To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Until just recently I had decided upon selling some gear and upgrading to a Arca Swiss Field Camera. But, then in a flash of perhaps insane thought, I am now thinking, forget the Arca and go for something really big. A 11x14 or even perhaps 12x20. I have several lens that cover both formats and a tripod capable of handling those giant beasts. So basically at this point its the matter of a camera, film holders and film.
Am I just crazy for even considering this? I use mostly 4x5 and some 8x10, and while I like 8x10 contact prints they seem small sometimes.
Any thoughts? Should I just stick with the Arca or go a beast?
Cheers,
Blumine
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
As someone who uses both I would advice you to get the 8x10 and later when you can afford it or if you find a good deal you can go bigger. With an ULF you will find yourself very limited on subject matter, composition and it will be harder for you to get to the subject unless it is 100 feet from the car. I can hike with my 8x10 3 or 4 miles and get to a nice place to shoot, I would not even contemplate going further than a few hundred yards with my 12x20.
The panoramic formats 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 are a little bit harder to compose than the "full frame" formats like 11x14, 16x20 and 20x24. If your heart is set on bypassing 8x10 I would recommend these, and probably the best would be 11x14 as it is less heavy and more easy to manage in the field.
Of course, if you plan to do studio work then stop dicking around and get a 20x24.. :)
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Actually I already have 8x10, though I use my 4x5 more. I am just lusting for something bigger, though I am not sure going bigger is the best option. Thats the current dilemma. I am finding 8x10 contact prints are getting small, and thinking ULF would help. Though I could just enlarge 4x5 up to the same size.:confused:
Decisions, decisions!
Cheers,
Blumine
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
If you're getting old and decrepit, like me, an option might be to go to a more manageable format like 7x17. I have both an 8x10 and a 7x17 and find either one as hard as the other to work with (I'd have said "easy" years ago but over time both are hard work now). Managing an 11x14 or 12x20 in the field is something I could not possibly contemplate now although I hear some of the new cameras are pretty light... If I could, however, I'd definitely go for the 12x20. The proportions are near perfect, IMO.
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
ULF, to me, is about limiting your options. The main reason to do it is to pick the size of your contact prints. This implies that you aren't ever going to enlarge the negatives. Not that this is bad, it's just a limit.
This in turn limits how you work -- ULF is heavy and cumbersome. People rarely hike with ULF, it's typically limited to the 100-feet-from-the-car rule. Which of course limits your subject matter even more than LF already does.
Think of it like poetry. Some people like working in free verse -- they like the freedom of less structure and fewer rules. Some people like to set limits and work within a restrictive frame work and so compose their poetry in, say, iambic pentameter. It worked out pretty well for some pretty good poets in the past after all ;). Then there are those who work best with very tight restrictions -- like haiku.
How tight a set of restrictions are you looking for? Answering that question will perhaps give you a clue into whether or not ULF is what you really want.
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
Aside from the good advice above, consider the processing side also. Would film/print processing a larger size cause any issues? When I was enlarging, 11x14 was my limit - tried 16x20 and just did not care for the size - because it was not a fit for my little darkroom.
On the other hand for contact printing, 5x7, 8x10 and 7x11 are a perfect fit for the space. Of course you could try to make an enlarged negative from one of the 4x5 or 8x10 - digital or traditional which ever you prefer to get a feel for the negative size and contact print one to see if that is the way you want to go.
If I thought my back (and back pocket) could stand it a Ritter 11x14 would be the way I would go.
Re: To ULF or not to ULF? That is the question!
I'm going to use mine as a weight loss program. I could do with losing a stone or two, so I reckon that carrying my Ritter 7x17 around will aid the weight loss and all the excess I've been carrying around to date has been good training in preparation..... ;-)