Alec,
Since you live in NYC, you can rent a 4x5 or 8x10 fairly easily. If you really are set to jump to 11x14, I would recommend trying an 8x10 rental. Lens & Repro rents an 8x10 Deardorff for $135 a week and that includes a normal lens, dark cloth, holders and cable release. The tripod will cost you $45 for the week.
Peter
Even for loony fringers like me, there's often a point of diminishing returns. In terms of handling the equipment, 7x17/11x14 are at the far limit of what I can (sometimes) manage - and also at the far limit of what can be covered with modern main-line plasmats.Originally Posted by bglick
So that's as far as my kit goes.
And I agree, it's very hard to make an UULF (e.g., 20x24) contact print that works both technically and esthetically. Beyond a certain point the handling, DOF and optical performance constraints can become so severe that one just doesn't gain anything, especially if the intended product is a silver contact print, rather than an alt-process print that throws away lots of information anyway.
But Alec, if you go ahead with 11x14, do yourself a favor and try one of the 14-16 lb classic cameras rather than a 30 lb monster like a B&J. And if you want to get all that information from the negative into the print, try to find yourself a vacuum frame.
Last edited by Oren Grad; 24-Jun-2006 at 10:12.
Alec, it sounds like you have a lot of good reasons to go directly to 11x14; in particular, the commitment to contact printing.
One point that may need to be stressed for a first timer: the ability of a LF camera to extend depth of field via tilt and swing is not unlimited. And, naturally, the bigger the camera, the longer the lens, the shallower the native DOF, the more limited the DOF will be, no matter what you do. But shooting landscapes at infinity and flat building facades won't be a problem.
I for one am not convinced that learning is necessarily easier on 4x5; in many ways the bigger ground glass and the forced slow-down of bigger cameras make the process easier, or at least less prone to errors of haste.
The thing you need for downtown architecture is rise, and plenty of it. Quantify it. I took a look at one of those 11x14 "skyscraper" cameras, and the actual rise available was not that impressive, though probably more convenient. A lensboard with the hole drilled off-center can make a big difference (and with very little downside bother, BTW), especially for larger lensboards. This should encourage you to favor cameras taking larger lensboards, say Sinar-sized (5") or bigger.
Forget shooting in the wind. Go home, or use something else.
Don't be embarrassed to use a pro lab, especially at first. Or if you don't have space for a viable darkroom. Also, check out the availability of rental darkrooms.
Have a good understanding of the monetary costs before commiting yourself. If your keeper rate is similar to mine (1 in 4?) and you have a typical beginner's ruined-sheet rate (guess 1 in 8 or maybe worse?), you will need to shoot several sheets, most of which you will have to develop, before you have a negative worth printing. Then there's the printing costs... By the way, how good are you at reading negatives? You may need to do a test print before realizing some negatives are not worth the effort. It can add up in a hurry, and be twice as bad for beginners.
Finally, count on attracting a crowd of intrusive loud-mouthed idiots whenever you set up in town.
Alec - Eight years ago, after much reading (no computer) I cold-turkeyed straight from 35mm into 8x10, for p/p contacts, which I love. I don't think you need to "work up" to ULF, but as has been said, you might find 8x10 to be all you'll ever need.
Well, actually the wider one is about $7500 US. But they're kind enough to engrave your name on them for free, so that makes all the difference.
If one were to buy one of those new, any idea what the resale value would be? I'd imagine that since it is "used" (regardless how much) the price would drop 20-30%. But then there's the fact that so few are made, it may not be so bad...
Outside of this folly, what size image circle would one need to adequately cover 11x14 with some movement? 500mm or so?
Peter, thanks for the Lens & Repro referral. I'll be over there on Monday on my lunch break I'm sure. Can't wait!
--A
Last edited by alec4444; 25-Jun-2006 at 15:15.
500mm will cover 12x16", so that should give you a bit of movements, yes.
450mm just covers.
I've got a "classic monster" 12x16" (30x40cm) Russian plate camera which I've found to be just too big for my taste. I much prefer my elegant lightweight classic German 24x30cm (9.5x12") plate camera, the difference in size and usability is much greater than you'd think!
IMO even an 8x10 is a toy compared to 11x14 and larger. There is just no comparison. Using a ULF camera is so much more involved than the smaller formats that I think it a different beast altogether.
Consider the extremely shallow depth of field you are going to deal with using a normal 480mm lens, or the extremely long exposures if you stop down to improve the former. To comfortably load a film holder you need about 20 inches of horizontal space for the holder, another 20 for the film, and if you are like me, another 10 or so for the partially inserted darkslide. The bellows draw is huge and the camera becomes a sail as a result. As others have mentioned. cost is also a factor as are available options in film and equipment.
If you are prepared to tackle the logistics and limitations of such a large camera, then go for it. You should know you want to do contact prints in that format, or fit a 1:1 head into the picture and not have to enlarge it to get lifesize. Otherwise, consider carefully why you want a LF or ULF camera.
IMO, 4x5 is too small to get a decent contact but it allows for easy enlarging (or scanning). 5x7 makes a good contact and reasonable enlargers are available. 8x10 presents some monetary challenges for enlarging but I don't like the format and see no reason to have an 8x10 vs 4x5 with identical aspect ratio unless you do like that contact size. A lot of the choice revolves around wanting to enlarge vs wanting to contact. 4x5 keeps you in the realm of enlarging so why wouldn't you just go with your MF if that is all that would be important to you?
IMO, unlike going from 35mm to MF to LF there isn't a logical progression from 8x10 (or smaller) sheet formats to those 11x14 or larger. Instead there is a distinct break in considerations and limitations at that point.
I don't pretend I could give any useful advice, but sometimes you just need to go where you need to go - and see what's there! If we're talking contact printing, then for me, 5x7 or 8x10 is the sweet spot. Double the size and quadruple the challenge, money- and equipmentwise. I'd love a 7x17 or 12x20 camera, but realistically, it would be a case of me or the camera living in my apartment. If I could get it through the door...
Joe has a good point about enlarging - given MF and the good films available, you could have the best of both worlds, prints in 11x14 (or bigger) and you could do a internegative in say, 11x14 and do contact printing in albumen also. If you need movements, you could get by with a MF viewcamera.
Hi! So I took your advice and rented a large format camera for a week, starting yesterday. Rented a wooden 4x5 format camera (& 135mm lens) in the make I've been considering. (Leaving that out intentionally.) I would have rented an 8x10, but I wanted to see how I like the format and in particular THIS camera.
Got off to a sticky start. Had a helluva time trying to figure out how to get the Polaroid back working. The guy that rented me the camera suggested highly that I rent the back to get an instant result before messing up a sheet of film, only to wait two days to find out I screwed it up. Sage advice indeed. So on day one, I ruined two sheets of 4x5 Type 54 film before giving up and switching to sheet film. Was stressed for time (was at the Botanical Gardens and they were closing) so I promptly ruined another two sheets of film by forgetting to change the ISO on my light meter.
Undeterred, I came home and set up shop in the study, with all available lights illuminating the messy bookshelves. I set the camera low to the floor and practiced trying to get the vertical lines of the shelves straight by playing with the tilt, shift, rise, and fall. It's going to take me a while to figure those out, though I've got the basic idea. I also was able to get the instructions online for the Polaroid 545i back, and after screwing up a third sheet got that down cold. Without wind and in the airconditioned comfort of my home, I made two decent exposures (LONG; 1.5 mins) of the shelves onto Polaroid film. Thrilled I had conquered the beast on day one, I crashed.
Today, work seemed to never end, but when I was finally done for the day I hauled ass home, grabbed my prepacked bag with loaded film holders and rushed out the door. Was insanely humid, but I wasn't going to let that hold me back. Went a block or two from my apartment to a fountain, and set up shop. Image one was way over exposed, and in checking my light meter I found out it thought I was using a flash. It's going to take me a while to get used to it; my Rollei 6008 has a built in meter and I only used my Seikonic for night photography.
Second shot was fine. Threw in the sheet film and made two exposures, then changed locations. Set up my second shot, and a new gust of wind kicked up and blew the fountain water into my open bag, and saturated the camera. My polaroid film box was open, of course, and it also soaked the top sheet. But the photo turned out ok:
http://www.alec.com/4x5/4x5polaroid.jpg
(also attached)
After drying off my stuff as best I could I set up shop to take a picture of the arch behind me. Got trapped by a couple of gawkers. Got back to the shot and it seemed to take forever to get it set up. Huge raindrops were beginning to hit and started seeing lightning. Undeterred I set up my polaroid back and took the first shot. Was all screwed up, I think due to the fact it got soaked. So I switched to the film back as thunder started rumbling then crashing. I got off another shot and it began to poor. my film holder got a few drops on it before I was able to get it back into the bag, and I hope it's ok. If it IS ok, it's probably still garbage because the wind was picking up and the exposure was roughly 30 secs. I'll have all the sheet film developed tomorrow and we'll see how it went.
That said, I'm still undeterred. When I get better at this, I'll know if I have enough time to set up a shot, and if I don't, I won't take it. I will probably do a still life shoot indoors on crappy days. I will learn to keep my camera bag closed, and figure out how to use my light meter consistently. It will take time, and by the end of a week (thank goodness I have a four day weekend) I will probably have improved enough to get more consistent shots. Thanks to your advice, it is very nice to be screwing up 4x5 film rather than 11x14 film on the first go at this. =)
What I have enjoyed in the camera itself. I was telling my wife that it's not unlike a puzzle box. Whilst oogling over it last night, I was slowly making discoveries...."OH so THAT'S why they put the levels there, so you can level the camera before you even open it....smart!" and "OH, I get it. So in theory you never need to tilt the camera base....you can use all the movements while keeping the base level and stationary....nifty!"
We'll see how the negs look, and in the meantime, can't wait for the four day weekend!
Cheers!
--A
Last edited by alec4444; 29-Jun-2006 at 20:22.
How 'bout the aspect ratio consideration: 11x14 not very appealing, in my opinion. A panoramic aspect in ULF works better, I would guess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks