11x14 questions

[olwick]

Hi,

I'm curious about 11x14 cameras, especially since I'd lke to get into alt-process contact printing. I really want to keep things completely non-digital and that seems to be the largest size that still has non-custom order B&W film.

And while I appreciate suggestions for other formats, I'd really love to have expertise shares specifically about 11x14. (by the way, yes, I did do a search and look at the home page prior to this).

1. I read in one of the posts I found during search that 11x14 was "10 times harder than 8x10", but they didn't elaborate. Can anyone share the challenges with stepping up to 11x14? Not so much about portability, but about actually photographing with it.

2. For tripods, I've read about using surveyor tripods, but are there regular tripods that could handle it as well, perhaps with the larger RRS ball head?

3. I live in an apartment and currently develop my own MF film in a tank. Are there tanks/tubes for 11x14?

4. Aside from the weight and cost, are there other things I should consider about 11x14?

Thanks in advance.

Mark
P.S. I did read the GAS thread that's going on which discusses some of the issues, but wanted to break out and discuss 11x14 specifically.

[Jim Noel]

1. It may not be 10X as hard, but the mere size causes all functions to be slower and more methodical.

2. There are other tripods which will handle the camera, but stay away from ball heads.

3. Tanks meant for developing 11x14 color prints are used by many.

4. Weight and cost must also include essentials such as a much larger dark cloth, filters, weight of holders, etc.

[Oren Grad]

Re ULF film availability, Freestyle tries to keep Efke PL100 in stock for 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20 (yes, strictly speaking 7x17 is smaller than 11x14).

The longer focal lengths you need to record a given field of view in 11x14 can make it difficult or impossible to make pictures at close or middle range with substantial depth of field. This may or may not matter to you, depending what kinds of pictures you want to make.

There are several ordinary camera tripods that will do just fine with an 11x14 camera, though obviously it depends which camera - I'm aware of 11x14 cameras that range from ~11 pounds to ~30 pounds. In figuring the load on the tripod, you also need to take into account the weight of the lenses and holders you'll be using. I mostly use a 5-series Gitzo with a low-profile 3-way head, for camera/lens/holder combinations up to ~20 pounds. The classic Ries A-100/A-250 combination is great too, if you like wooden tripods.

If you leave out portability issues - a big if - I don't think of 11x14 as "10 times harder" than 8x10 at all. Its scope of usability is necessarily a bit narrower, but within its comfort zone it just feels incrementally larger than 8x10 to me. Incrementally that much more fun, too. :)

EDIT:

A PS re your number 3 - I develop my 11x14 film in Jobo 3062 and 3063 drums. I have a CPA-2, but you can also use these drums with various manual rolling approaches.

[Mark Woods]

Regarding macro photography, most lenses designed for 8x10 will cover 11x14 depending upon the enlargement. Don't forget that focusing on objects closer to the lens increased coverage of the lens.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I use and built my 11x14 and tripod. When you step up to 11x14 it is a jump from 8x10 I think. I had the lenses so that was not a problem. Holders are more expensive and less available on the used market, film is expensive ( although I have had great success with x-ray film) and it is harder to carry out into the field. My camera weights 16 lbs and with holders lenses and tripos it is heavier than 8x10 for sure. I can set the system up quickly. My tripos has a Gitzo 1570 low profile head on it that is a dream to use. Solid as they come. Where the real joy comes is looking at the great negatives and carbon prints that I am able to make. BTW, I live in a two bedroom apartment and I develop and print in my bathtub. I currently use trays for the 11x14 and 8x20 but I'm making hangers for the 11x14 so I can do dip and dunk. I have the tanks.

Forgot to add.... I liked the 11x14 so much I decided to build a 14x17!

Jim

[jnantz]

i shoot 11x14 and 7x11 portraits in a shooting space / studio. i don't use film but
paper negatives and i don't find it hard at all. i find it to be just as easy as shooting smaller formats like 4x5 and 8x10.

i was always told how difficult 4x5 was too and didn't find it to be anymore difficult than smaller formats.

[olwick]

This is all great info - thank you all so much.

Jim, it's very encouraging that apartment work is possible!

Mark

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Mark, I built my two cameras in my apartment with hand tools. It is not impossible. Now the sawdust is another matter! If you get into ULF you have to be kind of crazy to begin with so I fit right in with the crowd. Let me know if i can help.

Jim

[olwick]

Thanks Jim,

Not sure I'll go as far as attempting to build my own, but am looking at both the Ritter ones and Chamonix.

I just posted a question about 11x14 lenses in the Lens Forum, so any advice there would be appreciated too.

Thanks,

Mark
P.S. Yes, I'm definitely crazy

[Vaughn]

One of my instructors talked with ol' AA about if he should stick with enlarging 5x7 or get an 11x14 and contact print. AA suggested sticking with the 5x7. Primarily due to the longer lenses required for 11x14 and the resulting reduction in the depth of field. (the instructor often worked close to his subject, tucking into relatively tight places in the landscape).

It turned out to be good advice as he is considered one of the top living fine art photographers in the world.

But it is a big jump from 5x7 to 11x14. Many focal length lenses used with 8x10 are used with 11x14. It will depend on how you see and photograph -- if you want a "normal" or longer lenses, then depth of field might be a factor that makes 11x14 a little more difficult to use for you. Not a decided factor against 11x14, just something to keep in mind.

Vaughn

PS -- Jim, I am printing some carbons tonight, including (shudder) testing a digital negative.

[olwick]

Thanks Vaughan.

Question then: Is there a way to end up with an 11x14 neg for a contact print from a 5x7 cam without doing digital at all? An interneg or something?

(as you can see, I have this thing about trying to keep this completely organic and not digital).

Thanks,

mark

[Vaughn]

Yes, but you'll need a 5x7 enlarger and some litho film. You might go 4x5 enlarged to 11x14 if a 5x7 enlarger is out of reach (not too many out there). But I found little difference between handling a 4x5 and a 5x7. And depending on the alt process, you may not see any, or little image degrading from either format enlarged to 11x14.

The sharpness of many alt processes depends on the type of paper used and how the light-sensitive solution is applied to the paper. Alt processes that are made by a solution soaking into the paper surface (such at platinum) tend to be less sharp than processes using an emulsion sitting on top of the paper (such as carbon printing).

The advantage of the 4x5 or 5x7 to 11x14 path is that one can burn/dodge when making the interneg, thus contacting the 11x14 copy neg is just a straight printing job.

If one did not want to use litho film, and copy film can not be found, I suppose one could contact print the 4x5 or 5x7 directly onto another piece of film, then enlarge that onto a 11x14 piece of film (one of the Eastern European slow emulsion films perhaps? or even x-ray film)

Vaughn

[Curt]

One of my instructors talked with ol' AA about if he should stick with enlarging 5x7 or get an 11x14 and contact print. AA suggested sticking with the 5x7. Primarily due to the longer lenses required for 11x14 and the resulting reduction in the depth of field. (the instructor often worked close to his subject, tucking into relatively tight places in the landscape).

It turned out to be good advice as he is considered one of the top living fine art photographers in the world.

But it is a big jump from 5x7 to 11x14. Many focal length lenses used with 8x10 are used with 11x14. It will depend on how you see and photograph -- if you want a "normal" or longer lenses, then depth of field might be a factor that makes 11x14 a little more difficult to use for you. Not a decided factor against 11x14, just something to keep in mind.

Vaughn

PS -- Jim, I am printing some carbons tonight, including (shudder) testing a digital negative.

OMG Vaughn, you haven't, have you, ugh gone d******? Scanning those 5X7's maybe? I won't sleep tonight, that's for sure.

I just finished CAD drawings for 11X14 film holders, there it's out Jim, I made a profile and partial prototype and the film slides in smooth and stays flat, very small tolerances, I also found an old fine woodworking tip that turns out to be the answer to my most nagging problem.

The process of seeing it in CAD and doing it in the shop is quite enlightening. Hey Vaughn when I make my camera and holders I won't have spent the bank on the lot and will still be able to go digital if I deem it necessary. It would be nice to shoot small, scan and print Carbon. Traveling by air with an ULF isn't going to work for me, nor is old age. Just some thoughts in the late evening.

Curt

[Vaughn]

Just testing a negative we printed out on an inkjet printer -- trying to create a template for carbon printing via Dan Burkholder's method. Seems like a hybrid method is what my people are doing these days, so if I am going to teach carbon printing, I had better be able to help folks out with getting a good digital negs. (and yes, it was a 5x7 negative that was scanned and printed out with a step wedge to approx 8x10.)

I am also printing a couple 4x10 camera negs and an 8x10 camera negjust to keep myself centered...:D

Not really interested in doing it for my own personal work.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

One of my instructors talked with ol' AA about if he should stick with enlarging 5x7 or get an 11x14 and contact print. AA suggested sticking with the 5x7. Primarily due to the longer lenses required for 11x14 and the resulting reduction in the depth of field. (the instructor often worked close to his subject, tucking into relatively tight places in the landscape).

It turned out to be good advice as he is considered one of the top living fine art photographers in the world.

But it is a big jump from 5x7 to 11x14. Many focal length lenses used with 8x10 are used with 11x14. It will depend on how you see and photograph -- if you want a "normal" or longer lenses, then depth of field might be a factor that makes 11x14 a little more difficult to use for you. Not a decided factor against 11x14, just something to keep in mind.

Vaughn

PS -- Jim, I am printing some carbons tonight, including (shudder) testing a digital negative.

Vaughn, let me know how the digital stuff comes out. Something I'm going to have to get up to speed on if I'm going to be teaching carbon printing also. Just not in my work flow but it will be in others so it would be nice to know.

Jim

[Vaughn]

Jim, the carbon I just printed using the one dig neg I made came out very flat -- both in contrast and relief. It was made using Dan Burkholder's template for platinum printing. The neg looked flat so I was not surprised.

Basically one gets the image looking like one wants it to look on the computer screen, then one applies a template that changes the curves to print in what ever process one is using so that it will print like it looks on the screen. This assumes that one has good control/consistancy on one's printing process (including the same light source). So obviously we'll need to crank up the contrast quite a bit relative to the platinum template.

Once one has the template fine-tuned, then it can be applied to all one's images to get (in theory) the same result. Of course, one can still vary the controls in the alt process to best fit the image.

There, I just taught you just about all I know about digital negatives! :D

I'll be working with Kate Jordahl next week in Hayward to fine-tune the templates to match my tissue and PhotoCentral's NuArc for the workshop. I'll ask about how they feel about having you come up to assist, if you are still interested.

Vaughn

PS...time to develop the last carbon print of this printing session!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Vaughn, thanks for the digital training on negatives.That is about all my small brain can handle. Let me know about assisting with the workshop. I may have one at Translight Photography center in Los Angeles on the same day. I'm waiting for confirmation.

Jim

[Brian C. Miller]

Question then: Is there a way to end up with an 11x14 neg for a contact print from a 5x7 cam without doing digital at all? An interneg or something?

Ilford FP4+ reversal instructions (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf)

I haven't done it myself yet, but it's on my to-do mad scientist list. Yes, I want to play with concentrated sulpheric acid!

[Vaughn]

Ilford FP4+ reversal instructions (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf)

I haven't done it myself yet, but it's on my to-do mad scientist list. Yes, I want to play with concentrated sulpheric acid!

And there is the fellow (Dr5) who will develop/reverse your B&W sheet film for you.

http://www.dr5.com/

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

Ilford FP4+ reversal instructions (http://www.ilfordphoto.com/Webfiles/20061291034093.pdf)

Thank you! I haven't seen this before.

[Curt]

Hi Vaughn, which printer are you using for the digital negatives?

Curt

[Mark Woods]

Hello all, I'm re-shooting a series I shot in different formats with my Chamnoix 11x14 to do a PP edition. I'm shooting the prints that are "show" prints. I'll let you know how it works. I'm using the CSX X-Ray film (green) and I'm trying PMK next week to see if I can get the density range I need. If anyone has work with the X-Ray film and isn't Pyro or PMK, please let me know your process.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Hello all, I'm re-shooting a series I shot in different formats with my Chamnoix 11x14 to do a PP edition. I'm shooting the prints that are "show" prints. I'll let you know how it works. I'm using the CSX X-Ray film (green) and I'm trying PMK next week to see if I can get the density range I need. If anyone has work with the X-Ray film and isn't Pyro or PMK, please let me know your process.

Mark, I'm using the Pyrocat-HD with my 11x14 green x-ray film and if you need any help let me know. I thought I had your number but I don't so if you need to talk let me know.

Jim

[Vaughn]

Hi Vaughn, which printer are you using for the digital negatives?

Curt

Don't remember -- it was made at PhotoCentral in Hayward. I'll be down there next week to fine-tune the digital negs for carbon printing and will make note which Epson it is.

[Michael Kadillak]

I find 11x14 just slightly more challenging than 8x10 to be perfectly honest.

I found a Marine Deardorff V11 that I had modified to accept modern holders and it is amazingly easy and quick to make photographs. I develop in trays and make contact prints so it is not that big a deal. Yes, I use a Ries A100 for the V11, but the counter to the larger tripod is the fact that the 11x14 contact is amazingly large and sharp as hell. My dark cloth is the BTZS lighweight and it is very easy to pack and use.

Long lenses? Not that big a deal. Make the adjustments and move on down the road. I actually find that ULF cameras are easier to focus than smaller format LF cameras such as 4x5 and 5x7. When you have such a large ground glass you back off and focus on the glass by the naked eye without any magnification device. One thing with heavier ULF cameras and heavy duty tripods is that when you set them up and lock them down you don't have to worry about them falling over easily.

[Mark Woods]

Jim, I'm in Maine right now and will be back in town Sunday. I'll give a shout.