Printable View
I don't begrudge anyone who's shooting ULF simply because it's bigger, but does going to the extra trouble mean extra-good negs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaughn
And you're right, the format is irrelevant, what matters is the quality of the work being done.
I bought a 10x8 camera intending to jsut make contact prints, as soon as I developed my first negatives I wanted to enlarge them. Once you have a 10x8 enlarger making enlargements is a s simple as making a contact print and takes the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by karl french
Jorge Gastreano kept telling me I should move to ULF and I thought about it quite seriously, however ULF (and all LF) film is a lot more expensive in the UK compared to the US so it's not very economic. However 10 years later I do now have a 12x10 camera, I bought it as a restoration project for £50 ($70) and it needed far less work than the seller thought, he'd very accurately high-lighted the issues. Luckily I already have some 12x10 book form plate holders and by chance they happen to be an excellent fit. I didn't specifically buy it to use, it was just there as a real bargain andI know I can sell it for very considerably more than I paid. However I would like to use it, I know the camera's history, I bought it from the grandson of the first owner who is still running the family studio & camera shop.
Ideally I'd like to use it with Harman Direct Positive paper but surprisingly that's only available in US sizes over 10x8. I have a project in mind and cutting larger paper to size isn't ideal.
Ian
I shoot FX Digital with a D4 and film with 6x7, whole plate, 8x10, and 11x14 formats. Did a project of photographing waterfalls in our area. Access issues to the waterfalls usually determined which camera to use. Scanned the film and along with the digital files from the D4 made digital negatives and printed Platinum Palladium 8x10 or 11x14 inch prints. Recently had a show and from normal viewing distances no one could definitively tell me which camera I used to shoot the scenes. The "look" of each of the format is different, and I'm sure an educated expert could tell the difference but in the end when the final prints are on exhibition, what does it matter? For me FX Digital allows me to access challenging places which could be rated Class 4 or even 5.0 (Yosemite Decimal System... just Google it). When shooting a short distance from my car, I love to use the 11x14. Also just holding a LF or ULF negative that I just processed in my hands... so satisfying. Just my 2 cents.
For me, the 810 is the sweet spot along the entire spectrum of different formats available. It's a big sheet of film yet compact enough to go almost anywhere by human power. Camera and lenses are plenty affordable and films are readily available. The set up has enough presense in working with people to demand their attention yet not overwhelm by it(Ok this is entirely my own conjecture, maybe people are equally intimidated by the 810 or equally comfortable with anything larger like 14x17 or 20x24's.)
On the processing end both good scanners and enlargers are accessible so regardless if you want to make digital negs or digital prints, or traditional wet print in either enlarged or contact print form, it's easily attainable. Yes there are 11x14 enlargers but we probably can count how many of them are in operation. I know of one.
I shoot 11x14 mostly because I happen to picked one up relatively inexpensively, and it goes well with my Ries tripod. In my opinion, anything smaller on the Ries A is an overkill :)
Undoubtedly a big contact print is a thing of beauty, but I bet anything that there are only a handful of people can actually tell the difference between a 16x20 silver print enlarged from a 810 negative compare to a 16x20 silver contact print sitting behind a sheet of glass in most gallery setting. I say silver only because of the higher resolving power of the commercial gelatin paper, once one get into alternative processes working with toothier papers I think whatever perceived difference(if any) would diminish even further.
With the caveat that I am not qualified to comment on this (8x10 is the largest format that I shoot), I tend to think not. The resolution of a sheet of Ilford Delta 100 8x10 film would be the same as a sheet of Delta 16x20. The only difference is that the magnification required to portray the equivalent size of the objects in the 16x20 negative is at least doubled. The raises a whole host of problems for the larger format some of which are noted above.
This morning, for example, I went out to shoot a shot that I spotted yesterday afternoon for an alternative print. It was a morning and would require the 610mm lens. A strong on-shore wind was in the mix and it looked like it would pose a problem since the top speed of the 610 is 1/50 sec and according to SK Grimes speed check the most inaccurate. So that limited me to 1/25 sec. Luckily I found a small level spot that an animal had been using to bed down just over the top of the bluff which offered some protection from the wind where I could set-up the camera and take the shot. Otherwise I would have had to rely on the golf umbrella, which I in the trunk, for wind protection. But the umbrella wouldn't have been big enough is the format was 16x20 and I would have had a problem setting-up in the small and confined space but I think that I could have worked with that by simply rotating the camera around to raise/lower the standard and set the aperture and speed for the shutter. The negative came out great and is hanging to dry as I type this.
Thomas
Very little, unless you print very large.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
Some years ago I published an article in View Camera on the propganda wall photgraphy of He Chongyue. Some of it was done from 8X10" color, other from 12X20" B&W film, and all enlarged about 4X via drum scanning and digital printing. That would be about 32"X40" for the color, 48"X80" for the Black and White. I saw his work both at his studio in Beijing, and at a gallery in Atlanta. Yes, in my opinion the IQ from the 12X20 was appreciably better at this size than the work from 8X10, though you had to walk into the prints to see the difference.
In my opinion the major reason for using a ULF camera is because you want to contact print directly from the original negative. Once you get into the realm of enlarged negatives and projection printing, IQ of the print is a delicate balancing act between negative size and final print size, and the specific equipment used to enlarge or scan the negative, image file preparation, and method of printing.
BTW, over the years I worked in a numbe of ULF formats, including 11X14, 7X17, 12X20 and 20X24. My favorite ULF format, and by far, was 7X17. Compared to 8X10, a totally different look in both size and view. A bit smaller than 8X20, but when framed and matted a substantial art piece. And 7X17 format is much easier to work with in the field than 8X20 or 12X20, or even 11X14.
If you like the 7X17 format, but want a smaller camera for small prints or contact printing from digital negatives, 5X12 is a beautiful format and very similar in ratio. See some of Tillman Crane's work, for example.
Sandy
Ian, Thomas: thanks; Greg, I agree with much of what you said.
Sure, format is unimportant, and I don't go to a show trying to figure out what film and camera were used. I also like using the 8x10, nobody's making me do it, I get a kick out of it.
It doesn't sound like there's a huge need to shoot larger than 8x10, but the desire for a large negative is almost irresistible.
Robert, Sandy, thank you; it helps clear up things rather easily, at least for me.
The lure of a larger format is undeniable, but I'm going to stick with 8x10.
A good camera, lenses, film and scanner (or enlarger) can take you very far.
There's actually a decrease in image quality as you move up into ULF. There are plenty of reasons to shoot ULF, but maximum image quality isn't one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari
That said, a ULF contact print is way up there in image quality. This is why people go ULF and contact print. The problems come from enlargement -- enlarging creates flaws (lens problems, alignment problems, Callier Effect, etc.) and shows you the flaws in your negative (DOF, resolution loss due to diffraction, etc.)
I did an analysis years ago when I was looking to move from 5x4 up to 10x8. What I found was that the sweet spot for my photography was somewhere between 5x4 and 7x5. After 7x5, the image quality of the negative began to drop off in my workflow.
Blasphemy you say. Yeah, well, I respond with: "laws of physics".
When you double the size of the negative (5x4 -> 10x8) you have to go another two stops to maintain the same DOF. This puts just about anything made with 10x8 into diffraction limiting. But you already know this. The trade off is image area -- so that the tree branch in the distances that's just a line in 5x4 is wide enough it can show some texture in 10x8. At 10x8, this is a sufficient trade off I think. A standoff if you will.
Above 10x8, it just gets worse. It's no longer a standoff. But if you're contact printing, no worries. You don't see it in the prints until you start enlarging. And even then, you won't see it if you're viewing the print from an appropriate distance. It's conceivable that if you put your nose on the print you can see a tiny bit of gain in detail, but you'll see the softness too. Who looks at big prints like that anyway? Oh, wait... we all do. Buncha geeky photographers!
Just sayin'. Do your own math, for your own workflow, for your own print sizes. See what you get. But don't make the assumption that going up in format size automatically increases image quality. Because it doesn't.
Bruce, thanks; but I won't do the math.
If I did, it would tell me to use my iPhone. :)
I don't anticipate going back to a wet darkroom ever again, not even for contact printing, which probably puts me firmly in the camp of "no bigger than 8x10". Which is fine by me.
Right now I have the steadiest camera I've ever owned (in a field camera), and some great lenses to go along with a very good scanner.
At this point, the only limiting factor in making good photos on a consistent basis is me.
Thanks to all for helping me figure this out; I was thinking out loud during most of this discourse, and it helped to get as many varying opinions as possible.
This may not be much help but just an idea, Ari. Can you get together w/someone nearby, who would be amicable to such, who shoots something like 16x20 ? Unless the person only has one film holder, you could get the feel for the format and you could take your 8x10 with you and compare the images once you were done. Sure, there would be some logistics to deal with, but the effort would have a satisfying end, no ? Either way, nothing like make your own determination.....and either start drooling some more....or the alternative.
Ha, if you shoot a lot of this ULF emulsion you would need to install an "expando" on yer house, eh ?:rolleyes:
Les