Now this is LARGE format

[Brian C. Miller]

Doesn't he use strobes?

Also off the top of my head I can't see how the bellows factor would be related to 20ft, etc. because it's purely related to relative magnification.

So if a 1.5ft subject translate to a 6ft tall image, the magnification is 4x. So it's not too different from a typical LF macro that one might do?

From the interview:

"When I take the cover off, it's dark so there's no exposure until I flash it. So I take the cover off and flash it and put the cover back on," Manarchy said.

Yes, the lens that he's using for those photographs is essentially acting as a macro lens, and the bellows extension of 35ft is necessary for the magnification. I'm guessing that right now he's using a process lens for this. As for the lack of "wide" look, you won't necessarily get that photographing something against a blank background. I did a close self-portrait as a lens test for a 75mm, and my facial features weren't noticeably skewed.

[Steven Scanner]

From the article;"When I take the cover off, it's dark so there's no exposure until I flash it. So I take the cover off and flash it and put the cover back on," Manarchy said.
No shutter, just a cap. The video does show a flash, but just like Marc, I would expect a longer flash and exposure time. If the video shows the right exposure times and lighting duration, he probably uses fast film.
Why does he only uses B/W? Is there something in the process that prevents color? A special way of developing? Does he use UV light?

[uphereinmytree]

I agree that it's a gimmick. The process is certainly not suited to the subject matter. Any culture found would seem to be subdued by the novelty of the endeavor. I also think it's a bit of mockery to say that it needs to be that large to 'capture the American spirit'. Although to portray 'the American spirit' as an overpriced spectacle has some foundation. He could find American culture by spending a lot of time with a lot of different types of people and photographing what is really on their minds during the daily grind and showing it to us in an original way.

[jnantz]

john chiara has been doing something similar to this for a while
but i don't think his images are scanned+enlarged
they are more like single images.

there is a video of him on utube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xYWehyfFcM

[Brian C. Miller]

Why does he only uses B/W? Is there something in the process that prevents color? A special way of developing? Does he use UV light?

Probably he's using B&W because it's easier to develop a gargantuan negative with B&W chemicals than color. Also, he gets more negatives for his $15,000.

I suspect that all of the prints are inkjet. His Kickstarter page says "giclee" up until the $7,500 donation, where the print is on "weatherproof canvas." I don't remember anybody offering a fine art print on "weatherproof canvas," do you?

The negatives are probably scanned using a blueprint scanner equipped with a backlight. The Contex scanners go up to 54-inch widths, with a resolution of about 500dpi.

[Louis Pacilla]

I'd like to poke a giant hole in his giant bellows.

Just kidding.

[E. von Hoegh]

Probably he's using B&W because it's easier to develop a gargantuan negative with B&W chemicals than color. Also, he gets more negatives for his $15,000.

I suspect that all of the prints are inkjet. His Kickstarter page says "giclee" up until the $7,500 donation, where the print is on "weatherproof canvas." I don't remember anybody offering a fine art print on "weatherproof canvas," do you?

The negatives are probably scanned using a blueprint scanner equipped with a backlight. The Contex scanners go up to 54-inch widths, with a resolution of about 500dpi.

"Giclee"? For a $7500 print? What a putz.

[Brian C. Miller]

No, up to the $7500 donation mark. The print for the $7500 donation is simply described as, "weatherproof canvas." Does that mean billboard material? I have no idea, as I've never printed for a billboard.

As for the lens he's using, I've attached a crop of the studio's picture. Any ideas for what that lens might be? There's a manequin on the posing stand, so its head should give some size range for that lens.

[Lenny Eiger]

I mentioned that this was old news. I checked in with my friends on the Photohistory list and they came up with the reference:
http://www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/work/490.1994/

Yea, 1875!

I don't disagree that its a cool-lookiing thing, but it ain't the latest thing on the block...

Lenny

[Steven Scanner]

I know it has been done before, Lenny. I've seen an article with a picture of a similar size camera. According to the article, the camera was designed and made to take a detailed picture of a locomotive.

About the lens, Brain. There is a shot in the video where Manarchy is taking of the cap from the lens. Seems to be about 10 to 12cm in diameter. When you put that in relation to the film, it's about the size of a pinhole camera should be.

I just thought of a theory. What if the front of the camera is an ordinairy LF camera. The big bellows might be a darkroom. Film from the LF camera is developed and projected on a huge print. From what has been shown, the short exposure and flash time, the relative small lens, the size of the film, the long time it takes to set the camera, it all adds up to something like my theory.

Unless someone can convince me it's real. Can someone make the calculations to convince me? Someone here already made a start, lets finish it. (it also is a good way for me and others to learn more about the theory of photography)