PDA

View Full Version : Why 7x17?



Marco Annaratone
16-Jan-2006, 23:44
The recent post by Kerry Thalmann prompted me to a question I have been wanting to ask for a while: why 7x17? What's so different compared to 8x20? Give or take, the aspect ratio is very similar. I can imagine less weight, easier lens coverage, maybe less cumbersome film development, but could some knowledgeable soul out there (Kerry?...) articulate for me the benefits of this format? From my ignorant point of view that 17in looks like a really bizarre size, and the film can't be cut without waste...not?

(And of all the ULF formats one can choose from, Shen-Hao comes out first with a 7x17: I'm missing something, clearly...)

Thanks!

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2006, 00:17
Marco,

Here's a link (http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/496613.html) to a discussion on this topic in this forum from a couple years ago. There was also a similar discussion just two months ago on APUG (http://www.apug.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21566) just two months ago. Those threads will provide a lot more expert opinions than I can provide on the subject of 7x17 vs. 8x20.

For me personally, it came down to the fact that everything about 7x17 is just a bit more manageable. The camera and holders are a tad smaller and lighter. I do plan to hike with my completed 7x17 camera. So, size and weight do matter to me. There are more lenses to choose from (and they tend to be smaller, lighter, less expensive and easier to find) for 7x17 than 8x20. 7x17 film is cheaper. Less space is needed for processing film and printing.

I've often dreamed of shooting 12x20, but it's just not practical for the type of photography I want to do - and no, a pack animal is not an option as many places I hike don't permit stock on the trail. Considering the weight and bulk of the camera, holders and tripod, 7x17 seems like about the biggest size I can reasonably carry long distances on my back.

Kerry

Jan Van Hove
17-Jan-2006, 03:38
Just to add my grain of salt...

For "squarer" shooters like me who shoots 11x14, 7x17 is an interesting format because :

a- the camera is smaller...
b-the image circle needed to cover is the same as 11x14, so one set of lenses for both cameras...
c-it is sufficiently different to be justifiable as a tool...

Just my two ULF cents...

PJ

Arthur Nichols
17-Jan-2006, 06:49
While using my 8x10 I frequently found myself cropping to 4x10. When I made contact prints of the 4x10 they just seemd too small, most of the time. I wanted to make some larger contact prints and since I am somewhat slight of build I thought that starting off with 7x17 would be more manageable for me. I have a Korona and it is quite light and easy to handle. I think that I might prefer the slightly larger size of 8x20, but 7x17 is what I have. The 7x17 format was originally a "Banquet" camera format and it was used for exactly what its' name implies, that is the rational for the long format: long banquet tables. The fact that there are still a lot of them kicking around accounts for the fact that the format persists. It is a nice format and helps me to eliminate excess sky areas in landscapes. That being said, I actually like about a 2:1 ratio while the 7x17 is a 2.5:1 ratio. But the cameras, film holders and film are available in that size so I use it.

Daniel Grenier
17-Jan-2006, 07:05
Just like Arthur, I too was cropping 8x10 to 4x10 and found them too small. When I looked for a dedicated panoramic camera, the 7x17 was a natural with advantages outweighing disadavantages over the "other" panoramic (8x20).

My 7x17 Wisner, being based on the 5x7, is much easier to handle than the 8x20. It also allows for more camera movements than would be possible with 8x20 (with the lenses I had). I also prefer the relationship between 8x10 and 7x17 wheras I found 8x20 to be perhaps a bit too much like two 8x10s side by side. I find little difference between handling my 8x10 and my 7x17 and in terms of exhibiting, 7x17 is not that much smaller than 8x20 so all in all, I am very pleased with the format.

clay harmon
17-Jan-2006, 07:23
I think one of the main benefits is that you can develop 7x17 in 16x20 trays. You can also do alt-process prints in 16x20 trays and still have a decent margin around your prints. 8x20, on the other hand, requires you to step up in tray size to 18x22 at the minimum, and probably 20x24. A lot of darkrooms are just not set up to handle trays that large. I think it boils down to ease of use. I find 7x17 very easy to develop and print, while 12x20(and 8x20) is a whole step up in terms of juggling trays and darkroom gymnastics. Interestingly enough, I like 14x17 for the same reason - everything stays in the 16x20 tray size.

scott_6029
17-Jan-2006, 07:51
A couple of thoughts. In regards to 7 x 17 vs. 8 x 20, I was told by many that the 7 x 17 is just that much more 'manageable'. So, that is the route I went. Manageable in terms of size, weight, transporting it, film, film holder size, etc....

In terms of the format, I think it is really unique in this respect. Your eye moves left to right and back again, and back again..it's difficult to 'glance' at a 7 x 17. And, the image while wide in scope, is, I am not sure how to explain it, but 'proportional? What I mean is a wide angle on a 35mm makes everything look 'smaller' somehow. While the 7 x 17 has a wide field of view with a more normal perspective. Someone looking at my work said it looks like you have patched 3 normal looking images together - like 4 4 x 5's shot with a 'normal' lens. Plus, I think you see that way, with your field of vision.

It's a terffic format and would encourage anyone interested to try it. I don't think you will be dissapointed.

If you do get into it. Get Seed Tray's for your darkroom. www.parkseed.com. Model 6116 perma nest plant trayt. 10 trays for $49.95 or 4 for $22.95. Heavy plastic, re-usable for sure, durable, and the PERFECT size.

Michael Kadillak
17-Jan-2006, 10:30
When I looked at the situation I concluded that 8x20 is more panoramic than 7x17, a 20x24 sheet of paper cuts perfect without waste, developing trays for each are not your standard fodder and either would fit in my sink and lens coverage presented no issues as everything I favor covers either format.

Weight continues to be bantered around as a highly critical variable in the format decision equation but I feel it needs to be placed into the correct context. Yes, a 13# Linhof Tech V in 5x7 versus a 6# Canham MQC 5x7 is a real issue and one would clearly opt for the lighter version but IMHO ULF cameras are inherently a larger heavier footprint in any ULF format. But as far as I am concerned it is not the standard Korona or F&S wooden camera that is the critical component in this equation (what is +/- a pound among friends eh?) it is the holders and the logistics of needing them in the field that drives this issue as any weight camera uses the standard size film holder. The weight difference between a 7x17 holder and an 8x20 holder is rather inconsequential. S&S appear to be as light as any I have managed and AWB seem to be the heavier I have seen. The logistical issues of operating and carrying either camera are a challenge of significant proportions - make no mistake about that. They are both BIG cameras with BIG film holders.

Reading the day books of WH Jackson schlepping a ULF camera, glass plates, chemicals and a portable darkroom to the tops of the tallest peaks throughout the unchartered West day after day makes you appreciate the tenacity of this pioneer photographer and the real loads he transported to get the job done. At times I think that we have become pretty soft with the conveniences of modern life as we know it.

As my Grandfather appropriately commented many times "If you don't like heat, stay out of the kitchen."

My $0.02 nothing more...

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2006, 11:38
Michael - Weight continues to be bantered around as a highly critical variable in the format decision equation but I feel it needs to be placed into the correct context. Yes, a 13# Linhof Tech V in 5x7 versus a 6# Canham MQC 5x7 is a real issue and one would clearly opt for the lighter version but IMHO ULF cameras are inherently a larger heavier footprint in any ULF format.

I agree the whole weight issue is relative when considering cameras this large. At some point, the bulk of the camera and film holders starts to become more of a limiting factor than the weight. Since I am assembling my own 7x17, I have a pretty good idea of the weight of each piece. According to the spreadsheet I'm using, if I keep everything else the same (bellows length, rail extension, etc.) and just increase the size of the camera back from 7x17 to 8x20 the total weight of the camera increases by a little over a pound (18.5 ounces). Not a huge difference in weight.

Michael - But as far as I am concerned it is not the standard Korona or F&S wooden camera that is the critical component in this equation (what is +/- a pound among friends eh?) it is the holders and the logistics of needing them in the field that drives this issue as any weight camera uses the standard size film holder. The weight difference between a 7x17 holder and an 8x20 holder is rather inconsequential. S&S appear to be as light as any I have managed and AWB seem to be the heavier I have seen.

Interesting, when I weighed 4x10 holders from AWB, Lotus and S&S, it was actually the walnut AWB holder that was the lightest. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but the difference wasn't huge (~ 1 oz.). FWIW, the two walnut AWB 7x17 holders I have weigh 29½ oz. each. Anybody care to post the weight of their 8x20 holders for comparison? Depending on brand, I would guess an 8x20 holder would weigh ~ 8 oz. more per holder than a comparable 7x17 holder. So, even if your carrying six holders, that's only three pounds (possibly less).

So, 1 lb. more for the camera and maybe 3 lb. more for the holders. Perhaps the lenses for 8x20 are a bit heavier, perhaps not. Ditto for the tripod. All-in-all, we're looking at a total difference in weight in the 5 lb. range (say 3 - 7 lbs. depending on the number of holders, and relative weight of the lenses and tripod/head). While that may seem significant in a 4x5 system, it's not that huge a difference when we're talking ULF.

As I stated above, bulk starts to play a factor at some point if you plan to haul your system about on your back. Finding a pack big enough to carry an 8x20 camera, holders, etc. that still has enough room for other essentials, starts to become a real challenge. 7x17 is just enough smaller that the number of usable packs increases significantly. If I was only shooting close to the vehicle, 8x20 (or even 12x20) would be more appealing. For hiking in the backcountry, 7x17 is just enough smaller and lighter to make a difference. Of course, once I start schlepping my 7x17 up and down mountainous trails, I may recomsider and go back to the 4x10 and digitally enlarged negatives as the most sane compromise. Time will tell.

Michael - Reading the day books of WH Jackson schlepping a ULF camera, glass plates, chemicals and a portable darkroom to the tops of the tallest peaks throughout the unchartered West day after day makes you appreciate the tenacity of this pioneer photographer and the real loads he transported to get the job done. At times I think that we have become pretty soft with the conveniences of modern life as we know it.

We are definitely soft by comparison. We have the advantage of modern lightweight gear and still look to shave every ounce. Still, in some ways, I am envious of men like Jackson. They got to be the first to see and photograph so many spectular sites. Of course, when I start to get too romantic, I try to envision what life in the backcountry would be like without my down sleeping bag, ultralight tent, thermarest, ultralight stove, gortex rain gear, etc. and start to realize we have it pretty good by comparison.

Jackson did have one advantage that is not an option in many areas these days - he used pack stock to carry his heavy gear.

http://209.196.177.41/images/00/jacksonmule.jpg

"Hypo — a fat little mule with cropped ears... as indispensable to me as his namesake, hyposulphite of soda." - William Henry Jackson

Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in National Parks. It was Jackson's images (thanks to the help of his mules) that were used to convince congress to set aside Yellowstone as America's first National Park.

Personally, I prefer llamas as they are easier on the trail and surrounding enviroment. Unfortunately, they are also considered "stock" and prohibited in many areas.

Kerry

Michael Kadillak
17-Jan-2006, 12:31
If you read closer you will find that when Hypo could go no further, it was WH that took over the responsibilities of the rest of the journey. Everything that you see on that mule went on his back to the top of the mountain to get the final images. I have been to where he made some of his famous images and I guarantee that no mule no matter how nimble or sure of foot would be at these locations. Until someone has direct experience packing with stock at elevations over 12,000 ft it is hard to put these concepts into a risk and reward scenario. I have seen the aftermath of mules tumbling down the side of a mountain when common sense was not adhered to and as a result, I always err on the side of caution.

I do not know what National Parks you hike into but I have seen and utilized pack stock in Yellowstone, Glacier, Teton, Rocky Mountain National Park as well as every wilderness listed in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado that I have checked. Sometimes you need to file for a permit but most of the time you let the guide do that for you.

My point is that you make the serious commitment to be in the kind of physical shape necessary to safely participate in this form of mobilized photography or you are not. There is little grey area here and I want to make that perfectly clear to the reader considering ULF as the desired venue. If you are with the program, when the hip strap on the pack is buckled and you are prudent in what you need to carry to be safe in the back country there is a price of admission that is what it is. Titanium, lightweight this and that and on and on can only do so much to overcome the laws of gravity. I have packed and hiked with folks that were absolutely anal retentive about spending a gob of money "lightening this up" and when we are standing at the truck ready to go I take out my packers scale and weight his pack and mine and 100% of the time so far their pack has weighted more than mine. Like I said, just a different perspective not right or wrong.

Cheers!

Linas Kudzma
17-Jan-2006, 14:55
I'll chime in with my reasoning. I started with 8x20 simply because years ago I aquired a old 8x20 holder and built a crude homemade camera for this holder. Later, I bought a more holders (S&S) and eventually a beautiful 8x20 Korona. So here I am ... an 8x20 devotee. I like the fact that the 20" dimension is about as ULF as you can go. However, if I was starting from scratch I might seriously consider 7x17 if only for the fact that many more lenses fully cover 7x17/11x14 than 8x20.

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2006, 15:14
Michael - I do not know what National Parks you hike into but I have seen and utilized pack stock in Yellowstone, Glacier, Teton, Rocky Mountain National Park as well as every wilderness listed in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho and Colorado that I have checked. Sometimes you need to file for a permit but most of the time you let the guide do that for you.

I did not mean to turn this into a debate about pack animal use in our National Parks, but since you asked...

I guess it all depends on what area of the country you are referring to. Where I live, Mt. Rainier is the closest National Park to my house, and the one I am most familair with. Of the 240 miles of trails in the park, only a few short sections of the PCT (which barely enters the park in a couple short stretches along the park's eastern boundary) and the relatively low elevation Laughingwater Creek Trail (which provides access to/from the PCT from Hwy. 123) are open to stock use. Within the park, these two trails are far from the mountain and mostly in forest with few, if any, views of Mt. Rainier. The only backcountry camp in Mt. Rainier National Park that is open to stock is the Three Lakes Camp near the junction of the Laughingwater Creek Trail and the PCT. The rest of the park, including all other maintained trails and off-trail areas and camps are closed to stock use. For example, the entire 93 mile Wonderland Trail is "hiker only". For anyone who wants to do photograph Rainier and it's environs, hiking is the way to go. For all intents and purposes, Rainier is a hiker's park. 97% of the park is designated wilderess (so no mountain bikes, ATVs, hang gliders, cars or jet skis) and over 95% of the trails (by mileage) and all but one of the backcountry campsites are closed to stock animals.

Other National Parks in the Pacific NW (Olympic and North Cascades) are more "stock friendly", but again, stock access is mostly limted to lower elevation valley and forest trails below treeline. The high elevation trails and camps are "hiker only". This is done for a number of reasons, including safety as Michael mentioned above. Also, it helps protect the fragile alpine environment (the growing season above treeline in these parks is very short). So, again, for the photography I like to do, hiking is the only way to go (the only way allowed in many places).

This also goes for many non-National Park areas in the Northwest. For example, other than a short portion that is coicident with the PCT, the Timberline Trail around Mt. Hood is closed to stock. So, like Mt. Rainier, the best views of Mt. Hood are "hiker only".

So, trying to tie this all back into the original "Why 7x17?" question... For me, 7x17 is the largest format I can practically carry on my back into the alpine regions near my home where I wish to photograph. For most of those areas, stock animals to help carry the load are not an option. If you are in better shape, don't wish to hike great distances, live in another part of the country, etc., you may very well reach a different conclusion.

I do agree 100% with Michael's statement:

My point is that you make the serious commitment to be in the kind of physical shape necessary to safely participate in this form of mobilized photography or you are not.

Although I am planning to take my completed 7x17 camera and all it's heavy, bulky accessories into the backcountry for long day hikes and even a few one and two night backpacking trips, there are places and times when I will opt for the lighter 4x5 (or maybe 4x10). A week-long solo trip during mid-October above treeline in the Cascades is no place to compromise safety margin just for the sake of carrying a bigger camera. When the weather can turn bad, you better be prepared with proper food, clothing and shelter - even if it means leaving the 7x17 at home.

Kerry

Michael Kadillak
17-Jan-2006, 15:42
I agree Kerry that it is serious business off the trail.

Furthermore, the statement from above " Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in National Parks is simply not accurate and I do not want the reader now of in the future to be mislead on such an important subject. When I searched across the United States, Canada, and even Australia on the subject I found that most National Parks or set aside Federal Land that is under protective status is highly supportive of four legged pack stock as a form of access and in fact encourage its use. For the LF and ULF photographer it is a viable alternative when utilized correctly. Your area is very unique in the need to protect tundra at elevation and I can understand that unique condition.

I own a set of pack saddles and panniers and have had many marvelous experiences with this form of access to places remote and would encourage others to explore this option. A week above tree line will make you appreciate running water and a soft bed and insure that you do not turn into a lollypop unintentionally. In fact, the Photographers Formulary has a special pack trip in the summer that goes into the Bob Marshall Wilderness of Montana specifically for the LF photographer. How COOL is that?

Onward!

Kerry L. Thalmann
17-Jan-2006, 16:07
Michael - Furthermore, the statement from above " Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in National Parks is simply not accurate and I do not want the reader now of in the future to be mislead on such an important subject. When I searched across the United States, Canada, and even Australia on the subject I found that most National Parks or set aside Federal Land that is under protective status is highly supportive of four legged pack stock as a form of access and in fact encourage its use. For the LF and ULF photographer it is a viable alternative when utilized correctly. Your area is very unique in the need to protect tundra at elevation and I can understand that unique condition.

I stand corrected. My statement was based on experience with my "local" parks. My statement would have been more accurate if I had changed the wording to read:

Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on some trails in National Parks.

Or perhaps:

Ironically, pack stock is prohibited on most trails in some National Parks (such as Mt. Rainier).

If you do plan to depend on pack animals to carry your heavy ULF gear into the backcountry, check the rules for stock use in the park(s) you plan to visit as the rules and regulations vary from park to park.

It just so happens that most of the trails I hike here in the Pacific Northwest are closed to stock use. That includes everything from sea level hikes along the wilderness coast in Olympic National Park, to low elevations hikes in the Columbia River Gorge, to the higher elevation trails of Mt. Rainier, the Olympics and the North Cacades. There are trails to many scenic areas in Oregon (the Wallowa Mountains) and Washington (the entire PCT) that are open to stock use, but your choices are far fewer than if you are willing to go on foot and shoulder the load yourself.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to advance any kind of anti-stock agenda (I used llamas once and enjoyed their company and appreciated the weight they carried). I'm just pointing out that not all areas are open to stock use and it's best to know what's permitted in the areas you plan to visit before buying into a format that may be too big and heavy to carry on your back for great distances - if that's what you want to do.

Kerry

Michael Kadillak
17-Jan-2006, 18:19
One of these days Kerry when you complete your 7x17 consider a pack trip to Colorado to one of the many wilderness areas and we can burn sheet film like it is going out of style.

I will line up the four legged friends and a good packer and bring the appropriate "trail tonic" to suit the occasion.

Cheers!

robert_4927
17-Jan-2006, 21:18
Ah! The trail tonic is the key. Might I suggest something of scottish heritage. Bottled...say...18 years ago or so. It would serve nicely.

William Mortensen
18-Jan-2006, 00:49
Why both 7x17 and 8x20? I suspect both sizes are the result of cutting down formerly popular sizes 14x17 and 16x20. Same with 12x20, cut from 20x24, and 4x10, cut down from 4x20, (I think...) One cut, no waste, nice aspect ratio for a panorama.

I wonder why there aren't people building cameras for films cut the other way... 8.5x14, 10x16, 10x24? Lack of holders, perhaps, but those are either home-made or hand-crafted enough anymore that odd sized shouldn't cost much more.

Jan Van Hove
18-Jan-2006, 05:31
Mark, I think you've got your maths wrong...

12x20 is indeed cut in the other way (on the long side of 20x24) than 7x17 (on the short side of 14x17...),
and 4x10 is of course 8x10 cut in half...

As to other "odd" formats, 7x11 and 5x12 come to mind...

PJ

William Mortensen
18-Jan-2006, 10:23
Patrick- Yes, 12x20 is cut from 20x24, but I'm surprised I've never heard of a 10x24, (same film cut the other way).

Same with 7x17 cut from 14x17; why no 8.5x14?

Same with 8x20 cut from 16x20; why no 10x16?

We're seeing more 4x10, but no 5x8...

Not so much long side versus short side, but the usual way versus the unusual way. Do we want to work in a format that already has an established tradition? Or is it just that's what's available?

Kerry L. Thalmann
18-Jan-2006, 11:37
Michael - One of these days Kerry when you complete your 7x17 consider a pack trip to Colorado to one of the many wilderness areas and we can burn sheet film like it is going out of style.

I will line up the four legged friends and a good packer and bring the appropriate "trail tonic" to suit the occasion.

I may take you up on that offer sometime. I have relatives near Colorado Springs and an old backpacking buddy down SW of Pagosa Springs. Unfortunately, I don't make it over that way nearly often enough. I keep getting distracted by things closer to home, and when I do head down that way, I rarely make it further than SE Utah (although techically, I did set foot in Colorado last March when we took the kiddies to the Four Corners).

The one time I have packed with stock, it was with llamas rented from an outfit out of Colorado. I did a six day trip in Grand Gulch with a large group. I still had to carry all my camera gear, clothes, tent, etc., but the llamas carried the food, fuel, stoves, pots and pans, etc. We ate like kings. We had bacon and eggs every morning, steak the first night, plenty of libations, etc. Normally when I backpack, I eat single serving freeze dried heat-n-eat meals (sort of mushy pasta with wallpaper paste) and lose several pounds over the course of a trip (not a bad thing). On that trip, I spent six days hiking in the desert and didn't loose a single pound. The llamas were well trained, very sure footed (started the trip with five dozen eggs and not a single one broken while being carried by the llamas) and strong (started the trip carrying 195 lbs. between the two of them). If only they were allowed more places I like to go, I would probably own one, or at least rent on a regular basis. Unfortunately, that's not the case. So, things like camera weight and bulk are always a consideration for me. Too bad llamas are automatically lumped in with other stock animals. With their soft padded feet and comparitively light weight, they are much easier on the trail than horses or mules. The also have very little impact on the alpine environment (their natural habitat) - especially if you bring pellet food and don't let them graze in the meadows.

I have gone back to Grand Gulch for a backpacking trip (didn't eat nearly as well), but I've always thought it would be a fun place for four or five photographers to spend a week with a string to llamas to help carry the heavy camera gear. I just took my little Toho and three lightweight lenses and 75 sheets of Velvia Quickloads on that six day trip as I had to carry it myself. It would be a great place to take the 4x10, or even 7x17 with the help of some llamas.

Kerry