With all the interest in old processes and especially the old Brass lenses, I'm surprised that there hasn't been a revival of interest in the Mammoth format. It seems that there's even more 20x24 than 18x22! Some questions:
Anybody in this forum use 18x22? Where do you get film?
Is 20x24 an historic format like Watkins and Mammoth? Who used it?
Any idea of how many 20x24 shooters are there in USA?
When I was 16 I thought my father the stupidest man in the world; when I reached 21, I was astounded by how much he had learned in just 5 years!
-appropriated from Mark Twain
There was no real format historically when it came to big images. I saw a camera the GEH when I was there studying cameras, that did 36" images. Also, the 1870's Anthony catalog that I have, shows that you could buy view camera boxes in sizes of 11x14,14x17,17x20,& 20x24. The 20x24 listed for $100 for a regular camera, $110 for single swing, and $115 for a double swing. I have also seen lens ads that listed 20x24 as a size.
I don't know how many 20x24 shooters there are in the USA, but they are growing. I am actually building a 20x24 wet plate camera for a customer now. I personally know of 5 guys who shoot larger sizes.
> I personally know of 5 guys who shoot larger sizes.
But how many times do they shoot them? I have been watching how many times ULF cameras come up for sale, and most of them indicate that the camera was never used or only used for a few sheets. I definitely understand being a gear head and why an ULF camera is really attractive from a gear head perspective. No need to apoligize for that - I have a circuit board from the original Cray computer hanging on my wall.:-)
I think about all the hassles of shooting 4x5 - carrying the gear, the holders, the cost per shot, wind issue, tripod stability - then scale to 20x24 or other ULF formats, and cannot image taking more than few shots a year. I try to shoot at least 500 sheets of 4x5 a year, and even that is hard to stick to, but I think that is barely enough to keep my eye in and keep sharpening my technique. There is no substitute for shooting. Over about 3 months, I shot about 7 Zydeco sessions, a total of about 10,000 exposures on my D700. Not just turning on the motor and holding down the shutter, but taking each shot deliberatly and systematically trying different lenses and setting and manual versus auto focus, etc. (OK, for some dance motion shots I did do 10 shot bursts.) I am now pretty good at shooting close quarter music.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
I agree that there is no substitute for shooting but there is not a lot of conceptual difference between using a 4X5 camera and a 14X17 camera. They both have to be used on a tripod which in itself imposes a discipline and work flow. After that it is merely a question of understanding the logistics of transporting and physically working with a very large camera, which only takes a few working sessions. The more experience one has with smaller view cameras the easier it will be to adapt to a ULF.Originally Posted by Ed Richards
And owning and using a ULF camera does not prevent one from owning and using other formats. Over the years I have done most of my work with the 5X7 format but ever now and then I see a scene which is ideal for the 20X24 camera and if I go there with the right conditions chances are good that I will make a a negative that will make an excellent contact print, without the hassle of enlargement or digital negatives.
Sandy King
For discussion and information about carbon transfer please visit the carbon group at groups.io
[url]https://groups.io/g/carbon
The only person I know actively using 18x22 is Patrick Alt from Los Angeles. He completely restored a basket case camera several years ago and made it into a museum piece. Absolutely beautiful.
Anyone know if Patrick using 18x22 film, wet plate or dry plate?
While the annual ILFORD cut does not seem to have included 18x22 in the past, there is always an option for to a complete run at Kodak for $14-16K(exact fee depends upon cut size and boxing labor).
film according to this interview:
http://www.mamutphoto.com/content/view/28/29/lang,en/
Patrick Alt; uses film, I believe; John Coffer, obviously wet plate; Nate Gibbons, wet plate; Luther G., wet plate.
Sandy,
That makes a lot of sense. I have had moments where I would have liked to have had an 8x10 in the Jeep.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
I shoot both 16x20 and 20x24. Most of my work with these cameras is in the studio, however. The limiting factor in shooting for me is the number of film holders I own. I have 5 for each format. (All are S&S holders and are excellent holders. Thanks Sandy.)
I mount my cameras on an industrial dolly with hydraulic lift (a foot pump) which makes them easy to move around the studio and to reposition between shots. In effect, the trolley becomes my tripod.
The movements and general operation of the cameras is the same as with the smaller 8x10. It does take me longer between shots, but not so much so that the models become bored or can't hold a pose. In a four hour studio session, I will go through the 20 sheets of ULF film and up to 50 sheets of 8x10, depending on the complexity of the shots in the session.
I think one reason people perceive that ULF is not done much is because of the difficulty of posting ULF images on the web. The ULF prints are beautiful. But there is no easy way to scan or copy them to the web. I have taken photos of the prints using a copy set up, but the resulting copies always seem lacking compared to the original prints, so I rarely post them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks