Starting LF Photography with ULF Camera?

[Oren Grad]

Let's not forget to mention Lois Conner.

Sandy King

Just off the top of my head: Judith Joy Ross. Andrea Modica. An-My Le.

[Joe Smigiel]

...How much are those ULF's going to be worth without film. At least the 4X5 cameras can be used with digital backs. We can all relearn how to make wet plates. Once large format digital backs become affordable for the average artist type...

Kirk,

Some of us have no interest at all in digital photography and would never make the move. I think it also highly unlikely that ULF digital backs will ever be made. What would be the point? So, the current use of 4x5 digital backs for commercial and architectural stuff will probably be all that is ever needed for view cameras. What reason would anyone have for using a ULF digital back when the smaller, more portable, less hassle, 4x5s, MF, and smaller digital cameras would give high quality results?

No. It is a process thing IMO. It's the manual rituals of handling and souping film or plates and making contact prints that go along with ULF practice. That is far removed from using digital backs, scanning, or making inkjet prints.

I'll echo Sandy's take on the ULF market and future availabilty of materials. But, I'll agree with you on one thing: "we can all relearn how to make wet plates." Last year I did exactly that and took up wetplate collodion , largely in response to the changing market trends you cite, but also for aesthetic reasons. I consider myself an Ambrotypist now and am very happy about that. I have a freezer stash full of 11x14 films in b&w as well as color, and boxes of black, purple and clear 10x12 and smaller glass plates. I'm set.

[alec4444]

Why do you feel the need to use a desensitizer bath first?? Processing sheet film in trays is no more difficult than processing photo paper in trays. A desensitizer is completely unnecessary even if you want to develop by inspection and would only complicate matters.

Thanks, David, that's helpful to know. I do want to develop by inspection, and I'm also somewhat concerned with the number of light leaks I may get in my bathroom. My thought was to put the film in some kind of box and use the desensitizer first before attempting to develop it. This is a New York City apartment, with not a lot of choices of rooms to choose from for developing. Bathroom is small too, unlike those palacial things out there in the burbs.

Thanks for demystifying the sharpness and DOF issue. Both are important to me.

All I am saying is that the leap from what we call LF (4X5, 5X7 and 8X10) to ULF of 11X14 and above is really great in terms of size, weight, portability and ease of working, and no amount of reading is going to explain it.

Yeah, my shoulder hears ya. The 4x5 gear I was lugging around left a rash, and that was with an inadequate tripod. I would need to get a backback, and I'm guessing it would be custom made. =(

Life is too short to waffle about stuff like this. If 11x14 is what you truly want to shoot and you can afford the gear then get one and start having fun with it!

LOL, it's the "afford the gear" part that's iffy at the moment. Might be able to get the gear, then not buy film. I've always been a "jump right in" kinda guy, but in purchases such as this I try to be a bit more careful. Even if I can sell everything and recoup 100% of costs, there's still a lot of effort in making such a mistake.

--A

[Mike A]

Alec, I jumped from 4x5 to 11x14 two years back and reading this thread made me realize I should have skipped the 4x5 and went to 8x10. I became familiar with the 4x5 by taking a couple of classes at the local junior college while still owning and shooting MF, I should have just went to 8x10.

After making many 11x14 contact prints the last couple of years a well made ULF negative is easier to contact print most of the time than it is to enlarge.

For your situation I would try 8x10 first.

8x10 equiptment can be had for a much cheaper price, a large range of used choices via fee-bay.

The lenses, tripod..... and some other miscalanious equiptment can be used in 11x14 when you decide ULF is were you want to go.

Trial and error in 8x10 regarding your materials will be less costly. Handling a 11x14 neg and handling a 4x5 is very different.

As far as your love for architecture goes, I recently started doing some here in Chicago with my 11x14. I have found that lens coverage was more of an issue than limitations with camera movements.

Good luck,
Mike

[Diane Maher]

I'm a woman who is shooting 8x10 and recently started shooting 5x12. FWIW, everyone here has made many valid points.

Are there any LF photographers on this site shooting 8x10 and/or 11x14 who are located in New York City and would be willing to meet up with Alec to show him their camera(s), and maybe even allow him to shoot a sheet or two of each format?

Just my 2 cents worth.

Diane

[Austin Moore]

I'm in NYC and i primarily shoot 8x10. email me if you want. austinmoore84@gmail.com
Austin

[alec4444]

Thanks, Austin, for your kind offer. However against the poll results, I've just today purchased my very own 11x14 camera! The single week with the 4x5 was enough to sell me on the added control, and I'm either brave or stupid enough to waive the size issues. This thing is huge; I saw it in person. It's a Wisner Technical Field weighing in somewhere around 30 pounds. It's one of the heavier (possibly the heaviest) 11x14s out there, but I sense there is a balance between weight and rigidity. Given that I'm going to need a cart to wheel this around the city, what's a few extra pounds?

The camera will ship tomorrow from the seller directly to Mr Ritter to solve a rather tight geared front standard. Still working out the details of accessories with the seller, but I will keep you all posted. I'm guessing that it will take some time to get everything together that I need to shoot this camera, and in the meantime I have to unload my Rollei 6008 System. Anyone interested in medium format? You can put a digital back on it!

Cheers!
--A

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I would hold off on selling the MF until you get your 11X14 up and running successfully.

[alec4444]

However against the poll results, I've just today purchased my very own 11x14 camera!

Was reading through this entire post again today...kinda fun to re-read the responses I had received now that I "know" a few of you better. Was interesting to see who recommended what.

Thought I'd give the 7+ month update on my decision:

LOVE the 11x14 format, and I'm getting better at LF in general. Ruining a few less sheets of film each time I go out. I'm getting better at metering, and I've got a pretty good routine in place for developing my own film. The Efke film does scratch easily, but beyond that it's fine.

First lens was the 360mm Symmar Convertible f5.6, and I really liked the lens. Great coverage and WAY bright. But I cracked the rear element when it fell off my camera one day. Still usable, but not great. I've since bought the 355 G-Claron and I'm going to give it a shot this weekend. Very excited. Exploring ways to make sure this doesn't suffer the same fate.

I've been getting around ok by making use of the paved areas of NYC (roller luggage) and using mass transit. I do wish the camera was a bit lighter...I was jealous when I saw David's 11x14 camera that was nearly half the weight. But the Wisner 11x14 Tech Field is SOLID and I like the fact that it has all the movements (and I mean everything but rear shift). It just leaves me a bit sore after pulling it around for a day. The heavier camera required a heavier tripod, so I have the Ries A100 with the A250 double tilt head. LOVE the tripod, but again, really heavy! Filmholders looked to be a problem, but I found a couple on the 'bay, and then Ryan McIntosh sold me four for a great price. I currently carry five and I'm happy with that number.

I have not had the depth of field problems people had mentioned. In fact, my appreciation for a shallower depth of field has increased, and I've found myself more and more interested in that style for various purposes. But if I want a tack sharp picture I can definitely make one with this outfit.

As far as the format is concerned, I would not give up the 11x14. I do want a 5x7 to accompany this (anyone considering selling a Wisner 5x7 Tech Field please PM me) and I have occasional yearnings for a 7x17, but I think this will remain my primary format for a while.

Thanks to all who responded to my first post here and offered their candid advice. Whether I heeded it or not is irrelevant; you made me think through a lot of choices and provided a great list of pros and cons for each. The good news is that I'm happy with the choices I made, and Frank didn't get my equipment for a song! I'm really enjoying LF, and I'm soon going to begin doing the alt process stuff that got me thinking about LF and ULF in the first place.

Cheers!
--A

[Ron Marshall]

Glad to hear that it is working out for you. LF, and especially ULF, is a commitment and worthwhile if you stick with it long enough to get past the steepest part of the learning curve.