Starting LF Photography with ULF Camera?

[sanking]

Sandy, are you suggesting that I need to rent an 8x10 before making a leap to something larger than 8x10? Or do you mean that I'll be in for a pleasant surprise?

--Alec

I did not mean to suggest either of those things. 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. Even working in 8X10 won't adequately prepare you for 11X14.

From a purely aesthetic perspective I find that your reasons for wanting to contact print with ULF make a lot of sense. That trumps a lot of practical reasons against the move up offered by others. Unfortunately many people just try to convince you to adop their own equipment and working habits and don't take into consideration that others have different creative impulses.

I am also saying that you don't have much to lose because if you decide that ULF is not for you it will be very easy to sell the equipment in a year or two for as much, if not more, than you paid for it. So there is not much of a financial risk with ULF, as there might be for examle with a new digital camera, which will drop in price a whole lot over a one or two year period.

Sandy

[Oren Grad]

I'm under the impression that in contact printing large negatives you don't really have a lot of control over the image. Is this correct? I mean, you can use graded papers and all (or multi-grade papers) but there's no real dodging or burning one can do except over mammoth areas of the image, yes? And spotting. And I'd imagine you can do even less with alternative processes like albumen and platinum and cyanotype. So really, it's a WYSIWYG kinda thing, yes?

Well, local controls are more difficult, though not necessarily impossible. If you have experience in B&W printing, you may know already whether that will bother you. I don't care for extensive manpulation myself, even when I'm enlarging. If a negative needs more than minimal dodging or burning I move on. I make more negatives than I have time to print anyway; life is too short to spend hours agonizing over any single one.

The other part of my experiment is going to be an attempt to develop sheet film on my own. The rubberband + tank method is intriguing for 4x5, but I was going to try tray-based development utilising a desensitizer bath first. Any words of wisdom on that? If I can't do that, 11x14 is practically out; there's no way in hell I'm sending an expensive negative to a lab to develop at $14+ per sheet for poor results.

There are many different ways to develop a sheet of film, and a correspondingly wide range of preferences among different users. You should look carefully at rotary development as another option. If you have the money and space a Jobo processor is hard to beat, but if not, you can still get excellent results using drums and inexpensive rotary bases, or even manually rolling the drum. You can search the message base here; there has been plenty of discussion on this.

Sandy, are you suggesting that I need to rent an 8x10 before making a leap to something larger than 8x10? Or do you mean that I'll be in for a pleasant surprise?

I do agree with Sandy about the special character of ULF. While I think that 6.5x8.5 and 8x10 are qualitatively different from 4x5 and 5x7, 11x14 represents another big leap, both in visual impact and in burden of equipment handling. And I agree as well that it's very difficult to fully understand the difference just from reading about it.

[Kirk Fry]

"I am also saying that you don't have much to lose because if you decide that ULF is not for you it will be very easy to sell the equipment in a year or two for as much, if not more, than you paid for it. So there is not much of a financial risk with ULF, as there might be for examle with a new digital camera, which will drop in price a whole lot over a one or two year period."

Short term, maybe true, but how long will any film company continue to maintain very expensive sheet film production equipment for a few hundred/thousand wierd cameras used by a bunch of artists. It becomes a simple spreadsheet issue. 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, sheet film will take another big hit. More spreadsheet issues. Even large format x-ray film is doomed. And yes, Steve, I know there are 52 types of 5X7 film being sold but how long will that last. There are not 52 types of ULF film being sold, even on special order. The Great Yellow Father is clearly not interested in film anymore. No money there. The Chinese may save us for a while, they have not converted to digital just yet in huge numbers. I am not quite sure how they make sheet film, maybe 8X10 and 4X5 are cut down from 20 inch wide chunks, in which case these formats may save the larger ones for a while. It was astounding how fast 35 mm film went away (I know they still sell it somewhere but not Costco anymore, at least not at mine). The camera manufactures must have loved it. Now they get to sell you a new one every 2 years.

[John Kasaian]

Go for it!

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!

As others 'learn the ropes'---but I'll add that you'll never get the time back that you spent on those formats, and time is what LF takes (and lots of it.) Spend it with a camera/format that presses your creative buttons.

[phil sweeney]

I'm under the impression that in contact printing large negatives you don't really have a lot of control over the image. Is this correct? I mean, you can use graded papers and all (or multi-grade papers) but there's no real dodging or burning one can do except over mammoth areas of the image, yes? And spotting. And I'd imagine you can do even less with alternative processes like albumen and platinum and cyanotype. So really, it's a WYSIWYG kinda thing, yes?
--Alec

Hi Alec,

The hardest manipulation (for me) is burning in a small area. I usually use a proof to cut hoes in, which helps me register to the image. Fast papers make it more difficult. Outside of that small problem dodging and burning is no different than with enlarging. Instead of holding a card some distance to create a penumbra one shakes the card close to the cover glass.

phil

[David Vickery]

Alec,

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.

In my earlier post I tried to say what John Kasaian just said. He said it much better and his point is so much more relevant than you will really understand until you actually start using the format that you are really wanting to use- -then you'll see.

You have received a lot of advice from a lot of well meaning people who may not have ever used an 11x14 camera to make contact prints on a regular basis. Keep that in mind.

There really are a lot of lenses available that will easily cover the format. I currently have around 14, most of which were very inexpensive. The most expensive lens that I have ever purchased for large format is a 270/9.0 Computar. I paid $700 for it and it is a tremendous lens, but small in size. If you can find one of them it would be good for your type of location.

As far as the Myth about lenses not being sharp once you start using them on the larger formats---I say that is just bunk! I have a photograph of an old wooden building that I photographed with a 300/5.6 Caltar II-S lens on 11x14. Near the gable of the building there is a small hole where a wire comes through the building. There is a black spot near the hole that I was worried about one day so I used a magnifier to try to figure out what it was. I was surprised to see that I could count the legs and wings and body sections of a wasp. And there was another one coming out of the hole as well. All of the lenses that I use on 11x14 are more than sharp enough, by a long shot, for making 11x14 contact prints.

Dodging, Burning, Masking and other printing controls where perfected in Contact Printing before enlargers were in widespread use and maybe even before they were invented. It’s done a little differently but great control is easily possible in contact printing. See Phil Sweeney's post. However, I predict that once you get going with it you will find limited need for extensive manipulation. 11x14 is easiest when you keep things simple and straightforward.

I have never noticed this problem with Depth of Field that many have listed a reason not to use 11x14. I think that it is another myth, or rather maybe a misunderstanding. If you were going to enlarge your negatives then 11x14 might be beyond the point diminishing returns for enlargements, but definitely not for contact prints!

Brett Weston used 11x14 on location.
Dick Arentz uses 12x20 on location.
Art Sinsabaugh used 12x20 on location.
Tillman Crane uses 12x20 on location.

The list is much longer than this, as is the variety of ULF cameras used. But it is true that it is difficult to find compelling images on the internet that were made with cameras larger than 8x10. If the internet is the final destination for your images then forget 11x14 and stick with 4x5 or smaller.

As for film, we really don't need a large variety of film types available in 11x14 or other ULF sizes. We just need one or two. I believe there will be plenty of us buying film in these sizes to keep somebody in business. Especially if new people like you come along to join in the fun.

Check out this website if you haven't already; http://www.mamutphoto.com/



Keep in mind that there is no substitute for a well executed contact print from a ULF negative, and it doesn’t have to be as difficult or heavy or expensive or limited as so many would have you believe.

Well, I’ve said much more than I intended to. I really just meant to ask why you want to use a desensitizer.

David Vickery

[sanking]

Short term, maybe true, but how long will any film company continue to maintain very expensive sheet film production equipment for a few hundred/thousand wierd cameras used by a bunch of artists. It becomes a simple spreadsheet issue. 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, sheet film will take another big hit. More spreadsheet issues. Even large format x-ray film is doomed.

Almost every thing we know is in change so I would not disagree with the idea that in the long term large format film might not be available. But frankly, all of the indicators suggest to me that this time will be farther away in time than you might think. 35mm has taken a big hit because the market for it was primarily the snapshot consumer market, and that market is shrinking fast, or gone. Roll film has taken a big hit because the market for it was primarily commercial photographers, and that market is also shrinking very fast. Some large format films, especially color emulsions, are also taking a hit, because that market also was driven primarily by commercial photograhers. LF sheet film in B&W, however, is different, in that the market for it is not shrinking nearly as fast. In fact, there are some indicatons that certain parts of this market, which consists primarily of skilled amateurs and fine art photographers, are actually increasing.

If there is a substantial market for LF and ULF sheet film someone will meet it. The price may go up, and choice of emulsions may go down, but if the economic incentives exist for supplying this market someone is likely to do so.

As for the method of production, sheet film is made in rolls some 50" or so wide by several hundred meters long, and is then cut into a variety of different sizes. Since the cutting is done by computer operation packaging the film in a variety of LF and ULF sizes is not particulary cumbersome.


Sandy

[bruce terry]

Alec - Enough of the pondering. You are going to get an 11x14, there is no doubt your gut has decided it is YOU. To sneak up on it, waste your passing life - would be a waste.

And with that big neg, Single sheet tray development will be to-die-for - you'll love the Karma.

[Gregory Gomez]

"Everyone appears to have started with 35mm, then medium format (6x6, 6x7, etc) then 4x5, then 8x10, etc."

Actually, that's not true. A lot of people stop at 4X5, because for them it represents the "sweet spot" between portability, convenience, quality, expense, and availability of film and equipment. Others try large format, even into ULF, and then go back to 35 mm and/or MF. Everyone is different. Your situation is unique, so only you can figure out what your goals and aspirations are for trying ULF. I think a lot of the current fascination with ULF has to do with the old "bigger is better" mentality. In many instances, bigger is better. But a lot of people get into the bigger cameras because at some level they feel like it will make them cooler or more of a man or people will take them more seriously- no different from why someone buys a huge SUV or powerful sports car or ultra fast motorcycle. You don't see too many women using LF cameras...

Good points Brian. There are a few women, however, that do use large format. I sold one of my 8x10s to a woman, and Sally Mann uses an 8x10 as her main camera. But you are generally correct in what you are saying.

[sanking]

Good points Brian. There are a few women, however, that do use large format. I sold one of my 8x10s to a woman, and Sally Mann uses an 8x10 as her main camera. But you are generally correct in what you are saying.

Let's not forget to mention Lois Conner.

Sandy King