11X14 is big enough for me. Contact prints.
As I prefer real film to X-Ray for studio portrait.
But I also like enlarging 5X7 and 8X10 to 16x20.
Don’t forget how big a print gets when matted and framed. I like big margins.
11X14 is big enough for me. Contact prints.
As I prefer real film to X-Ray for studio portrait.
But I also like enlarging 5X7 and 8X10 to 16x20.
Don’t forget how big a print gets when matted and framed. I like big margins.
The other thing that happens as you go beyond 8x10 is that depth of field starts to become a real challenge for subjects short of infinity for which you want substantial depth. Even in contact prints, stopping down much beyond f/64 can start to visibly degrade the image character. If you're photographing people, they'll do their best to confound you by drifting out of the plane of focus during the time it takes to insert the film holder and/or moving during long exposures. If you're photographing groups of people, multiply that. In the studio, where you're focusing close and bellows extension is substantially reducing your effective aperture, you'll also need a pretty bodacious lighting setup if you want any degree of depth, particularly if you prefer softbox lighting rather than direct. It's very easy to fall into a trap where all you're getting for the extra trouble is bigness, while the technical quality goes down and the rate of out-and-out bloopers goes up compared to smaller formats.
OTOH, that big negative can be intoxicating, and when everything goes right, the result can be glorious. If you have the money and the patience not just to acquire the equipment, but to pay for a substantial learning curve of exposures that are messed up by one problem or another, by all means go for it. Life is too short, etc. Having dabbled in formats up to 12x20 with modest results so far, I'd say 11x14 is indeed a meaningful step up from 8x10 while still remaining sort of practical. YMMV; look at a lot of big prints and see what you think.
lot of posts covering 11x14 at:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ght=11x14+greg
Let me restate and agree with what others have said, as you increase negative size, complexity and costs increases dramatically. Also the number of negatives you shoot in a day goes down.
I would also add, that as the negative size gets larger, there are more things that can go wrong and spoil a wonderful negative. When all goes right, there is nothing like seeing a ULF negative for the first time. I still get a rush when I unload my development tank and pull out an 8x20 negative.
I was shooting 8x10 and I tried the 11x14 format. For me, I found the 11x14 image to be too similar to the 8x10 image in feel to be worth the extra aggravation to shoot. I ended up shooting with an 8x20 so that the image had a different feel than the 8x10.
It is a big commitment if you are buying new camera equipment. I started with older used cameras to try out each of my larger formats. After three or four years, if I really liked a format, I sold the older camera and bought a better camera. I did that that with both my 8x10 and 8x20. I’m still shooting with them 20+ years later, although I’ve been enjoying the 5x7 format a lot recently.
There is no wrong answer in all of this, just what works best for you and your vision.
I went 35mm to 645...to 6x6 to 4x5.. to 7x17, then 8x20... back to 8x10...back to 6x6..to digital
and now 5x7 to 8x10 to 11x14 pretty quickly
I'll stop at 11x14 (unless something crazy happens) as that is as big as I can get scanned
I'm lucky ..or unlucky.. as the very first 11x14 neg out of the tank WAS SUPERB
been trying to match that first one now for a year
Bookmarks