Is there any real utility to ULF?

[Hyok Kim]

It's real easy fellas, "Real photographs are born wet"

Mr. Sherman, I love that phot of bridge with the city at the background. Did you use flash for that scene?

Also, At what size do you see the difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10? Do you think using wet printing accentuates the difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10?

[Kirk Gittings]

Mr. Sherman made that post in 2004, 8 years ago. It is not likely that he is still following this thread. You might want to PM him with your questions.

[evan clarke]

It's real easy fellas, "Real photographs are born wet"

Well said.. You can use a little digital, a little more digital, a lot more digital, you could draw, you could do video, you could forget it. I use my 11x14 when I want the most options for prints with a really nice subject..I carry it all the time and use it at least once a week..

[Drew Bedo]

Hello Tom,


In all kindness I say:

"If you have to ask this question, I don't think it can be explained to your satisfaction".

The above remark is well-ment. Perhaps you should shoot in 8x10 format for a while and see if you still have an interest in Ultra-Large Formats.

I myself have an interest in something larger than my Kodak 2-D, but haven't persued it for several reasons. The expense of anything larger than 8x10 is exponentially higher from film holders to film and the developing kit. Everything is larger and even more cumbersome than 8x10 . . .and I'm not getting any younger. I do not drive and transportation is always an issue. For these and other reasons I shoot my 4x5 more and more while the 8x10 comes out of the closet less and less.

I admire and envy those whop can and do practice ULF photography.

Regards,

[carterwj]

Hello, I read this thread thoroughly. Excellent input. I have a XXL 1100mm. I hope to get the 550mm one also, but it is not currently available.

[Tin Can]

Yes

No enlarging

[Axelwik]

This is a really old thread. But I'd be curious to see how format size correlates to the quality of the photograph, and I'm not talking about technical quality, I'm talking about making memorable photographs that sell in high end galleries.

I'm sure there are some ULF photographers who produce excellent work, but I suspect that most who delve into it are more into the tinkering aspect, or more into the "bigger is better" mentality similar to "my truck is bigger than yours" mindset.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

These images have sold well for me. They are both 8x20 carbon transfer contact prints.

[cgratham]

Those are beautiful Jim - even on my computer monitor. I can only imaging how stunning the prints look like in real life!
Chris

These images have sold well for me. They are both 8x20 carbon transfer contact prints.

[Michael Wellman]

I know quite a few ULF photographers none are "tinkering". All of them are excellent photographers that make superb prints. In fact, given the cost of ULF photography, anyone venturing into this world is a serious and quality photographer. This isn't a 4x5 where you trying something out.

But more to the point of why ULF photography today. For me, I have been in photography for over 50 years and I went down the digital road and just didn't like it. I wasn't having fun. I came back to analog 3 years ago and I'm having fun again. There are several reasons I prefer ULF photography: first, it puts limits on what I can and can not do. It requires patience and forces me to slow down, read a scene and enjoy it. Instead of taking several hundred images of a scene I will take one or two. I like the fact that the image on my GG will be the final image size. No cropping or enlarging (except at on the GG). A contact print is a thing of beauty no matter what the medium and it is the reason I love ULF photography. Yes, there are down sides like the weight, size and cost but the benefits outweigh them.

The beauty of the time we are living is that we have many different ways to photograh. You need to find the style that fits your life. For me it is ULF