> This thread is about the relevance of using ULF cameras. Someone responded that there is not and proceded to cite all kinds of resolution arguments, MTF tables, that enlarging is better and should be considered and of course the ever present digital.
I am sorry Jorge, I did not read a post where someone mentioned "ULF - there is no relevance in its use". Can you please reference that post? I keep seeing mentioning of, ULF still has a niche, even today....but not what you are suggesting? Maybe its in a different thread?
> Then, I cut up the 12x20 negative and the second shot is the section I cut to put on my scanner. This scan was made at 100 dpi resolution. I then scanned the same cut at 2400 dpi and cut off a part that looked the same as my negative under a 10x loupe. And this is the third picture.
Can you please explain what these scans demonstrate as it relates to your position?
> 1.Because you have to use small apertures you loose resolution and the resolution of the lenses used is not adequate for these formats.
Again, I am not finding such a reference in a previous post. Can you cut n paste it for us?
> 2. Difficulty to mantain squareness of the camera, film flatness and parallel standards. These are reasons borne out of inexperience and ignorance in the format.
I re-read some of the previous posts, and the only reference mentioned is...... ULF can be more difficult to maintain parallelism, such as 20x24 cameras vs. 4x5 camera. A relative issue, not an absolute issue. Can you show where these posts are you refer to? We should find this ignorant individual and educate him.