Why do you use ULF?

[Nick_3536]

So can I ask why? Large silver contacts? Alt?

[David Vickery]

Just because its wonderful. Why do you ask?

[Nick_3536]

I'm making a list -)

Really I'm trying to decide between a larger enlarger and an ULF camera. Right now the list of pros/cons is pushing me towards the enlarger.

[audioexcels]

I'm making a list -)

Really I'm trying to decide between a larger enlarger and an ULF camera. Right now the list of pros/cons is pushing me towards the enlarger.

Nick. Don't you shoot 8X10 or is it 5X7?

[David Vickery]

Well, the first question is, what size prints do you want most of all?? If you can buy or build a camera system to meet that size requirement, then you should go for the ULF camera --- Just my highly biased opinion.
I will always remember the first time that I saw a contact print by Edward Weston. It was in a room with about a hundred other prints from all of the photographers that you and I have ever heard of plus a bunch that I never had, and the Weston print was the standout print by far. Beautiful Luminosity. I will always love the contact print.

You have to decide what is relevant to you, because the bottom line is what you want to produce and how much effort you are willing to put into it. If you haven't already then go and spend some time looking at a variety of prints-enlargements and contacts-as much as you can.

I'd guess that one of the great pros of going with the larger enlarger is that you can probably find someone who is willing to give away an 8x10 enlarger. Heck, if I had the room, I'd have one by now too.

[Marco Annaratone]

So can I ask why? Large silver contacts? Alt?

Because I shoot 70% of the time in-camera color (and soon B&W) and 30% of the time standard B&W negs and then contact print.

Finally, although it is certainly nowhere near the top in my list of reasons to go ULF, the idea of having a complete workflow that does not require any electricity at all is kind of soothing.:o

Cheers!

[Hugo Zhang]

Because I can't stand enlarged pictures.

[David Vickery]

More to the point of your question, I like the simplicity of it. I also like the prints that I can make better than the prints that I used to make with enlarging.

[Scott Davis]

You want to do big wet-plate images? use a big camera. There's an old Detroit axiom originally applied to car engines, which I'll paraphrase for this context- there's no substitute for square inches. And the glass that's available for those ULF sizes doesn't exist in smaller sizes, so all things being equal, you can't get the same look on the same film in a smaller size.

[jetcode]

Because I shoot 70% of the time in-camera color (and soon B&W) and 30% of the time standard B&W negs and then contact print.

Finally, although it is certainly nowhere near the top in my list of reasons to go ULF, the idea of having a complete workflow that does not require any electricity at all is kind of soothing.:o

Cheers!

Hi Marco,

Does your first line mean you expose color paper in camera? I've never considered that before. I can relate to being off the grid :) and think you picked two of the most beautiful cities in the world to call home. Maybe they picked you.

I live just North of S.F. and would enjoy viewing your work in person if that was ever possible.

Joe

[jetcode]

You want to do big wet-plate images? use a big camera. There's an old Detroit axiom originally applied to car engines, which I'll paraphrase for this context- there's no substitute for square inches. And the glass that's available for those ULF sizes doesn't exist in smaller sizes, so all things being equal, you can't get the same look on the same film in a smaller size.

Scott,

Is there an inherent advantage to wet plate versus film or is it mostly a process aesthetic?

Joe

[Oren Grad]

Large silver contacts.

[orlandus]

Well, the first question is, what size prints do you want most of all?? If you can buy or build a camera system to meet that size requirement, then you should go for the ULF camera --- Just my highly biased opinion.
I will always remember the first time that I saw a contact print by Edward Weston. It was in a room with about a hundred other prints from all of the photographers that you and I have ever heard of plus a bunch that I never had, and the Weston print was the standout print by far. Beautiful Luminosity. I will always love the contact print.

You have to decide what is relevant to you, because the bottom line is what you want to produce and how much effort you are willing to put into it. If you haven't already then go and spend some time looking at a variety of prints-enlargements and contacts-as much as you can.

I'd guess that one of the great pros of going with the larger enlarger is that you can probably find someone who is willing to give away an 8x10 enlarger. Heck, if I had the room, I'd have one by now too.

Hello.

Might you say the measures of this Edward Weston's photography?

Other one asks. 8x10 is considered to be ULF?

Thank you very much.

[Michael Kadillak]

Because I see things rectangularly (8x10) or in panoroma (8x20).

There is nothing as visually stimulating as a well executed contact print.

If ULF were easy, cheap. light weight or logical eveyone would be shooting it.

It is none of the above.

Bring your lunch, because it is going to take you all day to eat it......

Cheers!

[Nick_3536]

Nick. Don't you shoot 8X10 or is it 5X7?

Plus 4x10 and various roll film sizes. Which is part of the problem. I can't see myself hauling a bigger camera enough to justify it. :confused:

At the current exchange rate an 8x10 colour enlarger is similar in price with an 11x14 camera plus holders. I've got two or three lenses that would cover 11x14 and my tripod should be strong enough. So it's basically the camera,holders and darkcloth.

Part of me would love an 11x14 and maybe a reducing back [5.5x14??] but I'd get more use out of the enlarger. 4x10 enlargements plus all the other sizes. It's easier to feed a smaller camera to.

I'm taking the summer to decide but right now I'm leaning towards the enlarger.

[Nick_3536]

Because I shoot 70% of the time in-camera color (and soon B&W) and 30% of the time standard B&W negs and then contact print.



That would be the only way I could manage to shoot colour in bigger sizes. It's part of my desire for a colour enlarger that could handle 6x17 and 4x10.

My Enel bill came this week. 30 Euros for two months
:p I figure it'll be lower come summer so even being on the grid I'm not using much electricity.

[Nick_3536]

Well, the first question is, what size prints do you want most of all??


If I had to print one size it would be 11x14 but that's the problem I like different sizes. It would be nice to enlarge 4x10 to 10x25 for example. But then I like 5x7 contacts to.

[Scott Davis]

Scott,

Is there an inherent advantage to wet plate versus film or is it mostly a process aesthetic?

Joe

It's mostly an aesthetic - wet plate looks like nothing else. It's also in its own way the polaroid of alt process - you pour, you shoot, you develop in a 10 minute window, and you can see your finished result right away, so if you need to re-shoot, you can tell exactly what to adjust. Plus it smells really cool :D

[Ralph Barker]

I don't shoot ULF, but I'd love to be able to make 11x14 contact prints. If only I could carry one of those monsters. :(

Most of the time I'm happy with contact prints from 8x10 negs, and enlargements from 4x5. On the occasion I want something larger from the 8x10 negs, I send it to Bob Carnie.

[Scott Davis]

Ralph- if you want to shoot 11x14, look around for an older wood 11x14. My Gundlach Wizard 11x14 doesn't weigh a whole lot more than my Zone VI Ultralight, maybe 15 lbs to the Zone VI's 10. Sure, it's a bit wiggly in comparison, but for the price and the overall condition, I can't complain!

[audioexcels]

Scott,

Is there an inherent advantage to wet plate versus film or is it mostly a process aesthetic?

Joe

Hey Joe,

Here's an in camera color shot:

http://flickr.com/photos/louisedowne/2244529109/ (she has 3 other 8X10's, two that show the film grips so they may be contacts as well). She has a terrible scanner or scanning techniques, but maybe gives some idea?

http://flickr.com/photos/louisedowne/tags/8x10/


Wet Plate "Look":

http://flickr.com/photos/jonroma/1794407306/

http://flickr.com/photos/justincormack/sets/72157600527948871/ (also see this person's other older prints from back in the day. They are superb). IMHO, these two glass negatives are darn dimensional/see-through. Makes me think about taking the 1/2 plate cam I have around afterall;).

Cheers!

[sanking]

Many people, and I am one of them, got interested in ULF because of alternative processes. As most know, to print in these slow UV sensitive processes you must contact print. Back then making enlarged negatives had to be done in the darkroom, or made directly in the camera. Given the relative pleasure level of the two approaches, many people chose to work with LF and ULF.

In fact, the current interest in ULF cameras was due in large measure to the alternative processes, or to contact printing with silver chloride papers, as Michael Smith with AZO for example.

Times change and today it is very easy to make high quality prints from enlarged digital negatives produced from scans of smaller negatives. Even so, I continue to be fascinated with ULF because of, 1) the challenge of working with large cameras, 2) the extraordinary quality that one sometimes gets with contact prints with these cameras when all the stars are in alignment, 3) for really large prints (say prints of 4X8 feet from scans of ULF negatives and printed digitally) the extraordinary detail that one gets from ULF simply can not be obtained from smaller formats.


Sandy King

[katie cooke]

audioexcels, I'm guessing that http://flickr.com/photos/jonroma/1794407306/ is a dry plate, from the look of it and the 1917 date. If you want to see some contemporary wet plate work visit http://collodion.com and look at Quinn's work and that of those who post in the forums there (like Kerik http://kerik.com) or those artists listed here http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/WPC/WPC3/wpc3.html

me, I don't shoot larger than whole plate. I wish I could afford to, and I wish that I could carry larger cameras around, but, not right now...

[audioexcels]

Many people, and I am one of them, got interested in ULF because of alternative processes. As most know, to print in these slow UV sensitive processes you must contact print. Back then making enlarged negatives had to be done in the darkroom, or made directly in the camera. Given the relative pleasure level of the two approaches, many people chose to work with LF and ULF.

In fact, the current interest in ULF cameras was due in large measure to the alternative processes, or to contact printing with silver chloride papers, as Michael Smith with AZO for example.

Times change and today it is very easy to make high quality prints from enlarged digital negatives produced from scans of smaller negatives. Even so, I continue to be fascinated with ULF because of, 1) the challenge of working with large cameras, 2) the extraordinary quality that one sometimes gets with contact prints with these cameras when all the stars are in alignment, 3) for really large prints (say prints of 4X8 feet from scans of ULF negatives and printed digitally) the extraordinary detail that one gets from ULF simply can not be obtained from smaller formats.


Sandy King

4X8 feet...LOL! That's gotta be one amazing looking photo since you actually have a physically correct piece of sheet that can make a print that is tack sharp at that size even with the nose to it vs. the ones that can be made that large but you have to step away quite far to notice the difference. I personally prefer, even if I am looking at a distance (who wouldn't be viewing a large print like this from a distance), that the print is tack sharp even at the nose. I would "think" this sharp print would look better obviously in close range, but even at a further range than the same print with smaller sheet film capable of printing up that large (though stretching past what most would consider it to be capable of printing at).

Sandy, have you found that even at an 8X10 size, a 4X5 or 5X7 scanned with a pro-flatbed/drum looks better or "at least as good" as an out of camera contact onto silver? I ask this because you mentioned that it takes the right exposure using ULF film/camera to achieve something more magical than what you can do with scanning smaller sheet film. I think this viewpoint would be helpful for the OP because for him, he can buy an enlarger or even possibly find a pro-grade flatbed, or even have scans of the better work done for him, and then printed up to the larger size if what it takes quite a "right" moment to strike magic and do better than what he can do with a sheet of 4X10 scanned professionally and printed at 8X20, etc.

[audioexcels]

audioexcels, I'm guessing that http://flickr.com/photos/jonroma/1794407306/ is a dry plate, if it's from 1917. If you want to see some contemporary wet plate work visit http://collodion.com and look at Quinn's work and that of those who post in the forums there (like Kerik http://kerik.com) or those artists listed here http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/WPC/WPC3/wpc3.html

me, I don't shoot larger than whole plate. I wish I could afford to, and I wish that I could carry larger cameras around, but, not right now...

That's a wicked shot from Kerik's site. I will go to these sites now and thank you for pointing this out. I truly appreciate it a lot!!!

The person on Flickr designated those prints as being glass plate based and is why I linked to them. I only went on the person's words as he/she bought the prints that were supposedly sold as glass plate negative prints.

Curious why you do not shoot 8X10 and sizes cut down in 8X10 to match the WP ratio (but having a larger piece of film of course). Seems it would open up more options in terms of size of print goes. I know people say a WP is close to an 8X10, but from what I see, it is definitely closer than comparing WP to even 5X7, but is quite a lot larger. 6.125X8.125 vs. 7.625X9.625...these figures being the exposed image that I have measured from holders I have.

[Robert Skeoch]

I went the enlarger route myself.
I thought I would just shoot 8x10 and make contacts but once I had the gear I wanted something larger.... 7x17 or 16x20 or even 20x24.... I looked at them all. I even called my company bigcameraworkshops because I figured I'd be shooting 20x24 down the road.
Well for me it looked like the chase for larger was never going to end .... then one day I scored a 8x10 enlarger with a cold head... I'm so glad I went this route. Now I make 20x24's photo from my little 8x10 negative and I'm OK with it. I don't believe my photos would have been much better if I had shot 20x24 but everything else would have beens o much heavier.

I would rather get out and shoot with a 8x10 then talk about shooting with something larger but rarely get out.
Just my thoughts .... which are worth what you paid for them.
-Rob

[sanking]

Sandy, have you found that even at an 8X10 size, a 4X5 or 5X7 scanned with a pro-flatbed/drum looks better or "at least as good" as an out of camera contact onto silver?

Mike,

Are you asking me if a 4X5 or 5X7 negative, scanned and printed at 8X10 size, will look as good as an original contact print from an in-camera 8X10 negative on silver paper, my answer is probably not because of the much greater detail in the silver print. However, the digital print might have some advantages from processing that might make it a wash. However, the question is somewhat out of my expertise, as I don't make many digital prints in monochrome, and I don't print silver any more.


Sandy

[sanking]

I went the enlarger route myself.
I thought I would just shoot 8x10 and make contacts but once I had the gear I wanted something larger.... 7x17 or 16x20 or even 20x24.... I looked at them all. I even called my company bigcameraworkshops because I figured I'd be shooting 20x24 down the road.
Well for me it looked like the chase for larger was never going to end .... then one day I scored a 8x10 enlarger with a cold head... I'm so glad I went this route. Now I make 20x24's photo from my little 8x10 negative and I'm OK with it. I don't believe my photos would have been much better if I had shot 20x24 but everything else would have beens o much heavier.

I would rather get out and shoot with a 8x10 then talk about shooting with something larger but rarely get out.
Just my thoughts .... which are worth what you paid for them.
-Rob


OK, let's get this out in the open. There is nothing rational or logical about using a 20X24" camera.

In fact, it is really hard to justify anything larger than 4X5 or 5X7 unless you need to make *really* big prints.

And I say, so what. I still like to work with the big cameras. There is something very relaxing and comforting about not being rational and logical in everything we do.

Sandy King

[audioexcels]

OK, let's get this out in the open. There is nothing rational or logical about using a 20X24" camera.

In fact, it is really hard to justify anything larger than 4X5 or 5X7 unless you need to make *really* big prints.

And I say, so what. I still like to work with the big cameras. There is something very relaxing and comforting about not being rational and logical in everything we do.

Sandy King

Very good points made, though for the average person that owns say, a cheapo flatbed and still wants a nice quality decent size image, say 16X20, an 8X10 would only be a 2X enlargement just as a 5X7 would only be a 3X enlargement, but a 4X5 would be overloaded at a 4X enlargement. I think a 57 camera, in the least, for those that do darkroom processing such as the OP is considering since it is much more feasible than having something to enlarge 8X10 sheet film, or those that have a cheap flatbed makes most sense to me. On top of that, you can still contact print at 5X7, a size that is much nicer and significantly larger than 4X5.

I think what makes most sense is a high-end flatbed, enlarger (if OP wants to be in the darkroom), sending stuff off for pro-level scans, AND renting a ULF cam for a weekend, maybe two, to get an idea of what it feels like and to maybe pull out a massive and beautiful neg.

I would personally try and find a "very nice" enlarger that can handle 5X7 negs (dunno what to say about the 4X10 part) for a cheap price since you can easily find these cheap on the used since people just want them out of there even if they cost $$$$ even only 5 years ago. This would give a print size that is massive, and it would look gorgeous. IMHO, I think one would be able to get a super sharp neg from a 5X7 and be able to "at least" rival/compare to the sharpest neg from a ULF cam.

[Ed Richards]

I think Sandy has the best view - you do it because it is fun. Whatever the technical advantages of the format, you get to be a good photographer by taking a LOT of pictures. What are the odds that you will ever take enough pictures with an ULF camera to develop the photograph vision and skill to make those huge negatives worth the trouble, except for the fun of making them?

Be honest, how many large, technically perfect contacts have you see that are exceptional photographs, as opposed to boring? None of us is going to hit home runs for more than a very small percentage of shots. The sweet spot is a format just large enough to make the print you want, but small enough to shoot enough images to get something worth the trouble.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Well,I like 11x14 sized prints. So I built and 11x14 camera and it comes in at 16lbs. I also have a 250 sheet box of Azo to print on. Doesn't explain the 8x20 though. I do love contact printing though.

Jim

[scott_6029]

I like the 7x17 format...tonality of a contact print and the opportunity to 'paint' the large ground glass. There is also a 'tactile' feel and look of a contact print that I don't see from enlargements...

[Geert]

And I say, so what. I still like to work with the big cameras. There is something very relaxing and comforting about not being rational and logical in everything we do.

Sandy King

Sandy, that's exactly why I use the format.
It's like stepping away from the rush of everyday life.

Geert

[Clay Turtle]

As a novice, having barely gotten my feet wet with the 5x7 format, to me the drive toward ulf is basic to the nature of these formats. Coming from the 35mm format, where quick shots using zoom lens to compose your shots & computer chips to set focus & exposure, I naturally developed the habit of snapping pictures. LF & ULF require setting up the tripod (something I would seldom consider with smaller formats) & spending so much time to set up brings with it a greater focus on composition & taking the time to get it right. As you learn the elements of getting the exposure, etc correctly then you tend toward the more artistic (?) aspects of composition.
I tend to be my own worst critic . . . for example, I once built a long bookshelf to act as a divider to separate a longish room into separate areas. My brother-in-law, thought it was great, in fact he wanted it. Every time I looked at it I saw every detail (defect) such as misalignments resulting non symmetry or convergent lines, etc. You can buy a paste board cabinet that looks good but they don't compare with a finely crafted piece of wood furniture.