Is there any real utility to ULF?

[bglick]

Regardless whether the OP is still around, this is an interesting thread, and will serve good purpose in the archives.

My take on ULF.

Like everything regarding photography, you must start with an end goal in mind, then work backwards from there.

As many have pointed out... if your interest is in the process of using ULF gear to capture images, well, it's a no brainer. A good analogy is people driving vintage 1900's vintage cars around on sunny day...hell, why not drive an ultra modern car, they are so much better in every way? It's the process or the experience of using this vintage tool that brings about the fun. As many have mentioned, their is some excitement in seeing that huge image on the gg and just witnessing this beast set up.


OTOH, if you the end goal is the final print, and you are not stuck on contact printing, or anti digital (scanning and printing) then, the ULF case is weakened tremendously, or almost dismissed. The reasons are more about physics than anything else.

Of course, if you desire a certain fuzzy look, you can shoot a small digital camera and manipulate in PS to almost match any desired look, but you need some digital skills for this. It seems your question revolved more around is ULF better, or is bigger better in general, or how much better, etc.

ULF was created out of necessity. Before film, the large camera produced the final print. So if you wanted a 24x24" print, you needed a 24x24" camera. In this regard, and considering how poor optics were back then, bigger was better. But after the advent of film, things slowly start changing, because film held more resolution than the papers. Then, enlargements became possible. However, it was not till the 60's (guessing here) that films resolution grew to the point where ULF did not make sense. Of course now, with todays film trumping 1960 film, ULF makes even less sense. (assuming a sharp print is the desired goal)


There is probably one exception to this, and that is an image that is captured on ULF which is shot at infinity, or the subject is near flat, allowing the user to not stop down to such ridiculously high f stops to achieve even shallow DOF. Outside of this one exception, its DOF and the require aperture diffraction that prevents bigger from always being better.


I will try not to turn this into a math seminar.... but here is the basis...


1) when you double the format size, you must double the lens fl for the same composure. When you double the lens fl, you must double the f stop for the same DOF (same Hyperfocal distance for example) With the same DOF on both prints, the larger format will have half the circle of confusion (cc), but since the smaller format needs to be enlarged 2x to match the larger format, it levels the playing field, BUT, it only levels it, no real advantage to the Larger format. (There actually is a light gain at the point of exact focus for the larger format, but its a small part of the total composure area)


2) As you leave the 4x5 and 8x10 format size (which starts the ULF) quite often, the lenses that cover the formats this large have much reduced aerial resolution than the more popular 45/810 lenses. This further reduces the cc on film, as aerial resolution is a major contributor to the 1/R formula which dictates recorded resolution. So when you throw this in the mix, the small gain ULF shared at the point of exact focus has been negated.....except maybe 11x14, as there is few sharp lenses in this format size.


3) Since the grain is so tight in todays film, we can enlarge without grain becoming visible, certainly to the extend of the differences of the formats we are talking here, i.e. an 8x10 film must be enlarged only 2x to match 16x20 film. This is also films of yesteryears could not match, which gave ULF a bit of an edge.


4) Using the best 4x5 or 8x10 lenses, and comparing them to the lenses that must be used for ULF, in the end, regardless of what size print you compare between the two, (as long as its the same print size for each) I would suggest the smaller format will produce a sharper final print, specially if the print was digital sharpened. Again, the only exception being if the subject was at infinity or a flat 2d object with little or no depth. But, this "smaller format" is not universal, as I am not referring to 35mm film which is also smaller.

IMO, it turns out, with todays films and lenses, 4x5 is the ultimate mix between diffraction effects and DOF.... for extreme DOF, 6x7 might be a more practical format, and for infinity focussed scenes
or flat 2d subjects, 8x10 would surely be the ultimate tool for the job.


I have seen 20x24 contact prints, and I am never that impressed. I am impressed what the person had to go through to capture the image and then print the image, but, that's because I understand everything that is involved. But from a side by side standpoint, clearly, the smaller format print wins hands down, specially in the hands of someone with good digital skills. The one exception to this might be an infinity shot, which I have never seen on 20x24 contact print. But my guess it, at best, it would be hard to tell the difference between it and an enlarged 8x10..... but it might appear sharper than an enlarged 4x5. So, there is some grey areas here, and its important not to generalize everything, as the DOF issue is huge!

My biggest problem with ULF is, to my knowledge, no color film is made today, IIRC, not even 11x14.


I see similar issues as this come up in wood working. Some people love to cut dovetail joint with hand tools. Whereas electric tools and mechanical jigs / fixtures allow such tremendous accuracy and time savings vs. hand cutting, there is a tremendous following of those who are proud to say they hand cut their dovetails. I think these two examples are closely related....

[Nick_3536]

If you plan your purchases out then the upgrade costs can be limited to the camera and holders.

I figure three of my 8x10 lenses will cover 11x14. My tripod will support a lighter 11x14 camera.

Okay I'll need a bigger darkcloth.

I seem to remember various special orders of colour ULF film. With the cost of ULF colour film it shouldn't take too many sheets to hit Kodaks 10K price -)

[sanking]

Regardless whether the OP is still around, this is an interesting thread, and will serve good purpose in the archives.

My take on ULF.

Like everything regarding photography, you must start with an end goal in mind, then work backwards from there.

One thing that needs to be added to your remarks is that because of inkjet printing today's preference is for very large photographs. Some photographers I know who has a good business in print sales in the 5X7" to 12X20" area tell me that sales have dried up for these sizes and almost everyone wants to buy very large prints.


I have an article in the current issue of View Camera on the Chinese photographer He Chongyue. He uses an 8X20 camera and prints up to 40"X100" in size. Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.

I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.

So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.

Sandy King

[bglick]

> Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.


Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)

As you double the format, you must double the f stop for equal DOF and same final print resolution (same size print of course).... Using some basic principles which are well documented..... at the point of exact focus, a lens can produce a "MAXIMUM" diffraction limited aerial resolution of 1500/f stop. The max. on film resolution that can be captured at this point of exact focus is R = 1/(1/r1 + 1/r2), where r1 = aerial resolution of the lens at a given f stop, and r2 is the MTF of the film at a given contrast ratio. Using a B&W film at 120 MTF, here is the max. recordable on-film resolutions at the point of exact focus, regardless of format...

f22 = 43 lp/mm (4x5)

f45 = 26 lp/mm (8x10)

f90 = 15 lp/mm (16x20 - used to simplify math)


If we enlarged all these formats to 32x40 print, the on-print resolution is reduced by the enlargement factor, so at the point of exact focus on these prints would be....

4x5 = 43/8 = 5.6 lp/mm

8x10 = 26/4 = 6.5 lp/mm

16x20 = 15/2 = 7.5 lp/mm.


As mentioned previously, these numbers represent the theoretical max. on-film resolution based on two factors, film MTF and the limited aerial resolution of the lens from apt. diffraction. But in reality, no lens that covers ULF can produce aerial resolutions that equal the max. theoretical apt. diffraction values. The reason is, there is simply too many other abberations which will degrade its optical performance. Just the simple fact, when you increase the image circle coverage area of a lens, its aerial resolution is reduced, as the resolution is spread-out over a larger format. This applies to every format, whereas 35mm lenses produce much higher aerial resolution vs. MF, MF produces higher aerial resolutions vs. LF, etc. The one sweet spot though, is in 4x5 lenses, whereas modern technology continued to chase the 4x5 market and we do have many 4x5 lenses that are very close to TRUE apt. diffraction limited lenses. If you factor this in the numbers above, it becomes obvious why ULF will not resolve more on the final print than smaller LF formats.


In addition to lens performance, you also have film flatness issues with ULF. The weight of the film itself creates a slight bulge vs. the smaller formats. You also have parallelism issues with ULF.... all these factors continue to slightly degrade recorded resolution.


The one exception to what I wrote above is where the image being captured requires virtually no DOF, such as an image shot at infinity. In this case, the image captured on 16x20 can have a theoretical 4x resolution advantage vs. 4x5 film (all else being equal) But all else is not equal, so this 4x can easily degrade to 2 - 3x, but I do agree, 2 or 3x advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

Of course, ULF is not the only way to capture this level of resolution, assuming this is the desired goal. If the subject is relatively still, you can stitch together some 4x5 shots, digital shots, etc., and achieve even better total resolution, as each shot is taken with a much lower f stop due to its shorter fl, (which also increases shutter speed) and there is no limit to how many images you can stitch.


Resolution is also a function of shutter speed. The longer the shutter stays open, the greater potential for movement of the subject and the camera itself. In the above example, the 16x20 will experience shutter speeds 8x longer than the 4x5 shot. For example, an EV9 scene at f16, ISO 100, requires a 1/2 second exposure, so with 16x20 ULF, f90 = 4 second exposure. These long exposures often degrade resolution potential.


Grain.... in the past, you could still make an argument for ULF due to visible grain on final prints due to over enlarging the film, but IMO, even darkroom printing of todays tight grained films, you would have to enlarge 12x+ for this to ever become an issue. With conversion to digital, this becomes even less significant. This means 8x10 film can easily produce a 100" - 120" print.


So to be clear, my position is, if sharpness in the final print is the goal, I see ULF having a small niche advantage whereas it can be classified as "the best tool"........ drum roll.... if the subject is static, of course ULF offers no real advantage, as you can stitch 4x5 or digital shots together....so the subject must have some movement, but not too much movement.... as even on a bright sunny day, EV14, the fastest you can shoot at f32, is 1/15th at ISO 100....... and too shoot at f32, you need a scene with virtually no DOF, which is either a flat subject or an infinity subject. As you can see, this is a VERY limited niche.


An example of such a scene might be an infinity shot at mid day of ocean waves crashing on rocks. A shot like this, would exploit all the weakness of the other options, and exploit all the niche benefits of ULF. But these few niche opportunities are rare....so IMO, it's hard to justify the size, weight, expense, difficulty in getting film, processing film, etc. of ULF. But if you shoot subjects with slight movement in very bright light, at infinity or are flat subjects, then ULF might really produce a noticeable better final print. (regardless whether its contact printed or enlarged)


Again, this position is only based on the premise of the end goal being max. resolution on the final print. I too drool when looking at a 8x20" ground glass....but not enough to make me jump into ULF... but I can understand the allure.

Another good analogy is 35mm rangefinder cameras. In this modern digital era, one would think these cameras would be obsolete, and yet, they are not. Voightlander still produces amazing 35mm film rangefinder cameras that sell for hefty prices. I too enjoy the feel of an all mechanical camera....and have not given them up 100%.... yet....


> I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.


I fully agree Sandy, hence why I always assume the same in all my examples.....


> So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.


I agree that digital printing has really opened up the publics eye to how breathtaking a huge print is. I have sold many prints 20ft long. I too am a big print fan...most prints in my house are a min. 60" long, some as long as 12ft. However, other than the small image capture niche I mentioned above, I don't see any practical reasons for ULF today. IMO, I think some people shoot ULF for the love of the process, the fun of the gear, the huge gg, etc. This alone will keep ULF alive and healthy. I only responded to this post, for those who desire ULF cause they think there is no end to the "bigger is better" mindset..... but unfortunately, that is not the case in todays modern photographic world. (but it certainly was 100 years ago)

[Marko]

The OP was actually looking for valid reasons to justify getting into ULF as a hobby. As another hobbyist, I can confidently state that market preferences and other commercial considerations don't concern me at all. I'm "into photography" simply because I like it and enjoy all the activity associated with it, be it technical, procedural or esthetic.

When people ask me how I justify spending so much money on a hobby, I tell them I find it more fulfilling than collecting stamps. That's all the justification I need, really, as long as I'm doing it on my own time and dime.

[bglick]

> The OP was actually looking for valid reasons to justify getting into ULF as a hobby. As another hobbyist, I can confidently state that market preferences and other commercial considerations don't concern me at all


Marko, I fully agree.... but I was only responding to the subject of the original post,

> Is there any real utility to ULF?


Then, I furthered responded to Sandy's position on the utility of shooting ULF to sell the markets demands today for very large prints in todays market.

To reiterate, I have nothing against ULF, vintage rangefinder film cameras, making darkroom prints, driving vintage Model T cars on our modern highways, etc. I realize this is a touchy subject and just want my position to be ultra clear, as I certainly had no hidden agenda of offending those who does ULF. (not suggesting I offended you in anyway).

[Doug Dolde]

Here's a good article about how Dick Arentz is using a Leica M8 digital instead of 12x20.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Jan08/86.pdf

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

> Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.


Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)

As you double the format, you must double the f stop for equal DOF and same final print resolution (same size print of course).... Using some basic principles which are well documented..... at the point of exact focus, a lens can produce a "MAXIMUM" diffraction limited aerial resolution of 1500/f stop. The max. on film resolution that can be captured at this point of exact focus is R = 1/(1/r1 + 1/r2), where r1 = aerial resolution of the lens at a given f stop, and r2 is the MTF of the film at a given contrast ratio. Using a B&W film at 120 MTF, here is the max. recordable on-film resolutions at the point of exact focus, regardless of format...

f22 = 43 lp/mm (4x5)

f45 = 26 lp/mm (8x10)

f90 = 15 lp/mm (16x20 - used to simplify math)


If we enlarged all these formats to 32x40 print, the on-print resolution is reduced by the enlargement factor, so at the point of exact focus on these prints would be....

4x5 = 43/8 = 5.6 lp/mm

8x10 = 26/4 = 6.5 lp/mm

16x20 = 15/2 = 7.5 lp/mm.


As mentioned previously, these numbers represent the theoretical max. on-film resolution based on two factors, film MTF and the limited aerial resolution of the lens from apt. diffraction. But in reality, no lens that covers ULF can produce aerial resolutions that equal the max. theoretical apt. diffraction values. The reason is, there is simply too many other abberations which will degrade its optical performance. Just the simple fact, when you increase the image circle coverage area of a lens, its aerial resolution is reduced, as the resolution is spread-out over a larger format. This applies to every format, whereas 35mm lenses produce much higher aerial resolution vs. MF, MF produces higher aerial resolutions vs. LF, etc. The one sweet spot though, is in 4x5 lenses, whereas modern technology continued to chase the 4x5 market and we do have many 4x5 lenses that are very close to TRUE apt. diffraction limited lenses. If you factor this in the numbers above, it becomes obvious why ULF will not resolve more on the final print than smaller LF formats.


In addition to lens performance, you also have film flatness issues with ULF. The weight of the film itself creates a slight bulge vs. the smaller formats. You also have parallelism issues with ULF.... all these factors continue to slightly degrade recorded resolution.


The one exception to what I wrote above is where the image being captured requires virtually no DOF, such as an image shot at infinity. In this case, the image captured on 16x20 can have a theoretical 4x resolution advantage vs. 4x5 film (all else being equal) But all else is not equal, so this 4x can easily degrade to 2 - 3x, but I do agree, 2 or 3x advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

Of course, ULF is not the only way to capture this level of resolution, assuming this is the desired goal. If the subject is relatively still, you can stitch together some 4x5 shots, digital shots, etc., and achieve even better total resolution, as each shot is taken with a much lower f stop due to its shorter fl, (which also increases shutter speed) and there is no limit to how many images you can stitch.


Resolution is also a function of shutter speed. The longer the shutter stays open, the greater potential for movement of the subject and the camera itself. In the above example, the 16x20 will experience shutter speeds 8x longer than the 4x5 shot. For example, an EV9 scene at f16, ISO 100, requires a 1/2 second exposure, so with 16x20 ULF, f90 = 4 second exposure. These long exposures often degrade resolution potential.


Grain.... in the past, you could still make an argument for ULF due to visible grain on final prints due to over enlarging the film, but IMO, even darkroom printing of todays tight grained films, you would have to enlarge 12x+ for this to ever become an issue. With conversion to digital, this becomes even less significant. This means 8x10 film can easily produce a 100" - 120" print.


So to be clear, my position is, if sharpness in the final print is the goal, I see ULF having a small niche advantage whereas it can be classified as "the best tool"........ drum roll.... if the subject is static, of course ULF offers no real advantage, as you can stitch 4x5 or digital shots together....so the subject must have some movement, but not too much movement.... as even on a bright sunny day, EV14, the fastest you can shoot at f32, is 1/15th at ISO 100....... and too shoot at f32, you need a scene with virtually no DOF, which is either a flat subject or an infinity subject. As you can see, this is a VERY limited niche.


An example of such a scene might be an infinity shot at mid day of ocean waves crashing on rocks. A shot like this, would exploit all the weakness of the other options, and exploit all the niche benefits of ULF. But these few niche opportunities are rare....so IMO, it's hard to justify the size, weight, expense, difficulty in getting film, processing film, etc. of ULF. But if you shoot subjects with slight movement in very bright light, at infinity or are flat subjects, then ULF might really produce a noticeable better final print. (regardless whether its contact printed or enlarged)


Again, this position is only based on the premise of the end goal being max. resolution on the final print. I too drool when looking at a 8x20" ground glass....but not enough to make me jump into ULF... but I can understand the allure.

Another good analogy is 35mm rangefinder cameras. In this modern digital era, one would think these cameras would be obsolete, and yet, they are not. Voightlander still produces amazing 35mm film rangefinder cameras that sell for hefty prices. I too enjoy the feel of an all mechanical camera....and have not given them up 100%.... yet....


> I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.


I fully agree Sandy, hence why I always assume the same in all my examples.....


> So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.


I agree that digital printing has really opened up the publics eye to how breathtaking a huge print is. I have sold many prints 20ft long. I too am a big print fan...most prints in my house are a min. 60" long, some as long as 12ft. However, other than the small image capture niche I mentioned above, I don't see any practical reasons for ULF today. IMO, I think some people shoot ULF for the love of the process, the fun of the gear, the huge gg, etc. This alone will keep ULF alive and healthy. I only responded to this post, for those who desire ULF cause they think there is no end to the "bigger is better" mindset..... but unfortunately, that is not the case in todays modern photographic world. (but it certainly was 100 years ago)

Lot of rationalization....good enough reasons for you. In any case, get back to me when you use an ULF camera and make a contact print form the neg....

[sanking]

>
Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)

Much of He Chongyue’s work consists of images on a fairly flat plane. This allows the use of apertures where diffraction is not such a bit issue as it typically is in large format work. A 355 G-Claron, used at f/22, should be capable of resolving up to 60-70 lppm on film. Given the fact that a 32” X 80” from an 8X20 negatives is only a 2X enlargement one can still get upwards of 15 lppm of real resolution in the print, assuming the output device is capable of such resolution.

Stitching may be an alternative to ULF for some static subjects, but to get the equivalent of 15 lppm of real resolution by stitching together 4X5 or digital files would be a considerable undertaking. Doable, perhaps, but not my idea of fun.

Let me remark that I use a vareity of formats, from medium format to 20X24, and I even have a very nice 12.1 mp digital camera. No question but that small portable cameras offer opportunities that you can not get with LF and ULF cameras. However, when used in such a way that the format is optimized, an image from a ULF camera can be quite unique.


Sandy King

[chris_4622]

Why do exposure times increase with the format? I thought a 360mm lens focused at infinity would be the same on 4x5 as on 11x14. What am I missing?