse1996
19-Sep-2016, 22:18
What people do with their money is not my problem, but if one is "saving" for a camera purchase, it stands to reason that a much cheaper option that is affordable much sooner would allow for more actual photography. That would be my reasoning.

Clyde is using a Sony A7 of some stripe, maybe the 42mp A7iir? It's amazing how cheap such a camera is - just $3200 new, so the same price as a Chamonix 8x10! :) He has the Canon 17mm TS-E ($2200) I believe.

I do enjoy digital photography, i have a T6i that gets the job done in terms of professional gigs and such, but the LF camera would be for my own work in fine art. And granted i am saving so there is a max budget, i feel that $3200 would be plenty to get a decent used set up in either format if I'm patient enough.

jnanian
20-Sep-2016, 03:49
Let's do a thought experiment. Say you decide to buy a high-quality camera and a few good lenses with plenty of movements, if possible.

11x14:

Chamonix 11x14 - $4250 (new), maybe less if you can find a used one, but that's doubtful
4 film holders - $600 maybe, just a guess
Nikkor 450mm f/9 normal lens - $650
Computar 305mm f/9 wide-angle - $1000, if you can find one at a decent price in a shutter
Artar or similar 24" lens - $1000, in shutter
25-50 sheets of film - $500+ depending on new or secondhand deals, just a guess
------------------
$8000+ and you will be burning a lot of cash on film as time goes on.


How about 8x10?

Chamonix 8x10 - $3200 (new), around $2500 used, and they do come up for sale on occasion here. There's also a lot of options on the second-hand market, down to even $500 or less for an old Korona or similar, which are still good cameras.
4 film holders - $200 used
Schneider Symmar-S or similar 300mm f/5.6 normal lens - $300 or cheaper and easy to find
Graphic Kowa 210mm f/9 wide-angle - $450 or so
Nikkor 450mm f/9 - $650
50 sheets of film - $250 or so for FP4+ straight from B&H, and you don't have to wait for a once-a-year run or try finding secondhand
------------------
$4500 max and if you go with a cheaper used 8x10 perhaps as low as $2500 for the whole kit.

Now assuming you are digitizing your negatives and are an expert at that already, your typical $500-1000 scanners can't fit an 11x14. So now you need to spend lots of money on outsourcing scans or maybe get a high-end flatbed and spend another $1000-2000 outfitting that, if you are lucky.

Just running some numbers for fun. I almost bought an 11x14 camera a long time ago. It was pretty inexpensive as 11x14 cameras go, but I didn't. I'm glad I didn't and when I found a 8x10 for peanuts it was fun to jump into a bigger format. 4x5 is still the bread-and-butter of my LF passion. I personally do not find it lacking, and I've made some pretty big prints - as big as I can reasonably make and mount without spending a fortune on presentation. A 36-inch wide print from a well-done 4x5 negative has detail even with your nose pressed onto the print. I wouldn't hesitate to go bigger - though I also have an excellent scanner which makes pulling that kind of resolution off a negative easier.


hi corran

i spent a fraction of that on my cameras.
its like anything, you can go high-line
or you can buy stuff that works perfectly well
and doesn't cost as much as a house.
if need be, i can make up some BS story
about how i schlepped my gear 20 miles in a
yukka pack, built a lean-to and processed my film
by starry night on the peak of some mountain
or how some of my gear was acquired from
xyz photographer or frank zappa so there is a mythos with the photographs ..
at that point buyers care about the gear and how expensive it was/wasn't
how awkward it might have been to use &C .. but in reality
one can easily sell a 30x50" print made from a pentax k1000 developed in
plain-jane developer scanned on a 10 year old epson scanner and people would
be just as happy ..

if i had the opportunity to buy a cheap 11x14 camera back in 1988 the day i walked into
ep levines on lincoln street in boston ... and a handful of film holders and a cheap lens
i would have never bothered with smaller formats. ( i paid as much for an 11x14 i use today[2 backs, bunch of holders]
as i for the 34 year old speed graphic i bought back then ) unfortunately back then 11x14 cameras/holders
cost a fortune, probably more than today. shutterbug was the only place aside form a pro-used shop ...
seeing pierre hadn't started ebay yet ...
like randy, i think the OP should buy the biggest camera he can afford.

as with everything YMMV

TrentM
20-Sep-2016, 04:07
I spoke with Clyde B. a few months ago and he said he as using the Sony A7iir adapted to a Cambo that gave him movements. He is using Hasselblad lenses with it. Otherwise he is using Canon lenses with the Sony, and still drags out the view cameras every now and then. Showed me a new image taken with the 12x20. Nice!

djdister
20-Sep-2016, 04:54
Since the OP wants big, big prints, and I'm guessing he won't be making them himself, he should ask the printer what they want. I'm guessing they would want a digital image file. So you have to ask yourself, apart from the equipment, how much will it cost you to get a drum scan from a 4x5 or even 8x10 vs. from an 11x14 negative?

Here's another tip - beg, borrow or steal a 4x5 and then an 8x10 and shoot with those for a few weeks before deciding that's not big enough for you.

Luis-F-S
20-Sep-2016, 06:21
For what you want to do I'd get a 4x5 or a D810! There was a complete 8x10 darkroom in Nashville a while back. If you PM me I'll send you the info on it.

bob carnie
20-Sep-2016, 06:47
I just made a series of BW prints 24 x30 on 30 x40 sheets from the new Leica Monochrome... just saying that the results were quite comparable to larger formats

If the OP is going to a printer for hire, then I would think 4x5 camera with high resolution scan would be quite nice.

John Kasaian
20-Sep-2016, 07:37
I agree with jnanian. If the OP has it in his mind that he wants to shoot 11x14, he should heed the muse

neil poulsen
20-Sep-2016, 07:53
I think that it can all be done by 8x10, architecture, landscape, whatever. BUT, at what cost and effort?

8x10 enlargers do come along on EBay. For example, the Beseler conversion pops up every once and a while. Even a Durst 8x10 can sometimes be found. And of course, there's always the possibility of scanning.

One can get the super-wides for 8x10 architecture, but they cost a ton, and they weigh a ton. For me (all be it at retirement age), "hiking a few miles tops from the vehicle" and 8x10 don't belong in the same sentence. :eek:

For those who remember, Chris Jordon in Seattle is a great example of someone who walked this very same path. He wanted large prints and fine detail. He tried 8x10 and ended up selling all his equipment to the rest of us at very good prices in the FS forum. He went to stitching digital, and the rest is history.

But sticking to film, I'm thinking that 5x7 is a reasonable, pragmatic alternative. Both architecture and landscape can at times make use of an elongated format. 5x7 cameras aren't sails in the wind that 8x10 cameras can be. Many of the lenses that one might choose for 4x5 can also be used for 5x7. In a 5x7 format, even a Durst enlarger can be affordable. Don't Durst enlargers tip to become horizontal enlargers, when one needs to make very large prints?

I think that 5x7 would be my choice in the situation that the OP has described.

Luis-F-S
20-Sep-2016, 08:01
Makes perfect sense Neil. I just don't think sense is one of the criteria.

djdister
20-Sep-2016, 08:06
Makes perfect sense Neil. I just don't think sense is one of the criteria.

:):)

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 09:30
Who cares what a Hasslebland costs? And who gives a damn who switched to digital or who didn't. They probably had their reasons, which might be completely
logistical and not oriented to optimum image quality at all. Not everyone needs to make prints big enough to thumbtack over a major league stadium scoreboard. If you like sitting on your butt attached to a high-fructose corn syrup IV fiddling around in Photoshop until you resemble a lump of half-melted lard, go digital. If you want to gaze at wonderful opalescent images in a goundglass and gravitate towards tactile darkroom craft, commit to 8x10. But 8x10 enlarger do require more space than 4x5 ones. With patience, even good ones can be found for free. It does help to have basic shop skills, since such things generally need some repair and general maintenance. But don't kid yourself about what it takes. I'm looking down the gun-barrel of my 70's not so far away, and am still
hiking with an 8x10 up some pretty steep hills. It keeps me in shape; but that formula only works if you keep at it. You gotta be in shape. For long backpack trips I resort to a lightweight 4x5 system instead. The days are long gone when I was comfortable with an 85 or 90 lb pack for days on end. But I would reiterate, unless you are strictly contact printing, I see absolutely no advantage in 11x14 over 8x10. Finding an enlarger for anything over 8x10 is going to be
an ordeal, though you might be able to make your own from a big graphics copy camera.

Randy Moe
20-Sep-2016, 09:37
Bob, are those metric inches? :)

I have a newsprint poster made 30 years ago, 24x36 inches from a Leica.

Looks great. That's 24x enlargement.



I just made a series of BW prints 24 x30 on 30 x40 sheets from the new Leica Monochrome... just saying that the results were quite comparable to larger formats

If the OP is going to a printer for hire, then I would think 4x5 camera with high resolution scan would be quite nice.

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 09:45
Forgive me when I tend to snicker at the present "giant print" fad. It takes a LOT of money and gear to even learn to do that well. Otherwise, just take your Minox shot to the nearest billboard company and it will come out perfectly adequate for the "normal viewing distance" of half a mile away. I'd rather see an 8x10 contact
print.

Randy Moe
20-Sep-2016, 09:59
Damn Minox!

I started photography at age 7 with Minox 8mm Spy camera. I developed and made contact prints. Dear old dad insisted that was plenty and an enlarger was frivolous. He would not allow me to buy one with my paper route money. Turned me away from photograghy for years until I stole his unused Pentax H1. Then it was Kodachrome slides, never prints.

Now in my retirement I collect 8x10 enlargers.

I do see the insanity of it all, but nobody cares. Do they? :)



Forgive me when I tend to snicker at the present "giant print" fad. It takes a LOT of money and gear to even learn to do that well. Otherwise, just take your Minox shot to the nearest billboard company and it will come out perfectly adequate for the "normal viewing distance" of half a mile away. I'd rather see an 8x10 contact
print.

Corran
20-Sep-2016, 10:03
hi corran

i spent a fraction of that on my cameras.
its like anything, you can go high-line
or you can buy stuff that works perfectly well
and doesn't cost as much as a house.

That kinda reminds me of some collectors I've seen...they absolutely want to get a Leica but they are dead-set on getting it for $15. So they troll yard sales, flea markets, and thrift shops for 10 years until they find the magical $15 Leica - and then everyone is really envious until they think about the time spent doing it. But for them, the journey is part of the experience, and I get that. If you want to sit down and make photographs sometime this century, one might have to forego finding a $500 11x14 with all the necessary accessories. Perhaps that $600 11x14 in the classifieds would be a good start, and then fix it up or whatever. All that for probably a completely invisible increase in image quality from 8x10 to 11x14, and a lot more headache in the post-exposure world of developing, scanning, etc.

But then I use 4x5 in a lot of situations that are stupid and more appropriate for MF or 35mm so you know, whatever, but I also have a lot more experience shooting 4x5 and didn't jump in to the deep end right off the bat. Even if one has a tiny amount of 4x5 experience (he mentioned one negative, if I understood correctly?) it's still a far cry from ULF.

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 10:28
I'd love to have an early Pentax again. There are plenty of them out there cheap enough; but I imagine all the dust seals have gone gummy and need replacement. I like the look of the older lenses and have even kept my own old Pentax lens all these years, long after the camera shutter speeds wore out. Right now I'm fooling around with a 6x9 Fuji rangefinder - 1/10th the cost of a Leica but just as portable and with 10X better image quality. Medium format was invented in order to keep
marriages intact, especially on vacation together, or when your film receipt gets found. But I usually get caught anyway, because the wife has to dig past my pile
of 8x10 film in the freezer to hide a frozen turkey in there when I'm not around to protect my shop turf! Every format has its pros and cons, but it's all fun.

DrTang
20-Sep-2016, 10:30
So they troll yard sales, flea markets, and thrift shops for 10 years until they find the magical $15 Leica - and then everyone is really envious until they think about the time spent doing it

eh..they'd be out there at the garage sales anyway.. and btw - that's where I got my 11x14 and lens.. and three holders - from a garage sale (old cameras)

Corran
20-Sep-2016, 10:35
eh..they'd be out there at the garage sales anyway.. and btw - that's where I got my 11x14 and lens.. and three holders - from a garage sale (old cameras)

Lucky you! I go to a lot of antique shops, flea markets, etc., and the most I've seen is a really beat up 5x7 listed for $900. Looking over my cameras I don't think I've ever found a legitimate deal on one at a flea market or garage sale. The name-brand stuff gets searched on eBay and then they think they can sell it at the top market price they find. Perhaps old nameless ULF cameras actually have an advantage in that regard. Searching eBay for generic "old camera" listings may be better. All the good deals I've found is through eBay and finding poorly-listed estate sale stuff...the honeypot of cameras that sometimes gets found by a random dude and put on eBay for 99c.

Location may be a major factor. In south GA / north FL where I used to go looking a lot the better-off people back in the film era were lucky to have a Pentax K1000. That was "rich" for them. There's the usual smattering of old Brownies and such. Even plain ol' prosumer SLRs are rare at the second-hand shops. The aforementioned 5x7 was located in the mountains of north GA strangely enough. I didn't buy it but a couple of years later I went back to that antique shop and it was gone.

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 10:55
Some really nice 4x5 and even 8x10 gear has been turning up in the used section of our local camera shop, and it seems to sell quickly. Somebody dropped off a
relatively worn but fully usable 8x10 Dorff there just before my vacation, along with an ancient battered Ries, and it all sold for 5K by the time I had returned. The month prior, there was an extremely clean but otherwise not highly desirable 8x10 Sinar C which sold for 2K, though I preempted the virtually mint Pentax spotmeter that came with it for $200. What is more interesting are the old conversation pieces up on the shelves not for sale, which includes a battered 5x7 Devin tricolor camera. I don't have the time to haunt flea markets, but at a nearby garage sale I did stumble into a brand new (wholly unused) 70's backpack identical to the one I carry my 8x10 system in, which originally sold for over $200, but which I traded for a half-empty quart of varnish.

Randy Moe
20-Sep-2016, 11:16
I'd love to have an early Pentax again. There are plenty of them out there cheap enough; but I imagine all the dust seals have gone gummy and need replacement. I like the look of the older lenses and have even kept my own old Pentax lens all these years, long after the camera shutter speeds wore out. Right now I'm fooling around with a 6x9 Fuji rangefinder - 1/10th the cost of a Leica but just as portable and with 10X better image quality. Medium format was invented in order to keep
marriages intact, especially on vacation together, or when your film receipt gets found. But I usually get caught anyway, because the wife has to dig past my pile
of 8x10 film in the freezer to hide a frozen turkey in there when I'm not around to protect my shop turf! Every format has its pros and cons, but it's all fun.

Must be climate related. The H1 never failed, nor slowed shutter. Seals fine. It was dropped off a bridge and gained a big dent in the prism cover. Still worked great until I gave it to a niece who lost it.

I replaced it with Pentax MX which is smaller, lighter, has good seals and works great. I laugh at Leica, give me a Pentax anyday.

Remember when Pentax 50 mm f1.4 lenses were up to $400 as video guys wanted them...

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 12:03
Of course they failed if you just plain wore em out. I even autopsied mine, and the timing gear at 1/30th, hit wahr plumb done wore off, sure nuff. That little camera went all over the mountains, even got dunked with me under icewater. I figure it survived over 10,000 miles of backpacking. I wonder if these new DLSR's
would survive even a summer of that kind of insanity. But when my nephew started doing extreme weather climbing expeditions in the arctic, Himalayas, and in
Patagonia, I simply gave him a little MX, and it held up fine with no winterization. Nice little climbing camera, with one major flaw - it wasn't a 4x5 Sinar. But he needed his hands free, at least if it was one of my trips, so he could help pull my big pack up the rope. Pity I hadn't discovered 8x10 yet.

bob carnie
20-Sep-2016, 12:28
Bob, are those metric inches? :)

I have a newsprint poster made 30 years ago, 24x36 inches from a Leica.

Looks great. That's 24x enlargement.

I did not convert like the rest of Canada to metric at least when describing print size. I am amazed with this little camera , wonder what stitching would be like.

Drew Wiley
20-Sep-2016, 13:19
24 X 36 sounds like a Leica contact print to me. Otherwise, a stitched together Leica would be sold as Frankenleica.

jnanian
20-Sep-2016, 13:40
hi corran

i never have seen camera stuff at junk stores, garage sales or flea markets ..
i from time to time go to junk stores, i just bought 5 sweet tintypes for $5,
i don't ever scour craigs list, swap meets, and i don't really pay too much attention
to website classifieds .. ( thankfully i don't have much money, and im happy with what i have )

i just happened to be at the right place many years ago when a friend had a camera
he was selling we met up somewhere and we traded a few things ..
i stuck the camera and stand in the back of the car and drove off
and last year someone sold me a camera 2backs and film holders ...
for less than the price of what someone here wanted to sell me a broken film holder...
the camera /film holders and 2 backs were for sale here and apug for a long while before
i saw it ... and inquired .. seemed like an ok person, was nice, so i bought it.
i also got an 8x10 camera for my kids last year. works perfectly well, has an extension rail
and the bellows were easy enough to tape .. cost $75 shipped ... its lens i bought from a friend
selling lenses a few years ago, cost maybe $30-40? I'm not in too deep ... i figure
if the kids decide they don't want to use it for whatever reason, i can give it to someone
or put a LED in it and turn it into a lamp. none of this stuff is pristine, or museum piece shape.
its all used and being used again ... without issue. like i said, im not in deep with any of the things i have ..
and i am sure a lot of it is worthless.
im not one for spending $300 on a film holder or 200$ on a dark cloth or thousands on a lens, personally, i don't rally see the point ...
... i figure if the OP has an idea what he wants, and keeps his eyes open, he might find something that won't be a museum piece either,
and it might work out for him ... i agree with what you said about difficulties scanning &c. i am self taught scanning and dred stitching -- its a pain...

Michael Kadillak
20-Sep-2016, 15:03
Years ago I could not decide on an entry format and chose 8x10 and never looked back. I have four 8x10 cameras three of which I use in the field weekly. Tan Toyo 810M, wooden 8x10 Canham traditional and black Calumet C1.My fourth 8x10 is a Linhof Color Karden studio triplex. Each one has its unique niche and I arranged the lens boards to fit all of them universally. The Toyo is the quick shot alternative. Quick release plate I can put it on a tripod and be ready to shoot an image in less than a minute. The Canham is the hiker camera and the Calumet is the long lens stable in a wind platform. I actually find 8x10 easier to use in the field than 4x5 because you can see what you are doing so clearly. I also shoot a Deardorff V11 and do modest hiking with it even at 35# because of the image size. Forget about 11x14 for now. Yes, it is amazing but it is wrought with things that need to be deal with such as heavier tripods, properly registered holders, covering the camera back at all times as a safety precaution and be advised that normal is in the 24" lens range so get used to using longer heavier lenses.

At the end of the day looking at your objective, I would get the best priced 8x10 camera you can afford and some holders and scan and print through a lab. The ability to secure holders that do not leak, lenses that cover when camera movements are in play (G Claron 355 G and Nikkor 450m for example) will get the job done. Everything you need is available and affordable along with sheet film and the results are simply amazing. Trust your instincts and go for it!

Duolab123
20-Sep-2016, 21:54
I've got an 11 X14 folding Folmer and Schwing. This is a fairly light 11 X14 I need help to go anywhere with it, the film holders weigh about 3 pounds a piece. It's just gotten to be too much to take outside.
I have a Deardorff 8x10 seems like a feather weight compared to the 11 x 14

The large format I shoot the most and love is a really nice Crown Graphic with the top rangefinder. You can shoot hand held, use the ground glass it's a blast. Tmax 100 you can print 20 x 24s all day. Color is feasible with 4x5

Having said all this having a 14 inch standard focal length lens on the 11 x 14 is pretty cool,contact prints are amazing.
Best Regards Mike

Randy Moe
20-Sep-2016, 22:17
Which 14" lens?

Tonight I was trying 14" Imagon and 14" Sironar N at almost 1 to 1 for head shot on 11x14 Thursday.

On GG at f8 they both seemed to be good enough out to The who cares corners.

Debating with myself if I should go down to 8x10.

I would shoot both but this lady just had a bad event and I want to be quick and easy.




I've got an 11 X14 folding Folmer and Schwing. This is a fairly light 11 X14 I need help to go anywhere with it, the film holders weigh about 3 pounds a piece. It's just gotten to be too much to take outside.
I have a Deardorff 8x10 seems like a feather weight compared to the 11 x 14

The large format I shoot the most and love is a really nice Crown Graphic with the top rangefinder. You can shoot hand held, use the ground glass it's a blast. Tmax 100 you can print 20 x 24s all day. Color is feasible with 4x5

Having said all this having a 14 inch standard focal length lens on the 11 x 14 is pretty cool,contact prints are amazing.
Best Regards Mike

Drew Wiley
21-Sep-2016, 08:55
A reasonably affordable modern hard-sharp 14 inch lens that will cover 11x14 would be the 355 G-Claron. But for portraiture you might want something older which renders softer edges. My own preference is for a light yet very rigid 8x10, a category which certainly includes my Phillips camera, combined with a solid wooden
tripod like my Ries. No tripod head, that's another secret to stability; but if I did use one it would be the Ries also.

Randy Moe
21-Sep-2016, 09:02
Trying 14" Commercial Ektar today.

Michael Kadillak
21-Sep-2016, 11:28
Trying 14" Commercial Ektar today.

My commercial Ektar needed to be dead center to properly cover. The least amount of movements induces disproportional artistic circular edge effect. That is why I am constantly reaching for the 355 G Claron.

Alan Gales
21-Sep-2016, 15:13
I shoot 8x10. I think it's the sweet spot with large format. Contact prints are a decent size, it's the largest size negative that I can put on my Epson V750 flat bed scanner, 8x10 enlargers are available on the used market if you are patient, there are plenty of lenses available that will cover, the ground glass is a joy to compose with, etc., etc., etc.,.

The only reason I would want to shoot 11x14 would be for contact printing. It's a real nice size for contact prints.

Drew Wiley
21-Sep-2016, 16:26
11x14 was once popular for studio stand cameras because the big neg was so easy to retouch.

Peter De Smidt
21-Sep-2016, 16:33
And the big camera looked impressive to the sitter.

I had a friend who lost a job photographing an engine for the manufacturer in the 1950s because he only had an 8x10 and not an 11x14.

Randy Moe
21-Sep-2016, 16:48
And the big camera looked impressive to the sitter.

I had a friend who lost a job photographing an engine for the manufacturer in the 1950s because he only had an 8x10 and not an 11x14.

Tomorrow i'm using the big Deardorff SC11 with 8X10 back. 43 inches to nose, for 1-2 macro ratio, 14" Imagon. Try for 1-5 lighting in morning setup.

AuditorOne
21-Sep-2016, 16:52
I love 4x5 and use it a lot.

But there sure isn't anything quite like setting up an 11x14 for a portrait shoot. :D

If I want to use it, I'll figure out how to get it there.

And if all else fails, I'm not proud. I'll just find a mule.

Believe it when I say that Ansel didn't pack everything he needed into the Sierras on his back.

Kirk Gittings
21-Sep-2016, 17:12
Sounds from his few posts that he has made one good 4x5 negative that he has misplaced and that he wants to do landscape ala Clyde Butcher. From having taught LF for decades I really believe that one works there way up to larger formats from smaller ones or the logistics of shooting larger formats quickly become an obstacle to seeing. Also one simply needs to burn film trying things out and learning the ropes and therein lies a large affordability issue. If he were to jump to 11x14 at this point I think his interest would be short lived.

jesse1996
21-Sep-2016, 17:15
from the looks of everyones input i will most likely not go above 8x10 unless film makes a good comeback and more larger formats become available more. but 8x10 seems like a good max ground in terms of film, lenses and actually being willing to strap a camera on me and walk a few miles. I am scrawny but I'm young and could build the appropriate muscle within a month or two.

jesse1996
21-Sep-2016, 17:17
At the very least i would like to get an 8x10 with a 4x5 back so one could learn the ropes and get acquainted with the weight. while still having the always present option to shoot in 8x10

Lachlan 717
21-Sep-2016, 17:24
I went from 6x17cm to 7x17" in one fell swoop.

As far as I know, I didn't have any issue(s) doing this. I subsequently got a 4x5" camera that I hardly use as it feels "fiddly" to me; it's too small.

I think that it's a little presumptuous to make blanket statements that one shouldn't go directly to ULF film shooting. Everyone's native ability is different. As are their desires to master products.

If the OP was suggesting 11x14" wet plate etc, that would probably be a different matter. Not impossible, but a bloody big elephant to eat one mouthful at a time...

(Mind you, having written this, I do recall folks like CosmicExplosion and his ill-fated sortie into 8x10")

Kirk Gittings
21-Sep-2016, 17:35
I went from 6x17cm to 7x17" in one fell swoop.

As far as I know, I didn't have any issue(s) doing this. I subsequently got a 4x5" camera that I hardly use as it feels "fiddly" to me; it's too small.

I think that it's a little presumptuous to make blanket statements that one shouldn't go directly to ULF film shooting. Everyone's native ability is different. As are their desires to master products.

If the OP was suggesting 11x14" wet plate etc, that would probably be a different matter. Not impossible, but a bloody big elephant to eat one mouthful at a time...

(Mind you, having written this, I do recall folks like CosmicExplosion and his ill-fated sortie into 8x10")

It would be presumptuous if it weren't based on decades of teaching LF. And, if I remember right, you had made more that one good negative before jumping to 7x17", had learned to see with film etc., had developed an aesthetic, had made a boatload of mistakes and tried to learn from them with 7x17mm roll film. Is that not correct? You brought a lot of LF experience to that transition. And yes I remember you arguing for 7x17mm being LF :)

Lachlan 717
21-Sep-2016, 17:49
It would be presumptuous if it weren't based on decades of teaching LF. And, if I remember right, you had made more that one good negative before jumping to 7x17", had learned to see with film etc., had developed an aesthetic, had made a boatload of mistakes and tried to learn from them. Is that not correct? You brought a lot of experience to that transition.

Fair points, Kirk; however, I wan't directing my comments at you. It was more the general feeling of this thread that it shouldn't be done.

I'd still argue that, if passionate enough, and with a basic understanding of "technical" cameras, it is possible and, in some ways, recommended. Because, if you can shoot ULF, you should be able to retrofit into smaller formats.

I would agree that there is a definite issue with what to do with the image once captured. That is, processing and printing.

But shooting is definitely possible. After all, many of our forefathers started on what we would call ULF camera...

Kirk Gittings
21-Sep-2016, 17:58
For the past many years I have watched students try and transition from Canon T6i to 4x5 and 8x10. Enthusiasm abounds........for a little while, a class or two. Very few people stick with it beyond that. One gets an unrealistic view of this here because the forum regulars all "stuck with it".

Duolab123
21-Sep-2016, 18:08
Which 14" lens?

Tonight I was trying 14" Imagon and 14" Sironar N at almost 1 to 1 for head shot on 11x14 Thursday.

On GG at f8 they both seemed to be good enough out to The who cares corners.

Debating with myself if I should go down to 8x10.

I would shoot both but this lady just had a bad event and I want to be quick and easy.

It's a Ilex in a number 5 shutter, I think very similar to the Ektar, late 50's. The original lens for the camera is a turner and reich convertible 24 in , it's in pieces in a box just like when I got the 11 X14 30 years ago. I too used a 355mm Claron, but it didn't seem right on the F&S so I sold it off.
Best Regards Mike

John Kasaian
22-Sep-2016, 07:11
IMHO, having passion and enthusiasm is vitally important when making the move up to a larger piece of real estate, but then having passion and enthusiasm is important for success with any format.

djdister
22-Sep-2016, 07:33
Going back to the OP's OP (original post), the only practical way to get a large print of the 4'x8' or 8'x10' variety is most likely to scan the negative via drum scanner and send the file to a high quality digital printer. So from a practical standpoint, scanning an 8x10 or smaller negative just makes more sense. Who does drum scans from 11x14 negs, and how much would that cost?

Randy Moe
22-Sep-2016, 08:07
It's a Ilex in a number 5 shutter, I think very similar to the Ektar, late 50's. The original lens for the camera is a turner and reich convertible 24 in , it's in pieces in a box just like when I got the 11 X14 30 years ago. I too used a 355mm Claron, but it didn't seem right on the F&S so I sold it off.
Best Regards Mike

480 Ronar and see how it goes. 8X10 Delta 100, maybe 11X14 X-ray if sitter is patient.

and i remember what I am doing.

I need to speak out loud each step or I mess up. Every step...

Randy Moe
22-Sep-2016, 08:40
This is for Jesse.

Today shooting 8X10 and 11X14 in my tiny space. I am trying to emulate an 1930 portrait. I will probably fail. But maybe not. :)

155342155343155345

healyzh
22-Sep-2016, 20:13
This has been a rather interesting thread. I've been shooting with my 4x5 cameras and enlarging for several years, and I'm slowly in the process of moving to 8x10 for contact printing. The more I think about this the more convinced I am that I want to go to 11x14. This thread seems to indicate that I should stick to the slow and steady and shoot with the 8x10 for a while. One thing I am planning to do is when I purchase a decent modern lens (currently I have a junker convertible lens), I want to invest in one that will cover up to 11x14.

Duolab123
22-Sep-2016, 21:52
This is for Jesse.

Today shooting 8X10 and 11X14 in my tiny space. I am trying to emulate an 1930 portrait. I will probably fail. But maybe not. :)

155342155343155345

Randy that's a great setup. Amazing how beautiful this equipment is.
Best Regards Mike

angusparker
22-Sep-2016, 21:56
To echo others, I think you have to be into contact printing and being true to an all analog workflow to make 11x14 make sense. 11x14 cameras can be almost as light (if not lighter than some 8x10). It's the film holders that kill you in the weight department. But then you aren't going to shoot as many images anyway.
8x10 does give you a contact printable negative, does allow for color, but enlarging an image probably won't give you a real step up in quality from a 4x5 negative given film plane flatness etc.
So in many ways, I'd stay with 4x5 or go 11x14. But if you are willing to go for an odd format and shorter bellows you can often find real steals in 7x17, 12x15, 12x20 etc that come with film holders. So that's yet another direction. 11x14 is expensive because it's relatively in demand (look at how many postings there are for 11x14 holders in this forum) partly because there are quite a few film choices and the format is "square" and more flexible than a 7x17, or 12x20. If you do go for 11x14 make sure it comes with a few holders - getting a good match between camera and holder in ULF is a big problem. Even the ANSI standard for 11x14 doesn't apply to older 11x14 cameras.

jesse1996
22-Sep-2016, 22:48
That is a pretty banging set up Randy, Hope the images turned out well!

Drew Wiley
23-Sep-2016, 08:30
Angus, I'm one of those people who really prefers to enlarge 8x10 versus 4x5 for big prints. And when I do big 4x5 enlargements, I tend to make a precise intermediate enlarged 8x10 dupe or interneg first, for actual printing purposes. There is a strong qualitative argument all this, BUT it takes a lot of space, gear, practice, and $$ commitment to do it right. I also use adhesive 8x10 filmholders for images intended for big enlargements, which keeps the film flat. Then there's the sheer cost of bigger film too. I've often thought about ULF myself, but unless I was contact printing something like 16x20 or 20x24, I see no advantage to it in terms of personal expectations. For one thing, I'm basically a hiker, and want a system I can seriously lug uphill; and at my age, 8x10 is pretty much the realistic limit.

Luis-F-S
23-Sep-2016, 09:52
To echo others, I think you have to be into contact printing and being true to an all analog workflow to make 11x14 make sense....So in many ways, I'd stay with 4x5....

Gee Angus, and you've actually shot ULF, not just conjectured about it, like most folks on this forum! I shoot 135, 6x6, 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10, and had thought perhaps about 11x14. My decision was that although I would love to have an 11x14 camera, I would probably end up just looking at it. So for a number of reason, many of which are identified in this thread, I've decided to stick to 8x10 which I can enlarge. I doubt I would enlarge much larger than 11x14 or 16x20, because in 40 years of doing this, I've not found a need to do that, nor have I produced a negative I felt truly deserved a huge enlargement. I've had plenty of 1 man shows with 8x10 and smaller prints and it has never been an issue.................but then again I don't believe Edward Weston made prints larger than 8x10 either and he didn't do badly. To each his own! L

Rory_5244
23-Sep-2016, 10:18
What Drew said

tgtaylor
23-Sep-2016, 10:18
There's no reason why you can't get both 8x10 and 11x14. I shoot 35, 645, 6x7, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 and have 5 LF cameras: 3 4x5's (2 field and 1 studio) and 2 8x10's (1 field and 1 studio) – all Toyo's by the way. But I wouldn't get 8x10 and 11x14 at the same time. I'd start with the 8x10 since it's an easier format to learn with than 11x14 and the film is much cheaper, ~$4 a sheet compared to $8 a sheet for 11x14 B&W, and you have many choices to choose from.

Toyo-View film holders, both the 4x5 and 8x10 holders, are the best engineered on the market and will keep your film flat. The 8x10 holder runs ~$200 each new and I recommend new. They will last you a lifetime. That said, last year I purchased a 5x7 Toyo-View reducing back from a forum member and it came with 4 brand new Fidelity Elite 5x7 holders in their boxes. I was surprised at how well the film fit.

I mount my contact printed 8x10's to 16x13 and rather than keep them hidden in a box, enclose them in a ClearFile polypropylene bag and store them in the living room in a print rack where they can be viewed. I can fit about 30 or 40 matted prints with windows in a print rack and the 16x13 size is ideal for hand viewing. On the other hand a 16x20 print matted to 22x28 is a fair size beast and meant to be viewed on an easel or wall. The image posted on my homepage is a 16x20 print from a 4x5 camera matted to 22x28 hanging in my living room. It required only 4x enlargement from a 4x5 negative – just 2x if from an 8x10. That's another advantage of starting with 8x10 rather than 11x14: After printing and framing several prints you may find that the 8x10 contact print does it for you.

Thomas

bob carnie
23-Sep-2016, 10:21
I have thought about 11 x14 Camera for quite awhile as I have a 11 x14 enlarger. Problem is that I am moving away a bit right now from silver to pt pd and gum over and for this I am quite happy with 8 x10 or 4 x5.

I would really like to give 11 x14 a go sometime , I will look into renting a setup for a few months to shoot a silver project.. 24 x30 prints 2xx magnification on Ilford Warmtone, I have the Jobo system for 11 x14 , just need the camera and project... it will come to me.

Drew Wiley
23-Sep-2016, 10:47
I trim 22x28 board down to 22x26 for my 16x20's. I like the margin better that way. And another reason is that pre-cut board is rarely truly square cut on all sides, and this allows me to correct at least one edge if necessary. But 16x20 is a nice print size - about the limit for really good b&w MF enlargements, but big enough to bring some detail out from 4x5 and 8x10 negs. Small enough for a portfolio or museum case that doesn't weigh a ton. I also prefer to master an image
on 16x20 before printing a bigger version.

Duolab123
23-Sep-2016, 11:41
155379

Here's the original lens from my Folmer and Schwing has a 24 in rear cell. Optimo shutter half open been that way since I got it 30 years ago. I figure it gave up sometime in the 50's.

David Lobato
24-Sep-2016, 12:13
You could or could not argue about the differences between 8x10 negatives and 11x14 negatives. Shooting 11x14 is a whole lot different for me compared to 8x10. I enjoy using a wooden camera the size of a piece of furniture.

If you want to really extend the difference up from 8x10, I suggest a different format like 7x17 or 12x20. That would increase the size, visual, and artistic appeal from 8x10.

Drew Bedo
25-Sep-2016, 04:57
Of course . . .if you go with the 8x10 format you will have to post in the other forum.

Randy
27-Sep-2016, 06:38
Forgive me when I tend to snicker at the present "giant print" fad...There was a time when I was one of those who loved giant prints made from large negatives ( I never made anything larger than 16X20 from 4X5 myself ). But perhaps it's my old age, perhaps the fact that I am so loving making cyanotypes, I simply love the look of 8X10, 5X7, 4X5 and medium format contact prints. I have several 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 cyanotypes around the house displayed on little black wooden easels.
I still enjoy looking at giant prints when done well...I just have no desire to make them.

Side note - I entered several 4X5 cyanotype prints in two local art exhibitions this summer. As best as I could tell, my prints were the only prints that were not digital and were definitely the only prints that were smaller than 8X10. I got 2nd place in one exhibition and 1st in the other.

jnanian
27-Sep-2016, 07:24
when does something stop being a "fad" ... 10? 20? 30 years?
people have been making huge photographs since the 1980s
(not advertising, but gallery prints)
when i asked why someone said " you have to print big because photography
is in competition with huge paintings, mono prints &c, and people want big"
i'm not sure if it is a fad or just something people do because it is not much different today...
some people want/look for big, some don't.

Randy Moe
27-Sep-2016, 07:37
Just go Mammoth camera. Old as the hills nay, trains.

http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

155588

John Jarosz
27-Sep-2016, 08:15
That's a nice article. I'm surprised there's no image of the train.

It's here:
https://modernlegends.net/tag/train/

Scroll down

John Kasaian
27-Sep-2016, 12:06
The quickest way to being out of fashion is to be in fashion.

Alan Gales
27-Sep-2016, 12:17
The quickest way to being out of fashion is to be in fashion.

Ain't that the truth!

Remember those ridiculous parachute pants of the 80's? A guy I worked with asked me if I owned any and I told him no and that I preferred my Levis. He told me that I was out of fashion and he bragged about owning six pair. A month later he quit wearing them because they were all ready out of style.

Drew Bedo
27-Sep-2016, 15:09
Just go Mammoth camera. Old as the hills nay, trains.

http://robroy.dyndns.info/lawrence/mammoth.html

155588

Specially built one-off. Only made the one exposure. Dismantled right after.

Pity.

Drew Wiley
27-Sep-2016, 16:06
Just a big compendium lens shade. The guy standing in the back is holding a smartphone camera in his other hand, aiming it down the middle.

Duolab123
27-Sep-2016, 20:59
There was a time when I was one of those who loved giant prints made from large negatives ( I never made anything larger than 16X20 from 4X5 myself ). But perhaps it's my old age, perhaps the fact that I am so loving making cyanotypes, I simply love the look of 8X10, 5X7, 4X5 and medium format contact prints. I have several 2 1/4 X 2 1/4 cyanotypes around the house displayed on little black wooden easels.
I still enjoy looking at giant prints when done well...I just have no desire to make them.

Side note - I entered several 4X5 cyanotype prints in two local art exhibitions this summer. As best as I could tell, my prints were the only prints that were not digital and were definitely the only prints that were smaller than 8X10. I got 2nd place in one exhibition and 1st in the other.

I love 4x5 and 5x7 contact prints. Many famous photographs are small contact prints. George Eastman Museum, has the collection of Lewis Hine, if you look at the details of the prints the originals are small, we see larger reproductions and think the original must be an enlargement. I have an 11 x 14 camera, I will say the size of the negatives can almost be intimidating, they look like a Xray.
Best Regards Mike

Fr. Mark
28-Sep-2016, 06:54
I have a 14x17 X-ray film print out of an MRI study of the exact centerline profile of my head. For grins, one day I printed a positive of it in cyanotype to give to my father who is a retired radiologist. So far, that's the largest print I've ever made and it IS an X-ray.

I've thought that if I was going to go to ULF, I'd go at least 14x17 or a big panorama like 8x20 or both.

jesse1996
28-Sep-2016, 17:22
I have a 14x17 X-ray film print out of an MRI study of the exact centerline profile of my head. For grins, one day I printed a positive of it in cyanotype to give to my father who is a retired radiologist. So far, that's the largest print I've ever made and it IS an X-ray.

I've thought that if I was going to go to ULF, I'd go at least 14x17 or a big panorama like 8x20 or both.

X-ray film seems really interesting due to the lower cost and interesting tones.but i hear its difficult

Randy Moe
28-Sep-2016, 17:31
X-ray film seems really interesting due to the lower cost and interesting tones.but i hear its difficult

Yes and it is so cheap in 8x10 you can play with it and not feel like you are throwing out $10 bills all day long.

You can cut it any smaller size. I cut it to 5X7, 4X5 and smaller. I also use the largest. Please read the X-Ray thread. It's huge.

I gave my doctor today a 5X7 X-Ray neg of their new medical center.

Duolab123
28-Sep-2016, 18:18
I was astonished how much less expensive X-Ray film is than regular pan film. Is X-ray going to stick around?? Is there something about film for Xray that makes it better? I am sure that places around the world that do not have the huge sums of money required to convert to digital.

Randy is right look at what Kodak wants for Tri-X 8x10. It wouldn't bug me so much if you could still buy 100 sheet boxes of 4x5 and 25 sheet boxes of 8 x 10. Alas Ilford is where I am getting all my 8 x 10 (Not there is anything wrong with Ilford!)
Best Mike

LabRat
28-Sep-2016, 18:50
I was astonished how much less expensive X-Ray film is than regular pan film. Is X-ray going to stick around?? Is there something about film for Xray that makes it better? I am sure that places around the world that do not have the huge sums of money required to convert to digital

What I have read is that some of the Eastern European film producers have said is that they will continue to produce camera films, as long as they have a market for X-ray products first... The good news (It seems to me) is that after a visit to a dental specialist I went to, (that was using a new looking Carestream panoramic X-ray machine), was that I saw the image on the monitor, and compared to the small film images that my other dentist was using, the fine detail resolution of the digital image looked like a so-so cameraphone image, without the minute inner detail than the rich fine detail that the film image has... So maybe that level of resolution may not be needed for some applications, but for looking for something small (like some tiny blip in a mammogram,etc) the full detail would be needed, and the present "state-of-the-art" systems are in their infancy (for the time being)... And the cost of the machines are very high... And doctors seem to be used to flopping X-ray sheets around, so maybe it will be around for a little while longer until the technology catches up...

Steve K

Fr. Mark
29-Sep-2016, 18:48
X-ray film is easier to make, I think, or at least the cheap stuff is, compared to pan films: at most one dye to increase spectral senstivity v 2 I think for pan films, no separate antihalation layer to worry about, no notches (for most of it).

Harder to use? I don't know. It's all made so you can use X-ray under a red safelight. That makes developing by inspection possible w/o special gear. It makes it easy to cut to size as was mentioned. It is inherently v contrasty. That can be dealt with with exposure and development (usually dilute like Rodinal 1:100). It has no published film speed but it seems like a lot of use use it 50-100 ASA. With Ortho films tungsten light will need 1-3 stops more exposure than your meter says. Ditto early or late in the day and filters may not do what you've grown to expect from pan films. Some of it is blue sensitive and some Sees out to green or a bit beyond. Blue looks a little like tintypes, green more like Ortho film of old. I've wondered if I could get the dye and pan sensitize green sensitive... Most of it is double sided which people have proposed various ways of avoiding scratches. To me, film hangers seem sensible but you will find other approaches. Last I checked CXS had 8x10 for about 35$/100 sheets delivered price in Continental USA. Ektascan B/RA was available from ZZmedical for around 90$/100 delivered. I like/need the cost savings. Hard is spending "big" money on the steep learning curve.

Longevity in the marketplace? Hard to know. Buy some. It can't but help to keep it around.
Digital XRays I've seen carry plenty of detail. Not sure I buy that as the main reason for film still being made.
I was all worried about film going away when I started this journey. Now, I'm really not. I'm a hobbyist, nor someone with year's invested in a certain film developer paper paper developer combo so I can be relaxed. I am also looking forward to making my own films some day regardless.

Randy Moe
29-Sep-2016, 19:09
We need to nail down this green vs blue business. I buy Kodak CSG And Ektascan both are considered 'green' but both are on a blue tinted base as is 'blue' X-Ray. Maybe an X-Ray emitter works differently with 'blue' or 'green' but nobody has showed me the difference in our usage. Show me the donuts! I guess there is no difference, FOR OUR USAGE.

With one click I found more info from Kodak. http://www.classicxray.com/kodaktmatg.html

Direct from the Yellow Father,

'Formally named Kodak MXG, the film is now called Carestream Clinic Select Film. Same film. Same box. Same great price!!

Features include:
• Kodak T-Grain® emulsion that delivers high visibility of details without sacrificing speed
• Forgiving exposure and robust processing tolerance to reduce the need for costly re-examinations
• Manual or automatic processing in standard and rapid (60-second) cycles

High contrast, half speed, orthochromatic film for general radiology. Unique patented Kodak T-Grain film technology yields brilliant, sharp images to support easy, reliable diagnosis.'

Not to criticize Fr. Mark and he has indicated he would write a 'Sticky' we can point newbies to.

Have at it, Fr. Mark, perhaps collaborate with a couple members of your choice, as I do think the LFPF Front 'Info" Page needs an addition. :)





X-ray film is easier to make, I think, or at least the cheap stuff is, compared to pan films: at most one dye to increase spectral senstivity v 2 I think for pan films, no separate antihalation layer to worry about, no notches (for most of it).

Harder to use? I don't know. It's all made so you can use X-ray under a red safelight. That makes developing by inspection possible w/o special gear. It makes it easy to cut to size as was mentioned. It is inherently v contrasty. That can be dealt with with exposure and development (usually dilute like Rodinal 1:100). It has no published film speed but it seems like a lot of use use it 50-100 ASA. With Ortho films tungsten light will need 1-3 stops more exposure than your meter says. Ditto early or late in the day and filters may not do what you've grown to expect from pan films. Some of it is blue sensitive and some Sees out to green or a bit beyond. Blue looks a little like tintypes, green more like Ortho film of old. I've wondered if I could get the dye and pan sensitize green sensitive... Most of it is double sided which people have proposed various ways of avoiding scratches. To me, film hangers seem sensible but you will find other approaches. Last I checked CXS had 8x10 for about 35$/100 sheets delivered price in Continental USA. Ektascan B/RA was available from ZZmedical for around 90$/100 delivered. I like/need the cost savings. Hard is spending "big" money on the steep learning curve.

Longevity in the marketplace? Hard to know. Buy some. It can't but help to keep it around.
Digital XRays I've seen carry plenty of detail. Not sure I buy that as the main reason for film still being made.
I was all worried about film going away when I started this journey. Now, I'm really not. I'm a hobbyist, nor someone with year's invested in a certain film developer paper paper developer combo so I can be relaxed. I am also looking forward to making my own films some day regardless.

Randy
30-Sep-2016, 16:57
We need to nail down this green vs blue business.I have always used the green of various brands. A while back a friend gave me 10 sheets of the 1/2 blue, which he always used. I did two exposures at the same speed and processed the same. The 1/2 blue did not have near the exposure latitude of the green - much of the shadow detail was completely unexposed even though the highlights were comparable to the green. The green looked much closer to my experience with 8X10 pan film. Both had a blue base, so both films looked blue after processing.

Peter De Smidt
30-Sep-2016, 17:05
I'm sure most know this, but the x-ray film machines in question emit x-rays that travel through the subject and hit a phosphorescent screen. Some machines have a blue screen whereas others have a green one. The screen lights up and exposes the x-ray film. As a result, we have film tailored for a green screen, and film for a blue screen.

Randy Moe
30-Sep-2016, 17:10
I'm sure most know this, but the x-ray film machines in question emit x-rays that travel through the subject and hit a phosphorescent screen. Some machines have a blue screen whereas others have a green one. The screen lights up and exposes the x-ray film. As a result, we have film tailored for a green screen, and film for a blue screen.

Yes, and it's all on a blue plastic base, as you state.

I have read the entire X-Ray Saga, but don't recall anyone saying what Randy just wrote.

Fr. Mark
30-Sep-2016, 19:21
Not sure why the films have a blue base maybe not to make bones too white compared to flesh?

Blue and green refer to spectral response of the emulsion not the base.

Most X-ray equipment for diagnostic use assumes the film goes in a film cassette in a darkroom. The film cassette has two phosphorescent layers which interact with the X-rays, absorbing their energy and re-emitting the energy as visible light of a particular color (blue or green it seems). A large enough dose of XRays will expose the film themselves but the phosphor screens allow exposure of the film at a much lower X-ray dose since much of the X-ray dose goes through you AND the film. Lower X-ray dosage is generally a good idea.

A sticky: well I wrote something up but it was too long for in system. I think I sent it to one of the moderators and maybe the site founder. ??a year ago?? Nothing happened. If it got eaten by the internet I could resend. But the remarks yesterday encapsulate most of what I think you'd need to know to start. Someone ?Andrew O'Neill? Posted a reciprocity failure chart too.

Drew Bedo
3-Oct-2016, 05:29
Ok; I WORKED AS A nuclear medicine technologist back when film was the only way to get an image. Now of course, most medical imaging is digital and read off a computer screen. I worked with and around plenty of Radiologists as they read the films. The reading rooms had large light boxes on the walls. In a major facility they might cover the walls on three sides. The radiologists kept the ambient light low so most light in the room came from the light box through the film, and you look right at it . . .intently.

The blue base helped keep glare down and was easier on the eyes after several hours. That is why it is bluish.

Imaging for Nuclear Medicine was a bit different. The film recorded an the bright spots from a 4-5 inch CRT that built up ofer several minutes to form a useful image. Phosphor screens were not used.

I found that the film would load right into a 8x10 film holder and work I my Kodak 2D. The single emulsion sheets were developed in the same chemistry as the X-Ray film in a Kodal x-Omat roller transport processor—ninty seconds dry-to-dry! This chemistry was also compatable with rolls of 220 Tri-X.

After some testing it seemed that it was pretty panchromatic and rating the film at ~200 ISO worked. I made some nice images that way.

This film is still available new as "Ektascan" and can be had in either clear or blue base—but only in 8x10 I think. The sheets have rounded corners with a single V notch.

Randy Moe
3-Oct-2016, 05:46
I don't think anybody here knows of a clear base Ektascan!

We need to find it!

Drew Bedo
3-Oct-2016, 08:07
Well I used it as late as 2003 before I had to retire. So, OK, that is 13 years ago and time is cruel.

Randy Moe
3-Oct-2016, 08:16
Well I used it as late as 2003 before I had to retire. So, OK, that is 13 years ago and time is cruel.


Time is cruel, but I am very grateful for my extra time.

Fr. Mark
3-Oct-2016, 18:11
If Ektascan B\RA is available with clear base, I want some! I don't have time to dig for it right now. Anyone else seen it?

Corran
3-Oct-2016, 18:39
What would be the advantage of a clear base, photographically?

Randy Moe
3-Oct-2016, 18:44
What would be the advantage of a clear base, photographically?

For me, I could make better looking positives. No blue.

Even more contrast?

Change of blue filter effect of blue tint.

I guess we will never know....

Corran
3-Oct-2016, 18:46
That makes sense, regarding positives.

I'm not sure I understand the part about blue filter - do you mean for contact printing on MG paper?

Randy Moe
3-Oct-2016, 19:11
That makes sense, regarding positives.

I'm not sure I understand the part about blue filter - do you mean for contact printing on MG paper?

Some talk of the tint itself acting as a filter during exposure. I think in thread 49xyz, hike!, this is unclearly proposed.

Maybe I am blue sky drifting...

Corran
3-Oct-2016, 19:19
An interesting proposal! Wouldn't that only influence the rear emulsion, after the light passes through the base? Actually now that I think about it isn't the x-ray film kind of lavender colored before fixing? Either way it would seem like you could test this by shooting two sheets back-to-back of a blue sky exposed to middle grey and then develop the same, and strip one side each (you'd have to keep track that you strip opposite sides). If the color causes a difference in exposure you'd see a difference in the density, no?

Randy Moe
3-Oct-2016, 19:31
An interesting proposal! Wouldn't that only influence the rear emulsion, after the light passes through the base? Actually now that I think about it isn't the x-ray film kind of lavender colored before fixing? Either way it would seem like you could test this by shooting two sheets back-to-back of a blue sky exposed to middle grey and then develop the same, and strip one side each (you'd have to keep track that you strip opposite sides). If the color causes a difference in exposure you'd see a difference in the density, no?

Yes, but i'm not that crazy. Yet...

I will live with the blueness.

I do want hearof any X-Ray that is different, but I am happy with Kodak CSG and Ektascan

Fr. Mark
4-Oct-2016, 18:50
Ektascan is single sided. The blue tint is after the light goes through the emulsion.
I had in mind reversal processing and fast UV/blue exposure for cyanotype.