ULF Tipping Point

[Phovsho]

I found the transition to 8x10 from MF (and s bit of 4x5) a big step up in complexity and cost. Practically everything needed to be replaced - naively I thought the camera and a lens was it. But then there were all manner of additional stuff - tripod, dark cloth, pack, dark room equipment for my Jobo.

But now I’m having an itch to go larger again. 11x14 is perhaps the most obvious next step. But I keep imagining contact printed 20x24 or 16x20 portraits. Spare me!

My question is how much of a jump is it from 8x10 to 11x14? I see film at least is available without special order! But what about the really big stuff, should I just forget it? Special order films, lens availability, tripods, weight and bulk etc etc.

Best

Murray

[Tin Can]

Each step up is big and expensive.

8X10 to 11X14 for example. Film holders become way more money. Figure 500% over 8X10. Film is basicly the same per sq in for all off the shelf sizes. Custom orders rise in sq in $. Special order includes long waits for product.

Weight is an issue past 8X10 in all parts. I have 14X17 film holders that are very heavy.

[Mark Sawyer]

What Randy said, and the step up to loading 11x4 after loading 8x10 is proportionally about the same as the step up from 4x5 to 8x10. And the filmholders get really expensive. I mean really. And there's no "tipping point". Like the first time on the high dive, you just hold your nose, yell "Geronimo!", and jump...

[karl french]

11x14 is probably the easiest jump in into ULF in terms of gear/film. It was a standard at size in the US. Film and holders at relatively easy to find. Older wooden holders are not that expensive, I've recently picked up 3 clean holders for $150 each. So more like 300% of typical used 8x10 holders. You're probably not going to want as many holders anyway. They are heavy and bulky.

The big Gitzo and Reis tripods will work for a variety of ULF formats.

[DolphinDan]

Another aspect of ULF is that, except for 11x14, no ANSI standard exists for the film holders. So you need to buy your film holders 1st and then have the camera made according to the specifications of those film holders. Or buy your camera from somebody who also makes film holders for their cameras, like Richard Ritter or Chamonix, and have both made at the same time. And like everybody else says, it is expensive!

I shoot a Richard Ritter 16x20, up from an Ebony 8x10 (I still shoot 8x10). In the time that it takes me to set up and compose 1 16x20 shot, I can set up and compose several shots in 8x10. So expect to take much fewer shots/compositions than with 8x10. And loading|unloading film holders also takes much more time (for me, at least 10 minutes to load|unload each 16x20 film holder).

Regarding weight: the Richard Ritter 16x20 camera is about 17 pounds. With 2 lens and 2 film holders and the usual gear (dark cloth, lens blower, light meter, extra tripods-see next paragraph), the weight comes out around 35 pounds or so. Which is about the same as my 8x10 gear with several lenses and film holders. So for me personally the weight is not an issue. However, the bulkiness of ULF is a problem when hiking off trail. I have not tried rock scrambling with my 16x20 gear yet, but I suspect that it will be challenging.

Regarding lenses: the Nikon NIKKOR-M 450mm f9 and Fuji FUJINON-C 600mm f11.5 lenses cover 16x20 from my experience. According to Sandy King, they also can cover 20x24 stopped down enough. And the Schneider G-CLARON 355mm f9 lens can cover these formats at 1:1 if you are inclined to shoot portraits or up to 12x20 at most distances stopped down sufficiently. After that, look for process lenses like the APO-NIKKORs (these tend to be relatively inexpensive-around $300-500, although they may not come in a shutter) and older Goerz lenses like the DAGORs (these lenses seem to be getting rarer and more expensive) and APO ARTARs. So you can find lenses that cover ULF for not too much money. You are much more likely to have, or find, lenses to cover 11x14 than 16x20 or 20x24.

Another issue I have found when shooting is that I need extra tripods for the front and rear standards to prevent camera shake. EVEN IF your tripod supports the weight of your camera, you still need these extra tripods because the standards stick out so far from the camera body that they become wobbly every time you touch the camera, load/unload a film holder, set the aperture|shutter speed|open/close the shutter to focus. For lenses <600mm, I only need to support the front standard. But for lenses 600mm and longer, I need 2 extra tripods to support both the front and rear standards. And that is in addition to a tripod to support the camera itself. So buy a couple of extra carbon fiber tripods or expect to carry an extra 10 pounds or so of tripods. I use Gitzo carbon fiber tripods to minimize my weight. You can get a Gitzo GT4553S that will support up to 55 pounds, which will cover most ULF cameras. It is pricey (B&H lists it as around $1,000) or you can buy a Ries tripod and get more exercise.

And I personally find vignetting from the bellows to be much more problematic than with 8x10. Bellows vignetting from the top due to the bellows sagging down into the scene is a problem with lenses 600mm and longer. Bellows vignetting from the bottom due to the bellows sticking in the lower back is a problem for lenses shorter than 600mm. Resolving bellows vignetting adds at least 10 minutes to each scene that I compose.

If you make the leap, then I recommend getting a lot of X-Ray film to start. You will make a lot of mistakes before you get it right, and no sense making those mistakes with more expensive film. I went through 4 boxes of Ilford HP5+ before I started getting good exposures, and HP5+ in 16x20 size was around $545/box when I bought it in 2013. So that was over $2,000 wasted before I made any good exposures. I invite you to learn from my mistake.

Regarding film: I encourage you to buy Ilford film during their annual ULF run and talk to Keith Canham about joining a Kodak special film order. I think that Keith is about to place a special order on some 20x24 film: check his FaceBook webpage about that.

Bottom line: stepping up from 8x10 to ULF is an order of magnitude change in difficulty and expense.

Good luck with your journey. I do enjoy looking at my 16x20 negs (the ones that come out good), so you will find that part of the experience intoxicating.

Daniel

[John Jarosz]

Pick a ULF size format that uses existing x-ray film sizes so you can pratice with the x-ray stuff.

Once you go past 11x14 analyze your darkroom to see if your sinks and trays will fit.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I agree with what everyone has said here. I shoot 11x14 and 14x17. Of the two the 11x14 is easier all the way around. Now my 14x17 can actually do 20x24 horizontal due to the free bellows I was given to build the camera. I built a 14x17 reducing back for it to shoot 14x17 X-ray film. I did find some expired Bergger 200 to shoot as well. It is a challenge and expensive and of the two I prefer the 14x17 size. Once I saw my first good 14x17 carbon print I was sold. The print size just has more "presence" I feel. So choose wisely and most of all enjoy the journey. My 8x10 is now called my point and shoot!

[james zhou]

11x14 is not hard to get into, but almost impossible to backpack. I use a roller cart to move it from my car to a location, and hiking is out of the question. With a 8x10, I could hike for hours in the national parks in Utah. The Fidelity 11x14 holder is 1500g ea, 2.5 times heavier than the 8x10 (600g). So I could never made it far from where I park.

[jp]

14x17 has easily available xray film and of course by annual order from Ilford.

Also consider your darkroom situation.. If you're developing in trays, do you have enough room to actually develop the size you want? Even three trays 16x20 take much space.. You want room around the edges developing film so the waves bouncing off the sides don't overdevelop the film along it's edges.

[Phovsho]

Thanks everybody. This is very helpful. I imagine using it mainly in studio or close to car. So I could go big.

Do folks find 11x14 is a sufficient step beyond 8x10? I appreciate the negative is almost twice the area. But wonder if I should go bigger and have no regrets.

Best. M

[Tin Can]

11X14 is big enough for me. Contact prints.

As I prefer real film to X-Ray for studio portrait.

But I also like enlarging 5X7 and 8X10 to 16x20.

Don’t forget how big a print gets when matted and framed. I like big margins.

[jnantz]

Thanks everybody. This is very helpful. I imagine using it mainly in studio or close to car. So I could go big.

Do folks find 11x14 is a sufficient step beyond 8x10? I appreciate the negative is almost twice the area. But wonder if I should go bigger and have no regrets.

Best. M

the best thing about 11x14 is using a 7x11 back. golden mean or something like that
so even whenyou are struggling to get a good image, something magical happens
and turns the dimestore timex into a rolex.

good luck !
john

[Tin Can]

Eastman made a 7x11 camera with option 8x10 back. Not as big as a 11x14.




the best thing about 11x14 is using a 7x11 back. golden mean or something like that
so even whenyou are struggling to get a good image, something magical happens
and turns the dimestore timex into a rolex.

good luck !
john

[William Whitaker]

Thanks everybody. This is very helpful. I imagine using it mainly in studio or close to car. So I could go big.

Do folks find 11x14 is a sufficient step beyond 8x10? I appreciate the negative is almost twice the area. But wonder if I should go bigger and have no regrets.



What is your desired end result? Since ULF almost demands contact printing, how large a print do you want?

As you note, "mainly studio" usage else "close to the car" Go big as you want. You alone know your budget.

Life is short. Grab it while you can.

[Tin Can]

Amen!

[Oren Grad]

Eastman made a 7x11 camera with option 8x10 back. Not as big as a 11x14.

But as heavy as an 11x14, at least the lighter ones. I have a 7x11 Eastman No. 2. The design is different from all of the other No. 2's and is disproportionately heavy. The Korona 7x11 is much lighter, though.

[Oren Grad]

The other thing that happens as you go beyond 8x10 is that depth of field starts to become a real challenge for subjects short of infinity for which you want substantial depth. Even in contact prints, stopping down much beyond f/64 can start to visibly degrade the image character. If you're photographing people, they'll do their best to confound you by drifting out of the plane of focus during the time it takes to insert the film holder and/or moving during long exposures. If you're photographing groups of people, multiply that. In the studio, where you're focusing close and bellows extension is substantially reducing your effective aperture, you'll also need a pretty bodacious lighting setup if you want any degree of depth, particularly if you prefer softbox lighting rather than direct. It's very easy to fall into a trap where all you're getting for the extra trouble is bigness, while the technical quality goes down and the rate of out-and-out bloopers goes up compared to smaller formats.

OTOH, that big negative can be intoxicating, and when everything goes right, the result can be glorious. If you have the money and the patience not just to acquire the equipment, but to pay for a substantial learning curve of exposures that are messed up by one problem or another, by all means go for it. Life is too short, etc. Having dabbled in formats up to 12x20 with modest results so far, I'd say 11x14 is indeed a meaningful step up from 8x10 while still remaining sort of practical. YMMV; look at a lot of big prints and see what you think.

[Greg]

lot of posts covering 11x14 at:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?127968-11x14-experiences-please-share-yours&highlight=11x14+greg

[George Losse]

Let me restate and agree with what others have said, as you increase negative size, complexity and costs increases dramatically. Also the number of negatives you shoot in a day goes down.

I would also add, that as the negative size gets larger, there are more things that can go wrong and spoil a wonderful negative. When all goes right, there is nothing like seeing a ULF negative for the first time. I still get a rush when I unload my development tank and pull out an 8x20 negative.

I was shooting 8x10 and I tried the 11x14 format. For me, I found the 11x14 image to be too similar to the 8x10 image in feel to be worth the extra aggravation to shoot. I ended up shooting with an 8x20 so that the image had a different feel than the 8x10.

It is a big commitment if you are buying new camera equipment. I started with older used cameras to try out each of my larger formats. After three or four years, if I really liked a format, I sold the older camera and bought a better camera. I did that that with both my 8x10 and 8x20. I’m still shooting with them 20+ years later, although I’ve been enjoying the 5x7 format a lot recently.

There is no wrong answer in all of this, just what works best for you and your vision.

[DrTang]

I went 35mm to 645...to 6x6 to 4x5.. to 7x17, then 8x20... back to 8x10...back to 6x6..to digital

and now 5x7 to 8x10 to 11x14 pretty quickly

I'll stop at 11x14 (unless something crazy happens) as that is as big as I can get scanned


I'm lucky ..or unlucky.. as the very first 11x14 neg out of the tank WAS SUPERB

been trying to match that first one now for a year

[jnantz]

Eastman made a 7x11 camera with option 8x10 back. Not as big as a 11x14.

yeps,
smaller and you get 2 per 11x14 sheet of whatever it is that is being exposed :) AND you can make a giant 11x14s too :)
its like opening a quahog and finding a pearl and opening an oyster and finding wampum :)

[AlexGard]

when i got my 11x14 then my once 'big and cumbersome' 8x10 field camera almost immediately became small and nimble and i began apreciating 8x10 as the ideal and perfect format.


i have a 12x20 that ive yet to get a lot of use from due to some equipment obstacles but i think going any larger is a little pointless for what i do. 11x14 is on the edge of practcality.

[MAubrey]

when i got my 11x14 then my once 'big and cumbersome' 8x10 field camera almost immediately became small and nimble and i began apreciating 8x10 as the ideal and perfect format.

Second this, though not about 8x10. I went from 5x7 to 11x14 because I thought 8x10 would be too little a jump. And don't get me wrong, I love the format, but now my 5x7 seems simply, convenient and super easy to use.

To add one more thing to the "With each increase in size, X happens" statements

With each increase in size, being intentional about your work matters more and more.

[Matted]

I am currently shooting (and loving) 4x5, however have been contemplating a jump to 8x10 but am thinking that it may make more sense to just skip right to 11x14. Decisions, decisions....

[cuypers1807]

Also consider if you want a digital or hybrid work flow. I have resisted 11x14 up to now because most flatbed scanners will only scan 8x10. If you want to digitize anything then you will need a large scanner or light table/digital camera set up.

[David Lobato]

After you have an 11x14 camera, choosing what to photograph is different from 4x5, and 8x10. Camera set up takes more time, bellows factor adjustments happen more often, getting sharpness within the depth of field is challenging and soon you recognize what scenes are more viable. Plus the cost of a sheet of film and processing chemicals adds up quickly.

But keep at it, persistence pays off. Holding a sheet of ULF film after the final wash is awesome. Seeing the detail in a carefully done composition will make you smile. And seeing other photographs from huge formats makes you appreciate the work that went into them.

[Michael Kadillak]

After you have an 11x14 camera, choosing what to photograph is different from 4x5, and 8x10. Camera set up takes more time, bellows factor adjustments happen more often, getting sharpness within the depth of field is challenging and soon you recognize what scenes are more viable. Plus the cost of a sheet of film and processing chemicals adds up quickly.

But keep at it, persistence pays off. Holding a sheet of ULF film after the final wash is awesome. Seeing the detail in a carefully done composition will make you smile. And seeing other photographs from huge formats makes you appreciate the work that went into them.

Absolutely agree. Yes you "see" differently and yes, it takes more time but persistence is a great describing adjective. Bravo!

[angusparker]

Also consider if you want a digital or hybrid work flow. I have resisted 11x14 up to now because most flatbed scanners will only scan 8x10. If you want to digitize anything then you will need a large scanner or light table/digital camera set up.

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[angusparker]

For me the big difference is not so much the weight difference from 8x10 as I have a very light 11x14 but the development time for the film. I can do 5 8x10 or 10 4x5 in the time to process 1 or maybe 2 11x14 sheets in my Jobo.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[mdm]

I found 11x14 too big and heavy to be practical. a standard lens, 450mm, requires half a meter of bellows draw in the field, that is a big camera and it requires a very sturdy tripod. Remember that at 1m bellows draw and 1:1 you have a subject aproximately the size of the negative, so you may find yourself there quite often, that requires a really rigid camera and really sturdy tripod. I limit myself to Whole Plate, 5x7 and 4x5 depending on requirements and can print large digital negatives for alt printing if I need them. A 4x5 negative makes a very fine 16x20 piezography print. My guess is 95% of ULF cameras sit unused, and I know how fun it is go out into the world with a smaller view camera. Smaller cameras get used more often. Also I know that a gorgeous 450mm tessar can be used just as effectively on a smaller camera such as whole plate or 8x10, so there is really no practical reason, except enthusiasm, to go ULF.

[Luis-F-S]

I am currently shooting (and loving) 4x5, however have been contemplating a jump to 8x10 but am thinking that it may make more sense to just skip right to 11x14. Decisions, decisions....
I’d go to 8x10 for the reasons given 11x14 is a beast!

[Matted]

Also consider if you want a digital or hybrid work flow. I have resisted 11x14 up to now because most flatbed scanners will only scan 8x10. If you want to digitize anything then you will need a large scanner or light table/digital camera set up.


I’d go to 8x10 for the reasons given 11x14 is a beast!

Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. I currently do a hybrid workflow with 4x5 (renting an Imacon scanner which taps out at 4x5) but am about to begin experimenting with a light table and digital camera for "scanning". I was sure to acquire a light table that is at least 11x14 "just in case". I would also like to begin contact printing and some alternative processes, but I am not opposed to creating digital negatives for this purpose. My camera system for digital and 4x5 work is Arca-Swiss, so there are a multitude of ways I can get to 8x10 fairly painlessly, however I also know that Keith Canham can manufacture a "conversion kit" for Arcas to go 11x14, which is what got me thinking I may just skip 8x10 altogether.

I think if I choose my 8x10 lenses right I can keep the 11x14 door open for later if I'm still feeling the itch.

[Bernice Loui]

larger than 8x10, depends on image results intended. IMO, 8x10 and larger is ideal for contact prints specially when alternative image process is involved like PP, Carbon and similar. This is where ULF can have the most rational for film larger than 8x10.

Difficulties will be bulk, size, very limited optics selection, depth of focus, film sag, ULF camera support system, film and film holder availability, processing, print making and all related to finished print production.

It appears in recent times ULF and alternative process image making has become popular despite the difficulties with factors mentioned above.


What I'm curious about, has ULF become a reaction to the limited availability of traditional film photographic image production products or has ULF become a means to produce images with a different look based on alternative process image making while discounting the art-skill-craft of composition, silver gelatin printing control skills and all related to the art-craft of fine print making?



Bernice

[MAubrey]

What I'm curious about, has ULF become a reaction to the limited availability of traditional film photographic image production products or has ULF become a means to produce images with a different look based on alternative process image making while discounting the art-skill-craft of composition, silver gelatin printing control skills and all related to the art-craft of fine print making?
Yes, yes, and no.

The second one can be true without 'discounting the art-skill-craft of composition, silver gelatin printing control skills and all related to the art-craft of fine print making'.

For my part, I don't have access to the equipment necessary for many things (e.g. no enlarger at all). That means that all silver gelatin printing that I do is limited to contact printing.

We're all just doing our best with our limited resources.

[Mark Sawyer]

When I first moved to 4x5, 35mm and 120 suddenly seemed ridiculously small format, and 4x5 seemed quite a large format.

When I moved from 4x5 to 8x10, 4x5 seemed a rather small format, and 8x10 felt like a truly large a format, as large as anyone should ever need to go.

When I began using 11x14, 8x10 became a "convenient" medium-size large format, and 11x14 was the pinnacle of large format work.

But if there's one prediction in life that always holds true, it must be this: "It's going to get worse..."

[Greg]

Totally agree that 95% of ULF cameras sit unused. Previous 11x14 was an Empire State View II, which I believe is on of the lightest and most compact 11x14s ever made. Limited front movements, but was actually easily able to backpack it for one day hikes with a modified rigid packframe and a case attached to it. Regret selling it.

Currently use an 11x14 Chamonix view with 3 lenses (200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON WA ANASTIGMAT, 355mm f/9 G-Claron, and a 508mm f/7 Caltar). Really want to be able to take short day hikes to specific destinations with the 11x14 on my back. Just got a GATOR padded case that barely (but it does) hold the 11x14, 1-2 holders, and 2 lenses in it. Now need to find a classic rigid frame to attach the case to. Ries tripod probably carried over the shoulder, but really hope to attach it to the side of the frame. Am 70 but can carry 40lbs on my back if I also have a hiking stick or two. Additionally carry one water bottle, 2 energy bars, and a large garbage bag (if it suddenly rains).

[Tin Can]

2 garbage bags one for the camera and one for your raincoat.:)

I'm 67 and not hiking anywhere with 40lbs. I am selling the same rig.

Today I am happy to breathe, sudden first time in 10 years a severe bronchitis attack. I'm a Honker.:(

[Michael Kadillak]

Totally agree that 95% of ULF cameras sit unused. Previous 11x14 was an Empire State View II, which I believe is on of the lightest and most compact 11x14s ever made. Limited front movements, but was actually easily able to backpack it for one day hikes with a modified rigid packframe and a case attached to it. Regret selling it.

Currently use an 11x14 Chamonix view with 3 lenses (200mm f/6.5 TAYLOR-HOBSON WA ANASTIGMAT, 355mm f/9 G-Claron, and a 508mm f/7 Caltar). Really want to be able to take short day hikes to specific destinations with the 11x14 on my back. Just got a GATOR padded case that barely (but it does) hold the 11x14, 1-2 holders, and 2 lenses in it. Now need to find a classic rigid frame to attach the case to. Ries tripod probably carried over the shoulder, but really hope to attach it to the side of the frame. Am 70 but can carry 40lbs on my back if I also have a hiking stick or two. Additionally carry one water bottle, 2 energy bars, and a large garbage bag (if it suddenly rains).

With my ULF cameras (8x20 Canham and 11x14 Deardorff) on the trail I have arrived at a primary conclusion. Packing ULF mandates scouting the shot to know precisely the lens, optimal lighting/time of day so you carry no more than you need in holders and lenses. Several times I have scouted with the 8x10 and carried my 11x14/8x20 viewing card and when I knew it was ULF time, I left my carbon fiber tripod at the location and returned with the ULF camera. That way I only carry the tripod one round trip. My Ries tripod for ULF has never been more than 30 yards from my truck because it is such a heavy beast. Other times where Freestylng for shots in a new area I just took a light pack, water, energy bars and no camera so I can cover a lot of country in a short period of time. But I always take my walking sticks for balance.

[John Jarosz]

With my ULF cameras (8x20 Canham and 11x14 Deardorff) on the trail I have arrived at a primary conclusion. Packing ULF mandates scouting the shot to know precisely the lens, optimal lighting/time of day so you carry no more than you need in holders and lenses. Several times I have scouted with the 8x10 and carried my 11x14/8x20 viewing card and when I knew it was ULF time, I left my carbon fiber tripod at the location and returned with the ULF camera.

+1 to all of this.

In fairness to saying that 95% of ULF sit unused at home; these days ULF film (and even chemistry) is expensive enough that one must discriminate much more than with regular film. Scouting locations are important. I always take my best shots of a scene on the 2nd or 3rd trip anyway. So the ULF only comes out when I've decided there's a good image possible. It takes longer, but the yield is better. Long hikes with the gear are no longer possible, so the weight and size (for me) is not a factor. Everything is in the truck.

[Phovsho]

Thanks everyone for responding to this thread. It’s had me take pause and reflect on what I’m seeking to achieve with ULF. I think first and format it will be head shot portraits at or close to 1:1. My sense is that will require me to go to at least 11x14. One question that comes to mind is how 11x14+ size glass plates handle for wet plate collodion? I’m wondering how easy they are to handle and pour etc.

[Gary Samson]

Thanks everyone for responding to this thread. It’s had me take pause and reflect on what I’m seeking to achieve with ULF. I think first and format it will be head shot portraits at or close to 1:1. My sense is that will require me to go to at least 11x14. One question that comes to mind is how 11x14+ size glass plates handle for wet plate collodion? I’m wondering how easy they are to handle and pour etc.

Do you have any experience making wet-plate images, if not, there will be a steep learning curve to pour, expose and develop a plate of this size. If you are planning to make 11x14 inch head shot portraits you will need quite a bit of bellows extension with the right lens. I have made 1:1 portraits on Ilford HP5+ with my 11x14 Wisner and a 720mm lens and I think the bellows was extended about 40 inches. Perhaps others who have worked with wet-plate in ULF sizes will offer advice and help.

[cuypers1807]

The difficulty of pouring good plates expands exponentially with the enlargement of the plate size. If you don't already know the process, you should learn on smaller plates first to refine technique. This will save you much $$ as the chemical, materials, and equipment commitment to plates larger than 8x10 is substantial.

[Hugo Zhang]

Yesterday I drove to Santa Barbara and delivered a 24x32 camera to Lindsey Ross.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFoCzRB4t6/?hl=en&taken-by=thealchemistress

[Tin Can]

I see she is using and needing the Artar 47-1/2!

That ‘tripod’ is very sTable!

Big time!


Yesterday I drove to Santa Barbara and delivered a 24x32 camera to Lindsey Ross.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BiFoCzRB4t6/?hl=en&taken-by=thealchemistress

[Luis-F-S]

Geesh and I thought my V11 was big!!! How many gigabytes is that?������