Poll, your favorite ULF size

[Hugo Zhang]

Hi everybody,

I have just got my 10x20 holders and will expose my first negative this weekend. I want to know what ULF size you dream about most if you are still shooting 8x10.

Hugo

[Jim collum]

hey.. where's the 11x14? :)

[Colin Graham]

No 5x12?

[Hugo Zhang]

Sorry for the omission of 11x14, Jim. Must be that bottle of wine right before I posted the poll.

[Doug Howk]

I recently acquired a 7X17 Korona Panorama View. The previous owner had jerry-rigged some modifications to it; but fortunately none are irreparable. I'm currently re-furbishing the camera while saving up enough money to buy filmholders. The downside to ULF is all filmholders are hand-made & therefore expensive. Already bought the film (Efke PL100) from J&C - a great supplier.

[Ole Tjugen]

You missed both of mine: 24x30 and 30x40 - both in cm. They convert to approximately 9.5x12" and 12x16" respectively.

[John Bowen]

I've got the holders and Tmax 7x17 film....now all I need is for Richard Ritter to finish making me one of his ULF cameras.....He has updated his website with photos of the finished product at www.lg4mat.net/ulfcamera.html This camera will do both horizontals and verticals :-)

John

[Bill_1856]

None of the above. For me, 5x7 would be UltraLarge.

[Armin Seeholzer]

11x14 would be my favorite!

[sanking]

7X17 is my favorite ULF format.


Sandy King

[Don Hutton]

11x14 - big enough contact print, small enough gear...

[alec4444]

I've got the holders and Tmax 7x17 film....now all I need is for Richard Ritter to finish making me one of his ULF cameras.....He has updated his website with photos of the finished product at www.lg4mat.net/ulfcamera.html This camera will do both horizontals and verticals :-)

Yeah, I like the 7x17 format too, and was fighting to decide between that and the 11x14. Ended up with the 11x14, but I still may snag a 7x17 one day.

I saw Richard's 7x17, which is pretty nifty. Has anyone else played around with making an existing one vertical? I saw an article somewhere about a guy in Japan who photographed a garden with a 7x17, and I think he made some sort of bracket for a Korona (to shoot vertically).

--A

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Yeah, I like the 7x17 format too, and was fighting to decide between that and the 11x14. Ended up with the 11x14, but I still may snag a 7x17 one day.

I saw Richard's 7x17, which is pretty nifty. Has anyone else played around with making an existing one vertical? I saw an article somewhere about a guy in Japan who photographed a garden with a 7x17, and I think he made some sort of bracket for a Korona (to shoot vertically).

Lotus View Camera makes a bracket (Vertical Mounting Device for Panoramic Cameras (http://www.lotusviewcamera.at/subs/1sub_accessories_e.html)) for this purpose. Current price is 222 euros.

My 7x17 Franken-ARCA could easily be adapted to switch from horizontal to veritcal (it would take less than an hour to make the modification). The problem with most cameras will be insufficient front rise to center the lens with the camera back in the vertical orientation. You need about 5" of extra front rise just to center the lens of a 7x17 camera in vertical orientation compared to the horizontal configuration. Most cameras aren't designed with that much front rise built in. I have an ARCA-SWISS extender (Part# 069000) for the front format frame of my camera that adds 62mm (just under 2½") of additional front rise to my camera. Even with this extender in place, I'd have just enough front rise to center the lens with the back in the vertical configuration.

Of course, a bracket that rotates the whole camera gets around this problem, but may have other drawbacks. For example, if your camera lacks front swing, that translates to a lack of front tilt in the vertical mode. Likewise, no front shift = no front rise in vertical mode. This is less of an issue on modern cameras, but many of the classic banquet cameras have limited movements on the front standard.

Kerry

[Oren Grad]

I saw an article somewhere about a guy in Japan who photographed a garden with a 7x17, and I think he made some sort of bracket for a Korona (to shoot vertically).

--A

That was probably William Corey, who works in 8x20. He's recently updated his website (http://www.williamcorey.com/index.html). If you're interested in verticals, check out his portraits section (http://www.williamcorey.com/portrait-photography/), too.

Even with a good bracket, it can be risky to flip a Korona on its side, depending on the condition of the camera and how much of a load you're putting on the front standard.

[sanking]

Even with a good bracket, it can be risky to flip a Korona on its side, depending on the condition of the camera and how much of a load you're putting on the front standard.

You can underline that statement. I was photographing with a friend some years ago and he put his old Korona 12X20 on the side to do do a vertical portrait. The camera had not been in that position more than 15 seconds when suddenly it ripped the track off the back and turn a big chunk of wood out of the standard.

On the other hand, Canham cameras in 7X17 and 12X20 size are strong enough to take this treatment. It is, however, much more awkard to work with these cameras on the vertical than when in horizontal orientation.

Sandy

[Oren Grad]

Ron Wisner offered vertical versions of his 4x10, 8x20 and 12x20 cameras, though I don't know whether he actually sold any.

You can read about J.B. Harlin's 4x10 and 8x20 vertical camera projects here (http://www.jbhphoto.com/vcam/vcams.htm).

[alec4444]

That was probably William Corey, who works in 8x20.

Thanks, Oren, I was thinking of William Corey. Not only did I get the wrong make, but also the wrong format. :o

I love his work, though. Really impressive.

--A

[robert]

I have a Wisner 8x20 Expedition model. I also have a complete vertical rear standard and back that I just roll the horizontal off and then the vertical back assembly on. Kerry makes a very valid point. An 8x20 is built on an 8x10 bed with an 8x10 front standard. This will not allow you enough rise to get the lens up to the center of the ground glass ( sweet spot) with the vertical back. No other format has this much difference in size. (12" for 8x20 and 10" for 7x17) Now with a lens with a lot of coverage I can get away with doing a radical bed tilt and make it work. Tilt the front of camera bed up and then the back forward but this will still not allow you to get all the way to the center of the ground glass and with a lens with tight coverage it doesn't work. I talked with Ron about designing a telescoping front standard that would extend when more rise is needed but I wasn't willing to wait on Wisners lead times. (that's a whole other post). What I had Ron do is build me another complete front standard using the vertical rails from a 16x20. I just pull the bellows, roll the horizontal back off and the short front standard off and roll the vertical back assembly and taller front standard assembly on, turn the bellows 90 degrees and replace it. It takes about two min. to do. Now you may ask why not just use the taller front standard for both backs. With the taller rails of the vertical front standard you can not close the camera up into the transport position with the horizontal back on. This way I can close the camera to the transport position no matter what position the camera is in. Sandy described one of my worst nightmares. (the rails ripping out of the bed with the camera turned on its side). If you ever flip one of these on their side with the bellows racked out to 36" you'll know what I mean. This allows me to work with a flat camera bed and have all of my movements the same. Both backs are made with the Expedition geared movements which is probably one of Ron's greatest contributions to the camera building world. (just my opinion).I think it was Dick Phillips who said if you shoot more than 2% of your shots vertical then you need another camera. I speak with William Corey often and I think that is a lotus bracket on his web site. But William is having a vertical 8x20 built now and although I can't speak for William I think he would cite some of the same reasons I just posted for having it built. Now if you only shoot a vertical once in awhile then a bracket or an extra mono or tripod will probably work fine. I shoot more verticals than I do horizontals so this works really well for me. Plus when you turn one on its side you're limited with your movements. I don't want to have to think ....let's see....shift is rise and fall.....rise and fall is shift....swing is tilt...ect ect.... But that is just me and none of us work alike. The 8x20 Expedition weighs 14.5 lb and the vertical is a couple of onces more. Buy the way William is feeling great and getting stronger every day. He's looking forward to his trip to Japan here in the near future. I hope this adds to the discussion. Robert

[robert]

I'd like to add that Canham makes a great and sturdy camera. But most of these cameras are based on the old banquet camera designs and the stress loads are not considered in their designs for using them in the vertical position. They were designed to photograph large groups of people. But if you only shoot a vertical once in a blue moon then I wouldn't go to the expense of having a vertical back made.

[robert]

Oh I almost forgot. My favorite ULF format? 8x20 of course. But a 10x24 sounds like it would be interesting if someone ever wants to custom design one.

[Hugo Zhang]

Just exposed and developed my first 10x20 negative. Wow, the size and details on the negative almost took my breath away! I used Aerographic Plus-X roll film and had two tiny scratches when cutting it last night. Very thin film but easy to load and has no film flatness problem. The film has a ISO of 125 and I exposed at 80 and the negative came out thin and lack of contrast. I went back to APUG focum and found out that this special lot should be exposed at ISO 35-40. I am lucky to have bought the film cheap ($1.25 per 9 1/2"x19 1/2" sheet) and can play with it to learn. My camera has a bellow draw of 38" and I wish I could shoot verticle with it. 10x20 would be great for portraits. This size is my dream size and my beloved Deardorff will have to take a little rest now.

[Joe Smigiel]

The two sizes I'm most fond of are not in the poll. They are 11x14 and 10x12. After that, probably 8x20 and 14x17.

[Hugo Zhang]

It seems that 7x17 by far is the most favored. To hedge against possible future Aerographic roll film shortage, I have had three 8x20 holders made for my camera. Now I wonder aloud if I should consider to have some 7x17 holders made for it as well. One camera and a few lenses to shoot three ULF sizes.

[John Bowen]

It seems that 7x17 by far is the most favored.

Someone mentioned, either here or on APUG, that Kodak was very surprised by the demand for 7x17 Tmax film based on the J&C Special order. By the way J&C has some ULF film on sale this weekend. I believe the sale ends on 9/5.

John

[Monty McCutchen]

I've only had it several months but 20 x 24 has moved to the front of the line over my 7 x 17 for me. Time will tell whether I'm temporarily smitten and heading towards an ebay ad that reads 'only used a few times', but its part of the family now! Right now the palladium prints rolling out of it (9 to date, granted not quite rolling out) are mesmorizing. Did my first larger than life head and shoulder shots of my kids this past week. Wild to see them bigger than they are but with the same innocence. Hope to get to the first 20 x 24 Wet Plate Collodion Ambrotype when the 68 lbs of silver nitrate to cover one plate gets in later this week.

Monty

[John Powers]

"Your favorite ULF size"? Actually 7x17 is the only ULF size I have tried, having moved up from 8x10. I bought Clay's RH Phillips early in the summer, have gotten film, film holders, have figured out how to move it all around in the baby jogger and am sorting out what existing lenses work for my subjects and what lenses need to be found. Thank you all for the long thread on 7x17 lenses. I hope to use 8020 parts to build a vertical holder similar to the one Kerry mentioned that Lotus has on their site.

The first silver contact prints have been a real joy. Many more to follow. I am about to try Kentmere Bromide graded on Mike A's suggestion as a replacement to Kentmere VCFB. If silver doesn't get me there then it is off to platinum.

Thank you all for the many ideas.

John

[Renee Galang]

It's 11 x 14 for me, just bought one and am planning to use my 210mm macro sironar for some macro shots!

[Mike A]

11x14, It's the only format I currently shoot and the only ULF I've ever tinkered with. I need an 8x20 and if the film choices were better in 14x17 I would move in this direction.

Mike

[Mike A]

By the way, wouldn't this be a great discussion for a much needed ULF forum?

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Another vote for 11x14, I just love that 1:1.3 ratio.

Sometimes when I am feeling a bit more oblong I shoot 8 3/4 x 14, duplicating the shape of 12x20.

[Ron Marshall]

By the way, wouldn't this be a great discussion for a much needed ULF forum?

Already exists:

http://www.mamutphoto.com/

[Doug Howk]

Ron, thanks for the suggestion. Just joined the mamut forum. Since its in both English & French, I may actually learn French ;-) but hopefully also learn alot about ULF.

[Matt Magruder]

seems I am part of the majority. 7x17 would likely be my favorite. My favorite format that I DO NOT shoot would have to be 12x20 though. Clay Harmons prints, when I finally got to see them in person, made me fall in love wth the format.

[Donald Brewster]

11x14. Though I would love to shoot 14x17 someday.