Pano LF or enlarged crop

[esearing]

For the past couple of years I have been drawn toward Panoramic images, especially those made on 7x17 cameras.

The practical and frugal side of me knows I can enlarge a cropped 4x5 to any pano or standard format , which requires some thinking ahead in the field and maybe some crop visualization aids. I tend to shoot wide lenses anyway.

But the non-practical, GAS prone side desires to get a 7x17 (or more likely a 5x12) dedicated camera and contact print. I suspect that looking at the ground glass in the larger format would reinforce the initial vision, and contact printing has its own attraction.

In your opinion, Is it worth the extra costs of gear , film, paper, etc. for someone who doesn't sell their work actively and shoots mainly for pleasure? I'm not really interested in MF gear even though there are some nice Pano options there.

[scheinfluger_77]

I suspect this is largely a matter of what is actually important to you and your bank account. For examply i would love to have a 7x17 but the camera and related items are steep (I’m pretty much sold on Chamonix). I know I probably won’t be making such a purchase... but who knows.

[John Layton]

"I suspect that looking at the ground glass in the larger format would reinforce the initial vision..."

I strongly agree with this - and would therefore recommend that you at least consider (if not going the LF pano camera/contact print route) creating a removable ground glass mask for your 4x5, plus a dark slide cut out to match this (perhaps you could use this dark slide as a ground glass mask also?), which you could insert just prior to making an exposure.

But why not just the ground glass mask? Well, because the "initial vision" is also reinforced by carry through to visible results - therefore the film plane mask would be of equal importance.

[Mark Stahlke]

I second the recommendation of a cut down dark slide for 4x5. Plus you can shoot two panos on a single sheet of film.

[Jim Noel]

"In your opinion, Is it worth the extra costs of gear , film, paper, etc. for someone who doesn't sell their work actively and shoots mainly for pleasure? I'm not really interested in MF gear even though there are some nice Pano options there."
Absolutely! I made enlargements of segments of 5x7 negatives for years. I also cut an 8x10 slide to make 4x10 negatives. This led to my building a 4x10 camera. Still not satisfied I finally acquired a 7x17 camera and holders. What a difference. I was awestruck by the detail, scale and overall beauty of the negatives. Sadly age caused me to have to move to a 5x12 camera. It's nice but the beauty of the 7x17 image is still missing.

[J_3]

In terms of flexibility its hard to beat 4x5. Tons of film options. Enlargers are common. But its hard to get wall presence from a contact print. I think panoramas in particular accentuate the limitations of smaller formats. When they are of landscapes you often want tons of detail so that you have the 'you are there' impression, or just get lost in the detail. When it's a study, contact prints can be lovely. 7x17" in my opinion is relatively less inconvenient sweet spot. Not as easy as 4x5 but: 1) You can get / use x-ray film. 2) banquet cameras are not all that uncommon 3) Better lens options. A lot of 8x10 lenses work 4) Lighter than 8x20 (with a banquet it's in the same range as an 8x10 camera, though with limited movement and bellows). On the other side everything is heavier, slower, more difficult, and more expensive with ULF. Will your enthusiasm for the format survive the pain of hauling all that gear on your back to get a great shot? Or the disappointment of not being able to get a photo because the wind is blowing, or you don't have enough bellow, or it takes too long to set up the camera, or they don't make a long enough lens for the view you need? It's something of a personal decision.

[J_3]

P.S. As another option you could get a 14x17" Empire State and crop as well. There are downsides to that too, but your not loosing detail, or the contact print option with 14x17 (the largest film size where you can use x-ray film if you want). You might have to hunt for 3-6m for a good camera at a good price but they are not all that uncommon relatively.

[otto.f]

I loaned a Linhof 617 this week and I love the simplicity and the failproof design. However, I discovered that it’s a serious question whether you really want the endproduct: why would you want a LF Pano camera if you do not hang the results on the wall and do you really want Pano’s on your wall or do you in the end still prefer 2x3 in whatever size. So cropping an 8x10 capture seems wiser to me because of its multifunctionality

[J_3]

I know the OP indicated they were not interested in medium format, but just to add, there is a different sweat spot at 6x12cm (56 × 118mm) on medium format cropped down slightly to about 52mm to get that nice 1:2.3 frame ratio. This is still a big negative, but it still fits in a common 4x5 enlarger. And at about 4x enlargement, it's right around the 7x17" size you'd get from the contact print. At that magnification you're still in the sweet spot where your not loosing contrast or detail from a well taken negative too. And you can shoot 6x12 from any number of 4x5 backs (giving you movements), or dedicated cameras (like the ones from Fuji) all of which are much nicer on the back than 7x17. And you get 6 phots per roll, and can swap rolls pretty easily in the field (trying to keep dust out of the film holders even if you did drag a changing tent along is a true pain). So there is a lot going for 6x12cm. On the down side you do loose non-digital neg contact prints. Also the film in a 6x12 is never fully flat.

[ic-racer]

I shoot 8x10 and have enlarged to 7x17" image size on 16x20 paper. There were at least two 7x17" camera owners in our meeting group and they would give me sneers and dirty looks when I showed those :)

Of course, hanging out with 7x17" owners, at one point I was destine to have one myself (but never did get one).

Personally I prefer an 8x10 negative enlarged to 16x20" rather than a 7x17" image. I'm sure 7" seems big when hauling the camera around and processing & printing the negative, but on the wall, 7" is pretty small in my opinion.

[J_3]

I shoot 8x10 and have enlarged to 7x17" image size on 16x20 paper. There were at least two 7x17" camera owners in our meeting group and they would give me sneers and dirty looks when I showed those :)

It's kind of amazing to me that large format photographers can be so cliquish. We all share more similarities than differences even if we do come to different equipment preferences. In my neck of the woods the chances of finding a 7x17er, let alone two is slim so I have no such community to offend. I don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger either though so I cant go that route. Also I like platinum printing. That said, IMO a 4x10" camera is really a little gem if your willing to cut film or wait for the Ilford order period. They are much lighter and pack better than 8x10. If I did have a large enlarger I'd probably have one for backpacking into the wilderness. I'd agree on 8x10 being about the most flexible camera out there above 4x5.



Personally I prefer an 8x10 negative enlarged to 16x20" rather than a 7x17" image. I'm sure 7" seems big when hauling the camera around and processing & printing the negative, but on the wall, 7" is pretty small in my opinion.

Id have to agree here too. 7x17" for a final print is not large at all, but I don't see that as a disadvantage per say. I was talking with someone once and there happened to be two framed matted contact prints near by - an 8x20" landscape and a 7x17" plant study in pt/pd. It was described that the 7x17" was the largest size you could hold at arms length and admire at one go. And it was true. With the mat it was just the perfect size for an intimate study (11x14 if you like squarish more). The 8x20" by contrast was just a bit too big for that. At the same time it wasn't at all large enough to have the mural effect either. Combined with the lens restrictions, camera rarities, weight, etc... I just could never see myself going for an 8x20". A 14x17" maybe - there are a lot of cool things you can do with that camera (e.g. contact print portraits), but not an 8x20. No if I were trying for the mural effect, I'd go for enlarged 8x10 for sure IMO. But for everything else it's not always clear to me what the best camera would be.

[Corran]

Eric,

I absolutely think you should get a 7x17!

But only if you let me borrow it occasionally ;).

What did you think about the 8x20 ground-glass image when we were out last? I kinda wish I had a 7x17 instead (more options in lenses, slightly smaller, easy x-ray film usage) but on the other hand, I am lucky to have found a cheap ultrawide for 8x20 so I guess it all worked out. I only wish I could afford a Chamonix or any "better" 8x20 than the kindling I am currently. using. Also I figured, if I was going ULF might as well go full-on stupid and get the biggest I could reasonably carry.

I'm scanning a new 8x20 shot right now actually...


there are a lot of cool things you can do with that camera (e.g. contact print portraits), but not an 8x20.

Well...

http://www.garrisaudiovisual.com/photosharing/8201606sss.jpg

Not that it makes sense normally :).
I was out today and saw a really fine vertical pano comp I am going to go back and do later in the winter. My fav 8x20 image I've made is still a vertical pano.

[Corran]

Oh one more thing Eric - I need to show you the ~10x24 enlargements from my 6x15 camera (120). Might change your mind about shooting MF.

[Vaughn]

I have have mixed results using a modified darkslide to get two 5.5x14 images on a single 11x14 sheet of film. I believe the mixed results are due to the mix of holders -- but I will continue to play with it. Perhaps just use my two Fidelity holders with it. (I use the same method for two 4x10s on an 8x10 with little problem.)

I found 7x17 to be a little awkward -- perhaps after using the 11x14, I would no longer find it so.

A 5.5"x 14" negative:

[Jim Andrada]

I do a lot of 6 x 12 verticals with my Technika and a Sinar Vario 120 film adapter. Never had an issue with flatness but the adapter's fairly large and quite heavy - on the other hand it lets me do about any 6 X ... aspect ratio. And a bit of crop and I make quite a few 7 x 17 (inch) prints from the 6 x 12 (cm of course) negs. I keep thinking/fantasizing about building a 7 x 17, though.

[esearing]

The small print sizes do not bother me. I like to hold and view prints up close vs mount and hang them. I saw some color images yesterday sized 6x9 from 135 format and enjoyed viewing that size as much as the content.

[C Henry]

I photograph using a dedicated 4x10" camera, buy film from Ilford's yearly ULF run, and contact print in a small darkroom. I love the little prints, they look lovely in the hand, but are lost on a wall in a mat and frame. I could never justify larger, but 7x17 is a dream...

[CreationBear]

Wonderful work on your website, Carwyn.:) (FWIW, while I'm practically neighbors with Bryan and Eric, I've also spent some great days kicking around the Marches...a beautiful part of the world.)

[jon.oman]

I photograph using a dedicated 4x10" camera, buy film from Ilford's yearly ULF run, and contact print in a small darkroom. I love the little prints, they look lovely in the hand, but are lost on a wall in a mat and frame. I could never justify larger, but 7x17 is a dream...

Carwyn, very nice images on your web site!

[C Henry]

Thank you both

[Michael Roberts]

For the past couple of years I have been drawn toward Panoramic images, especially those made on 7x17 cameras.

The practical and frugal side of me knows I can enlarge a cropped 4x5 to any pano or standard format , which requires some thinking ahead in the field and maybe some crop visualization aids. I tend to shoot wide lenses anyway.

But the non-practical, GAS prone side desires to get a 7x17 (or more likely a 5x12) dedicated camera and contact print. I suspect that looking at the ground glass in the larger format would reinforce the initial vision, and contact printing has its own attraction.

In your opinion, Is it worth the extra costs of gear , film, paper, etc. for someone who doesn't sell their work actively and shoots mainly for pleasure? I'm not really interested in MF gear even though there are some nice Pano options there.

My recommendation is to go ahead and get a 7x17 and try it. I don't think there is any substitute for experiencing it hands-on. You may discover "this is it!" or you may decide it's too much trouble compared to enlarging from 4x5--but you won't know until you try them both.

Personally, I've been shooting a lot of 11x14 in recent years, but have just embarked on a switch to 7x11. I have also done a fair amount of 4x10 and 5.5x14 using both an 8x10 as well as the 11x14. 11x14 is a little more trouble, but not that much compared to 8x10. My main reason for switching to 7x11 is I have more options for drum scanning--there are not too many scanning services that can handle 11x14. Of course, this does not apply to you since you are aiming for contact printing.

As for the extra costs, it's a trade-off in terms of how much personal pleasure you get. From my experience, a successful 11x14 negative has definitely been worth the extra investment.

I agree that if your goal is a 7x17 print, then seeing a 1:1 composition on the gg will be more satisfying than squinting at a 2x5 composition and trying to imagine what it will look like when enlarged--but that's just my personal opinion, dedicated 4x5 shooters may well disagree.

[Lachlan 717]

One other thing to consider is that it is relatively easy to scan and stitch 7x17/8x20 using something as basic as an EPSON V series scanner.

[Len Middleton]

esearing,

In looking through this thread, I did not see any indication of what formats you shoot, beyond 4x5.

When I got my 8x20, I was already shooting 8x10 and some of my existing lens inventory could handle both formats. As the 8x20 already included two film holders and some film, I was able to use the 8x20 without a much larger investment, other than the new bellows from Custom Bellows UK and some work by Richard Ritter.

Big glass that covers the format can be a significant additional expense, if you do not already own it. BTW, also had the bonus that both my 8x10 and 8x20 both used 6x6 lens boards and required no adaptor boards.

Also big film is expensive, and if you have only purchased 4x5 film you may suffer sticker shock when looking at ULF film.

However, the results and image size are impressive...

Good luck in your investigation,

Len

[J_3]

It works. I really like your portrait. I've seen some great wide format verticals. What I don't like is the notion of turning one of those camera sideways. Maybe a 4x10" but it spooks me putting all that weight on a 90 degree mount especially with the camera weight off axis to the center of the tripod. How do you do that safely and without pulling the camera too far out of alignment ? I'd be more inclined to crop a 14x17 (saving not having one).