11x14 pro an cons?

[michael Allen]

Hi all, I'm considering moving up to ULF 11x14 and was hoping for a some insight from members that are familiar with ULF. What are the pro's and con's? I have never made a contact print or processed anything over 4x5, although I have veiwed a few contact prints and was very impressed. I chose 11x14 do to the fact that this is what I find myself enlarging my 4x5 negs to. I'm aware through some research in this forum, the AZO forum and others of the obvious weight and size constraints of this format,(I'm young no biggy there) the higher priced film and holders, the processing and printing logistics, subject matter limitations............is the contact print worth the extra effort?

[Deniz]

There is not a single reason why you shouldn't move upto 11x14. As long as you can afford it financialy, the rewards of the huge negative will be endless.

I am stuck at 8x10 till i can convince myself that i can afford the move. new trays, equipment, and chiroproctor appointments.. so for now, its 8x10 for me.. hopefully to move up to 12x20.

[Christian Olivet]

I agree with deniz. If you can afford it, make it happen. When I moved from 4x5 to 8x10 I realized that it was much easier to see on the bigger ground glass. It is really a joy, you'll see.

[Jan Van Hove]

I'll go with the others:

Contact printing offers endless creative and experimentation opportunities, and is worth every pain and ache brought by the weight of the stuff...
As far as subject matter limitation is concerned, I don't see any situation where a 11x14 camera can't shoot the same subject matter than 4x5, except if you use your 4x5 handheld with a rangefinder... 11x14 was the format of choice for portrait photographers not too long ago, just have a lot of light or tell your subjects to stay still for a second or two...

If you can afford the move, by all means do it, and welcome to the world of ULF !

PJ VH
http://ulf.janvanhove.com (http://ulf.janvanhove.com)

[wfwhitaker]

If you've never made a contact print consider trying an 8x10 first. When you move into ULF everything is disproportionately more expensive. If you've priced 11x14 film holders yet, you've probably discovered that. You can get six 8x10 holders for the price of one good 11x14 holder. Everything associated with 8x10 is more readily available. And 8x10 is big enough to let you know if using a big negative is what you really want to get into.

Consider your initial cash outlay. You'll spend a lot less time and money picking up a decent used 8x10 camera (such as an Agfa, Calumet or the like) than you will trying to locate an 11x14 camera.

Pick one lens and use it to make photographs with the 8x10. Learn to contact print. If you choose a lens with a focal length in the range of 14" to 19", you'll have a lens which will work well not only on 8x10, but on 11x14 as well. A 14" lens on 8x10 is a good portrait length. On 11x14 it's the long side of the format and is a nice moderate wide angle, much like a 35mm lens on 35mm. If you do decide to make the jump to 11x14, your lens and tripod will go with you. You should be able to easily sell the 8x10 and holders if you want. It's likely that you'll get most if not all of your money back out of both and that can offset the cost of upgrading.

Similarly, if you decided big negatives are not for you, you'll be able to recover your cost and go back to a format which works for you.

[Jan Van Hove]

William here speaks with the voice of reason, which is something that my own entusiasm for ULF doesn't always allow... His suggestion of going first with 8x10 to test the contact printing waters and then move up is I think the best thing you can do... 8x10 allows for more choice of film also, which is something to consider (velvia in 8x10 is breathtaking...) and allows for some creative possibilities like using 8x10 polaroid and doing image transfers, that are not aviailable at larger sizes...

That being said, you could even start by contact printing your 4x5 negs, which would help you familiarize yourself with the process and allow for some lower cost experimentation before you start shooting larger sheets of film. As William said, everything costs more when you move up, even printing. You can contact print several sheets (at least 6...) of 4x5 film with the same amount of paper (and sensitizing solution, if you're working with an alternative process...) that you use for printing a single sheet of 11x14...

One way or the other, always stay centered on the most important thing : your images, and keep burning film, it's the only way to learn !

Cheers,

PJ

[Louie Powell]

I saw a show of portraints that Timothy Greenfield-Sanders had done in 11x14 at a gallery in NYC on Saturday. Many were contact prints, but some were enormous enlargements. Wow!

But the economics and physical requirements are daunting.

[Brian Ellis]

I've made a lot of 8x10 contact prints and a lot of 8x10 enlargements from 4x5 negatives. I don't find the same consistent "knock your socks off" difference between them that some people claim. A good contact print is often easier to make than a good enlargement because the ability to manipulate (dodge, burn, flash, etc.) a contact print is limited (at least it was for me). I also think the special attributes of a contact print are best displayed with a scene that has a lot of subtle tonal differences and a lot of detail. And you need a well exposed and processed negative to bring out those attributes.

The thing I liked about 8x10 wasn't so much the contact prints as it was viewing and composing with the larger ground glass. That would be an even greater pleasure with 11x14 I'd think. You seem to be well aware of the disadvantages already. The only one I can think of that you didn't mention is the reduced depth of field you'll get with the longer lenses you'll use if you get 11x14 lenses with an angle of view equivalent to what you're used to with 4x5 (recognizing that the aspect ratios of the two formats are different).

If you're inclined to move to 11x14 as you seem to be I wouldn't creep up on it in increments (i.e. by trying 8x10 first). In my experience that just means you spend a lot of time, money, and effort assembling the smaller system, then more time, money, and effort selling it and getting what you really wanted in the first place. Serious amateur photography isn't a rational endeavor anyhow so go for 11x14 now. It's not like you'll die if it doesn't work out, the worst thing that will happen is you'll have to sell the stuff.

[David A. Goldfarb]

I thought 8x10" was a good place for me to start in LF, because I found it more intuitive to work with the big ground glass than with 4x5", and it let me build a lens kit that could easily let me try out other formats without having to start from nothing (some lenses were compact enough for 4x5" or 5x7" and others had coverage for 11x14"). So I think if you wanted to start experimenting with 8x10" it wouldn't be a waste of time on the road to 11x14".

The jump to 11x14" adds an order of magnitude of difficulty. You need more darkroom space, a bigger light table to examine negs, film is harder to find, more equipment (cases, etc.) is going to have to be adapted or custom made, color is less of an option, Polaroid is not an option, small test prints are out, and even your wastebasket for the rejects will seem too small.

That said, there's nothing like a big contact print, so if your motivation is strong--go for it, but if you don't plan to get an 8x10" camera, you might want to get a camera that has the option of an 8x10" back, because it's just a more versatile format.

[Joe Smigiel]

I always found myself making enlargements to 11x14 as well. I really don't care for the 4x5/8x10 aspect ratio so I've settled on 2 1/4 square, 5x7, and 11x14 camera formats. (I also have an 8x20 that needs a bellows to become usable.)

I've only used the 11x14 a couple times but the results are marvelous. I'm very much into contact printing and alternative processes so the 5x7 and 11x14 really fit that niche. With 4x5 you are still stuck into the enlargement frame of mind while larger formats give you a different orientation to the entire process of making prints.

There are two things besides the physical dimensions and weight that I struggle with in the 11x14 format. The first is the limited depth of field that others have mentioned. The second is the fact that the ground glass screen can be difficult to view, especially with shorter lenses. You really need to back up quite a bit under a huge darkcloth to get it all in one view and moving around to see the corners with a wider lens is also a pain. But, the view is worth it.

Ooops, there's a third thing. You need a lot of space to load the holders in the darkroom and loading the holder into the camera, especially with verticals, can be a challenge.

But, in spite of these minor negative aspects the move to larger formats is well worth the extra trouble.

I also just picked up an 8x10 reducing/revolving back for my 11x14 yesterday so I have the option of doing the other formats as well with the big camera. I'm not sure I'll use it for personal work, but that option is available.

[John Kasaian]

michael,

I think 11x14 is a beautifully proportioned negative and well worth exploring. Be aware that the cost of film holders is outrageously expensive, but if you happen on to a kit with a few holders that go with it, then it shouldn't take the fun out of shooting. At around $200+ each, three holders will set you back the same amount as a good lens! An excellent alternative already mentioned is the 8x10, but if you really like the proportions of 11x14 you might try a 5x7 first just to see if you've got the temperment for LF. With a larger lensboard and longer bellows than the 4x5, you can mount a 14" lens with the view of moving up to 11x14 later on. You can also get a heavy tripod which you'll also need if you move up to 11x14 later on. The advantages are that you'll be able to learn the potential of LF cameras as well as to use sheet film using less expensive materials( and more economical amounts of chemistry) and you'll already have a good portion of your "kit" if and when you decide to move up. You'll also have a 5x7 camera to trade in, and if you decide LF isn't for you you won't have spent an obscene amount of money in the process. OTOH, if you luck out on finding a good affordable 11x14 kits grab the ball and run with it!

[wfwhitaker]

Serious amateur photography isn't a rational endeavor anyhow....

I'm out of here.

[CXC]

I think 11x14 is a great way to go. Stepping up from 8x10, I bought a 12x20, but that thing is so cumbersome that it is a major production to use it at all, and forget trying to get any substantial distance away from the car. IMHO 11x14 is the largest non-panoramic camera that it is possible to carry in a backpack, as well as being an optimum viewing size.

One down side is that they are really hard to find used.

And the cost can add up in a hurry. It would be a useful exercise to add up the full cost of tooling up, and estimate the cost of each print.

[MIke Sherck]

I don't use 11x14 myself due to the cost but another photographer I've photographed with got one about a year ago (I believe it's a Wisner,) and I've been photographing with him a couple of times since, so I have a few observations which may be helpful.

1. You won't carry an 11x14 outfit very far: it's heavy and bulky. You'll want a cart to haul it on if you go any distance from transportation. Luggage carts are not the answer: the wheels are too small and too close together. You can make it work but it's remarkably inconvenient. On the other hand, with some form of transport like that you can go just about anywhere and tote the thing through woods and over trails for hours.

2. an 11x14 contact print is something to behold. Heck, just the negative is darned impressive!

3. You need some serious stand-off distance to see the entirety of that big, gorgeous ground glass. It's like having spent your life looking at the world through a toilet-paper tube and all of a sudden someone introduces you to a window. My focusing cloth is 4' x 5' and for my friend's 11x14 camera, a bit bigger would have been useful. The first time I looked at an 11x14 ground glass, I have to confess that I forgot to breathe for a while...

4. EVERYTHING is more expensive. You don't want to think about what 11x14 color or transparency film goes for. Also, since everything costs more, you'll have less of it. On the other hand, only having two film holders (loaded with expensive film) will teach you to fold the camera and move on if you have doubts about the picture. Good discipline!

If I could at all afford it I'd do it in a heartbeat, but that's just my opinion. Considering the cost and difficulty of using one of these beasts, you really need to think it through before you make the investment. I hope that you do, though. In my opinion, far too many of us LF types opt for the convenience of 4x5 and never get around to exploring the world through a bigger glass.

Mike

[Jim Galli]

The jump between 8X10 and 11X14 is not what you would think. You've doubled the inches square fair enough but I can tell you from experience don't think for a minute it's 2X as much work. It is more like 10X. I have both. The 810 can go out with me almost weekly. It pleasures me. The 11X14 rarely goes anywhere. 1 to 2 times a year. And that's on a trip where I know the photos will be close to the pickup. The best thing the 11X14 does is make the 8X10 seem small. Even the 7X17 seems dainty next to the 11X14. 11X14 and 8X20 are somewhat equivalent in weight and execution. For me I guess the 820 pays the bigger dividend. It gets out several times a season.

[michael Allen]

Guys,
I appreciate all the input especially from some of the more advanced members I recognized. I spoke with Ron Phillips about a camera and has one left in 11x14 that a customer has not decided on. Through some of my research, I'm finding Wisner P series fits my crtiteria and budget but I've read some horror stories about quality and delivery issues. I'm using an Ebony right now and would like to try and have some of the same qualities in mjy prospective 11x14 system, but there price is clearly out of range, any suggestions would be helpfull.

[e]

11x14 will knock your socks off! Period! Phillips is short on bellows draw but very tight, Canham is light but expensive and some complain of the wiggle in the back section and the lighter metal used. Good woodworking though.Wisner is pretty light (P model) but has great bellows draw and is not a lot of bucks....at least in comparason to Ebony and Canham and nice metal and now a better made bellows of sheepskin on all their ULF cameras....but challenged in other ways as you are aware. Pick your poison man! My take is to use a Wisner geared 7x17 at 10 lbs most of the time as it is frugal on film at $2.50 a sheet from Photowarehouse in CA. When I want to bring the 12x20 out for a stroll...I need to be in the mood. I might in the future use a 16x20 or an 18x22 with the 7x17 instead of the 12x20 but this is just a thought. Some of the best contact prints I've seen recently were Michael and Paula's in 4x5 to 18x22. The 18x22's were breathtaking! The size of the camera is part of the journey. You may go big then smaller then back again...who knows...but you will certainly have a gas along the way no matter which camera you choose. Emile. www.deleon-ulf.com

[John D Gerndt]

There are cameras out there that can be converted from 8x10 to 11x14. If you are buying new you could go this route with safety. If you are very handy with tools you could do it yourself. It is an option not previously mentioned.

One other thing not previously mentioned is that it is quite possible to enlarge 8x10 negatives and less so with 11x14. 8x10 also affords more choices of film. It will be easier to unload a 8x10 too if you must move up. Contact printers are cheaper and easier to find, paper is cheap by comparison while you learn how to best make contact prints (it is not like enlarging).

You can see my lean in this matter. I jumped right from 8x10 to 12x20 and found it more than I wanted to chew. It requires a LOT more space and materials, more than I realized even with all the research and thinking I could muster. You just got to do it to believe it I guess.

I say try an 8x10 first and see what you think. You could spend a year with a used one and re-sell it at only a hundred dollars loss I'd bet. Buy you lens well so that it will cover 11x14 just in case you need to move up. A 12 inch Dagor is a good bet.

IMHO...

[Robert Skeoch]

I have an 8x10 and have considered moving up. I don't think I'ld go 11x14 though. It seems you only take out the ULF when you "know" there's a picture there. No hiking and looking around. For all the extra work, effort and costs I'm thinking 16x20 would be more worth the effort. Just an idea.
-Rob

[jerry brodkey]

Two comments:

For me the main reason to do 11X14 was that I wanted to do large Platinum prints which require contact printing. While
some people are making large negatives from smaller ones using a scanner and a computer or enlarging onto negative material, it may be that something is lost in these processes. It is arguable, but I would sooner be out shooting than working in those other ways. Michael A. Smith seems to have someone who can build a UV head for an enlarger but I don't know if there is one yet available or how much it might be or how easy it will be to obtain....Any of the alternative processes will probably require
a contact print at least in the near future.

The Phillips is a great camera. I have an 8X10 and had an 11X14 but sold it. It is light and stable which are hard to find together
in any other camera of that size. The problem for me was that the back doesn't rotate and I shoot more than 50% verticals which made it a real pain to use. I also tried the Canham but have settled on a Roseman because for me stability is more important
than lightness.

Just my 2 cents....

Jerry

[John Caruso]

I'm a newbe here but maybe I can help since I just went through the same decision process.

I needed to move up from 4x5 to 8x10 for fine art reproduction photography. The lure of the detail from an 11x14 neg. size, the large print sizes I can reach with clean drum scans, and the possibility of archival work for museums pulled me in! After lots of internal debate and several helpful talks with Ron Wisner, I ordered a Wisner 11x14 Technical Field. For now, I’m just buying 4x5 and 8x10 backs. I’ll get the 11x14 back and holders ($$ ouch) when I’m ready for the next step, next spring or summer. I’ll admit some bias here since I fell in love with a Wisner camera the first time I saw one!

The size and weight are somewhat intimidating for me. Most of my work is in a studio, with the possibility of some on-site. However, I wanted a field camera for personal interest photography and can only afford one! I’m a small guy (120 lbs), healthy and strong, but the combined weight of all the gear will be too much for me to carry. After some research, I’m designing a cart based on a double wide jogging stroller. The cart will hold a custom sized compartmented trunk for the camera and gear. I'm not sure yet, but this looks like the solution for me.

Not much concern here on previous delivery problems. Most complaints seem from years past. Many seem to be due to lack of communication. I believe building a rapport and regular communication is important whenever ordering a custom product. (I hold regular update meetings with all of my custom display customers) Hopefully I’m not bugging Ron too much, but I’m learning a lot about lenses and making a friend along the way! Also, if problems arise, I’m willing to wait (within reason) for quality. My camaera is due to be shipped soon, I have all the confidence in the world in the Wisner Co. for a timely delivery of a beautiful camera! Of course all of this is just my humble opinion…

I’m looking forward to a new world of possibilities with lots of fun and photos! Go for it, I wish you all the best!!!

[David Flockhart]

I'm an addicted ULF'er. I shoot 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and 8x20 and only contact print. The two larger sizes almost always get used and the smaller ones much less so. Why - because in the subjective world of this stuff I like them better. The 5x7 does great when the subject matter can be small and the 8x10 seems more or less boring (a big square). As far as moving the cameras around I do use a cart (or a canoe - I just took a month long photographic trip with all of the above cameras, gear and camping stuff) and it is a commitment to some work. Of course, the work is prelude to reward swith big negs and contact prints. Horses for courses, if you don't mind the inconvenience the benefit of the big cameras is reward enough, and, in fact, I enjoy the process. The camera is just a tool, it all depends on what you want to make and then choose your tool. Good luck.

[neil poulsen]

I thought about 11x14 or 14x17. Instead, I got a light weight 8x10 and an 8x10 enlarger. One has the additional flexibility of enlargements, and from 8x10 to 11x14, I doubt there's that much difference between the two. How do others feel about this?

[Jan Van Hove]

So many great answers !

This discussion is amazing... Do any of you mind if I "mine" through it and use a few of those quotes on the ULF website ? It's getting a major update as we speak by the way, and the new version should be announced here in the next few weeks, with a few surprises... (ok, ok, I'm trying to sep up a LF and ULF-related store directly on the webpage....)

For those who don't know the ULF webpage here's the URL :


http://ulf.janvanhove.com (http://ulf.janvanhove.com)

And on the "Tools of the trade" page, you can see David Flockart's 12x20 setup, as well as the plans to John Gerndt's camera, as well as a round up of current camera manufacturers who offer ULF options...

And now, back to the discussion at hand :

I think that one of the advantages of the Phillips 11x14 camera is the fact that it doesn't have a rotating back, making it almost (almost, I say...) as compact as an "average" 8x10 outfit... the cost of film and holders is something that cannot be avoided, unfortunately, unless you make your own holders... Many have tried and succeeded, but it's a lot of work...

cheers,

PJ VH

[MIke Sherck]

Nice website, Jan. For what it's worth, feel free to use my comments, should you wish to.

Mike

[John Z.]

I moved up from 8X10 to 11X 14 this year and love it. One excellent suggestion made above is to try contact printing with an 8X10 first, since it is so much easier. This is a very important point--the larger format of 11X14 is more work and more expense for sure. On the other hand, the prints of a larger negative are awesome. One other possibilty is to have an 11X14 with an 8X10 reducing back, then you have both formats.

[John Z.]

P.S. I have the Wisner P 11X14, and it is much lighter than the previous Wisner cameras, and is portable in the field. The weight and size are not dramatically bigger than my previous 8X10 Canham. The key is to use lighter weight lenses, like the Fuji 450mm and Fuji 600mm lenses, both great performers for 11X14.

[Ken Lee]

JohnZ - Are any of your 11x14 images available on line ?

I'd love to see them, even though a little JPG doesn't convey the impact of real visual content of an 11x14. I am climbing the LF ladder as we speak, and am interested in the look of the longer lenses on the larger formats. Some of us would be especially interested in any of the images made with the 600mm lens on that format.

[Pete Roody]

Michael,

I am not an 11x14 user, but if I were considering a step up from 8x10, I would consider 10x12 instead. These cameras are not much more in weight and size than an 8x10 (they are usually built of an 8x10 frame). Film availability should be the same (between 10x12 and 11x14). You can cut 20x24 sheets of paper into 4 sheets for printing with no waste. For cameras, Canham makes one and Deardorff made a few.

I bet you would get most of the benefit of the larger contact print (over 8x10) with a lot less hassle (than using an 11x14 camera).