Is there any real utility to ULF?

[Gary Tarbert]

Slow, heavy, expensive.....not for me. I can set up and be tripping the shutter in two minutes (1:58 to be exact) with a 4x5 from the time I slam the brakes on and still I find myself missing that fleeting light sometimes.

Couldn't agree more Kirk in my previous post i was refering to 8x10 as my maximum size i would use ,i am doing two trips next year taking only 5x4 which is still my preffered format.cheers Gary

[Dave Wooten]

My only experience viewing ULF contact prints was at Clyde Butcher's Big Cypress Gallery in Florida on a loney February day where mine was the only car in the lot. The gallery person was very kind in letting me spend 2 hours there examining every single print even though I told her I was just looking for my own photographic interests.

One of my overall impressions was that many of the prints lacked edge sharpness. Highly detailed, but not super sharp. And some near the edges were even soft, as though pushing the edge of the lens' useable image circle.

Clyde's prints are enlargements (often extreme enlargements) of negs.... 6 x 10, 8 x 10, and I believe 12 x 20.

[Jay W]

I guess I've always thought of cameras as toys since I don't make money with them. Yeah, I've shot weddings and tried to sell prints, but I'd rather shoot what I like, enlarge when I please, and blow off the whole "pro" aspect of photography.

So if you look at the gear as toys, then the "usefulness" of a camera takes on a whole new meaning.

Jay

[MIke Sherck]

Although 8x10 is currently my largest format (and most used, since I got it,) I'd go bigger if I could afford to. The reason is simple: I look at my enlargements (from 4x5) and my contact prints (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) and I much prefer the contact prints. If I had more money, I'd go larger.

Mike

[Ole Tjugen]

I did go larger, and still have a 30x40cm (12x16") camera hidden away in a corner. 24x30cm (9 1/2 x 12") is the largest size I find usable. It's also the size of 90% of my enlargements...

[jetcode]

For me the ultimate rig is 4x10 for panoramic and 5x7 for portrait. The availablity of film, the ease in processing film, the portability and flexibility, and cost are driving factors. I get great results with this set of formats. I have my last LF rig. I will not need another ever.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

As a recent ULF photographer ( October 12, 2007 finished building my first camera an 8x20) I think it is a matter of how you see. I love my 4x5,5x7,and 8x10. I have some very good enlargements but when I look at the six negatives I've done with "My" camera there is something that is hard to describe about it. When you look at the ground glass you can't see the whole image without moving your head side to side. You laugh out loud when you see your composition on the ground glass. You laugh again when you develop and print the neg. I spent about 1 1/2 years and $2,000.00 on my 8x20 and I love it. I'm currently building an 11x14. You can do it on the cheap and get great results. It is all about your artistic vision and not what anyone else thinks or says. Once you go ULF you will love it.

Jim

[Marco Annaratone]

As for my decision to have a 14x17 built for me by Lotus I explained the rationale here. I did not go ULF because "bigger is better" or for some voodoo superior quality of the output, but for down-to-earth esthetic reasons. And then again, one's mileage may indeed differ ... and by a lot!

Cheers!

[wfwhitaker]

I still enjoy very much using medium format. But one thing I miss when I return to the smaller negative is that everything is in focus. Well, not everything. But a lot. A 100mm lens on 6x7 is going to look different than a 355mm lens on 8x10, even though they're "equivalent". And 8x10's not even quite ULF. Depending on the subject relatively shallow depth of field contributes significantly to the look of a ULF image. And everything being equal, a negative enlarged from medium format or even 4x5 is going to show more in focus than a ULF negative. Although lack of depth of field is often referred to as a liability in LF and ULF, to me it's just another tool in the toolbox. If I want everything sharp, I can always use a smaller negative. Sounds counter intuitive, but it isn't really - at least, not for me.

[Scott Squires]

I shot 4x5 for 10 years and it was my favorite for many years. About three years ago I found my vision was not what it used to be and it was harder to see the 4x5 GG for me. I was in Yosemite two years ago and had my 4x5 setup and a guy had an 8x10 setup on the same scene next to me. I asked if I could take a look at his ground glass and it was like an awakening for me! I could see the Image on the GG perfectly and that was it, an 8x10 was next. I have always shot with a panorama camera, Fuji 617 and Canham 4x10 so of course an ULF pano camera was next. 8x20 or 7x17? I finally decided on 7x17 and it is a great format for my old eyes. Of course I now have to carry more weight but it is worth every pound for me!

Scott