Okay, it's a crazed idea. I know they're HEAVY and cumbersome. But I'm about to start a limited landscape project (20 photos in the end) and have always fantasi zed about making contact prints in this size. It seems this might be my best opp ortunity to try either a 16x20 or 12x20. I would like to hear from anyone who li kes working in this range... advice, precautions, etc. Thanks
Mark, I too have asked a couple of questions on subjects relating to 12x20 in t his forum. Things having to do with lenses, holders, availability of film types , etc. Unfortunately, I've had zero responses. I don't think anyone here is interested. I think we're both crazy!
Try: <http://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~philip/altphotodir-all.html> Or just do a search for "Alternative Photographic Processes FAQ"
I've come to the sad conclusion that the only ones interested in these LARGE for mats are people doing very large contact prints in the alternative processes. T he site mentioned is a good source of info, not only about alternative processes , but about the equipment used.
Good luck, Sergio.
I dont think its because no one is interested, but no one has any experience. I think contact prints from this size negative would be a knockout! I bet the pric e for lenses with this kind of coverage would be a knockout too!
I won't go into huge detail unless people indicate they actually care, but allow me to do all I can to discourage you from trying ELF (extra-large format) and t hen you can see if you're still interested....
I haven't shot 12x20, but I've had three excellent modern 11x14 cameras (Wisner, Canham, Toyo/B&J) and have since left the format. I think most of my experience s with 11x14 apply to the larger ELF stuff, only more so. To wit:
First, four problems you've probably already heard about:
1. COST: Vintage ELF cameras (esp. larger than 11x14) can be had fairly cheaply, although there's a reason for this: operating costs are so high that the market for a rickety camera that uses hard-to-get film and film holders is extremely s mall. New cameras start around $5000; Wisner can get you one in a few months, Ca nham builds 2-3 11x14s per year. Vintage lenses can be had fairly cheaply, but m odern lenses with enough coverage are pricey (my four main 11x14 lenses were the SuperAngulon 210 for wide, the Nikkor 360SW for wide-normal, the Fuji CS600 for long normal, and a Nikkor 1070mm in barrel for "long"--this last one is equal t o about a 90mm in 35mm format--and combined they took the better part of my life savings). Film holders for 11x14 are $235 each; film stock is $5 per exposure, and $5 per sheet to process (I never processed my own), etc. You get the idea.
2. WEIGHT: Everything weighs a lot: Camera, tripod, lenses, holders, cases, you name it (each 11x14 film holder--Lisco/Fidelity--weighs 3.5 lbs, and I usually c arried four or five in the field; most camera SYSTEMS weigh less than that). Eve n with that weight, by the way, most ELF cameras are far more loose and wobbly t han their smaller counterparts unless you add significant, cumbersome external b racing.
3. SIZE: Everything is huge: traveling with this bulky stuff is a complete pain- -forget about flying anywhere (although some people do). Size affects everything from problems with wind to shlepping it all to a spot you'd actually want to se t up the tripod and invest in an exposure or two.
4. UNAVAILABILITY: Finding supplies and parts for everything from equipment to f ilm to processing is a pain. It is available, yes, but you'll pay and you'll wai t...
Now, for the stuff you may not have heard about, four things that are traditiona lly advantages of large-format photography but don't necessarily hold true in EL F:
5. DEPTH OF FIELD: Forget it. Remember, a NORMAL lens for ELF is in the 450-600m m range, and (for those who don't know) depth of field is the same for focal len gths across formats: a 600mm lens on an 11x14 has the same tiny depth of field a s a 600mm lens in 35mm. Yes, you can stop down--get used to f32 as a minimum, an d f64 as normal--and with a view camera you can increase the "apparent" depth of field by tilting the focus plane, but there's the problem of
6. TILTS: Unh-unh. Yes, you can tilt, a little bit, assuming you spent enough mo ney to get lenses with sufficient covering power, but no, you can't see the effe cts of your tilting while you're tilting. In other words, unless you're a gorill a with 40-inch sleeves, you can't reach the front standard while looking through the ground glass: you have to look under the darkcloth, come out, go around to the front of the camera, change the tilt, go back under the darkcloth to check t he effect, go back to the front of the camera, readjust the tilt, etc. By this t ime, the sun hasn't just gone behind the clouds; it has set.
7. RISE/FALL/SHIFT (this is usually limited to the front standard; on most ELF c ameras the back standard is too large to remain sturdy if you build in any movem ents besides tilt): R/F/S is one of the main reasons to use a view camera, but w ith ELF lenses, the image circles just don't allow very much movement. It may SO UND like a lot--for example, the 210SA has an image circle around 500mm and the 600mm Fuji has around 600mm--but that 3 or 4 inches of movement is a small fract ion of the size of the ELF negative; it would be like having 3 or 4 centimeters of movement on a 4x5.
8. CONTACT PRINTS: You will get very good at spotting (there's no way to get com pletely clean 150+ square inches of negative, times two sides) and you will lear n to accept prints that have only minimal dodging and burning (which is far, far harder while contact printing than when enlarging, where you can put the implem ent between the negative and the paper). This one's a biggie, and I would seriou sly urge ANYONE considering ELF to tape together two or four 8x10 negs (to make a 10x16 or a 16x20) and try contact printing the result before spending a penny on equipment. Keep in mind, too, the sobering truth that 99 out of 100 viewers i n the average exhibition cannot distinguish a 12x20 contact print from an enlarg ement made from an 8x10, except that the 8x10 will probably be more impressive i n every respect from composition and focus to exposure and printing... (it's 100 for 100 if both images are published)
Bottom line: Like most people who try ELF, I grossly overestimated the gee-whiz factor (and I completely ignored the implications behind the fact that I couldn' t find anyone who'd done much ELF work; if I'd been smart, I would have put two and two together....). Yes, people (photographers, anyway) are occasionally mild ly impressed that you shoot ELF; no, nobody gives a rat's ass about it--especial ly viewers--relative to the quality of the photographs. In other words, you're g oing to miss an AWFUL lot of images that you could get with a smaller format (4x 5, 5x7, 8x10) because you couldn't get there, or get there in time, or set up in time, or afford to bracket. Viewers will be MUCH more impressed by a better per spective, composition, lighting conditions, or exposure than by a slight improve ment in sharpness and tonality.
Oops, I guess I did go into some detail. Sorry.
Good luck if you take the plunge. Anyone who wants to contact me for followup, h ere or offline, is more than welcome to do so....
Two little corrections to my previous post, which was typed in haste: the wide-n ormal lens was the Nikkor 360 W, not SW, and most current ELF cameras do have re ar swing, tilt, and shift; just no rise or fall.
Mr. Marty's response shows the wisdom of experience! If after reading it your s till interested, you might try contacting some other practitioners Dick Arentz, Michael Smith, Zoe Zimmerman, etc. They have all written in View Camera magazin e and can be contacted by consulting that publications "creative resources" at t he end of the issue in which their articles appear. Ken Hough who shoots a lot of trains and things in 8 X 20 and larger is on the net, and he also repairs Dea rdorff Cameras and film holders.
Yes, using anything larger than 8x10 is a little nuts, but I have been using larger cameras in the field consistently for longer than anyone else working today (8x20) and (18x22) and it is not so bad if you know what you are doing.
Micah Marty's response was in many respects correct, and he is right when he says the romance of it all blinded him to the difficulties, but it seems that he had expectations that were unrealistic. It IS hard work.
As far as 99% of the viewers not knowing what they are looking at, all I can say is that he showed his work to the wrong people. There are many out there who do know the difference--know it and respect it.
Silver printing is easy with Azo. Dodging and burning is easy, too. You just have to know what you are doing.
I'll be demonstrating some of this stuff at a workshop in Salt Lake City in July. See the last page of the current View Camera magazine for an announcement. It is being put on by a place called the Waterford Institute, I believe.
Or contact me, take a private one or two day workshop and I'll show you EVERYTHING you'll ever need to know about working with these extra-large cameras and making silver prints with them.
Good luck. With the big cameras, you WILL need it.
Were I interested in Very Large Format (and I am!) I would pay attention to what Michael Smith has to say. I don't know him, but I've admired his work and read articles by him over the past few years (mostly in ViewCamera magazine) and he knows what he's talking about.
Mark - don't be disuaded from going to a VLF camera if that's what your muse is telling you to do. If it's just a whim then forget it, but if you're driven in that direction - go! I've been a view camera nut for several years now - built a Bender 4x5, etc, etc. One day maybe five or six years ago I was at a camera show and saw a REALLY large camera which just looked "right" to me. I talked to the owner and found out it was a 12x20. That was all it took. Ever since then I've been looking for the right one at the right price, and I recently found it . It's a Korona 12x20, and the lens is a Goerz 14" (360mm) f/7.7 Dagor. This fo cal length is perfect for what I want to do - my favorite landscape lens for 4x5 is a 90, and this has the same horizontal angle of view. I also like the aspec t of the format (the 1 : 1 2/3 ratio looks good to me). The camera itself is pr etty small and light (at least compared to a Wisner) but it is limited to "wide angle" as it only has about 24" of bellows draw. This sort of setup might be pe rfect for the landscape project you have in mind.
Here's the kicker - I've yet to take a picture with it. We just built a new pla ce and (of course) the darkroom is lower on the priority list than trivialities like the kitchen and the bathroom (at least to my wife). BUT, I have set it up and composed images with it a number of times and using moderate tilts and small ish apertures it wasn;t hard to achieve the desired depth of field (remember, th is is with a fairly short lens). Also, using rear tilts doesn't eat up your cov ering power like front tilts do (and I prefer the slight foreground exaggeration ) so don't panic about that. If anyone is interested, I'll report back after ma king a couple of snaps.
Good luck on your quest! Mark Parsons
Well, I guess I should follow up on this thread like I promised (almost two years later!). After two years of shooting with Ultra Large Format (12x20 in my case) I can state with some conviction that most of my earlier, optimistic beliefs were actually not so crazy after all. (If anything, the big camera is even more fun than I thought it would be.) And almost all of the depressingly negative comments of the former 11x14 user turned out to be mostly false, or easily overcome with a little effort. Some observations: The really big formats seem to lend themselves to wider lenses. You can't just scale up the focal lengths you like in 35mm or even 4x5 (and this may have been the source of trouble for the disgruntled user - when you get into those 600-1000mm lenses, your depth of field is very slender). I think the format is best for landscape, architecture, and group shots (which is why they're called "banquet cameras") and not typical portraits, although full length portraits and/or figure studies would work nicely. A similar mindset needs to be applied to apertures. For most outdoor shots f/64 will be your aperture of choice. So what? Don't worry about diffraction - you're going to be making contact prints. (And with a "wide angle" 360mm lens, f/64 is still an opening of almost 1/4". Don't be misled by those who claim that diffraction is only affected by the f-stop, regardless of actual aperture size. The wavelength of light is the same for 35mm as it is for 12x20. A quick thought experiment: Imagine a microscopic camera, so small that even with an f/2 aperture the opening was smaller than the wavelength of visible light. ALL image-forming light would be diffracted by the aperture and the image would be extremely degraded. But I digress...) And at f/64, your shutter speed will be in the 1/16th to 1 sec. range (outdoors) and longer indoors. No biggie - if the subject was moving you'd be using a hand camera anyway. And just to show you that even these guidelines can be broken with good results, I recently took an indoor portrait (using indirect window light) of two young kids. The exposure was 1 sec. at f/16. All the comments on the resulting print (on Ilford FB Warmtone) have been very positive, and no one has said "That sure looks like too long an exposure for a portrait". I guess the main thing that I want to get across is that using mammoth cameras is EASY and very enjoyable. Sure, the gear is bigger, but the actual composing and shooting is just like 4x5 except it's even easier, because you can see better. (Which is the easier TV to watch a ballgame on - a 5" portable or a 21" Trinitron? I rest my case...) Same thing with printing. The guy who was complaining about the torture of contact printing big negs was either doing something way off base or trying to rationalize his decision to bail on the format. (Look, he admits he never developed his own negatives. 'Nuff said.) Making big contacts is a fairly straightforward process. I use a simple homemade printer (1/4" plate glass and a piece of melamine) and typical papers, using an enlarger for a light source so I can easily control the contrast. Dodging and burning is similar to when you're making an enlargement. Not difficult for anyone who's spent any time in a darkroom. Developing big negs is also a piece of cake if you use the right process. (I use D-76 1:1 in trays, adding the water first for a 4 min. pre-soak before adding the D-76. Gives very even and consistent development.) Bottom line - I love this format! The comment that 99 out of 100 viewers can't tell the difference between a contact and an enlargement may or may not be true, but it has absolutely no bearing on my decision to use the format - I can tell the difference and that's enough for me. Also, the comment about "grossly overestimating the gee-whiz factor" of ULF is 180 degrees opposite from my experience. If anything, I underestimated it. When I first made the 12x20 purchase I had lingering doubts - should I have put the money into a better 4x5 instead, or perhaps more lenses? However, since I got the big camera my 4x5 has mostly been sitting on the shelf gathering dust and the larger format has almost completely taken over my photographic life. Caveats: ULF is obviously not for everyone. It's big, slow, and heavy. Film is not free, nor can it be had from the corner store. Or in color. Or in every emulsion under the sun. However, if you're dedicated to the b&w fine print and like to work in a contemplative, methodical fashion, I'd say ignore the naysayers and jump on in - the water's fine! Cheers, Mark Parsons
Mark, regarding your remark about diffraction not depending only on f-stop, see N Dhananjay's comment that I have quoted in http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~qtluong/photography/lf/fstop.html
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks