Urge of ULF Panorama

[wsit]

Hi,

I have had the desire to get into ULF panoramic photography for awhile. I have never developed my film and normally send it to a lab for development. With ULF, I am well aware that it is next to impossible to send a ULF film to a lab. To that end, I am thinking about setting up a darkroom space in this project as well.

I presume that many of you will tell me to rethink about it, and I have. but hey I only live once, so I am going to follow the Regret Minimisation method to minimise my regret before I die of old age.

To that end, I have acquired a large enough lenses to cover 900mm-ish IC. The long end is about 43 inches.

Knowing about how my mind works, I will push the boundary again even if I settle for less. To that end, if I go 8x20, I will probably want something bigger later so I might as well go biggest now. I am thinking about commissioning a 12x30 camera with long enough bellow for my longest lens focused to 10 metres out. Will also get a 8x20 back just in case 12x30 films become hard to get. I will start contacting Canham to see if 12x30 is a format that Kodak can even cut. If not, I might step it down closer to 12x20 or 10x24.

I will go talk to Camham, Chamonix, and Ritter to see if it is even feasible to build such a camera with the desired bellow length.

From your experience,
1. which camera design will be the most suitable for 1.4m of bellow? The camera needs to be portable field camera....
2. how should I develop the film? I can always get big enough tray but is it possible to do drum based processing? JOBO can only go as big as 20x24. Anyone have experience DYI a drum solution?
3. How do you print anything of this size? I shoot both BW and colour neg.

What other difficulties do I have to overcome beyond the above?

please advise.

[FrancisF]

I respect this willfulness to try this. Especially the "I will probably want something bigger later so I might as well go biggest now." That has been my thinking.

You should think of a DIY foamboard construction before you comit to this custom format. What if you get a camera bulit and then you tire or it?

[Two23]

You should also begin thinking about tripods (plural.) Camera that big outdoors will be a a bedsheet in the breeze.


Kent in SD

[wsit]

You should also begin thinking about tripods (plural.) Camera that big outdoors will be a a bedsheet in the breeze.


Kent in SD

Got a ries and some other cf heavy duty tripod. I will get one more ries if I have too. However I think keeping back half of the camera in the suv is probably better way to go

[Michael Wellman]

I have a 8x20 and 14x17. I understand the desire for something larger (occasionally it hits me) but the problem is that the bigger you go the bigger the problems. These problems are exponential the larger you go. First, there is the cost factor not only for the camera but holders and film. Unless you are making your own film I don't think I have ever seen film come in 12"x30". ULF really have only 2 film makers for B&W, Ilford and Adox. You can get Kodak but it will have to be a special order and we are talking big bucks for that. I believe ULF color would also have to be a special order, too. Kodak is probably the only one who can do that. You certainly won't get it from Fuji. Then there is the transport and set up of the camera. Not only is it more cumbersome but there is good chance you are going to need help to transport and set up the camera. Focusing and making adjustments is also really challenging with an ULF camera. Then there is the case that you will need for transporting this beast and how you are going to get that to where you want to photography.

As for processing I have built my own tubes out of PVC pipe. Not a problem for 8x20 it's just a longer 8x10 with twice the volume of fluid, but when I went to 14x17 going wider was more difficult in finding the tubing, the cost, and handling the tubing not to mention the volume of fluid it required. Trays are cheaper and easier to use for the ULF. As for printing contact printing is the best way to go. There is nothing more pure or beautiful than a contact print.

As for cameras those are all good camera builders you mentioned. I had Richard Ritter build my 8x20/14x17 and I have 45" of bellow and I wish I had another 4-6" for when I do portraits.

I would recommend you start off with 8x20. It will be a lot easier and cheaper. It would be a great introduction to ULF and if you like it you can move up later. Let us know what you do. Good luck

[xkaes]

I assume the end result will be prints, so what size are you imagining? Let's assume eight feet. That's my max. I use a 4x5 with low ISO film and have no trouble with eight foot panoramas. What do you think you would gain from a larger negative -- and how would you print it?
If you are talking about a contact print, I doubt that you would notice the difference compared to a slightly enlarged (4-8X) print from a 4x5 negative.

[Jody_S]

You only live once. If this is your dream, go for it. I for one would love to see the results.

[xkaes]

2. how should I develop the film? I can always get big enough tray but is it possible to do drum based processing? JOBO can only go as big as 20x24. Anyone have experience DYI a drum solution?
3. How do you print anything of this size? I shoot both BW and colour neg.
.

The biggest negative I've ever worked with is 4x5, but for HUGE negatives and MEDIUM prints, there are drums up to 40" prints (long side).

Some people made huge trays -- ridiculous!!!

But for BIG prints, I made troughs from 12" PVC plastic pipe. I just cut it down the middle into two "HALF-PIPES" and closed up the ends with flat PVC panels -- that also act as stabilizers. The troughs are 5 feet long (you can't get paper wider than that) and each take one gallon of chemical.
After exposing the paper, it is simply rolled in and out of each chemical.

As to how you would possible make a large print from a large negative? A DIY, enormous enlarger in a garage -- ridiculous.

[domaz]

As to how you would possible make a large print from a large negative? A DIY, enormous enlarger in a garage -- ridiculous.

Easy enough to take digital pictures of an enormous negative and stitch them. That would be if you would want to enlarge them or maybe in this case shrink them (seems more likely). Otherwise why would you enlarge a 12x30 when you can contact print??

[Corran]

As to how you would possible make a large print from a large negative? A DIY, enormous enlarger in a garage -- ridiculous.

I guess you haven't heard of Clyde Butcher?

[xkaes]

I guess you haven't heard of Clyde Butcher?

Yes, I've heard of him. While he and I both make 8 foot murals, he rented a 2,000 square foot room. I'm not so lucky. That's bigger than my entire house!

There are lots of photographers that make enormous murals -- much larger than mine or Clyde's. The size of the print determines the size of the darkroom. My point is that a mural does not require an enormous negative or enlarger -- and can be done without a 2,000 square foot dark room.

[wsit]

Enlargement is not a goal. Building an enlarger for 12x30 is beyond my wildest dream. Contact print 99% most likely

[Kiwi7475]

I am not one to suggest smaller formats … as you say we only live once and we should pursue our dreams.

That said I just want to make sure you’ve considered how/if such a large camera will allow you to photograph the type of scene/object you’re wanting to photograph.

There’s nothing worse than having purchased an expensive tool to then find that it’s too cumbersome or unwieldy to use systematically for the application in mind. I have used 11x14 and 8x20 cameras and I can say that I’ve found them very limiting *for the type of photography I’m interested in*. The weight, sensitivity to wind, and other factors have made me converge on 8x10 as the largest size outdoors — keeping the ULF for portraiture inside home. I’ve enjoyed taking them out in the field, and I still do occasionally, but I can’t phantom doing that on the routine basis that I take 8x10, 5x7, 4x10, or 4x5 out, which are far more practical tools. And I’ve accepted that if I need to make mural-size prints, they’ll be printed from a digital scan of the negative.

[interneg]

Why does it need to be a 12x30 contact print? Are you absolutely 300% sure that you can't do an adequately equivalent print (for your needs) from a 4x10 neg & enlarged 3x? An 8x10 enlarger is massively less trouble than a monster camera.

[xkaes]

Enlargement is not a goal. Building an enlarger for 12x30 is beyond my wildest dream. Contact print 99% most likely

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, get the largest camera you can, but the "portable" part is the biggest constraint that you will have. Jackson dragged 16x20' glass plates up mountains on the backs of mules in the 1800's when he photographed the American West. Have you considered that? If he could do it, ............?

[xkaes]

Why does it need to be a 12x30 contact print? Are you absolutely 300% sure that you can't do an adequately equivalent print (for your needs) from a 4x10 neg & enlarged 3x? An 8x10 enlarger is massively less trouble than a monster camera.

Exactly my earlier point, but I should have simply asked "What's the goal?". All we know so far is "panorama contact prints". When I think "panorama print", I always think of a print much larger than any camera.

I just don't "get" a 2 foot panorama contact print, from a huge camera when a 4X enlarged print from a 4x5" negative would be indistinguishable.

I'll admit that an eight foot print from a 2 foot negative could beat out an eight foot print from a 5 inch negative, but that's a whole different story.

Am I wrong?

[Hugo Zhang]

Chamonix makes 24x32 cameras. Most if not all of the users are making wet plates, probably due to the difficulties of obtaining films of this size. With inserts used within the holder, you can make smaller images of various sizes.

[Two23]

Chamonix makes 24x32 cameras. Most if not all of the users are making wet plates, probably due to the difficulties of obtaining films of this size. .


And cost.:D I once thought of getting an 8x20 camera and was thinking of making tin types with it. That would be cheaper than film and actually seemed to be more efficient than doing contacts from a negative. I decided against it because it's so windy here and just how many 8x20 photos do I need?



Kent in SD

[domaz]

Chamonix makes 24x32 cameras. Most if not all of the users are making wet plates, probably due to the difficulties of obtaining films of this size. With inserts used within the holder, you can make smaller images of various sizes.

You could also shoot paper negatives with a 24x32, Silver gelatin paper is still available on rolls. Maybe even RA-4 reversal if you want color...

[Two23]

You could also shoot paper negatives with a 24x32, Silver gelatin paper is still available on rolls. Maybe even RA-4 reversal if you want color...

That's a good idea. Landscapes don't move very fast so the slow speed shouldn't be much of a problem. Paper negs would be easier than tin types too.


Kent in SD

[Lachlan 717]

Both 7x17” and 8x20” can be easily scanned and stitched on something as simple as an Epsom V700/750/800 etc with high acuity, massive file size results.

Both also allow magnificent contact prints at native size. Or, you could produce high quality, pre-processed digital negatives for larger contact/carbon/alt process contact prints.

If you are going to go with the bigger film size, you probably should factor in the cost of a new iPhone Pro because, like the old saying goes, the best camera is the one that you have with you, and I doubt that, once the dust of the initial purchase of a 12x30” camera settles, it won’t be with you much…

Here’s someone’ struggle with *just* a 12x20”: https://youtu.be/0tlgk6pmXyA

A d 16x20”:

https://youtu.be/78tfSJhoTQA

[Mark NY]

Enlargement is not a goal. Building an enlarger for 12x30 is beyond my wildest dream. Contact print 99% most likely

Consider finishing costs as well - mounting, framing, and the like; can't imagine you're pining for prints this big just to store them rolled up in a tube. You'll also need to rent a Ryder to transport them to the gallery for the show(s) I presume you'll be soliciting?

[Corran]

Yes, I've heard of him. While he and I both make 8 foot murals, he rented a 2,000 square foot room. I'm not so lucky. That's bigger than my entire house!

There are lots of photographers that make enormous murals -- much larger than mine or Clyde's. The size of the print determines the size of the darkroom. My point is that a mural does not require an enormous negative or enlarger -- and can be done without a 2,000 square foot dark room.

As has already been said, contact prints are a perfectly valid and common usage. That's what I'm doing when I shoot larger than 4x5 too, at least for now. And I mention Butcher because enlargements can be done. Of course it takes a large space and lots of work/gear. I think that is obvious.

You seem to be needlessly discouraging, IMO. One thing about ULF from what I've seen is that if you buy the camera used (most common) it's often fairly easy to sell at about the same cost. I currently have folks asking to buy my 12x20. No, I'm not selling, for anyone who may be reading...

[Duolab123]

My friend has a "baby" process camera, 16x20. Vacuum back would require building on a truck bed, including a light tight room for changing film. I parted on a camera that took at least 36x48" film. I gave the 36x48 Kodak ortho copy film to my friend, still sitting in their basement.

I would love a Circut camera 500 fresh rolls of film and a new Porsche, as long as we're dreaming.

[xkaes]

You seem to be needlessly discouraging, IMO.

IMO, asking for clarification of goals, and pointing out potential limitations & pitfalls, is encouragement.

"If I were you, pardner, I'd avoid Donner Pass".

[ic-racer]

I think processing the prints will be harder than processing the film. Large fiber based paper is very difficult to work with. At least the film won't wrinkle or fold on you. My 8x10 enlarger came from a lab doing 50x100" but 16x20" fiber is the biggest I can handle with my own 2 hands.
Washing the prints may be more difficult than washing the film also.

You might consider making some 12x20" prints while waiting for the camera to be built, just to get that part of the process trouble free.

[xkaes]

I think processing the prints will be harder than processing the film.

You're right about that. One more advantage of RC paper -- but you still have to be careful with BIG prints.

[interneg]

As has already been said, contact prints are a perfectly valid and common usage. That's what I'm doing when I shoot larger than 4x5 too, at least for now. And I mention Butcher because enlargements can be done. Of course it takes a large space and lots of work/gear. I think that is obvious.

You seem to be needlessly discouraging, IMO. One thing about ULF from what I've seen is that if you buy the camera used (most common) it's often fairly easy to sell at about the same cost. I currently have folks asking to buy my 12x20. No, I'm not selling, for anyone who may be reading...

The question that always needs to be asked is whether it's about the image that's arrived at (and if the metaphysics of the camera used really matter to that) - or if it's simply about owning the biggest camera.

[Mark Sampson]

Well then, I suppose that Douglas Busch holds the record for contemporary ULF field cameras. As noted in a recent thread on a similar topic, he made a 40"x60" camera in the late '80s He, his camera, and his photographs were featured in "View Camera" magazine in the early "90s. Not sure if he's still working with that monster, though.

[G Benaim]

I’m curious what’s the largest size you’ve worked w so far. If you’ve never developed your own film I’d highly recommend starting w 8x10 before going bigger. I recently added 717 after years of working w 810 and it took me a while to get everything right, I imagine starting at a larger size would be even more difficult and frustrating. Get your skills and procedures dialed in at 810 and then move up.

[xkaes]

Well then, I suppose that Douglas Busch holds the record for contemporary ULF field cameras.

"Contemporary" is the important qualifier. His 40x60" is no where near the record. Perhaps he had an Oedipus Complex as well.

[Monty McCutchen]

The question that always needs to be asked is whether it's about the image that's arrived at (and if the metaphysics of the camera used really matter to that) - or if it's simply about owning the biggest camera.


I’m always fascinated at how quickly others assign value/judgement to others choice of tools. Invariably the old easy trope of the final product is the only valued assessment that is applied to the tool. For the pro I would think that absolutely is true. The most efficient tool to produce the product of value—the print should be used. But I would hazard to guess most of us on this site aren’t pros—if we are we are hungry ones based on how much time we spend here. Process for the rest of us has value. How do we want to spend our discretionary photographic time? I shoot 20 x 24 and it most certainly has nothing to do with winning a biggest camera contest. Hardly anyone outside of the limited readership of this forum even know I shoot with it. It isn’t efficient. It’s difficult to take into the field. Processing is cumbersome and a full body sport and my final products are more likely to be given away than purchased—a function of limited time/commitment and possibly talent! But I love every second of its illogical pursuit. The experience with sitters is superior to any other format I shoot. They participate in a way no other format provides in MY experience. We end up closer through the collaboration. For landscapes the pace and effort puts me in a place where I’m more in tune with the moments I spend composing and enjoying the shoot. I walk away happy even in the failures of final product. I understand that line of thinking is individuated to me but that’s the point—there are as many reasons for photography as there forum members and it can’t be contained in a caricature of motivation. If the OP wants to pursue a unique format he may very well end up in the rarified air of Kenro Izu whom most certainly didn’t care about efficiency, or he may tool away is mediocre anonymity like I do. If it brings him joy I hope he pins his ears back and sprints toward the finish line. Unreasonable art is the best kind!

Monty

[maltfalc]

Enlargement is not a goal. Building an enlarger for 12x30 is beyond my wildest dream. Contact print 99% most likely

if you ever do want to try it, your camera will work just fine as an enlarger with some pretty basic addons.

[wsit]

if you ever do want to try it, your camera will work just fine as an enlarger with some pretty basic addons.

Good call. I did not think of that. I was fixated on the fact that there is hardly any standard enlarger of this size. Thank you!

[wsit]

I’m always fascinated at how quickly others assign value/judgement to others choice of tools. Invariably the old easy trope of the final product is the only valued assessment that is applied to the tool. For the pro I would think that absolutely is true. The most efficient tool to produce the product of value—the print should be used. But I would hazard to guess most of us on this site aren’t pros—if we are we are hungry ones based on how much time we spend here. Process for the rest of us has value. How do we want to spend our discretionary photographic time? I shoot 20 x 24 and it most certainly has nothing to do with winning a biggest camera contest. Hardly anyone outside of the limited readership of this forum even know I shoot with it. It isn’t efficient. It’s difficult to take into the field. Processing is cumbersome and a full body sport and my final products are more likely to be given away than purchased—a function of limited time/commitment and possibly talent! But I love every second of its illogical pursuit. The experience with sitters is superior to any other format I shoot. They participate in a way no other format provides in MY experience. We end up closer through the collaboration. For landscapes the pace and effort puts me in a place where I’m more in tune with the moments I spend composing and enjoying the shoot. I walk away happy even in the failures of final product. I understand that line of thinking is individuated to me but that’s the point—there are as many reasons for photography as there forum members and it can’t be contained in a caricature of motivation. If the OP wants to pursue a unique format he may very well end up in the rarified air of Kenro Inzo whom most certainly didn’t care about efficiency, or he may tool away is mediocre anonymity like I do. If it brings him joy I hope he pins his ears back and sprints toward the finish line. Unreasonable art is the best kind!

Monty



Thank you for validating my thought. If I didn’t want to self inflict pain and just want to pursue efficiency, there are easier way to shoot film pano. Xpan or 617. As being someone who works on high speed computer, the planning, setting up and shooting of LF brings me some balance to my daily life. I am not pursuing photography as my profession, but simply as a passage to my happiness.

[wsit]

Both 7x17” and 8x20” can be easily scanned and stitched on something as simple as an Epsom V700/750/800 etc with high acuity, massive file size results.

Both also allow magnificent contact prints at native size. Or, you could produce high quality, pre-processed digital negatives for larger contact/carbon/alt process contact prints.

If you are going to go with the bigger film size, you probably should factor in the cost of a new iPhone Pro because, like the old saying goes, the best camera is the one that you have with you, and I doubt that, once the dust of the initial purchase of a 12x30” camera settles, it won’t be with you much…

Here’s someone’ struggle with *just* a 12x20”: https://youtu.be/0tlgk6pmXyA

A d 16x20”:

https://youtu.be/78tfSJhoTQA

how do you can 7x17 and 8x80 on V800?

Thank you for the links. Always eager to learn from other's experience.

[Neal Chaves]

My largest format has been 8X10. Ever since I started 8X10 in 1986, I have made enlargements from various self-made rigs and Beseler mods to the late production Beseler I use now. I like to print many subjects 8X20 or 10X16 on half sheets of 16X20 paper. Sometimes I know at the time of exposure what the format will be, but I have gone through negatives made years ago and printed them with a new cropping. Either way, because I expose on 8X10, I can take out my narrow crop from anywhere on the negative. I was sort of a purist at first and only printed the entire 8X10 negative, but then I saw a Walker Evans exhibition and lost my silly insistence on not cropping.

[Lachlan 717]

how do you can 7x17 and 8x80 on V800?

Thank you for the links. Always eager to learn from other's experience.

Double scan (half and half) and stitch in PS. Simple!

[Tom Nirider]

Wow. I do admire your commitment. And, I absolutely understand the "regret factor"... I ain't getting any younger myself. I too have been considering ULF for awhile now. I thought an 8x10 would satisfy this but alas, I still desire big panoramic cameras. Wish you well, my interest is in something about 1/2 the size you are pursuing..

[xkaes]

I don't quite get the large camera -- small panorama connection "thing". You don't need a large camera to take panoramas. I do it all the time with my 4x5" and create 2x6' prints.

Maybe it's because my first panorama picture was taken with a 16mm Taiyokoki Viscawide-16 ST-D. 120 degree angle of view on a 10x52mm negative. With AGFAPAN 25 or Ektar 25, the 10x52" prints are amazing.

I'm not trying to talk anybody into or out of anything. I'm just trying to understand this large camera -- small panorama "thing".

[Monty McCutchen]

Xkaes

For me it’s the time with the ground glass in the final frame of the picture combined with alternative process’ as the output. I may take on digital negatives in the future but for now seeing the 7 x 17 ground glass and knowing this is the size/scene you will print in Pt/pd, Pt/pd gumover’ is very satisfying. The same is true in with the non panorama ULF formats I use for wet plate collodion work as well.

Monty

[Tin Can]

Monty is wise

I enjoy my petty pursuits as a retired and tired person

So many try to stop dreamers

Maybe I get this 14X17 flying or not

No matter as Rosebud, will be my last wimper

LOL


I’m always fascinated at how quickly others assign value/judgement to others choice of tools. Invariably the old easy trope of the final product is the only valued assessment that is applied to the tool. For the pro I would think that absolutely is true. The most efficient tool to produce the product of value—the print should be used. But I would hazard to guess most of us on this site aren’t pros—if we are we are hungry ones based on how much time we spend here. Process for the rest of us has value. How do we want to spend our discretionary photographic time? I shoot 20 x 24 and it most certainly has nothing to do with winning a biggest camera contest. Hardly anyone outside of the limited readership of this forum even know I shoot with it. It isn’t efficient. It’s difficult to take into the field. Processing is cumbersome and a full body sport and my final products are more likely to be given away than purchased—a function of limited time/commitment and possibly talent! But I love every second of its illogical pursuit. The experience with sitters is superior to any other format I shoot. They participate in a way no other format provides in MY experience. We end up closer through the collaboration. For landscapes the pace and effort puts me in a place where I’m more in tune with the moments I spend composing and enjoying the shoot. I walk away happy even in the failures of final product. I understand that line of thinking is individuated to me but that’s the point—there are as many reasons for photography as there forum members and it can’t be contained in a caricature of motivation. If the OP wants to pursue a unique format he may very well end up in the rarified air of Kenro Izu whom most certainly didn’t care about efficiency, or he may tool away is mediocre anonymity like I do. If it brings him joy I hope he pins his ears back and sprints toward the finish line. Unreasonable art is the best kind!

Monty

[xkaes]

So many try to stop dreamers

I suppose that some dreamers might assume that anyone asking, "Why?" or "What's your goal", is an attempt to obstruct. It's just as likely that they are interested in learning or following.

[Duolab123]

I love the "extentricity" of combining the wizardry of chemistry and the art of Large format (the biggest I can go is 11x14). It's so darn fun doing something that most can't comprehend. I've been "fully" retired now for about 3 years. Photography and darkroom are an absolute obsession for me. It's all I think about except for cooking and running around on my e-bike. I hope to be building a small shed in my backyard. My wife thinks it will house my mower, ha the mower can sit in my garage, I want an empty space that I can use as a natural light studio. It's not going to happen until I'm ready.
Keep going, never give up.

[Dave Wooten]

I have some 10x24 lith film I will be experimenting with before ordering some 10 x 24 Ilford.

[Fred L]

I photograph with a 7x17 and process the film in black ABS tubes with same sized end cap. Surprisingly enough, the pour cap for the 8x10 Simma tubes fit perfectly, so it's an all daylight process. The tube spins on a Simma oscillating/eccentric roller base, but the tube needs to be flipped around every few minutes to get bi-directional processing.

Haven't seen any signs of uneven processing with HC-110, Rodinal or my new fav, Pyrocat HD in glycol.

[Corran]

The urge hit.
226856

[Tin Can]

Can't wait to see the print!

I suppose you saw my firing of a Civil War cannon with 5X7




The urge hit.
226856

[Corran]

Link? I might've missed it.

[Tin Can]

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50479449182_41b612c6ca_b.jpg (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/8578Ci)Civil War Cannon firing (https://www.flickr.com/gp/tincancollege/8578Ci) by TIN CAN COLLEGE (https://www.flickr.com/photos/tincancollege/), on Flickr



Link? I might've missed it.

[Corran]

Awesome! Nice flinch on the right. No cannons here today, but learned about big future events. 5 shots to develop now, 1 color!

[Tin Can]

The camera shook from cannon concussion

The Desert Mule member told me that, I forget his name/handle

There were hundreds behind me, very close to my home


Awesome! Nice flinch on the right. No cannons here today, but learned about big future events. 5 shots to develop now, 1 color!

[Vaughn]

I don't quite get the large camera -- small panorama connection "thing". ...

There is the difference between a contact print and an enlargement. Simple enough. A small difference for some people, a big difference for some, and of course, no diff to others.

I often use my 8x10 as a 4x10, and occasionally use the 11x14 as a 5.5x14 camera. I used a very nice Ritter 7x17 for awhile, but decided against a single-format camera (even tho it was easily converted to make vertical images, which is sweet). But for the way I would like my prints to be experienced, even 5.5x14 is starting to seem on the large side of things.

I have resisted making a modified darkslide to expose two 2.5x7 inch images on a sheet of 5x7 film. Seems too small...less area than a 4x5, but I have made contacts from two or three 2 1/4" sq negs printed together. So I seem to have hit a sweet spot with 4x10, but have some options to play with and explore.

The size of the final image can directly affect the way the photographer approaches making the image. It's pretty cool that some people are driven to make images meant to be seen big, while others may make images meant to be seen in-hand.

[beegee]

my two cents' worth:
as another fellow posted earlier, probably the end results are more important. you could use an 8x20 or 12x20(and cropping down to 8x20 ) have the film scanned and printed in any gigantic format. Today it's easy to built a 12x30 camera , but also consider that the lenses are the issues, especially the w.a. l for that format, which today that would cost more than the camera itself because the extreme high demand . on top of that the film would be a special order, and who knows how much would be the minimum quantity to be ordered. I personally used an old Folmer&Schwing 12x20 and I never considered going an inch larger, it just does the job fine . in the used market there are a lot of affordable lenses available for that format including the w.a.. A nice moderate w.a lens for the 12x20 is the 355mm G-Claron, and on the 10x30 a similar w.a. lens would be approx 530mm, and I doubt you could get that easy a lens to cover that size negative unless you jump in to Zeiss Protar V, Schneider XXL Fine Art, Rodenstock Pantogonal, etc, extremely expensive and sometime almost impossible to find in long focal lengths
but ..... if you like to own a special custom made XL camera, that's a different story , why not .......go for it!!!!!!!!

[Tin Can]

Just say no to the scanning Drug

Bad ju ju

Bad for Mother Earth