opinons of the 14x17 format ?

[thetooth]

i am interested in this format ( 14x17 ) but it does not seem like much film is available for these cameras . supposedly bergger makes film in that format but i can't find it anywhere . i know ilford does but there is a 11 box minimum from b&h . is that all there is available . maybe i should ask to what ulf format do you think has the most longevity for film makers to continue to make film in these sizes ?

thanks in advance

[PBrooks]

Hello, Try "The view camera store", they have it in stock. Then there is Glazer's camera, its actually less expensive there. Plus all the 14x17 xray film! As far as cameras Chamonix( which I have), R.Ritter, Lotus, Wisner, Cahnam. hope this helps!
PBrooks

[thetooth]

Hello, Try "The view camera store", they have it in stock. Then there is Glazer's camera, its actually less expensive there. Plus all the 14x17 xray film! As far as cameras Chamonix( which I have), R.Ritter, Lotus, Wisner, Cahnam. hope this helps!
PBrooks

thanks for the reply . i eventually found what i was looking for just took a little coaxing from google . i am thinking of making the jump . we'll see.

thanks

tim

[Dave Wooten]

Just for interest look in Jan 28 Sports Illustrated, double page spread in center of mag, story on Homing Pigeons, look closely and there is yours truly on a very cold winter morning in the Nevada desert with Wisner 14 x 17.

[thetooth]

Just for interest look in Jan 28 Sports Illustrated, double page spread in center of mag, story on Homing Pigeons, look closely and there is yours truly on a very cold winter morning in the Nevada desert with Wisner 14 x 17.

any opinions on the wisner . i have the 4x5 technical and am very happy with it .

thanks

tim

[Dave Wooten]

I like it. It is solid and stable at full extension. IMHO the weight about 33 lbs is an advantage for the stability. I do not back pack with it, but it loves riding in a cart..I do transport it by hand in close proximity to the vehicle. I also use a Wisner 7 x 17 with the tech movements, could nt be more pleased.

[John Bowen]

Just for interest look in Jan 28 Sports Illustrated, double page spread in center of mag, story on Homing Pigeons, look closely and there is yours truly on a very cold winter morning in the Nevada desert with Wisner 14 x 17.

Dave,

Does that make you a Centerfold? :eek:

[John Bowen]

Michael K might be able to provide more info from the Kodak ULF order, but it is my understanding, from something I read, that Kodak was pleasantly surprised by the demand for 7x17 film.

[rwyoung]

Dave,

Does that make you a Centerfold? :eek:

Only if the staple goes through his navel.

[Dave Wooten]

Dave,

Does that make you a Centerfold? :eek:
As of yet "Hef" has nt put the check in the mail.:)

[wfwhitaker]

any opinions on the wisner . i have the 4x5 technical and am very happy with it .

thanks

tim

I had a 14x17 Wisner. The Wisner is an excellent camera. It's only drawback is that it only takes 5 1/4" lens boards. If you only ever plan to use lenses in a Copal 3 or Ilex 5, then that's not an issue. If you have any thought of using portrait lenses which tend to be faster and larger, then it's a hassle. That exception aside, if you're serious about the format, the Wisner is an excellent camera. Plenty of movements, plenty of extension, well made.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Personally, I think 14x17 is THE ideal ULF format. Of course, that's highly subjective, but here are some of my reasons:

Big enough to yield a very nice contact print, but still "small" enough and "light" enough to carry and manage in the field without an assistant. Anything smaller and framed prints hanging on the wall are less impressive. I know 14x17 is only 3" bigger than 11x14 in each direction, but the bigger prints definitely have more impact. And while the camera and holders are still a load, I have determined that I will be able to manage the weight and bulk in the field (barely). I haven't built my camera yet, but it will be an up-sized version of my 7x17 Franken-ARCA. So, the back gets bigger and a couple pounds heavier, but everything else stays the same.

While not exactly plentiful, lenses that cover 14x17 are more commonl and more affordable than those that cover 16x20 and, especially, 20x24. As I was typing this, I remembered that I made a similar post on this topic recently. Rather than re-type it all, here's a link to that post (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=313260&postcount=3). In short, there are more lenses available that cover the format and they are more affordable - especially wide angles. A 305mm (or 12") lens on 14x17 is equivalent to an 85mm on 4x5. And, even a 355/360mm (or 14") lens on 14x17 is still pretty wide (equivalent to a 100mm lens on 4x5). And longer lenses are a piece of cake (450mm Nikkor M and 600mm Fujinon C for modern multicoated lenses in Copal shutters and process lenses in even longer focal lengths).

I also picked up a half dozen 14x17 Fidelity holders for about 1.5x the cost of a single new custom made holder. I need to get these holders modified (they don't have a rib lock) and will have the back for my camera made to fit them. They are heavy, but very robust and durable.

As to the availability of film. I already have a freezer full. I bought some at this time last year when Ilford did their special production run, and then bought a couple more boxes last summer just to add to my reserve and finally I bought several boxes of 14x17 film (more FP4+, some Bergger, and some Forte/J&C) from a private seller. At this point, I should have at least a three year supply of 14x17 film in my freezer. Like any ULF size, you need to plan your film purchases and buy what you can when you can. I bought a large chest freezer a couple years back just for the purpose of storing a large stock of ULF film. As I use it up, I'll buy more to replenish my supply. If Kodak does a special ULF run of their new TMY-2 I'll be sure to buy several boxes to stock the freezer.

And, while I prefer conventional continuous tone film, if push comes to shove, there is always x-ray film as a contingency plan.

Kerry

[thetooth]

thanks for the info every one

thanks

tim

[Sass Quatch]

I had a Wisner 14x17 for a few years. To me, this is the ideal format because it makes beautiful contact prints with a nice wide border on 16x20 paper. I used it for platinum and silver printing. I sold the camera out of annoyance because I could not get any good filmholders, just the leaky ones from Wisner. It was also getting too heavy for my bad back. Regarding Wisner, each camera, even of the same model, is a bit different. Some are very good, some are defective. My 14x17 was a very good camera at a low price. I use Bergger film. I have a stock for my own use. It will be available again soon (later this year). Or there is Ilford.

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

Since we're on the subject of 14x17 cameras, Marco Annaratone has an EXCELLENT three part article on his experience with his beautiful new 14x17 Lotus (http://www.1827.eu/Welcome.html) on his web site.

The article is beautifully illustrated, well written and very informative. In addition to describing his new camera, he also discusses the holders he purchased from Lotus and the logistics of using the camera and processing the film. Definitely a worthwhile read for anyone contemplating the 14x17 format.

Kerry

[thetooth]

yes i read the article very informative . also i checked out your website kerry looks great .

thanks

tim


Since we're on the subject of 14x17 cameras, Marco Annaratone has an EXCELLENT three part article on his experience with his beautiful new 14x17 Lotus (http://www.1827.eu/Welcome.html) on his web site.

The article is beautifully illustrated, well written and very informative. In addition to describing his new camera, he also discusses the holders he purchased from Lotus and the logistics of using the camera and processing the film. Definitely a worthwhile read for anyone contemplating the 14x17 format.

Kerry

[Sass Quatch]

I love 14x17 because it makes just the right size print on 16x20 paper. I had a Wisner 14x17 for a few years. I sold it because I could not get good light tight holders for it, and I decided to keep my work down to 11x14 and smaller. It was a good if not great camera. I have been thinking about an Ebony 14x17 but much as I love Ebony, it costs more than a basic car. Maybe Lotus is the answer. (I sell Ebony and Lotus cameras.) Bergger will be offering film again by the end of the year. Ilford is OK, but you might have to go in with some other people because of the minimum order.

[Dave Wooten]

Hey Bruce , good to see you posting here! I stopped in to visit you a while back when trying to "run down" the 16 x 20. The Wisner 14 x 17 with the S & S holders - no light leaks. I agree with you on the format and 16 x 20 paper....also it was nice to see some of your art work, painting, ceramics and photography..
Cheers
Dave

[Dave Wooten]

I had a 14x17 Wisner. The Wisner is an excellent camera. It's only drawback is that it only takes 5 1/4" lens boards. If you only ever plan to use lenses in a Copal 3 or Ilex 5, then that's not an issue. If you have any thought of using portrait lenses which tend to be faster and larger, then it's a hassle. That exception aside, if you're serious about the format, the Wisner is an excellent camera. Plenty of movements, plenty of extension, well made.


I have had adaptor boards made by Richard Ritter that steps down so I can use Toyo field boards, also there is a nice design adaptation that Tracy Storer has designed and builds that allows for larger boards.....the larger 6 x 6 Toyo adapter Tracy has designed is definately in my future-large enough to accomodate even 760 f/11 nikkor and larger.

[Marco Annaratone]

Well, I'm kind of biased in favor of 14x17 :-)

I personally stopped worrying about film availability - after I bought a little floor-standing freezer, that is. I will never shoot more than 50-100 pictures a year though.

I am planning to shoot this summer above 7000ft. We have in the Alps many huts that are served by cableways that carry water and food from the valley to feed hikers. I will beg the hut's patron for mercy and I am sure he or she will allow me to use the cableway to carry the equipment up there. And then I know I can carry the 14x17 equipment for up to half a mile (in several trips, mind you...). A larger format would certainly limit my range and/or my spine, as I ain't no spring chicken :)


P.S. Thanks Kerry, you made me blush ... ;)

[John Bowen]

For those of you who don't yet own ULF cameras, you should check out Richard Ritter's line. Sandy King straps his 20x24 to his back and heads off hiking. There are some pictures posted either here or on Apug. Richard makes one very light camera using Carbon Fiber tubing for the chasis. Using a lighter camera, means you can use a lighter tripod and head, or as Richard himself, he sets his camera up with no tripod head at all. :-)

[thetooth]

I love 14x17 because it makes just the right size print on 16x20 paper. I had a Wisner 14x17 for a few years. I sold it because I could not get good light tight holders for it, and I decided to keep my work down to 11x14 and smaller. It was a good if not great camera. I have been thinking about an Ebony 14x17 but much as I love Ebony, it costs more than a basic car. Maybe Lotus is the answer. (I sell Ebony and Lotus cameras.) Bergger will be offering film again by the end of the year. Ilford is OK, but you might have to go in with some other people because of the minimum order.

bruce i believe your camera is the one i am looking at on ebay right now .

tim