ULF Photography - No, really.

[dh003i]

While I am impressed with John Chiara's camera, I must admit I was quite disappointed by his choice of subject matter. Yes, the photographs are big. No, they are not interesting. I think that he is photographing what is convenient, and then making a sales pitch about it.

Well, yea, a camera that big really limits what you can photograph...unless you tack it onto a Hummer and have some serious heavy-duty wheels on the trailer.

Really, photography like this is not what invigorates people to make photographs. Who wants to look at some dumpy motel? I mean, seriously? Does it inspire or is it pretentious nose-in-belly-button-lint time?

LOL, I agree.

My personal rule: if a picture needs "interpretation" then it has failed. Good photographs don't need a sales pitch.

I agree, but I think some of his photographs stand on their own, particularly that first one he unrolled, and the one he was looking at on the wall.

[rdenney]

Do you really get substantially more resolution by using a trailer-sized pinhole camera vs. an 8x10 or 11x14 for the same field of view? If so, why? It would seem to me that at the enormously large f-numbers you're effectively getting even with a small 8x10 pinhole camera, you're already resolving at the diffraction limit...so what gain is there in moving up to a larger size capture medium and even larger f#?

It's the only way I know of to get a really large direct positive print--a singular, first-generation print rather than a print from film. Elsa Dorfman is doing the same thing, with the same lack of regard for what many think is banal, with a 20x24 Polaroid. This guy just wants it to be bigger.

Lots of people seem to want to print at 4x5 feet these days, or even larger. Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints. This guy has found a way to do both.

Rick "seeing the appeal" Denney

[dh003i]

It's the only way I know of to get a really large direct positive print--a singular, first-generation print rather than a print from film. Elsa Dorfman is doing the same thing, with the same lack of regard for what many think is banal, with a 20x24 Polaroid. This guy just wants it to be bigger.

Lots of people seem to want to print at 4x5 feet these days, or even larger. Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints. This guy has found a way to do both.

Rick "seeing the appeal" Denney

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

i.e., I get that the reason why 4x5 and 8x10 get sharper pictures than 35mm is because at equivalent larger f-stops for DOF, they're a lot closer to the diffraction limit. Ok, check! But at pinhole sizes, I'd expect 8x10 to basically resolve at the diffraction limit. I'd also expect the same thing of a U Haul sized camera, for an equivalent "pinhole" in terms of DOF and angle of view. So I wouldn't expect much increased detail (although I'd expect it to be smoother).

In short, I'd expect that any difference in the sharpness of what you get from pinholes from one film size to another to have purely to do with the interaction with the film and resolution of the film...but I'd expect diminishing returns there quickly as the film resolution greatly outstrips the resolution of the aerial image.

also, the photos that John Chiara was unrolling certainly didn't look like they had "infinite depth of field".

[Nathan Smith]

I don't think he's using a pinhole, is he? Thought I saw a lens.

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

i.e., I get that the reason why 4x5 and 8x10 get sharper pictures than 35mm is because at equivalent larger f-stops for DOF, they're a lot closer to the diffraction limit. Ok, check! But at pinhole sizes, I'd expect 8x10 to basically resolve at the diffraction limit. I'd also expect the same thing of a U Haul sized camera, for an equivalent "pinhole" in terms of DOF and angle of view. So I wouldn't expect much increased detail (although I'd expect it to be smoother).

In short, I'd expect that any difference in the sharpness of what you get from pinholes from one film size to another to have purely to do with the interaction with the film and resolution of the film...but I'd expect diminishing returns there quickly as the film resolution greatly outstrips the resolution of the aerial image.

also, the photos that John Chiara was unrolling certainly didn't look like they had "infinite depth of field".

[Paul Kierstead]

Many photographers like shooting on instant film to make single, direct prints.

I love polaroids. I'm certainly no 'artist' with them (And don't try to be, I like them as snapshot materials), but there is something about it conceptually. I keep an old polaroid camera around (shooting 3000 speed B&W). When I go to a friends house, they come here, I sometimes get it out. Now these friends are buried in colorful, professionally produced photographs everyday (like most of the tech saavy world). But shoot them with some crappy polaroid camera, show them the print and they very very often say "can I take this home". You could shoot them like crazy with another camera, no real response. But something about the uniqueness (truly) of that polaroid seems to suck them in. Of course, the peel-apart heres-a-photo magic still helps, and the old-timey camera really disarms them; many a friend who is all 'oh, I don't like pictures of me' etc are suddenly "oh wow, is that an antique camera" etc and are posing before you know it. The photographer/subject interaction is really great, and I like that I give them the print and never have the opportunity to sweat it, or examine it, or the like again.

Oh, and kids, especially the more curious quiet smart kind, practically go crazy for them.

[rdenney]

I guess I'm just wondering why diffraction doesn't degrade image quality to the point of greatly diminishing marginal returns. Sure, you might have a 0.25in pinhole, but it is also a lot further away from the imaging material. So I just wonder...are you actually getting superior detail say a U Haul sized pinhole camera...vs. an 8x10? (I've never seen the results of either in person).

Maybe I wasn't clear. I suspect that resolution is not the driving force behind Chiara's work or anyone who might be doing something similar using a pinhole instead of a lens. If the uniqueness of the print (existing only in the original) and the large size of the print are simultaneous requirements, then Chiara may have found his solution that fulfills both. 8x10 would not fulfill both. I doubt he's doing this to achieve ultimate resolution--his images did not reflect that requirement. And focusing his beast seems to require help from a 4-ton Porta-Power, so precision in focusing is probably not attainable in any case, even assuming he can really tell what's in focus by studying the dim projected image inside the camera. I see many, many photos presented and praised that show no evidence of sharpness anywhere in the photo. I wonder what sort of tonality Chiara's direct prints might achieve.

Rick "guessing at Chiara's requirements" Denney

[tgtaylor]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I suspect that resolution is not the driving force behind Chiara's work or anyone who might be doing something similar using a pinhole instead of a lens. .

I agree. I imagine he wants’ to escape from the banality of today’s super sharp and super-saturated image. I find myself seeking the same by starting to use a soft focus lens and considering alternative methods - dabbing in pictoralism dare I say. It’s as refreshing today as f64 was in the 1920’s.

[Drew Bedo]

How really cool! that rig could be made to work at scenic roadside turnouts all over the country.

Seeing that camera makes me think of other arrangements. Think of the panoramic camera that a 20' shipping container could house: Curved film plane and rotating lens . . .think of a GIANT Noblex.

[sanking]

Well, yea, a camera that big really limits what you can photograph...unless you tack it onto a Hummer and have some serious heavy-duty wheels on the trailer.

You know, I have seriously thought about mounting my 20X24" camera on the front of one of those three wheel off-road vehicles, folding it down when traveling and then just opening it up facing the subject when I arrived. I could take that rig almost everywhere I used to hike. I still think that would be just too cool for words, and damn efficient at that.

I just hate for the size of my camera to limit the subject!!!!

But then I look at the superb detail in my 13" X 32" prints from the Noblex 150U and wonder why one would even need to use small sheet film, much less ULF.

Sandy King

[benrains]

I think Shaun Irving's "Cameratruck" is a nicer setup for this type of work- http://www.cameratruck.net/

As for the American Portrait project, that looks like some sort of cheesy steampunk pipe dream. Nice 3D CGI animation, website, and pitch material, but it seems too preoccupied on flashy presentation than any kind of real substance. I much prefer the DIY efforts of folks like John Chiara, Chris McCaw, and Shaun Irving who focus on making pictures and not trying to get someone to bankroll their "big idea".