Choosing between ULF formats

[ProtarV]

My Thanks to Angus Parker for your article on choosing cameras, It is what I have attempted to find with Google

[newtorf]

Accidentally jumped onto a 12x20 last year while just started to shoot 4x5 -- no experience with 5x7 or 8x10. I got a whole package deal of 12x20 -- camera, lens, film holders, tripod, head, development tank, clothes, changing tank, and lots of expired films! So far I've only shot one sheet. The result isn't great, pissed me off. Not sure if it's the expiration of the film, or the camera leaked light. Will try it again. All I can say is that it's definitely different from 4x5. And better to get a complete system in one shot -- it saves so much effort!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Hell, I'm trying to reduce my chances of buying the wrong large camera. I don't know many sources to find them. Once I have the cash it almost looks like find something in decent shape and "like" it. A 8x20 appears like composing an image may be easier? to 7x17? I don't know if I'm clear on asking this. Renting seems like a big expense. cheers Dan

Dan, I've been shooting ULF for some time now. I build all of my cameras ( 3 8x10's, 1 11x14, 2 8x20's and 4 14x17's.) The formats I use now are 8x10, 8x20 and 14x17. I've sold the rest except a studio 14x17. When getting into ULF you need to consider many things. Holders, camera, lenses, film, bags, tripods etc. I started with 8x20 and through research and a lot of hunting online and educating myself put together a great system. You can find what you need but it won't be easy and it will be expensive. I'm sure you can still find stuff. People loose interest and get out of systems all the time. We are all getting older. I made a promise to myself to keep shooting as long as my good friend Jim Noel has. Jim is 95 now and will be selling off his equipment. Check with Jim if you are serious. Getting into ULF you better be serious! I sold my 11x14 after I saw my first carbon print in 14x17. On the wall the 14x17 had more presence in my mind. Think about how you are going to print your work. It can take a lot of real estate or not! I've developed 8x20 and 14x7 negatives in trays in my bathtub! You have to be serious and dedicated. For ULF I love 8x20 and 14x17. Just do it! Here are two images, 8x20 and 14x17.Good luck.

[Monty McCutchen]

Hell, I'm trying to reduce my chances of buying the wrong large camera. I don't know many sources to find them. Once I have the cash it almost looks like find something in decent shape and "like" it. A 8x20 appears like composing an image may be easier? to 7x17? I don't know if I'm clear on asking this. Renting seems like a big expense. cheers Dan

One of the things i would consider is how am I going to get to where I wish to photograph. I shoot many ULF's. 10 x 12 for Pt/Pd and Wet Plate, 7 x 17, and a 20 x 24 camera that has a 16 x 20 reducing back. Pure insanity I know but that's my windmill I chose to fight in life. Back to how you are going to get to your spots--I chose the 7 x 17 over the 8 x 20 because I flew a lot for work and the 7 x 17 fit in the overhead more fluidly and with less hassle than the 8 x 20 format. If you are driving to most of your work then that wouldn't be a necessary consideration as it was for me but it is something to consider. Your darkroom should be your other consideration. Is it set up for the format you end up settling on. I land on the side of the fence of going for it. Yes it's more expensive than smaller formats but choosing how we spend the discretionary funds of our life should have some whimsy to it. A person needs something in their life that is theirs and theirs alone without necessarily making sense to anyone else. Update us with some of the the work once you get rolling!

Best of luck,

Monty

[ProtarV]

One of the things i would consider is how am I going to get to where I wish to photograph. I shoot many ULF's. 10 x 12 for Pt/Pd and Wet Plate, 7 x 17, and a 20 x 24 camera that has a 16 x 20 reducing back. Pure insanity I know but that's my windmill I chose to fight in life. Back to how you are going to get to your spots--I chose the 7 x 17 over the 8 x 20 because I flew a lot for work and the 7 x 17 fit in the overhead more fluidly and with less hassle than the 8 x 20 format. If you are driving to most of your work then that wouldn't be a necessary consideration as it was for me but it is something to consider. Your darkroom should be your other consideration. Is it set up for the format you end up settling on. I land on the side of the fence of going for it. Yes it's more expensive than smaller formats but choosing how we spend the discretionary funds of our life should have some whimsy to it. A person needs something in their life that is theirs and theirs alone without necessarily making sense to anyone else. Update us with some of the the work once you get rolling!

Best of luck,

Monty

[ProtarV]

A lot of my "travel shots" are largely by vehicle. Would it be legit to make negatives on Pictorico from an existing file to test the waters on printing a given size?

[Dave Wooten]

Good blog!

[Greg]

Started with an 8x10 in the mid 1970s. No problem using it out in the field
In the 1980s went up to a 14x17. Too large to use far from my car at the time
In the end chose 11x14. Portable enough when need be.
Lately I always prefer to use the 11x14, but when I have to haul my equipment a distance from my SUV, choose 8x10 or whole plate (consider whole plate to be my "small format" sheet film camera).
For panoramic images I much prefer my 120 Noblex (rise of lens possible) with its curved film back instead of a panoramic sheet film camera.
To each their own....

[Tin Can]

I like 11X14

Easy to use and obtain

my 7X17 just sits

[Torontoamateur]

For me it was availability of the film. I went ot 11x14 because many retailers have the film available and it is awesome