PDA

View Full Version : 7x17 vs 8x20 - all things considered



David R Munson
16-Sep-2003, 19:22
So now that I figured out that my plans to build a tool chest for my hand tools this winter won't be as involved or take nearly as long as I thought it was going to, I'm again making plans (literally, drawing up plans) for something bigger than my 8x10. The design will based on my Deardorff - in fact almost identical to my Deardorff only with a bigger rear assembly and slightly beefed-up construction. I had originally just assumed that 8x20 was the format I wanted, but then I remembered 7x17 and thought maybe that it might also be worth considering.

So basically, what I want to know is this - given everything from esthetic considerations to film cost to camera weight to contact prints to anything else you can think of - is there really any big reason to go with one instead of the other? Do you shoot with one or the other? If so, what was your determining factor? Your thoughts appreciated.

clay harmon
16-Sep-2003, 19:31
Just want to repeat a Carl Weese comment about the two formats that I wholly agree with: you can comfortably hold a 7x17 print in your hand and view it normally at arm's length. An 8x20, on the other hand, is literally more than a handful and is best appreciated 'on the wall' from a little more distance.

As far as practical matters go, I think 7x17 film will be easier to find, plus doing 7x17 prints is a breeze in 16x20 inch trays. If you go to 8x20's, chances are your tray size will need go up a size to 20x24 to give you that comfortable amount of room for agitation of your prints. I also found moving from an 8x10 to a 7x17 camera to be less of a jump than it was moving from a 7x17 to a 12x20. You can actually consider carrying a 7x17 camera in a pack, whereas an 8x20 would demand some serious burliness. All that said, I am now shooting a lot of 12x20, and I just chop the negative when I want a skinnier format.

Jim Galli
16-Sep-2003, 20:14
This is strictly FWIW. just me. I progressed (?) in this order 8X10, 11X14, 7X17, 8X20. The 11X14 seems huge compared to the 8X10. The 7X17 seems dainty in comparison. It doesn't feel bigger than the 8X10 even though there is 50% more Sq. in. than the 810. I guess it seems quite manageable. The 8X20 definitely seems as big as the 1114 and sq. in.'s is about the same. It's big. So are the negs. Silver is sold by sq in. and prices of film reflect that almost perfectly. I've got a bunch of 5 in. aerial film in the freezer and am waiting for a 5X12 to come along.

Michael A.Smith
16-Sep-2003, 20:36
16x20 trays are just fine for 8x20s.

I use an 8x20--an 8x20 back on a 12x20 camera. 35 pounds. A straight 8x20 is not that heavy.

7x17s are tiny things.

Bottom line. Look at some 7x17 prints. Look at some 8x20 prints. Decide which size you like best. And then build the camera to that size.

sanking
16-Sep-2003, 20:57
I would take the 7X17 over an 8X20. Visually I don't find a lot of difference in perceived size between 7X17 and 8X20 prints, though the 7X17 may be a tad more intimate. However, when it comes to the practicalities of carrying around a 7X17 or 8X20 system there is really a huge advantage in favor of the 7X17. Packing and carrying a 7X17 is hardly more trouble than working with an 8X20, but the 8X20 is more like a 12X20.

And, should you want to scan your negatives, say for making those really big Pictorico negatives up to 35"X 95", or just for correcting imperfections or dodging and burning on the computer, you can make the scan of 7X17 negatives with one pass on an A3 size scanner, whereas with the 8X20 you will have to scan in two passes and stitch the images together. Some of you probably suspect that I am kidding about this, or just crazy, but I am not. I have really found that I can make better prints from many of my ULF negatives by scanning them, doing corrections and dodging and burning on the computer and printing negatives on Pictorico, than by printing from the original negatives.

CP Goerz
16-Sep-2003, 23:16
Before I settled on 8x20 I cut out sheets of paper in 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20. I knew I wanted a panoramic camera but wasn't sure which one. When I placed the sheets on the floor my eyes went for the 8x20. I look at prints at that distance, I don't normally hold them, for portfolio purposes that may work though.

The 8x20 seems to have a bit more room for the image to breath than the 7x17, the proportions are about the same really so you kinda split hairs, just go with the gut.

CP Goerz

jerry brodkey
17-Sep-2003, 11:12
Following up on Michael Smith's recommendation, look at Lois Conner's books on China and the Far East. She uses a 7X17 format. Also I was amazed to realize that 7X17 is actually slightly less panoramic than 8X20, 0.411 vs. 0.4

David A. Goldfarb
17-Sep-2003, 11:17
Lois Conner also was carting her 7x17" around on a bicycle. The Koronas seem quite portable.

Michael Jones
17-Sep-2003, 13:37
Having used both formats, I agree with the Carl Weese comment about the two formats: you can comfortably hold a 7x17 print in your hand and view it normally at arm's length. An 8x20, on the other hand, is literally more than a handful and is best appreciated 'on the wall' from a little more distance. The 8x20's seem "bigger" and more panoramic.

Physically, the difference the equipment is as great. I had Sandy King's experiences. Both my cameras were Korona's and, frankly, after a few season's with each, the 7x17 seemed quite portable and easy to use. Everything from lenses through processing "felt" easier to do.

As Michael Smith said, look at photos in each size and see what appeals to you.

Mike

PS: Do the exercise cutting blank paper to size for each study it. Its beneficial.

Christopher Condit
17-Sep-2003, 16:01
Other things being equal, bigger is better. Assume you are going with the 8x20, then try to build a case as to why 7x17 would be better. If there are conclusive reason(s), go small, else go large.

CXC

P.S. The cut-out paper test sounds like a very good idea.

Nicholas F. Jones
17-Sep-2003, 16:26
For some beautiful platinum-palladium prints from negatives exposed on a hand-built 7x17 camera, if you haven't seen them already, just look at Chris McCaw's "Keeping Time/The Manteca Portfolio" in VC July/August 2002, pp. 12-19.

Joe Smigiel
17-Sep-2003, 16:33
You could always build a 7x17 reducing back to fit an 8x20 and have both formats.

David R Munson
17-Sep-2003, 22:28
Thanks for all the good input. It's given me a lot to think about. I think I have a number of valid reasons for going with either format. Overall though, at least for the next few eyars, I think things point in favor of the 7x17. I'm sure I'll eventually build another camera at either 8x20 or 12x20, but until then I think the 7x17 would be the best choice for me. A primary consideration is size and weight. I'm not a big guy, and whatever format I go with, I'll be packing it out into natural areas for a fair distance. I can carry my 8x10 for 20 miles and that's fine, but I think with 8x20 I would be much more limited in my ability to carry it long distances than I would be with the 7x17, though neither is small and light.

Now then - esthetic considerations. In looking at photos from both formats, I find that I like both formats equally, but that they strike me in different ways. I feel that I could make good use of both formats, but that perhaps 7x17 is a little more suited to my style. Even when I'm enlarging, I tend not to print too large - usually 8x10, occasionally 11x14, and so considering that , 7x17 again seems to be the slightly more logical choice.

Finally, there's the financial consideration. For the next few years I'll be going to grad school and generally trying to get established in something, so money isn't exactly going to abound. The film costs between the two formats aren't all *that* different, but they're different enough that it makes a decent difference in film costs per annum given a fairly regular shooting schedule. I know I shouldn't let money rule my photography, but I still have to be realistic. And also having a little more space to work with when printing on Azo would be nice too.

So yeah, that's what I'm thinking at the moment. Things may shift a little as I further digest it all, but someting tells me that for whatever reason, I'll be going the route of 7x17 to start with. Thanks again for all the good input.

cosmicexplosion
26-Dec-2010, 23:20
hi david
i just added you on flicker, I am andruski o'there!

I wanted to know how you went with your decision on format.
you see i am thinking about 4x10 as it is so easy with an reducing back

i am looking at the chamonix, as they seem cheap. a canham looks fine but i am not sure if there is any real diference in quality, just more expensive labour. and as an aussie i cannot be blamed for a less than patriotic american spirit.

So did you chose and have you been working with it. i

cant really look at your flicker, as my broad band is down and i am at 64kb which is painful.

I am really keen to own a 7x17 print and an 8x10

so i can see in my hot lil hands what they look like.

I did notice on http://www.scottsquires.com/news.htm

that the 7x17 was more prone to distortion, (but it may have been the lens or the artist vision.)

is film even available in 7x17 any more?

4x10 looks nice! and you can have two cameras in one.

surly if you make enlargements it doesn't distort to much?

Kirk Gittings
26-Dec-2010, 23:33
FWIW, Since this is a 7 year old thread, you might get his attention better by PMing him.

David R Munson
27-Dec-2010, 04:12
He's in luck, actually, as I am here today.

I ended up never building the camera. As it stands, I no longer even shoot large format of any size, though I intend to begin again sometime in the next year. I figured 8x10 suited me better, ultimately, and then money went in a bad direction and I ended up having to sell my LF gear bit by bit.

Sorry I can't provide more info than that, but plans certainly didn't work out the way I had intended back then.

cosmicexplosion
27-Dec-2010, 06:51
yes thank you big brother!!

he he...

well its good to hear a failure story for once. It also made me a bit sad hearing you had to sell your stuff.

you always have your wits and can always start again, no matter what no matter when.

you have some real nice photos from the little i have seen, cant you sell a few and raise some cash.

one of australias big artists 'auther boyd' use to walk around selling his paintings from door to door for the price of a pie!

does the term 'belief in ones self' mean a thing or two? to me it is the key that hangs around ones neck always.

i am also terrible with money, and getting my sinar P set up cost hard work and a bit of hunger every now and then.

but the main thing is you are taking great photographs. so good on you!

Vaughn
27-Dec-2010, 12:21
I am trying out a 7x17...very nice format. But 5.5x14 would be just a touch smaller, but still of good size. That is the way I am leaning -- a 11x14 camera with a modified dark slide to get two 5.5x14 on a sheet of 11x14 film. With the option of 11x14.

Jim Galli
27-Dec-2010, 15:02
As long as the thread is temporarily revived, I'll plug my 5X14 camera (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=665688#post665688). I designed it to use 5" aerial recon rollfilm and it worked perfectly. Downfall for me was having to soup every sheet by itself in a try while I can do 4 5X12's in a 3004 tank. I never got the hang of try developing multiple sheets.

cosmicexplosion
27-Dec-2010, 20:35
I am trying out a 7x17...very nice format. But 5.5x14 would be just a touch smaller, but still of good size. That is the way I am leaning -- a 11x14 camera with a modified dark slide to get two 5.5x14 on a sheet of 11x14 film. With the option of 11x14.

Thats pretty interesting Vaughn.

Do you think enlargements from 4x10 would differ much from 5.5x14?

I am willing to purchase some examples off some one so i can see for myself.

does any one have 7x17 or 4x10 or ??x?? "examples" they would be willing to sell for a reasonable fee, so i can see for my self.

or some enlargements would be better,

Film cost and availability make me think 4x10 would be the go as you can cut a sheet of 8x10 clean in half.

7x17 is for special order right..once a year, and only b+w?

but Jim was talking about a "magic 2.8 to 1 ratio, with his 5x14 ( i think i got that right)

now the ratio question is pretty important i guess.

http://www.scottsquires.com/news.htm

Scott has many fine examples of 7x17 and 4x10

the 7x17 is clearly more expansive, and lets you fall into the image better, whilst the 4x10 seems to do a great job of appearing a bit more 'panoramic' that is long and skinny.

thats my view from a 24" mac

so who's got some cheap panoramic enlargements for sale in 7x17 and 4x10?


thanks kindly

andrew

David R Munson
27-Dec-2010, 23:38
yes thank you big brother!!

he he...

well its good to hear a failure story for once. It also made me a bit sad hearing you had to sell your stuff.

you always have your wits and can always start again, no matter what no matter when.

you have some real nice photos from the little i have seen, cant you sell a few and raise some cash.

one of australias big artists 'auther boyd' use to walk around selling his paintings from door to door for the price of a pie!

does the term 'belief in ones self' mean a thing or two? to me it is the key that hangs around ones neck always.

i am also terrible with money, and getting my sinar P set up cost hard work and a bit of hunger every now and then.

but the main thing is you are taking great photographs. so good on you!

I am young, and when I was planning to do the 7x17, I was younger still (21 at the time), but one thing I have learned all the same is that gear comes and goes. Comes and goes and comes and goes and comes and goes.

Since I began photography in 1996, I have shot Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Leica RF, Canon RF, 5 different models of Mamiya medium format cameras, a Pentax 67, three half-frame cameras, a Linhof 4x5, and a Deardorff 8x10. It comes and goes with means and on the tide of what I want to do with my work.

The tools we use are just tools, even if we tend to idealize them.

Next step, back to 4x5 this year and then restore another 8x10 Deardorff WFS when I get back to the US. Can't wait. :)

Vaughn
28-Dec-2010, 01:48
While cameras/tools do come and go, camera format is not a "tool", but the shape of the final image when I contact print in alt processes. So if one is to invest in a specialize format, such as panoramic, then how it shapes the way one sees is as important as how it behaves in one's hands.

Andrew -- try just cutting out pieces of paper of the different sizes.

John Bowen
28-Dec-2010, 05:38
Anyone considering 7x17 has to be willing to spend a few bucks. You may be able to build a camera, but film, holders, lenses that will cover, trays, paper, washers etc are not cheap. I'd suggest you find some books by photographers that shoot in the formats that interest you. Michael Smith's books are wonderful and contain 8x20 prints. Tillman Crane also has ulf books. I'm sure there are others out there.

Can anyone else suggest some ulf print books?

John Jarosz
28-Dec-2010, 06:51
One of the things that surprised me about 8x20 is how images and subject matter in that format dominate the effect they have on your vision. You should try the cut-out card to see how the things you visualize appear to you in a ULF format.

Farmers supply stores in rural areas have a lot of tanks, trays and other hardware that can be adapted for ULF processing, and that stuff is usually pretty cheap.

Michael Roberts
28-Dec-2010, 07:50
As long as the thread is temporarily revived, I'll plug my 5X14 camera (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=665688#post665688). I designed it to use 5" aerial recon rollfilm and it worked perfectly. Downfall for me was having to soup every sheet by itself in a try while I can do 4 5X12's in a 3004 tank. I never got the hang of try developing multiple sheets.

Jim, what camera are you using for 5x12? (sorry, I know this is a little off-topic from the 7x17 v. 8x20 discussion.)

Oren Grad
28-Dec-2010, 09:40
Can anyone else suggest some ulf print books?

Great question - I've started a new thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?p=666011).

cosmicexplosion
29-Dec-2010, 01:48
ok so if 7x17 has a ratio 1:2.4 and a smidgen

it is the same ratio as 4.1x10 (10 Divided by 2.428=4.11) so 4x10 is .1 in difference in ratio to 7x17

according to my math.

any one....

John Bowen
29-Dec-2010, 05:30
Perhaps, but the finished prints are never the same size as the negatives. My 7x17 prints are closer to 6.5x16.5, due to the areas covered by the holder. I'd guess 4x10 = 3.5x9.5 in a finished print.

Things are seldom as easy as they first appear.

cosmicexplosion
29-Dec-2010, 05:57
ok so here is a real question i need an answer for.

if you had two negs 4x10 and 7x17 and you made a 3 x9ft (roughly) print from both will there be any real difference in image quality?

or at what size will they differ?

William Whitaker
29-Dec-2010, 07:08
And where are you going to find a 7x17 enlarger? This is almost getting to the point of dancing angels. If you're going to enlarge, stick to a conventional format such as 8x10 and crop to your heart's content. Otherwise you'll spend so much time and resources chasing after formats that you'll lose sight of your goal, which I presume is a photograph.

Michael Roberts
29-Dec-2010, 07:27
ok so here is a real question i need an answer for.

if you had two negs 4x10 and 7x17 and you made a 3 x9ft (roughly) print from both will there be any real difference in image quality?

or at what size will they differ?

Yes, you are talking about the difference between an 11x and a 6x enlargement, roughly. So, IMHO, you will be able to tell a difference in a 9ft long print. BUT, at a viewing distance of 8-10 feet, you will not be able to tell any difference. Perhaps not even at a distance of 4 feet. Within 1 to 2 feet, the distance will be noticeable. The quality of the scan will also make a big difference. I have a 38x96" print from a 4x10 transparency that was drum scanned, and it is as sharp as can be given the sharpness of the original film--because I had a professional do the scanning. Much better quality scan than I can get from my Epson 4990.

I am also interested in large prints. The consensus I have found on this forum is that 8x is the starting point for noticing degradation in sharpness, but some claim to get acceptable 12x enlargements from quality drum scans when starting from a razor sharp piece of film. Another consideration is--even if you can tell a difference in sharpness between an 11x and a 6x enlargement if they are placed side-by-side, is the 11x enlargement "sufficiently sharp" when viewed alone? I.e., if someone views the 11x print as a stand-alone print, will any lack of sharpness be a noticeable distraction or not?

And, will anyone other than another photographer even notice? I was looking at silver prints in a gallery a couple of years ago and the gallery owner nailed me as a photographer--she said only photographers examine prints that closely.

In the end, the real question may be, will the 11x enlargement be sharp enough to satisfy YOU? At least, that's where I am at the moment. I had a thought last year to do a test of the sharpness of various enlargement sizes using shots done on 4x5 with a 2x5 pano cut dark slide to make this test more affordable than using larger film/prints. I would have the 2x5 pano piece of film drum scanned for a 300 dpi print at 2x5 feet (a 12x enlargement), then edit the file down for two other 300 dpi prints at 10x and 8x enlargement sizes and print all three sizes for side-by-side comparisons. I will probably do this soon just to satisfy myself. But, to get back to your question, my bottom-line guess is that 11x enlargement from 4x10 will be sufficiently sharp for viewing a 9 foot long print, and that moving up to the 7x17 would not justify the difference in print quality (unless, of course, you are obsessed with nose-close print sharpness).

cdholden
30-Dec-2010, 09:14
Has anyone tried shooting 5x12 (or 5x14) from a 7x17 or 8x20 holder? Or any smaller film requiring length and width adjustment? What was used to hold the film in place?
I wouldn't mind buying a couple of boxes of 5x12 in Ilford's film run next year if it could be done neatly, without issue of film flatness.
I bought some 7x17 holders some time back and one of them had a "stop" in it, presumably to keep the film from going all the way across, so one could shoot film cut to 7x8.5. I wish I had kept it, but instead pulled it out because I thought I would never want to cut down film. Since then, I've cut down 7x17 and 8x10 to get my 5x7 holders loaded a couple of times.
Has anyone had experience with this? If so, what did you use?

Jim Galli
30-Dec-2010, 10:22
Has anyone tried shooting 5x12 (or 5x14) from a 7x17 or 8x20 holder? Or any smaller film requiring length and width adjustment? What was used to hold the film in place?
I wouldn't mind buying a couple of boxes of 5x12 in Ilford's film run next year if it could be done neatly, without issue of film flatness.
I bought some 7x17 holders some time back and one of them had a "stop" in it, presumably to keep the film from going all the way across, so one could shoot film cut to 7x8.5. I wish I had kept it, but instead pulled it out because I thought I would never want to cut down film. Since then, I've cut down 7x17 and 8x10 to get my 5x7 holders loaded a couple of times.
Has anyone had experience with this? If so, what did you use?

All of my 7X17's turn out to be 5X12's by the time I take my scissors and crop out the light leaks and beer cans and trash and hat held over the lens that got in the picture etc. etc. etc.

Michael Kadillak
30-Dec-2010, 10:36
Has anyone tried shooting 5x12 (or 5x14) from a 7x17 or 8x20 holder? Or any smaller film requiring length and width adjustment? What was used to hold the film in place?
I wouldn't mind buying a couple of boxes of 5x12 in Ilford's film run next year if it could be done neatly, without issue of film flatness.
I bought some 7x17 holders some time back and one of them had a "stop" in it, presumably to keep the film from going all the way across, so one could shoot film cut to 7x8.5. I wish I had kept it, but instead pulled it out because I thought I would never want to cut down film. Since then, I've cut down 7x17 and 8x10 to get my 5x7 holders loaded a couple of times.
Has anyone had experience with this? If so, what did you use?

Quite honestly I feel that if one is going to go down the road of 8x20 then I want an 8x20 image clean to the very edge of what the holders were designed to get me. Use the camera and the holder for what it was intended for. If you want a panoramic image would not it be better to use a projection enlarger from a smaller format or some digital process? If the incentive is economic that seems like you are not really into the format.

Rick Olson
30-Dec-2010, 11:32
Has anyone tried shooting 5x12 (or 5x14) from a 7x17 or 8x20 holder? Or any smaller film requiring length and width adjustment? What was used to hold the film in place?
I wouldn't mind buying a couple of boxes of 5x12 in Ilford's film run next year if it could be done neatly, without issue of film flatness.
I bought some 7x17 holders some time back and one of them had a "stop" in it, presumably to keep the film from going all the way across, so one could shoot film cut to 7x8.5. I wish I had kept it, but instead pulled it out because I thought I would never want to cut down film. Since then, I've cut down 7x17 and 8x10 to get my 5x7 holders loaded a couple of times.
Has anyone had experience with this? If so, what did you use?

Like Michael, I use my 8 x 20 to enjoy the wonderful panorama format that it provides, using my 5 x 7 for the "smaller stuff." But ... there are times when I want a large negative for a particular subject and the 8 x 20 panorama format is just too wide. So, with my 8 x 20, I am also shooting 8 x 12 and 8 x 14. I get these formats by cutting down 12 x 20 film (2 sheets of 8 x 12 per 12 x 20 sheet) and 14 x 17 film (2 sheets of 8 x 14 per 14 x 17 sheet). The "scrap" is used for copy negs, pinhole photography and other projects. I have marked all of my 8 x 20 holders to show the film formats. Before I load, I will position a piece of masking tape at the 8 x 12 or 8 x 14 mark. The lights go out and I will slide the film to the tape and secure.

In these times you have to be a bit creative. Enjoy!

Rick

John Jarosz
30-Dec-2010, 11:35
Like Jim Galli says, you lose a little on each edge for a variety of reasons. That's why I prefer 8x20 because it's the largest of the ULH panoramic formats. You can always trim things down IN THE DARKROOM.

My opinion anyway

john

Michael Kadillak
30-Dec-2010, 16:37
Like Michael, I use my 8 x 20 to enjoy the wonderful panorama format that it provides, using my 5 x 7 for the "smaller stuff." But ... there are times when I want a large negative for a particular subject and the 8 x 20 panorama format is just too wide. So, with my 8 x 20, I am also shooting 8 x 12 and 8 x 14. I get these formats by cutting down 12 x 20 film (2 sheets of 8 x 12 per 12 x 20 sheet) and 14 x 17 film (2 sheets of 8 x 14 per 14 x 17 sheet). The "scrap" is used for copy negs, pinhole photography and other projects. I have marked all of my 8 x 20 holders to show the film formats. Before I load, I will position a piece of masking tape at the 8 x 12 or 8 x 14 mark. The lights go out and I will slide the film to the tape and secure.

In these times you have to be a bit creative. Enjoy!

Rick

Come on Rick. Lugging around an 8x20 to shoot 8x12 and 8x14? Huge friggin film holders, big ass bulky camera and the time and risk to properly cut large sheets of film, the risk of the tape coming loose or sticking to the dark slide in either insertion or extraction etc etc? For what?

They have the perfect tool for your "special task". It is 8x10 and the correct lens.

If you do not have an 8x10 and the correct lens, please stop by. I have five 8x10 cameras and the lens you need. I can demonstrate how utterly perfect this solution works. It can't be the cost of film because 12x20 comes at a premium to begin with.

John Powers
30-Dec-2010, 16:53
Somewhere in the process of growing from 35mm, to 6x7cm, to 4x5”, to 8x10, to 7x17, I stopped needing to crop. I learned to compose. When tagging along with Michael Mutmansky and his 7x17 one day, he said something to the effect that I should find something interesting out to each edge and if I had interest in four places like that, the middle would pretty much take care of itself. All of a sudden I was printing contact prints and enjoying the whole picture, enlarging the whole 8x10 negative. It takes a lot of work to learn to see that way, but it feels very good when you get there, what ever the format.

John

Michael Kadillak
31-Dec-2010, 09:09
There is another possibility Rick. Have you considered a splitter on an 8x10 back that could be set up to shoot a myriad of panoramic proportions on standard 8x10 film at less weight, less cost and less risk of something going awry.

Rick Olson
31-Dec-2010, 12:49
There is another possibility Rick. Have you considered a splitter on an 8x10 back that could be set up to shoot a myriad of panoramic proportions on standard 8x10 film at less weight, less cost and less risk of something going awry.


Michael ... that's on my list. It's getting longer with "special photo projects" these days! :)

cosmicexplosion
31-Dec-2010, 18:13
And where are you going to find a 7x17 enlarger? This is almost getting to the point of dancing angels. If you're going to enlarge, stick to a conventional format such as 8x10 and crop to your heart's content. Otherwise you'll spend so much time and resources chasing after formats that you'll lose sight of your goal, which I presume is a photograph.

ahhh yes,

i completely forgot about the difficulty of a 17x7 enlarger.

but a scan comparison is still fair play.

happy new year!

cosmicexplosion
31-Dec-2010, 18:19
[QUOTE=Michael Roberts;666459]Yes, you are talking about the difference between an 11x and a 6x enlargement, roughly. So, IMHO, you will be able to tell a difference in a 9ft long print. BUT, at a viewing distance of 8-10 feet, you will not be able to tell any difference. Perhaps not even at a distance of 4 feet. Within 1 to 2 feet, the distance will be noticeable. The quality of the scan will also make a big difference. I have a 38x96" print from a 4x10 transparency that was drum scanned, and it is as sharp as can be given the sharpness of the original film--because I had a professional do the scanning. Much better quality scan than I can get from my Epson 4990.


Hey thanks michael, thats the kind of satisfying info i was fishen for.

well the whole lot really but i cut the rest out to save repetition.

i guess thou i will have to get an image printed on paper from an enlarger and the from a printer to see what i am happy with.

so far any colour printing i have seen from a printer look wishy washy and oh so digital.

b+w may well be different at that size.

thanks again and happy new year

cdholden
31-Dec-2010, 18:34
Quite honestly I feel that if one is going to go down the road of 8x20 then I want an 8x20 image clean to the very edge of what the holders were designed to get me. Use the camera and the holder for what it was intended for. If you want a panoramic image would not it be better to use a projection enlarger from a smaller format or some digital process? If the incentive is economic that seems like you are not really into the format.

Michael,
If that's what you want, then feel free to work that way. What I want is the ability to explore different options from time to time. It's only a hobby for me. I have not been compensated, with the exception of one photo, for any of the photography I've enjoyed thus far in life. For this, I don't feel that I need to be "into a format" as long as I'm having fun and being creative.
While I appreciate your insight, my question remains unanswered.
Thanks anyway.
Chris

sanking
31-Dec-2010, 18:51
7X17 was always my favorite ULF format, though I sold my last 7X17 Chamonix because it was just not in the cards to use it much anymore. But I personally found a great difference between the size and weight of a 7X17 outfit and an 8X20 outfit, and both prints look real big to me, especially when mounted. So I just never found that 8X20 made much sense, and that seems to be what most people conclude as well since sales of S&S 7X17 holders over the years are about 20:1 compared to 8X20.

Ironically, the ULF format that I most use today is 8X24 on my Richard Ritter 20X24. I had Richard make an 8X24 reducing back and our woodworker crafted me some 8X24 holders. I am cutting down green sensitive X-Ray film for the holders, which comes in 14X36" size, and of course you can get two sheets of 10X24 from a regular sheet of 20X24 piece of film. And of course you could put three sheets of 8X10 film in the holders, which is why we originally made them for a customer and I had a few made for me a the same time. The X-Ray film is pretty interesting for ULF work as it gives a very high contrast that is ideal for pure palladium and for carbon transfer. The great thing about this size is that I can scan these big boys on my Eversmart, and then either print digital masks and print directly from the original negative, or just go ahead and print a digital negative with all of the tonal corrections needed. Either wayI have far more control over my carbon printing than just printing the in camera negatives directly.

Course, all this discussion about format size is totally subjective. If you like the format you use just keep using it.

Sandy

Michael Kadillak
31-Dec-2010, 21:49
No questions Sandy, the concept of shooting in a panoramic proportion is considerably diverse. You try a format and over time it either works or it sparks something else in another direction. I gave 12x20 a good go and had to leave it alone for a while. Maybe I will come back to it at some point.

Last summer I was eating in a backroads Wyoming cafe and I happened across a marvelous turn of the century panoramic B&W image of the small town we were in. Had to be over 30" wide and 7" tall. I told the owner of the cafe that I was not aware that lenses of this era could cover so broadly with such resolution. Upon close inspection in one section of the image I could see a hint of a seam and deduced that it was actually three photographs of 7x11 (+/-) carefully assembled together by someone who knew what they were doing.

At some point in the future I may find myself doing more with computer technology and images et al. Running a company and needing to allocate a portion of my day in front of a computer screen has me looking for anything but more of that action. I could see it in retirement mode like you. Until then the outdoors is my therapy and the camera equipment convinces my wife that I am not just playing hooky.

Happy New Year!

sanking
31-Dec-2010, 21:58
At some point in the future I may find myself doing more with computer technology and images et al. Running a company and needing to allocate a portion of my day in front of a computer screen has me looking for anything but more of that action. I could see it in retirement mode like you. Until then the outdoors is my therapy and the camera equipment convinces my wife that I am not just playing hooky.

Happy New Year!

Michael,

And a very Happy New Year to you.

Lots of wonderful memories of exploring those beautiful roads of Wyoming and Montana with you. Hope we can do it again someday.

Sandy

Michael Kadillak
1-Jan-2011, 08:59
Michael,

And a very Happy New Year to you.

Lots of wonderful memories of exploring those beautiful roads of Wyoming and Montana with you. Hope we can do it again someday.

Sandy

Nothing like visually exploring such an expansive landscape. I am looking forward to it. That Nissan will run for another 10 years I swear.

Best to you and your family!

sanking
1-Jan-2011, 12:19
Nothing like visually exploring such an expansive landscape. I am looking forward to it. That Nissan will run for another 10 years I swear.

Best to you and your family!

I am counting on the free ride for at least another ten years!!. The Pathfinder now has 248,500 miles on it and still drives like a top. Thanks to you advice I am been using synthetic oil for many years now, and I change the oil religiously every three months.

Now, it is not that I could not afford a new ride, but I would rather put the 30 or 35 thousand toward travel and neat equipment than waste it on a new car. Of course, the big deal now is that I have to pick up my nerdy and very fashion conscious grand daughter from school and she is rather mortified to see her Papi arrive in the old vehicle!!

Sandy

Allen in Montreal
1-Jan-2011, 13:04
......

Now, it is not that I could not afford a new ride, but I would rather put the 30 or 35 thousand toward travel and neat equipment than waste it on a new car. Of course, the big deal now is that I have to pick up my nerdy and very fashion conscious grand daughter from school and she is rather mortified to see her Papi arrive in the old vehicle!!

Sandy

:) :)

I so agree with you on that one.
My daughter went through a phase like that too, then we went to Europe a few times and I told her that was the new car, which is better?

She came around! Take your G.D. on a trip to some great spot for a shoot that will leave an impression on her and she will come around too.

A very Happy New Year to you Sandy,
and lots of great light!

Michael Kadillak
1-Jan-2011, 13:32
I am counting on the free ride for at least another ten years!!. The Pathfinder now has 248,500 miles on it and still drives like a top. Thanks to you advice I am been using synthetic oil for many years now, and I change the oil religiously every three months.

Now, it is not that I could not afford a new ride, but I would rather put the 30 or 35 thousand toward travel and neat equipment than waste it on a new car. Of course, the big deal now is that I have to pick up my nerdy and very fashion conscious grand daughter from school and she is rather mortified to see her Papi arrive in the old vehicle!!

Sandy

Considering the initial cost of vehicles these days regular changes with synthetic oil is the best investment one can make in maintaining their engine compression for the long term. The oil simply does not break down like organic oil can when gasoline starts to break it down and heat finishes off the job. Remember to change your transmission oil about every 30-35,000 as well and you should save in this department as well. Each year you drive old Belle you continue to lower your cost per mile and that is fabulous. Oil is over $90/bbl and rising and gasoline is heading up along with it. Oil drilling is down 45% in this country as compared to last year as we shut down the industry in the Gulf so fuel costs are likely to rise as well.

The money you save can be re-directed to photography as it should be.