Future of ULF

[Julian_3496]

Jim, I've been working on using inkjet negs for contact printing. The problem is I have found it impossible to get rid of a faint 'dither' pattern which in turn shows on the print. I've also found it to be a really tricky affair. You need to do your own curves for your lightsource/paper/developer combo, and then get a good inkjet neg - not easy. You then need good BW developer chops. I've often heard people tout this as an 'easy' alternative but it isn't at all. The other thing to bear in mind is many folk contact print because of quality. Whilst you can do all the setup in Photoshop, the inkjet artefacts get in the way for me and you'd be better off enlarging smaller size film IMO than trying to emulate ULF. An 11x14 contact print blows your socks off. I'm still experimenting though and next month will be trying a 7600 equipped with studioprint rip and a number of dither options.

[John Kasaian]

Jim,

One thing that appeals to me about ULF is its simplicity(no, really!) That was the driving reason behind switching to LF in the first place for me, as an amateur. I found all the toys that Nikon and Hasselblad offered with their systems got me too wrapped up in gizzmo-obsession and less in the practice of photography. Even 8x10 and smaller sheet formats have a lot of temptations, though I find with 12x20 I'm far more limited by neccesity. I've got two holders and one lens in a shutter with the light meter, cable release, tripod and filters borrowed from my 8x10 kit, thats it! When undertaking an expedition---and getting any ULF camera out of the house amounts to an expedition---I only have the photograph to think about. Its kind of refreshing, like using a Rolleiflex tlr only with the possibility of getting a hernia...(of course I do need to get a bigger dark cloth!)----------Cheers!

[John D Gerndt]

Jim, its all a matter of data. You can enlarge a medium format negative and then contact the result but the data are set before you start. There are only so many points available on the original and no more are created in the enlargement. This is good enough for many people. I take it that the cost is getting to be not too far from using ULF stuff, so it will shrink the marked for ULF to the extent that those who can be satisfied by the digital approximation will switch.

I think the long-range future of ULF is in question like the future of painting was in question when photography first came along. People still paint but it is not for commercial reasons. Paint is expensive but still made. I think we will loose many emulsions/chemistries but we’ll learn to make new. We are the few who can afford the time and have the great interest in making the unique images only obtainable by this one process.

By the way, I am having a hard time finding vinyl records for my record player lately… I miss that old sound. It has a presence that the new stuff doesn’t. I wonder what is the future of analog music?

Cheers!

John

[David A. Goldfarb]

I can make analog music on my analog trombone or my analog guitar any time I want, and I can even go out and hear analog music in concert halls and clubs all over the city any day of the week.

[jantman]

Once you go to 8x10 and work with it for even a few weeks, carry it up a few hills, it no longer seems so big. I'm ready for 11x14, once my budget catches up with me. That's the reason why I can't even see it in the future.

But as to ULF and it's future, I'm in high school now, and will gladly help lead my generation through LF anf ULF. I'm looking forward to it, and just hope that others are.

[Sidney Cammeresi]

Amen, Mr Antman. I'm 24, and I just bought an 11x14 camera. I'm glad I'm getting into ULF so young, so that I've got a life full of contact prints to which I can look forward.

[Daniel Blakeslee]

Sidney, at your age you can actually carry the thing, too!

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, I had an 11x14 some time ago, but left the format because of the cost of film holders and, well,...film. I love the format though. Photo Warehouse and J and C weren't around then or I'd still be shooting it. With 12x20, the cost, availability and variety of film available is really quite good and getting better. If you're shooting 8x20 there would also be the option of cutting down aerial roll film! BTW holders are still $$$$!

[Michael Kadillak]

Hey John, you never know when you might come across a Korona in the 11x14 format and rekindle a long lost relationship. One thing is for sure, nothing in a smaller format quite comes close to the real thing. If that were not the case, I would have to have my head examined for maintaining the desire to haul this creature to different shooting locations that are not within 5ft of my tailgate. And film holders are not as expensive as they used to be with Sandy and Sam putting out the S&S holders that can be found at Quality Camera. Nice thing is that quality has not been compromised one bit with these holders.

Cheers!

[John Kasaian]

Michael,

I've heard nothing but great things about S&S holders. If I ever get another 11x14 again, I'll order some. My 12x20 is a Folmer & Schwing and I'm not too inclined to have the back milled to accept Korona style holders. One holder came with the Beast, I happened on the other by fluke(nobody else wanted it since it wasn't a Korona!)

FWIW, one really nice thing about 11x14 is that a contact print nicely matted looks right(to me, anyway) in most rooms in most homes. A matted 16x20, and even a 12x20 contact tends to overpower most rooms---again my opinion, but then I don't know anyone living in really big houses either.