Monty, you move the far end of the Overton window so that the rest of us who have dabbled in ULF can pretend we're sane. I've only ever gone as large as 12x20.
Monty, you move the far end of the Overton window so that the rest of us who have dabbled in ULF can pretend we're sane. I've only ever gone as large as 12x20.
Oren,
I’m a giver.
Point all naysayers in your life to me and you can order what you want!
Monty
Of course the real difference between Monty and me isn't how large a plate or sheet we've exposed, but that he's a master while I'm just an occasional tinkerer, still fumbling my way around. But the experiments I've done so far have been great fun despite the logistical hassles, and I look forward to doing more.
Tim as one who built and shoots three ULF cameras I feel that the 11x14 may be a good choice.
Film is available and the ULF run is something to do as well. Now I will say that you should not look at 14x17 because if you do you will see as I have that it has more “presence”. You can get single sided X-ray film as well. My camera will do 20x24 as well but I shoot film and will only do 14x17. I love ULF so I say go for it as well!!!!
Thanks all for your words of encouragement and, above all, confirmation that I haven't lost my mind... Yet...
I'm really keen on 11x14, as I think the contact prints will have more presence and I'm keen on the ultra slow working and previsualisation that goes along with it. I have my Linhof Techno with Leaf Credo 60 for the faster stuff (funny I think it's fast, but compared to ULF or even 8x10 it's essentially a sports camera,) and my Hasselblad 500cm for use with BW film hand held or with the digital back for looser kind of work. The 11x14" format appeals to the masochist in me. Or maybe to put a more postitive spin on it, it appeals to the zen master in me; the guy who wants to wait for the right light, sipping from a flask of coffee. Maybe I'm being just a tad nostalgic...
Anyway, it's good to know that some places try to keep some stock of 11x14" film on hand. I see that it's not cheap (gulp,) but nothing of worth is, right? As for wet plates etc., I'm not so into that look for my work. I want something more precise. Although I love looking at other peoples wet plate work, I want don't want the marks of the process as evident in my final prints. Nicholas Nixon's work is a good example of what I'm after. He's a stunning practitioner and artist.
I see a lot of people mention X-Ray film, but to be honest I've never done any reading on it. Looks like another option. I've certainly got a lot of reading to do. Now, if only I could have bought that beautiful Wisner 11x14 for sale here a while back... Christmas is coming...
Well I've been shooting 8x10 for 6 maybe 7 years now for contact printing - especially for historical processes (salt, kallitype, cyanotype, etc). Intermittently over the years I've considered the 11x14 format and have gone as far as pricing cameras - I'd buy new instead of "vintage" because a "solid" camera is important to me. Then I started mounting the print showing the brush overcoats instead of trimming off to the rebate. This gives the illusion of a 11x14 negative instead of an 8x10. I loose a print on the board by matting at 17X14 instead of 16x13 but the print has a greater "presence" and doesn't start to look "lost" in the bigger mount as it does when using a trimmed 8x10. Here's a recent print showing what I mean:
But no matter the format size, I would always shoot regular film instead of x-ray or the like because of the quality of the result. Considering the logistics of obtaining the image and the time required to achieve the print, the cost of the film is not that important. It's the end result that counts and you are more likely to achieve that result by using regular film. The above image was shot on Fuji Acros - about 7 or 8 dollars a sheet. I shot 2 negatives of the above, 1 for printing as a kallitype and the 2d for a regular SG contact print.
Thomas
Bookmarks