Poll: most used ULF formats

[Marco Annaratone]

Hi all,

a friend is designing and building an innovative tank for the development of ULF films. It would be quite helpful if he could have an idea of the most popular ULF formats because he must make a couple of design decisions and would like to hit the (commercial) sweet spot as close as possible. Sure, a truly valuable statistics would be the distribution of the formats in the Ilford ULF sales channel, but I assume that Ilford will be somewhat reluctant to provide it :o :o

The only second best I can think of is a poll on this forum!!

So, please, let us know! THANK YOU!!

[Vaughn]

Other: 5.5x14, but shot on 11x14 film, so probably counts as 11x14 for your purposes.

[Michael Roberts]

I'll put in a plug for 7x11, the smallest ULF format (13+" diagonal). Film will not fit conventional 8x10 tanks, so a dedicated size of tanks and hangers would be great.

I know there are at least a few more 7x11 users; hopefully they will speak up.

For all the 11x14 users, as Vaughn mentioned, you can shoot two 5.5x14" images on one sheet of 11x14 film; and, you can also shoot two 7x11s on one sheet of 11x14 film (ask me how, if you don't know how to do this).

I like the 7x11 aspect ratio so much I decided to make my own dedicated, horizontal 7x11 camera and cut 11x14 film in half. Much less bulk and weight than dealing with an 11x14 camera and holders.

[Jody_S]

I loved 11x14, and as a bonus it's not that hard finding lenses for that format. Unfortunately I can't carry it anymore, so I had to divest.

[Oren Grad]

I'll put in a plug for 7x11, the smallest ULF format (13+" diagonal). Film will not fit conventional 8x10 tanks, so a dedicated size of tanks and hangers would be great.

I know there are at least a few more 7x11 users; hopefully they will speak up.

I like the 7x11 aspect ratio so much I decided to make my own dedicated, horizontal 7x11 camera and cut 11x14 film in half. Much less bulk and weight than dealing with an 11x14 camera and holders.

You can split hairs over whether 7x11 qualifies as ULF by our definition here - if you do the arithmetic on the nominal 7x11 size it barely does, if you use the actual film dimensions or the actual dimensions of the exposed area of a sheet, it barely doesn't. I didn't include it when I answered the poll.

But I like it a lot. :)

The Jobo 3004 drum is perfect for 7x11, so in principle a nice solution already exists, but it is pretty hard to find these days.

[angusparker]

Based on cameras that are available used I’d have to say the following are the most used ULF formats in declining order: 11x14, 7x17, 8x20, 12x20, 14x17, 16x20. I did a survey of available film a few years ago and that suggested your best bet is 11x14 for square format or 7x17 for panorama format. You can read it here: https://www.angusparkerphoto.com/blog/2016/2/what-is-the-ULF-format-for-you

But I’d have to say tray developing is easy enough with only a few sheets. Jobo tubes work well for me up to my largest format 14x17 but not with Pyrocat-HD which tends to leave the rib marks on the film. It’s also tedious as hell only doing one sheet at a time. If I could have any new product it would be an Jobo Expert Drum for 11x14... maybe three or four sheets as I don’t think it would take more.

[Bob Salomon]

Is each vote from a different user or are there users responding that use more then one size ULF?

[Vaughn]

Is each vote from a different user or are there users responding that use more then one size ULF?

Multiple votes possible.

[angusparker]

Seems like the polling results above (which I couldn't see on the iPad) seem to match what I have observed in the classifieds.

[Tin Can]

and 11x14 film is available year round

[Michael Roberts]

You can split hairs over whether 7x11 qualifies as ULF by our definition here - if you do the arithmetic on the nominal 7x11 size it barely does, if you use the actual film dimensions or the actual dimensions of the exposed area of a sheet, it barely doesn't. I didn't include it when I answered the poll.

But I like it a lot. :)

The Jobo 3004 drum is perfect for 7x11, so in principle a nice solution already exists, but it is pretty hard to find these days.

Oh, I can split hairs even finer than that Oren. I use adhesive film holders for 7 by 11, so there is no part of the film that is hidden by a film guide. So for me, both the nominal 7 by 11 as well as the actual film size qualifies according to the definition here. ;)

[Oren Grad]

Oh, I can split hairs even finer than that Oren. I use adhesive film holders for 7 by 11, so there is no part of the film that is hidden by a film guide. So for me, both the nominal 7 by 11 as well as the actual film size qualifies according to the definition here. ;)

I'll see you and raise you: the actual film size of factory-cut 7x11 doesn't quite make it, so exposing the whole thing is of no avail. :p

Now if you're cutting your own sheets from larger film stock to exactly 7x11, and using adhesive holders for that...

Nah, on second thought I concede regardless. Your camera-building and -modifying exploits are far more Ultra than anything I'll ever do, and so I happily doff my proverbial cap and accept your judgment of Ultra-ness. < thumbs-up emoticon > :)

[Michael Roberts]

Thanks, but I really wouldn't want to have to make the case for 7x11 being ULF. If it were up to me, I would set the lower limit at 10x12 and/or 7x17 (or even, 5.5x14 as a nod to Vaughn), say a diagonal of 15" or greater.

But, then, I really don't think of 4x5 as LF (my 4x5 seems more like a toy camera compared to my 11x14, or even compared to my 8x10), so what do I know? I'm very happy there are Moderators like you to decide such things.

[Tin Can]

I gave up arguing that 1/4 plate was as effective as 4 X 5 with lighter cameras, yet I shoot them only with sheet film

But I do see my 7 X 11 as bigger than 8 X 10 because the Eastman #2 7 X 11 is so much bigger than the average 8 X 10 box

Oren always wins :) as he should considering all the work he and all Mods do

I have this model, but not Garrett's camera, https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?113094-Early-Eastman-2-View-Cameras-Why-did-the-2D-get-worse&p=1133364&viewfull=1#post1133364

[Oren Grad]

Yeah, it's funny... my intuitive sense of relative size for formats is driven by area rather than diagonal, and by that measure 7x11 is a bit smaller than 8x10. (But yeah, the Eastman #2 is big and HEAVY. The Korona is easier to handle, but alas even harder to find.) And I agree with Michael, having done so much messing around with larger formats, 4x5 feels *small*, not large. But then if I'm going to go small, somehow quarter plate feels more right to me than 4x5.

As always, YMMV. But it's nice that there's such an amazing array of formats to choose from and that, on the whole, it's easier to get factory-cut film for them than it was when I was getting started more than twenty years ago. Good times...

[Vaughn]

Thanks, but I really wouldn't want to have to make the case for 7x11 being ULF. If it were up to me, I would set the lower limit at 10x12 and/or 7x17 (or even, 5.5x14 as a nod to Vaughn), say a diagonal of 15" or greater...
My thoughts, too, but 5.5 x14 ends up being 77 sq inches...same as 7x11. Sure feels like a bigger negative! But it does not matter what it is classified at. The film and camera are 11x14 and that is what I lug around!

5x7 is pretty sweet. A nice travel size.

[angusparker]

and 11x14 film is available year round

Order from Fotoimpex in Europe and you can get pretty much any size year round: https://www.fotoimpex.com/shop/system/?func=listingmain&rub1=Films&rub2=Sheet%20films&cache=0&sort=6

[Fr. Mark]

Does my 10x24 pinhole camera count? I put in 3 pieces of 8x10 film. It's made of a metal can ~10" dia. and the distortion is "interesting." If not, subtract one vote from "other."

[Tin Can]

Why wouldn't it count?

I have done the same flat with two 8 X 10 making 10 X 16"

[Michael Roberts]

Why wouldn't it count?

I have done the same flat with two 8 X 10 making 10 X 16"

Very curious how you shot 10 x 16?

I have thought of doing this, but haven't acted on it yet.

Thanks,
Michael

[Tin Can]

I made a one off film holder, single sided adapter with X-Ray in my Levy Process camera, I documented somewhere here in DIY years ago

Since the process camera plate holder was bigger than 10X16, I used double sided tape to make quick rebate slots

It was a test of coverage


Very curious how you shot 10 x 16?

I have thought of doing this, but haven't acted on it yet.

Thanks,
Michael

[Michael Roberts]

Okay, thanks. I wondered if you used something like a 14x17 holder....

[Matt Stage]

Wow. It is interesting to see the strong interest in the 11x14 format. I became heavily invested in the format with a nice Wisner camera, and many film holders, a few lenses too. But I found that I personally prefer the "presence" of the 14x17 format. To me it is not that much more trouble to carry around a larger camera. (Sure, I was extremely fortunate to get a 14x17 camera made for me) But seeing this now, maybe I should re-visit my intention to sell off all my 11x14 gear?

[Uncle Jim]

Hi All,

What about all of us using 10 x 12? It's half again as large as 8 x 10. The film is available from Ilford and as x-ray film. Makes a great contact print on 11 x 14 paper.

Keep Well,
uncle jim

[karl french]

I love 10x12. Shot about 60 sheets over the last few years.

[Steven Tribe]

Just to be different and retro. I use the following:-

12x10”, 15x12”, 24x30cm, 30x40cm.

[Marco Annaratone]

Just to be different and retro. I use the following:-

12x10”, 15x12”, 24x30cm, 30x40cm.

30x40cm ............ o 12x16in? You'd be the first one!

Actually, the second one, I do 12"x16" in-camera photography (Harman, Imago and Ilfochrome back-then); this is the reason why I put it among the UL formats (and then I messed up when voting so it did not get recorded). I was curious to see if there is someone else doing 12x16, 16x20, o 20x24 in-camera photography. But this may mess up the poll by mixing ULF negatives and ULF positive papers, so it would probably make sense to keep the two approaches separate and disregard the 12x16 entry. Just a thought.

In fact, this friend of mine is developing the tank with film in mind. I am not sure it can be used for paper, especially fiber based. He told me there is a non-trivial issue of <time to pour the liquid in the tank> vs <development time>. With negatives you can extend the development time and "cover" the lag in pouring the liquid; with paper I do not know, those of you more knowledgeable than me ... feel free to chime in.

[Steven Tribe]

There must a number of active 30x40cm photographers in Germany as this was not an uncommon size in reisekameras.
I have certainly sold a couple of sets (camera plus 2/3 double plate holders) in the past 5 years.

I make 40cm to be 15.75”, rather than 16”!

[Marco Annaratone]

Thank you very much to all of those who took the time to answer the poll. I will keep the forum posted about the development of this tank.
Happy holidays!