Is there any real utility to ULF?

[Tom Hieb]

Let me start by saying that I would love to have an ULF camera, especially a 12x20 or 7x17 or any of the Cirkut cameras. However, I’m having a hard time justifying the cost of the camera plus additional lenses, film, processing, etc… and I’m curious to know why those who use ULF are using them. I know that some people use ULF because they want to print with processes that require contact prints. However, it seems that inkjet negatives are becoming a real alternative for contact printing, and this process should only get better. Also, some will say that they just can’t live with anything less than the detail and sharpness they get with ULF. But I'm not sure that I believe that enlarging, or scanning, a 4x5 negative, even if it's cropped, to any of the ULF contact print sizes is enough of a loss to worry about. And some will say that they like the slower, more thoughtful pace of working with ULF. But I can do this with a 2 megapixel digital camera if I choose to. So what am I missing here? Is there any real utility to ULF? I guess I’m attracted to ULF because I’m fascinated by the cameras themselves and especially the historical aspect of the older cameras and processes. (I’m starting to think that coated glass plate negatives would be fun.) But what do I tell my wife, other than there's a fine line between a hobby and insanity, to justify spending this much money on yet another camera? Thanks for your thoughts!

[Pete Caluori]

Greetings Tom,

While it is true that you can create a digital negative for contact printing and get a good, even very good print, there is a difference between that print and one created from an in camera negative. This is a hard thing to quantify in words and you certainly can't do it on a computer monitor. Go to a venu like APIS (it wont be in the US until next year) where you have the chance to see first hand prints made both ways and judge for yourself. After looking at hundreds of prints I can see a difference.

I use multiple formats up to 11x14 and I do own a digital camera. I look at my cameras as tools and chose the one for the job at hand. I pick the one that will give me the desired output, though these days I generally pick the 8x10. If you're just looking for a "print," then you are probably correct, but if you're looking to express yourself and you're looking for the ultimate a process can deliver, then IMHO there's no contest. A properly executed in camera neg will win evevry time.

My 6x7 film camera with 400 speed film will run circles around my 3.3MP digital camera, so I doubt that you could do serious work with your 2 MP camera. Good luck!

Regards, Pete

[Jay DeFehr]

Hi Tom. I think the short answer to your question is that there is no rational justification for using ULF, or LF for that matter, and maybe even film. In fact, it can be hard to justify photography at all unless it's your livelihood. There are many less expensive, less time consuming hobbies that one could pursue. How do you justify the equipment that you already own? I practice photography because I enjoy it, and don't try to justify it. Why do I use ULF equipment? Because I like big negatives for contact printing. Why do I use MF? Because I like to shoot handheld, but want the biggest negative I can get, which is also why I'm shopping for a Graflex 4x5 SLR. Do I need another camera? Certainly not. Can I justify the price? Definitely not. Will I buy one anyway? Without question. In my business life, I have to justify every decision I make on a profit basis, and live with my decisions, right or wrong. In my creative life, I make no such demands of myself. If you're drawn to ULF, why deny yourself? If it's a practical consideration, stick with what's already paid for.

[Steve Sherman]

It's real easy fellas, "Real photographs are born wet"

[David A. Goldfarb]

Digitally enlarged negatives aren't really adding much new to this question, as conventionally enlarged negatives have always been an option. Weston did it routinely to make 8x10" prints from the negs from his Graflex SLR.

When you change format, the characteristic look of the lenses change and DOF characteristics change. The texture of the image changes due to differences in grain, resolution, and local contrast. Adding an additional generation by scanning or using an interpositive/internegative process will have an effect on the tonality of the final image. Excellent images can be made with conventionally or digitally enlarged negatives, but they won't look like contact prints directly from a large negative. In some respects they may be worse and in some they may be better and in some they will just be different. There is no issue of "utility" here--it's how you want the final image to look.

[Jeff Corbett]

I currently work with 4x5 and 8x10, but also dream of getting a 12x20. Why? I agree with Pete above about the quality of the end product produced by an in camera negative can not be equalled by any other process, and I'm a perfectionist. The idea of working by traditional processes appeals to me. My last reason is the integrity of my work - in my opinion, any image that enters the digital realm (such as a digitally enlarged negative) looses it's claim to credibility. I know many will disagree on that last point. It's just too easy (and too common) to produce digitally altered images. See www.christopherburkett.com for that artist's statement on the integrity of his work. On that website you will also find a link to a National Geographic statement along the same lines.

[Michael Kadillak]

I completely concur with Pete. However, given the fact that you will engender as much opinion on either side of this fence depending upon the person responding, the only way to sequester your inner desire to see if there truly is a difference is to take you digital camera and make some digital negatives and the best possible ULF contact prints that you can with these negatives. If you don't have all of the necessary digital equipment, find a company in your area that specializes in this work and have them do it for you.

Then find a venue where you will have the opportunity to compare your prints to conventional ULF negative prints from seasoned artists and determine for yourself (or with your wife) if there is a difference. I can promise you that unless you are truly an uncompromising person and accept nothing less than visual perfection in its purest form, the odds are that you will have significant difficulty coming to grips with the sizeable investment required for a ULF package no matter how fascinated you may be in the history or the utilization of these cameras.

Cheers!

[John Kasaian]

Tom,

Its different. IMHO, any large format camera is a very different animal from what nearly everyone else is using(digital & 35mm, maybe MF approaches this LF difference, especially when used in panoramic cameras or roll film backs on 4x5s)...I think it comes down to if you think you'll enjoy this difference(many walk away from LF after trying it, so there are lots of good deals to be had on used equipment!)

Its true that working with LF will slow you down---though its surprising how fast you can get with a speed graphic (or even a wooden view camera if, for instance, you're loosing the light at the end of the day) To compare digital to traditional photography in order to come to some measureable result that will crown one process the "winner" and the other "looser" is missing the point entirely. While you can certainly "take" one process as far as you'd like, then switch to the other for whatever reason(and that is certainly a legitimate way to go about it, if thats what you want to do) they are different processes and need to be appreciated as such. Why compare a digitally captured and printed image to LF? Or even more absurd, why compare an Ebony or Linhof with a multi-megapixel Canon or Nikon? It would be like comparing a sculpture in marble to a sculpture cast in bronze. Both are artistic visions, but are created in very different materials and techniques, each with unique limitations.

Perhaps it all comes down to You. Is the mastery of 19th century alchemy and quirky equipment in order to create art a satisfying challenge? If its not something you really want to do, then its probably not for you---even more so in the rarified atmosphere of ULF!

Cheers!

[Gary Samson]

Tom,

If it is at all possible, try to see original albumen prints by the great western landscape photographer Carleton Watkins. Watkins made many images with his 18x22 inch view camera and the resulting contact prints are extraordinary. After seeing a large show of his work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art three years ago, I was convinced that an ULF camera was in my future. I recently aquired a 12x20 Wisner for a project I am doing on the New Hampshire landscape. If you find Watkins work as great a visual experience as I did you will find a way to justify the aquisition of an ULF camera.

Gary

[e]

ULF is a lotta work but it is also a whole lotta fun :) I like the big screen of a 12x20 there is nothing to compare with it. I am also consistantly amazed with the tonality of the contact print, esp. the incredible depth of the white and darker textures. I used to hate the problems associated with blocked up whites in enlargements but presto.... that problem just dissapears with the 12x20 contact print. The higher textures are exaulted.The big wooden cameras are fun to deal with much like an musical instrument instead of a computer. You have to be physical with it.And the camera has a real personality as well as the photos it takes. There can be big problems with ULF but there are big rewards too. The rewards outweigh the downers and that is why you see more people going this way. Seeing the 12x20 negs hanging in the bathroom drying is a thrill. Hell, I just loaded my filmholders and even enjoyed that as I know I will put them to good use while the mystery of what will be on that big piece of film stimulates my mind like an empty canvas ready to be painted. Also I feel privilaged to be able to use a camera of this size in this whacky day and age. Happy that B&W is alive and well in ULF. PS..if this interests you and you dont mind working with a Wisner I have a new 12x20 and a new 7x17 coming in next week for sale for the spring season. To be fair I might end up keeping the 7x17 (it's so small and cute...only 10lbs) but the 12x20 is definately available. This type of photography grows on you. It has really taken me places that the smaller formats wouldn't and couldn't.

[David Kashuba]

Re:Watkins... The California State Library has a great collection of Watkins' mammoth prints. Historian Kenneth Star gave a photo class I was enrolled in years ago a tour of the library's photography collection. With gloves Star turned page after page of Watkin's (and Muybridge's) huge contact prints. Lot's of Yosemite. We were allowed to view the work close, with good light and with no glass. MMMMM.... If one was serious he could probably make an appointment for a viewing. "Carlton Watkins The Art of Perception" can be purchased at discount prices from the usual sources. Excellent monograph.

-David Kashuba.

[jantman]

Right now, I shoot 8x10. That's because it's all I can afford. In the future, I plan on moving up to 11x14, and maybe one day to 16x20 or 20x24. I already have a 14 Commercial Ektar which, stopped down, will cover 11x14 - or so I am told.

Ever since enlarging became commonplace, there hasn't been a NEED for ULF. Mainly because above 12x20, all you can do is contact print. Unless someone out there DOES have a larger enlarger.

But there IS a visible difference between a contact print and even the best enlargement. There is just something special - a quality of 'presence' if you will - about a contact print. I love an 8x10 contact print, and whenever I read about ULF, I know that I have to do it as soon as I can justify the cost.

[John D Gerndt]

What does you wife say about your work now? Can you show her and have you seen contact prints from ULF? Can you bear to forgo some of your old equipment to go in this new direction?

It is a good thing to put your unused equipment back into circulation. The more people shooting film the better! Compare the losses in (possible) versitility and differences in what you paid fir it to what you can get for it to what is gained in getting the new.

Figure the loss goes to “film support”. If the film economy is good, if people are using all the film equipment out there then the art of shooting film is going to continue.

From a psychology POV, everyone has to have some goal and sense of accomplishment. I get this from my photography and not from my work. I don’t have any children and if they did their lives are their own anyway. It is a very different thing making something from raw materials, pulling images from out of the air.

Make some art and make it for reasons YOU feel are worth it and see if others share in it when it is done. IF you have children and do ULF (you must have a pretty darn good job too then...) it is still a unique thing you can bring to your wife and children - these images of your own construction and style. It opens up the world in a very personal way.

On the other hand, if you are only looking for some balance in image quality, convenience and price then by all means farm out your work. There is no need to acquire all the equipment and skill if you are not very personally involved in what you are doing. Digital is then "good enough" and has infinite change available and even enforced. Time will tell if ULF will be surplanted by a new technology, but I DO see people that still paint 150+ years after photography gave us this new way to create the sharpest, truest images ever...

[Christopher Condit]

The only reason I can think of for using ULF is if you are a retro-geek like me. I can't see the difference between a contact and an enlargement and I *still* plan on buying an 11x14 very soon.

Like a ULF builder/salesman told me last week, ULF is thriving (relatively speaking) because those buyers are 'fleeing digital'. That would be me. After 8 hrs/day in front of this dang computer, I want a hobby that is exactly the opposite.

[Joe Smigiel]

"What you got back home little sister to play your fuzzy warbles on? I bet you've got little say pitiful portable picnic players. Come with Uncle and hear all proper. Hear angel trumpets and devil trombones. You are invited." - Anthony Burgess

[Bruce Watson]

Is there any real utility to ULF?

Actually, there is. If you want a fairly large print, and you demand the ultimate quality you can get from a contact print, the only way to get there if via ULF. Of course, you are going to have to be a hell of a dedicated photographer to get prints this way that are better then enlarger or digital prints. But it can, in fact, be done -- so they tell me.

You'll never catch me going there though! I like putting it all on my back and taking a nice long hike through the woods or up the mountain. For me, the real utility is 4x5. It should be amazingly stunningly clear that YMMV though.

[Øyvind Dahle]

"I?m having a hard time justifying the cost"

Wide angle lens (360 Apo-gerogon) $60, find it on ebay or a 450mm Nikkor or Fujinon (will need wider box) Shutter 77mm lenscap (and a black hat) Card board box measuring 360!x510x310mm $10 Bottle of post-it "3M ReMount Spray Adhesive 6091" or "Gepe fix-o-flex" spray for making the film and dust stick to the wall $12 Bottle of dull black spray paint $20 Film http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=404&pid=5875 25 sheets $178

total: $280 plus development and contact copy cost. plus time.

Make a hole the bottom and a slit in the top of the box to make room for the lens, add plywood? to strengthen the inside of the lens side of the box camera and glue. Spray dull black paint inside both top and bottom. Use the post-it glue to fix the film and any dust inside. Mount the lens on the box, and your ULF-camera is ready. Consider a plywood bottom and one side to add tripod-fixing. Use the lens on 180-256 and it's usable from 20' to infinity (wild guess)

Øyvind:D

[jerry brodkey]

While I agree with everything said about the quality that can be achieved contact printing a ULF negative made in a camera, there are several other issues. A friend who contact prints pt/pl negatives recently went up to 12X20. He says that he would prefer spending his time in the field taking pictures on 12X20 negatives rather than spending his time at home enlarging smaller negatives up to 12X20 size. In my own experience going from 4X5 to 5X7 to 8X10 and now 11X14 I find that each increase in size makes me more selective in what I want to photograph and I spend more time with each photograph the larger the format size. One takes fewer pieces of ULF film into the field and the whole process is much slower. As a result the quality of the images seems to improve - at least for me.

[Bobby Ironsights]

Is ULF worth it?

Wait till I get ahold of one, then I'll tell you.

I dream of staggering large prints, with crystal clear clarity. (I'll have to homebuild an enlarger).

I know I'll probably never own a testarossa ferrari, or do the do with a supermodel, but someday I'll know the joy of using ULF. In my mind's eye, it's really in that class.

[John Kasaian]

ULF is fun! A heck of a lot of fun. The aerial image on a 12x20 gg is better than a big screen tv. I get the feeling I could "fall" into a picture. A 12x20 negative isn't a piece of plastic---its farmland! And the experience of loading a 12x20 film holder is mind blowing to say the least.

I wouldn't give up my 8x10 for ULF, but darn it ULF is a joy to work with (close to the car!)

[John Kasaian]

To get a taste of ULF build a ULF pinhole and make paper negatives :D

You can make your 8x10 kit more ULF adaptable by moving to a heavier tripod (Ries A-100 is nice) and adding a ULF friendly lens like a Nikkor 450M and---whoa! You're half way there! :)

[Ed Richards]

Fun is the best reason I have heard.:-)

One factor that has not been mentioned is what you like to take pictures of. ULF slows you down and limits the number of exposures you can do, unless money is not an object and you work out of the trunk of the car.

When I looked at ULF, the real show stopper for me was those holders. Forget the costs of lenses - you can spend $4k+ just to get 10 holders. Each sheet of film you shoot cost several dollars plus a big chunk of time to develop.

So make sure your subject matter fits the workflow. If you just like to mess with cameras, and fit your subject matter to your camera, no problem. It is a very valid way to work. Just make sure there is no mismatch.

For myself, I would love to fool with a larger format than 4x5, but I know the result would be taking few or no images because the workflow would not fit into my subject matter or opportunities to shoot.

[Terence McDonagh]

As stated above, flatly put, contact prints. An 8x20 original neg will give you tones and detail of an 8x20 neg. An enlarged 5x7 will give you the tones and detail of a 5x7. Nothing wrong with that. It's just different.

Of course I'll go many more places with a 4x5 or 5x7 than I would an 8x20, and I'm a relative youngster on this site.

If you get the chance, check out some original contact prints. They have a depth that just sucks you in. It's not as obvious to non-photographers, but when I've been to exhibits and asked friends which photographs they liked best, it's usually the contact prints.

[Dan Fromm]

Is ULF worth it?

Wait till I get ahold of one, then I'll tell you.

I dream of staggering large prints, with crystal clear clarity. (I'll have to homebuild an enlarger).

I know I'll probably never own a testarossa ferrari, or do the do with a supermodel, but someday I'll know the joy of using ULF. In my mind's eye, it's really in that class.Bobby, Google Clyde Butcher. Visit his site, take a trip to Florida and visit one of his boutiques. You'll feel right at home in Florida, in the winter the state is infested with Canadians. After you've seen Butcher's work you'll know why ULF is still a good idea.

[wfwhitaker]

...But what do I tell my wife, other than there's a fine line between a hobby and insanity, to justify spending this much money on yet another camera?...

The immediate answer is "the less, the better". :)

Buying a ULF camera is like buying an airplane. The initial purchase price is but the tip of the iceberg. Beyond 8x10, operational costs increase dramatically. It may not go up by the square, but it's not far from it. And that's actually not a bad estimate since ULF film prices are based on how many square inches of film you're buying. If you set your 4x5 expenditures as a basis, then that would put 11x14 as about 8 times more expensive, 7x17 as 6 times more expensive and 12x20 as about 12 times more expensive.

Of course that's not a hard and fast scientific rule. But it's not bad as a conservative guideline, either. Badger Graphic currently lists the 25-sheet box of 4x5 Ilford FP-4 at $22.95. During the last Ilford ULF film run, a 25-sheet box of 12x20 FP-4 was $291.99 from The View Camera Store. That's almost $12 per shot and represents a factor of better than 12.7 times the cost of 4x5. Beyond film cost, consider that you'll need larger trays and you'll need to fill those trays with the required chemistry. (That'll probably increase by the cube.) You'll have to figure out a way to safely store those big negatives. With 11x14 or 7x17 you might be able to get away with a spring-back printing frame, but for larger negatives you will need a vacuum frame if you expect to realize the quality of the image you've strived so hard to achieve. If you're using alternative processes such as Pt/Pd, consider those costs for your format. Devil trombones, indeed!

There are some moderating factors. Using ULF, you're more likely to have fewer lenses than with 4x5 (unless you're like me....:rolleyes:). And compared with some of the modern glass for 4x5, some (not all!) lenses for ULF will be cheaper. You'll probably have fewer film holders and you won't be as tempted to expose film on a shot you're not sure of. In fact, the ULF kit, being so large and heavy will often sit in the closet because you just "didn't want to deal with it this time". It takes an investment of both money and dedication to be successful with ULF. The latter is often harder!

This isn't meant to discourage, but rather is offered as a sanity check. The insanity plea may be your best bet.

[Duane Polcou]

My only experience viewing ULF contact prints was at Clyde Butcher's Big Cypress Gallery in Florida on a loney February day where mine was the only car in the lot. The gallery person was very kind in letting me spend 2 hours there examining every single print even though I told her I was just looking for my own photographic interests.

One of my overall impressions was that many of the prints lacked edge sharpness. Highly detailed, but not super sharp. And some near the edges were even soft, as though pushing the edge of the lens' useable image circle.

[Gary Tarbert]

My 2cents worth I believe 8x10 is a better option than ULF .
The reasons more film options even colour more lens options lighter weight than ULF
(i never thought i would call a 8x10 light) the physical size of 11x14 and beyond leaves their usefulness too within a kilometre from your vehicle.
Also slowing down is one of the arguments used often too increase format size.
But are you slowing so much that you miss good shots in rapidly changing light just because the gear is slow too set up & too slow too work with?
Also when i go out too shoot mono on 8x10 i will have 1 DD loaded with colour film just in case something that requires colour arises you can't do that with ULF
Just my thoughts cheers gary

[Dave Wooten]

It is a joy and an effort....

I spent the last 2 days with 2 photographers and a writer from Sports Illustrated mag...a story...believe it or not on racing pigeons, a life long hobby of mine...the photographers set up a half a dozen canon digital cameras on the ground and above the release trailer and when the birds were released the cameras began firing via radio signal. In seconds hundreds maybe a thousand, I don t know, images were made...the results were incredible and totally right for the work to be done

15 yards back I made one exposure on the Wisner 14 x 17....1/4 of a second...it will have some blur in it....

There are horses for courses and one needs tools of the trade....the professionals on
this job (not yours truly) certainly got the job done in handy fashion and the results were spectacular...

Both photographers have recently purchased large format equipment, 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 for personal use...

In is interesting that National Geographic for its publication on 100 years of portraits, chose for the cover photo, Rob Kendricks, beautiful portrait of a young Nevada girl, made on an old bellows camera with a 100 year old lens and printed in tin type fashion...

The invention and progress of photography, did not put an end to artistic expression in oils and other media. It did in a sense free an artist from "reality" it helped I believe in the expression of Impressionistic art....it also itself became an evolving art...it is a media and a medium and a venue....it is a choice...and it does have affect and effect on how we see and present our vision of our world...

[Alan Davenport]

Almost 4 years old, and this thread still has lots of life in it!

I dunno if Tom (the OP) is still following, but here I go: YES. ULF has utility, and then some. I'm just a poor 4x5 guy myself, but in the 5 years or so since I went large, I've learned that it isn't just about lots of film area and great images. It's also about the journey; that mystical time under the darkcloth, with its inverted 2D world, can't be found elsewhere. LF feeds the spirit. ULF is just a bigger helping.

[Kirk Gittings]

Slow, heavy, expensive.....not for me. I can set up and be tripping the shutter in two minutes (1:58 to be exact) with a 4x5 from the time I slam the brakes on and still I find myself missing that fleeting light sometimes.

[Gary Tarbert]

Slow, heavy, expensive.....not for me. I can set up and be tripping the shutter in two minutes (1:58 to be exact) with a 4x5 from the time I slam the brakes on and still I find myself missing that fleeting light sometimes.Couldn't agree more Kirk in my previous post i was refering to 8x10 as my maximum size i would use ,i am doing two trips next year taking only 5x4 which is still my preffered format.cheers Gary

[Dave Wooten]

My only experience viewing ULF contact prints was at Clyde Butcher's Big Cypress Gallery in Florida on a loney February day where mine was the only car in the lot. The gallery person was very kind in letting me spend 2 hours there examining every single print even though I told her I was just looking for my own photographic interests.

One of my overall impressions was that many of the prints lacked edge sharpness. Highly detailed, but not super sharp. And some near the edges were even soft, as though pushing the edge of the lens' useable image circle.

Clyde's prints are enlargements (often extreme enlargements) of negs.... 6 x 10, 8 x 10, and I believe 12 x 20.

[Jay W]

I guess I've always thought of cameras as toys since I don't make money with them. Yeah, I've shot weddings and tried to sell prints, but I'd rather shoot what I like, enlarge when I please, and blow off the whole "pro" aspect of photography.

So if you look at the gear as toys, then the "usefulness" of a camera takes on a whole new meaning.

Jay

[MIke Sherck]

Although 8x10 is currently my largest format (and most used, since I got it,) I'd go bigger if I could afford to. The reason is simple: I look at my enlargements (from 4x5) and my contact prints (4x5, 5x7, 8x10) and I much prefer the contact prints. If I had more money, I'd go larger.

Mike

[Ole Tjugen]

I did go larger, and still have a 30x40cm (12x16") camera hidden away in a corner. 24x30cm (9 1/2 x 12") is the largest size I find usable. It's also the size of 90% of my enlargements...

[jetcode]

For me the ultimate rig is 4x10 for panoramic and 5x7 for portrait. The availablity of film, the ease in processing film, the portability and flexibility, and cost are driving factors. I get great results with this set of formats. I have my last LF rig. I will not need another ever.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

As a recent ULF photographer ( October 12, 2007 finished building my first camera an 8x20) I think it is a matter of how you see. I love my 4x5,5x7,and 8x10. I have some very good enlargements but when I look at the six negatives I've done with "My" camera there is something that is hard to describe about it. When you look at the ground glass you can't see the whole image without moving your head side to side. You laugh out loud when you see your composition on the ground glass. You laugh again when you develop and print the neg. I spent about 1 1/2 years and $2,000.00 on my 8x20 and I love it. I'm currently building an 11x14. You can do it on the cheap and get great results. It is all about your artistic vision and not what anyone else thinks or says. Once you go ULF you will love it.

Jim

[Marco Annaratone]

As for my decision to have a 14x17 built for me by Lotus I explained the rationale here (http://www.1827.eu/GoingUltra/14x17-E.htm). I did not go ULF because "bigger is better" or for some voodoo superior quality of the output, but for down-to-earth esthetic reasons. And then again, one's mileage may indeed differ ... and by a lot!

Cheers!

[wfwhitaker]

I still enjoy very much using medium format. But one thing I miss when I return to the smaller negative is that everything is in focus. Well, not everything. But a lot. A 100mm lens on 6x7 is going to look different than a 355mm lens on 8x10, even though they're "equivalent". And 8x10's not even quite ULF. Depending on the subject relatively shallow depth of field contributes significantly to the look of a ULF image. And everything being equal, a negative enlarged from medium format or even 4x5 is going to show more in focus than a ULF negative. Although lack of depth of field is often referred to as a liability in LF and ULF, to me it's just another tool in the toolbox. If I want everything sharp, I can always use a smaller negative. Sounds counter intuitive, but it isn't really - at least, not for me.

[Scott Squires]

I shot 4x5 for 10 years and it was my favorite for many years. About three years ago I found my vision was not what it used to be and it was harder to see the 4x5 GG for me. I was in Yosemite two years ago and had my 4x5 setup and a guy had an 8x10 setup on the same scene next to me. I asked if I could take a look at his ground glass and it was like an awakening for me! I could see the Image on the GG perfectly and that was it, an 8x10 was next. I have always shot with a panorama camera, Fuji 617 and Canham 4x10 so of course an ULF pano camera was next. 8x20 or 7x17? I finally decided on 7x17 and it is a great format for my old eyes. Of course I now have to carry more weight but it is worth every pound for me!

Scott

[bglick]

Regardless whether the OP is still around, this is an interesting thread, and will serve good purpose in the archives.

My take on ULF.

Like everything regarding photography, you must start with an end goal in mind, then work backwards from there.

As many have pointed out... if your interest is in the process of using ULF gear to capture images, well, it's a no brainer. A good analogy is people driving vintage 1900's vintage cars around on sunny day...hell, why not drive an ultra modern car, they are so much better in every way? It's the process or the experience of using this vintage tool that brings about the fun. As many have mentioned, their is some excitement in seeing that huge image on the gg and just witnessing this beast set up.


OTOH, if you the end goal is the final print, and you are not stuck on contact printing, or anti digital (scanning and printing) then, the ULF case is weakened tremendously, or almost dismissed. The reasons are more about physics than anything else.

Of course, if you desire a certain fuzzy look, you can shoot a small digital camera and manipulate in PS to almost match any desired look, but you need some digital skills for this. It seems your question revolved more around is ULF better, or is bigger better in general, or how much better, etc.

ULF was created out of necessity. Before film, the large camera produced the final print. So if you wanted a 24x24" print, you needed a 24x24" camera. In this regard, and considering how poor optics were back then, bigger was better. But after the advent of film, things slowly start changing, because film held more resolution than the papers. Then, enlargements became possible. However, it was not till the 60's (guessing here) that films resolution grew to the point where ULF did not make sense. Of course now, with todays film trumping 1960 film, ULF makes even less sense. (assuming a sharp print is the desired goal)


There is probably one exception to this, and that is an image that is captured on ULF which is shot at infinity, or the subject is near flat, allowing the user to not stop down to such ridiculously high f stops to achieve even shallow DOF. Outside of this one exception, its DOF and the require aperture diffraction that prevents bigger from always being better.


I will try not to turn this into a math seminar.... but here is the basis...


1) when you double the format size, you must double the lens fl for the same composure. When you double the lens fl, you must double the f stop for the same DOF (same Hyperfocal distance for example) With the same DOF on both prints, the larger format will have half the circle of confusion (cc), but since the smaller format needs to be enlarged 2x to match the larger format, it levels the playing field, BUT, it only levels it, no real advantage to the Larger format. (There actually is a light gain at the point of exact focus for the larger format, but its a small part of the total composure area)


2) As you leave the 4x5 and 8x10 format size (which starts the ULF) quite often, the lenses that cover the formats this large have much reduced aerial resolution than the more popular 45/810 lenses. This further reduces the cc on film, as aerial resolution is a major contributor to the 1/R formula which dictates recorded resolution. So when you throw this in the mix, the small gain ULF shared at the point of exact focus has been negated.....except maybe 11x14, as there is few sharp lenses in this format size.


3) Since the grain is so tight in todays film, we can enlarge without grain becoming visible, certainly to the extend of the differences of the formats we are talking here, i.e. an 8x10 film must be enlarged only 2x to match 16x20 film. This is also films of yesteryears could not match, which gave ULF a bit of an edge.


4) Using the best 4x5 or 8x10 lenses, and comparing them to the lenses that must be used for ULF, in the end, regardless of what size print you compare between the two, (as long as its the same print size for each) I would suggest the smaller format will produce a sharper final print, specially if the print was digital sharpened. Again, the only exception being if the subject was at infinity or a flat 2d object with little or no depth. But, this "smaller format" is not universal, as I am not referring to 35mm film which is also smaller.

IMO, it turns out, with todays films and lenses, 4x5 is the ultimate mix between diffraction effects and DOF.... for extreme DOF, 6x7 might be a more practical format, and for infinity focussed scenes
or flat 2d subjects, 8x10 would surely be the ultimate tool for the job.


I have seen 20x24 contact prints, and I am never that impressed. I am impressed what the person had to go through to capture the image and then print the image, but, that's because I understand everything that is involved. But from a side by side standpoint, clearly, the smaller format print wins hands down, specially in the hands of someone with good digital skills. The one exception to this might be an infinity shot, which I have never seen on 20x24 contact print. But my guess it, at best, it would be hard to tell the difference between it and an enlarged 8x10..... but it might appear sharper than an enlarged 4x5. So, there is some grey areas here, and its important not to generalize everything, as the DOF issue is huge!

My biggest problem with ULF is, to my knowledge, no color film is made today, IIRC, not even 11x14.


I see similar issues as this come up in wood working. Some people love to cut dovetail joint with hand tools. Whereas electric tools and mechanical jigs / fixtures allow such tremendous accuracy and time savings vs. hand cutting, there is a tremendous following of those who are proud to say they hand cut their dovetails. I think these two examples are closely related....

[Nick_3536]

If you plan your purchases out then the upgrade costs can be limited to the camera and holders.

I figure three of my 8x10 lenses will cover 11x14. My tripod will support a lighter 11x14 camera.

Okay I'll need a bigger darkcloth.

I seem to remember various special orders of colour ULF film. With the cost of ULF colour film it shouldn't take too many sheets to hit Kodaks 10K price -)

[sanking]

Regardless whether the OP is still around, this is an interesting thread, and will serve good purpose in the archives.

My take on ULF.

Like everything regarding photography, you must start with an end goal in mind, then work backwards from there.




One thing that needs to be added to your remarks is that because of inkjet printing today's preference is for very large photographs. Some photographers I know who has a good business in print sales in the 5X7" to 12X20" area tell me that sales have dried up for these sizes and almost everyone wants to buy very large prints.


I have an article in the current issue of View Camera on the Chinese photographer He Chongyue. He uses an 8X20 camera and prints up to 40"X100" in size. Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.

I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.

So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.

Sandy King

[bglick]

> Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.


Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)

As you double the format, you must double the f stop for equal DOF and same final print resolution (same size print of course).... Using some basic principles which are well documented..... at the point of exact focus, a lens can produce a "MAXIMUM" diffraction limited aerial resolution of 1500/f stop. The max. on film resolution that can be captured at this point of exact focus is R = 1/(1/r1 + 1/r2), where r1 = aerial resolution of the lens at a given f stop, and r2 is the MTF of the film at a given contrast ratio. Using a B&W film at 120 MTF, here is the max. recordable on-film resolutions at the point of exact focus, regardless of format...

f22 = 43 lp/mm (4x5)

f45 = 26 lp/mm (8x10)

f90 = 15 lp/mm (16x20 - used to simplify math)


If we enlarged all these formats to 32x40 print, the on-print resolution is reduced by the enlargement factor, so at the point of exact focus on these prints would be....

4x5 = 43/8 = 5.6 lp/mm

8x10 = 26/4 = 6.5 lp/mm

16x20 = 15/2 = 7.5 lp/mm.


As mentioned previously, these numbers represent the theoretical max. on-film resolution based on two factors, film MTF and the limited aerial resolution of the lens from apt. diffraction. But in reality, no lens that covers ULF can produce aerial resolutions that equal the max. theoretical apt. diffraction values. The reason is, there is simply too many other abberations which will degrade its optical performance. Just the simple fact, when you increase the image circle coverage area of a lens, its aerial resolution is reduced, as the resolution is spread-out over a larger format. This applies to every format, whereas 35mm lenses produce much higher aerial resolution vs. MF, MF produces higher aerial resolutions vs. LF, etc. The one sweet spot though, is in 4x5 lenses, whereas modern technology continued to chase the 4x5 market and we do have many 4x5 lenses that are very close to TRUE apt. diffraction limited lenses. If you factor this in the numbers above, it becomes obvious why ULF will not resolve more on the final print than smaller LF formats.


In addition to lens performance, you also have film flatness issues with ULF. The weight of the film itself creates a slight bulge vs. the smaller formats. You also have parallelism issues with ULF.... all these factors continue to slightly degrade recorded resolution.


The one exception to what I wrote above is where the image being captured requires virtually no DOF, such as an image shot at infinity. In this case, the image captured on 16x20 can have a theoretical 4x resolution advantage vs. 4x5 film (all else being equal) But all else is not equal, so this 4x can easily degrade to 2 - 3x, but I do agree, 2 or 3x advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

Of course, ULF is not the only way to capture this level of resolution, assuming this is the desired goal. If the subject is relatively still, you can stitch together some 4x5 shots, digital shots, etc., and achieve even better total resolution, as each shot is taken with a much lower f stop due to its shorter fl, (which also increases shutter speed) and there is no limit to how many images you can stitch.


Resolution is also a function of shutter speed. The longer the shutter stays open, the greater potential for movement of the subject and the camera itself. In the above example, the 16x20 will experience shutter speeds 8x longer than the 4x5 shot. For example, an EV9 scene at f16, ISO 100, requires a 1/2 second exposure, so with 16x20 ULF, f90 = 4 second exposure. These long exposures often degrade resolution potential.


Grain.... in the past, you could still make an argument for ULF due to visible grain on final prints due to over enlarging the film, but IMO, even darkroom printing of todays tight grained films, you would have to enlarge 12x+ for this to ever become an issue. With conversion to digital, this becomes even less significant. This means 8x10 film can easily produce a 100" - 120" print.


So to be clear, my position is, if sharpness in the final print is the goal, I see ULF having a small niche advantage whereas it can be classified as "the best tool"........ drum roll.... if the subject is static, of course ULF offers no real advantage, as you can stitch 4x5 or digital shots together....so the subject must have some movement, but not too much movement.... as even on a bright sunny day, EV14, the fastest you can shoot at f32, is 1/15th at ISO 100....... and too shoot at f32, you need a scene with virtually no DOF, which is either a flat subject or an infinity subject. As you can see, this is a VERY limited niche.


An example of such a scene might be an infinity shot at mid day of ocean waves crashing on rocks. A shot like this, would exploit all the weakness of the other options, and exploit all the niche benefits of ULF. But these few niche opportunities are rare....so IMO, it's hard to justify the size, weight, expense, difficulty in getting film, processing film, etc. of ULF. But if you shoot subjects with slight movement in very bright light, at infinity or are flat subjects, then ULF might really produce a noticeable better final print. (regardless whether its contact printed or enlarged)


Again, this position is only based on the premise of the end goal being max. resolution on the final print. I too drool when looking at a 8x20" ground glass....but not enough to make me jump into ULF... but I can understand the allure.

Another good analogy is 35mm rangefinder cameras. In this modern digital era, one would think these cameras would be obsolete, and yet, they are not. Voightlander still produces amazing 35mm film rangefinder cameras that sell for hefty prices. I too enjoy the feel of an all mechanical camera....and have not given them up 100%.... yet....


> I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.


I fully agree Sandy, hence why I always assume the same in all my examples.....


> So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.


I agree that digital printing has really opened up the publics eye to how breathtaking a huge print is. I have sold many prints 20ft long. I too am a big print fan...most prints in my house are a min. 60" long, some as long as 12ft. However, other than the small image capture niche I mentioned above, I don't see any practical reasons for ULF today. IMO, I think some people shoot ULF for the love of the process, the fun of the gear, the huge gg, etc. This alone will keep ULF alive and healthy. I only responded to this post, for those who desire ULF cause they think there is no end to the "bigger is better" mindset..... but unfortunately, that is not the case in todays modern photographic world. (but it certainly was 100 years ago)

[Marko]

The OP was actually looking for valid reasons to justify getting into ULF as a hobby. As another hobbyist, I can confidently state that market preferences and other commercial considerations don't concern me at all. I'm "into photography" simply because I like it and enjoy all the activity associated with it, be it technical, procedural or esthetic.

When people ask me how I justify spending so much money on a hobby, I tell them I find it more fulfilling than collecting stamps. That's all the justification I need, really, as long as I'm doing it on my own time and dime.

:)

[bglick]

> The OP was actually looking for valid reasons to justify getting into ULF as a hobby. As another hobbyist, I can confidently state that market preferences and other commercial considerations don't concern me at all


Marko, I fully agree.... but I was only responding to the subject of the original post,

> Is there any real utility to ULF?


Then, I furthered responded to Sandy's position on the utility of shooting ULF to sell the markets demands today for very large prints in todays market.

To reiterate, I have nothing against ULF, vintage rangefinder film cameras, making darkroom prints, driving vintage Model T cars on our modern highways, etc. I realize this is a touchy subject and just want my position to be ultra clear, as I certainly had no hidden agenda of offending those who does ULF. (not suggesting I offended you in anyway).

[Doug Dolde]

Here's a good article about how Dick Arentz is using a Leica M8 digital instead of 12x20.

http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Jan08/86.pdf

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

> Even viewed at close distance his prints have a detail and sharpness that would be impossible to achieve in this size with anything other than ULF equipment. The prints were made from drum scans and were printed digitlally.


Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)

As you double the format, you must double the f stop for equal DOF and same final print resolution (same size print of course).... Using some basic principles which are well documented..... at the point of exact focus, a lens can produce a "MAXIMUM" diffraction limited aerial resolution of 1500/f stop. The max. on film resolution that can be captured at this point of exact focus is R = 1/(1/r1 + 1/r2), where r1 = aerial resolution of the lens at a given f stop, and r2 is the MTF of the film at a given contrast ratio. Using a B&W film at 120 MTF, here is the max. recordable on-film resolutions at the point of exact focus, regardless of format...

f22 = 43 lp/mm (4x5)

f45 = 26 lp/mm (8x10)

f90 = 15 lp/mm (16x20 - used to simplify math)


If we enlarged all these formats to 32x40 print, the on-print resolution is reduced by the enlargement factor, so at the point of exact focus on these prints would be....

4x5 = 43/8 = 5.6 lp/mm

8x10 = 26/4 = 6.5 lp/mm

16x20 = 15/2 = 7.5 lp/mm.


As mentioned previously, these numbers represent the theoretical max. on-film resolution based on two factors, film MTF and the limited aerial resolution of the lens from apt. diffraction. But in reality, no lens that covers ULF can produce aerial resolutions that equal the max. theoretical apt. diffraction values. The reason is, there is simply too many other abberations which will degrade its optical performance. Just the simple fact, when you increase the image circle coverage area of a lens, its aerial resolution is reduced, as the resolution is spread-out over a larger format. This applies to every format, whereas 35mm lenses produce much higher aerial resolution vs. MF, MF produces higher aerial resolutions vs. LF, etc. The one sweet spot though, is in 4x5 lenses, whereas modern technology continued to chase the 4x5 market and we do have many 4x5 lenses that are very close to TRUE apt. diffraction limited lenses. If you factor this in the numbers above, it becomes obvious why ULF will not resolve more on the final print than smaller LF formats.


In addition to lens performance, you also have film flatness issues with ULF. The weight of the film itself creates a slight bulge vs. the smaller formats. You also have parallelism issues with ULF.... all these factors continue to slightly degrade recorded resolution.


The one exception to what I wrote above is where the image being captured requires virtually no DOF, such as an image shot at infinity. In this case, the image captured on 16x20 can have a theoretical 4x resolution advantage vs. 4x5 film (all else being equal) But all else is not equal, so this 4x can easily degrade to 2 - 3x, but I do agree, 2 or 3x advantage is nothing to sneeze at.

Of course, ULF is not the only way to capture this level of resolution, assuming this is the desired goal. If the subject is relatively still, you can stitch together some 4x5 shots, digital shots, etc., and achieve even better total resolution, as each shot is taken with a much lower f stop due to its shorter fl, (which also increases shutter speed) and there is no limit to how many images you can stitch.


Resolution is also a function of shutter speed. The longer the shutter stays open, the greater potential for movement of the subject and the camera itself. In the above example, the 16x20 will experience shutter speeds 8x longer than the 4x5 shot. For example, an EV9 scene at f16, ISO 100, requires a 1/2 second exposure, so with 16x20 ULF, f90 = 4 second exposure. These long exposures often degrade resolution potential.


Grain.... in the past, you could still make an argument for ULF due to visible grain on final prints due to over enlarging the film, but IMO, even darkroom printing of todays tight grained films, you would have to enlarge 12x+ for this to ever become an issue. With conversion to digital, this becomes even less significant. This means 8x10 film can easily produce a 100" - 120" print.


So to be clear, my position is, if sharpness in the final print is the goal, I see ULF having a small niche advantage whereas it can be classified as "the best tool"........ drum roll.... if the subject is static, of course ULF offers no real advantage, as you can stitch 4x5 or digital shots together....so the subject must have some movement, but not too much movement.... as even on a bright sunny day, EV14, the fastest you can shoot at f32, is 1/15th at ISO 100....... and too shoot at f32, you need a scene with virtually no DOF, which is either a flat subject or an infinity subject. As you can see, this is a VERY limited niche.


An example of such a scene might be an infinity shot at mid day of ocean waves crashing on rocks. A shot like this, would exploit all the weakness of the other options, and exploit all the niche benefits of ULF. But these few niche opportunities are rare....so IMO, it's hard to justify the size, weight, expense, difficulty in getting film, processing film, etc. of ULF. But if you shoot subjects with slight movement in very bright light, at infinity or are flat subjects, then ULF might really produce a noticeable better final print. (regardless whether its contact printed or enlarged)


Again, this position is only based on the premise of the end goal being max. resolution on the final print. I too drool when looking at a 8x20" ground glass....but not enough to make me jump into ULF... but I can understand the allure.

Another good analogy is 35mm rangefinder cameras. In this modern digital era, one would think these cameras would be obsolete, and yet, they are not. Voightlander still produces amazing 35mm film rangefinder cameras that sell for hefty prices. I too enjoy the feel of an all mechanical camera....and have not given them up 100%.... yet....


> I am well aware of the argument that viewing distance must be taken into consideration, and if that is done large prints from medium format and 4X5 formats is possible. However, having attended many exhibitions my impression is that people will invariably walk right up to the closest viewing distance possible for looking at prints.


I fully agree Sandy, hence why I always assume the same in all my examples.....


> So basically my impression is that considering today's market preferences for very large prints ULF makes even more sense than it did in the past if selling prints is important.


I agree that digital printing has really opened up the publics eye to how breathtaking a huge print is. I have sold many prints 20ft long. I too am a big print fan...most prints in my house are a min. 60" long, some as long as 12ft. However, other than the small image capture niche I mentioned above, I don't see any practical reasons for ULF today. IMO, I think some people shoot ULF for the love of the process, the fun of the gear, the huge gg, etc. This alone will keep ULF alive and healthy. I only responded to this post, for those who desire ULF cause they think there is no end to the "bigger is better" mindset..... but unfortunately, that is not the case in todays modern photographic world. (but it certainly was 100 years ago)

Lot of rationalization....good enough reasons for you. In any case, get back to me when you use an ULF camera and make a contact print form the neg....

[sanking]

>
Sandy, you did not mention if the shots were at infinity, or 2d flat objects. If they were, I could see ULF having a resolution gain vs. smaller formats, such as 5x7 or 8x10. As an example, since we all shoot 4x5 and realize its very rare we can shoot less than f22 to achieve the desired DOF.... (this is equiv. to f11 on MF and f5.6 on 35mm)



Much of He Chongyue’s work consists of images on a fairly flat plane. This allows the use of apertures where diffraction is not such a bit issue as it typically is in large format work. A 355 G-Claron, used at f/22, should be capable of resolving up to 60-70 lppm on film. Given the fact that a 32” X 80” from an 8X20 negatives is only a 2X enlargement one can still get upwards of 15 lppm of real resolution in the print, assuming the output device is capable of such resolution.

Stitching may be an alternative to ULF for some static subjects, but to get the equivalent of 15 lppm of real resolution by stitching together 4X5 or digital files would be a considerable undertaking. Doable, perhaps, but not my idea of fun.

Let me remark that I use a vareity of formats, from medium format to 20X24, and I even have a very nice 12.1 mp digital camera. No question but that small portable cameras offer opportunities that you can not get with LF and ULF cameras. However, when used in such a way that the format is optimized, an image from a ULF camera can be quite unique.


Sandy King

[chris_4622]

Why do exposure times increase with the format? I thought a 360mm lens focused at infinity would be the same on 4x5 as on 11x14. What am I missing?

[scott_6029]

There is a tactile feel to a contact print as well as a tonality vs. enlargement...but i do realize it is about the image....as I happen to really like some of Brett Weston's work with the 2 1/4. But, when pulled off, an ULF contact print in silver is something else.

In addition, I think there is something about 'painting' the groundglass that I really like. I see better than behind a digital slr.

[sanking]

Why do exposure times increase with the format? I thought a 360mm lens focused at infinity would be the same on 4x5 as on 11x14. What am I missing?

Chris,

As a general rule the long lenses used on ULF need to be stopped down more than the shorter lenses used on smaller formats to get equivalent DOF. This results in longer exposure times. An exposure of 1/15 of a second at f/22 for 5X7 format would need to be about 1/4 second at f/45 to give equivalent DOF.

You can get around this by choice of subject, say putting everything at infinity or on the same plane.

Sandy King

[chris_4622]

I forgot about that. Thanks

[bglick]

> Lot of rationalization....good enough reasons for you. In any case, get back to me when you use an ULF camera and make a contact print form the neg....

Regardless of the number of disclaimers I threw out, I did not expect my post to avoid gun fire. It's the nature of the beast in photo forums. And BTW, Jorge, I will "get back to you", as you suggested.... I have used ULF, (not owned) I have seen side by side prints, ULF Contacts vs. enlarged LF, and I still prefer the enlarged prints. As I mentioned, I would like to see an infinity shot with the new Schneider ULF lenses on a 20x24 contact print, then maybe it would get my juices flowing a bit more...

> However, when used in such a way that the format is optimized, an image from a ULF camera can be quite unique.

Sandy, I agree....and the folks who started the Gigapixel project worked off this same premise. From the little I saw, they were ultra selective in the type of scenes they would set up that huge camera.....as they too were trying to avoid the ULF killer - apt. diffraction.

> Why do exposure times increase with the format? I thought a 360mm lens focused at infinity would be the same on 4x5 as on 11x14. What am I missing?

You are not missing anything, you are correct, since you mentioned "FOCUSED at infinity" in your statement. But for equal DOF (non infinty shots - or non flat plane scenes), you must stop down to match the DOF when using the larger format. However, for many older ULF lenses, they are actually optimized at VERY high fstops, which suggests, opening up several stops has moved the lens out of its sweet spot. Lenses only perform at their best at usually a 2 f stop range. I did not mention this in detail prior, but this is another strike against opening up ULF lenses for infinity shots. Although there is less apt. diffraction, the lenses often will not project apt. diffraction limited images, as other abberations become the limiting factor.... vs. using the optmized f stops, which are much higher. A bit of a double edge sword.

I have not seen the MTF graphs for the new Schneider ULF Fine Art lenses, but since they offer f128, I would guess they are optimized at very high f stops, probably f90? Has anyone seen the MTF graphs on these lenses? It would be interesting.

[Rob_5419]

"I?m having a hard time justifying the cost"

Wide angle lens (360 Apo-gerogon) $60, find it on ebay or a 450mm Nikkor or Fujinon (will need wider box) Shutter 77mm lenscap (and a black hat) Card board box measuring 360!x510x310mm $10 Bottle of post-it "3M ReMount Spray Adhesive 6091" or "Gepe fix-o-flex" spray for making the film and dust stick to the wall $12 Bottle of dull black spray paint $20 Film http://www.freestylephoto.biz/sc_prod.php?cat_id=404&pid=5875 25 sheets $178

total: $280 plus development and contact copy cost. plus time.

Make a hole the bottom and a slit in the top of the box to make room for the lens, add plywood? to strengthen the inside of the lens side of the box camera and glue. Spray dull black paint inside both top and bottom. Use the post-it glue to fix the film and any dust inside. Mount the lens on the box, and your ULF-camera is ready. Consider a plywood bottom and one side to add tripod-fixing. Use the lens on 180-256 and it's usable from 20' to infinity (wild guess)

Øyvind:D


Now that is a really good post :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have used ULF, (not owned) I have seen side by side prints, ULF Contacts vs. enlarged LF, and I still prefer the enlarged prints.

I have seen prints from digital negatives, compared to contact prints from real negatives. I still prefer the contact print...what does that prove?

Clearly, if you have shot ULF a few times you don't know what the best subjects for them are. I would say my ratio of 8x10 to 12x20 shots are 30 to 1.

Look, you want to use digital...knock yourself out. But don't spout to me physics, MTF tables, lines per mmm, etc. These are only rationalizations to try to convince yourself you are on the right path. Go ahead and use digital, say you like it better and be done with it, in the end that is all that matters...

[Turner Reich]

There is a difference, but if you can't appreciate the difference it's not worth it for you. Those in the know have the expensive equipment and use that expensive film, minus the paper, Azo, which is no longer available. So if you have the ten thousand dollars for a camera and lens and are willing to use the multidollar film and wait for a new paper then it's for you.

If you can't see the difference between digital and ULF and are asking the question because you just don't know then it's probably not for you.

[bglick]

> I have seen prints from digital negatives, compared to contact prints from real negatives. I still prefer the contact print...what does that prove?


I don't know what it proves, cause I don't know the particulars of what you compared. That was the jist of my posts, there is all different types of comparisons one can make. But its obvious, you enjoy contact prints. Does that mean the rest of the world should agree with your findings? Cause you like vanilla ice cream, everyone who likes chocolate ice cream is stupid? I have met very few people when viewing side by side see the benefit you see... however, you are clearly one of them, I respect your position..... you might consider respecting other peoples opinion in return. However, your opinion does not defy the basic premise of optics and MTF.



> Clearly, if you have shot ULF a few times you don't know what the best subjects for them are.

I stated this above, at least 3x. You may want to re read. I clearly understand the ULF niche.



> Look, you want to use digital...knock yourself out.


Jorge, are you confusing me with someone else here? Where did I state this? I don't shoot digital other than P&S digicam for fun. If you did not confuse me with someone else, than I will just assume you are using your imagination about what I do, cause never did I state I shoot digital.



> But don't spout to me physics, MTF tables, lines per mmm, etc.

Again, you must be mistaken, I wasn't spoutin anything to you, i was responding to the "utility aspect of ULF". Did I ever direct anything at you? I have no idea who you are?



> These are only rationalizations to try to convince yourself you are on the right path.

right path to what? I often use the tool that makes the most sense for the end goal. Sometimes its 4x5/8x10, or I have on occasion borrowed an ULF camera, and yes, sometimes I shoot MF film. And sometimes, I just use a 35mm film rangefinder for fun, cause I like it. So not sure what your agenda is here, but I don't get it.....


> Go ahead and use digital, say you like it better and be done with it, in the end that is all that matters...

????? You can't be serious? Let's see, I own 18 LF lenses, 8 LF cameras, 2 LF film scanners, ........... yeah, OK you're right Jorge, you got me pegged, I LOVE DIGITAL! HUH?.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Does that mean the rest of the world should agree with your findings?
Not at all, but I have not spent pages and pages to justify my position. Does this mean that the rest of the world should agree with yours?


I clearly understand the ULF niche.


Sure does not look like it from where I sit....


You can't be serious? Let's see, I own 18 LF lenses, 8 LF cameras, 2 LF film scanners, ........... yeah, OK you're right Jorge, you got me pegged, I LOVE DIGITAL! HUH?.....

Hmmm....lots of equipment, how many of it ULF? None I bet. I think Turner Reich said it best. If you cannot see it then it is not for you.....no need to spend yourself writting page after page, you do know you are not going to convince anybody here right?

Those of us who use them see a reason for them, you have posted your opinion, you don't need to keep defending it, trust me when I tell you I am not selling my ULF camera just because you posted your MTF, l/mm, depht of field razonalizations.

[bglick]

> Not at all, but I have not spent pages and pages to justify my position. Does this mean that the rest of the world should agree with yours?

My position revolves around the theoretical limits of different formats. Your position revolves around opinions. I am not trying to convince anyone of my opinion on this matter. I don't really have a strong opinions (like you). I was simply responding to the posters subject, which is I thought what forums were all about? Maybe I got that wrong too..... oh sheeeesh...

You mention that I do not understand the ULF niche, yet you offered zero counter points to my position....that's OK, this happens a lot in forums...


> no need to spend yourself writting page after page, you do know you are not going to convince anybody here right?

Again Jorge, you are mistaken, maybe it is a language barrier issue.... I am not trying to convince anyone to do, or not to do, anything. I was merely presenting the physical limits of photography as it relates to format size. This obviously upset you. Somehow, you took it personally. Hopefully some people will find this information useful. You interpreted my positions as, 1) I am advocating digital, (WRONG) 2) I think ULF makes no sense, (WRONG) 3) I am anti ULF (WRONG).



> I tell you I am not selling my ULF camera just because you posted your MTF, l/mm, depht of field razonalizations.

Hmmmm, I see, maybe it was my intent to make you sell all your equipment by this post? yeah, that's right again Jorge. That was the reason behind all my hideous rationalizations. (?????)

OH, BTW, I visited your web site, and as I suspected, you have a dog in this race, and now I understand your attacking and condescending wrongful comments. I see this a lot in forums, once someone commits to a format or a technology, they feel compelled to defend their choice with their life. If you have any technical merits you wish to discuss, I remain open.... otherwise, this thread is degrading quickly....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

My position revolves around the theoretical limits of different formats.

You can talk theoritical limits till you are blue in the face, but for some of us there is a noticieable difference. This is why sometimes doing is better than sitting at the lab. OTOH you have chosen your theoretical limist very conveniently. You talk about film flatness without talking about depth of focus.


I don't really have a strong opinions

YOu could have fooled me by the 10 paragraph responses...


I was merely presenting the physical limits of photography as it relates to format size.

Once again, your so called physical limits seem to be very well chosen to support your position, mostly biased.


OH, BTW, I visited your web site, and as I suspected, you have a dog in this race, and now I understand your attacking and condescending wrongful comments. I see this a lot in forums, once someone commits to a format or a technology, they feel compelled to defend their choice with their life. If you have any technical merits you wish to discuss, I remain open.... otherwise, this thread is degrading quickly....

SO you don't have a dog in this race but you prefer enlargements to contact prints...let me guess, you do enlargements...right? Do you have a web site? Does it have ULF contact prints as well as enlargements? I bet it does not... so the condescending seems to be comming from you just because I don't fall for your "theoritical" limits....

YOu have been told, if you cannot see the difference then it is not for you and the reason why you have to give all these explanations to explain the reason you cannot see it.

As a person who used to do enlargements, I was able to see it right away and the reason I switched.

[bglick]

>OTOH you have chosen your theoretical limist very conveniently. You talk about film flatness without talking about depth of focus.

You are right, I was being way to generous regarding the ULF values. But I was trying to shed as much positive light on ULF. As for theoretical limits methodology I described, any zeiss, Schnedier, Fuji, or optical book will support this. Although you are fast to throw stones, you offer no counter arguments.





> You can talk theoritical limits till you are blue in the face, but for some of us there is a noticieable difference.

Yes, we are on the same page Jorge, I clearly defined when ULF will show a substantial improvement over LF. Are you really reading my posts? It appears not from your comments.





> Once again, your so called physical limits seem to be very well chosen to support your position, mostly biased.

The methodology is not mine Jorge, you may want to argue the MTF methodology with Zeiss, Fuji, Schneider, etc. I am sorry, the methodology produces values that do not support your dog in the race. It's not personal with me, its just math. I can shoot anything.




> SO you don't have a dog in this race but you prefer enlargements to contact prints...let me guess, you do enlargements...right?


yes, I do enlargements, I have done contact prints also. I have many friends who do contact prints, they like the process. I don't have a dog in the race, cause I am not pushing or selling a particular method, like you are. That was my point. For me, its a hobby. I do what ever feels best for me, and that changes through time.




> YOu have been told, if you cannot see the difference then it is not for you and the reason why you have to give all these explanations to explain the reason you cannot see it.

As I mentioned at least a few times previously, I suggested if I saw a side by side comparison of non-DOF ULF shot contacted printed vs. a 4x5 enlargement, with as much being equal as possible, I am very confident the ULF shot would be superior. Again, are you reading my posts? My only point was, its only these small niche shots where ULF will have utility, which was the OP's subject of this psot, remember? Getting tired repeating this.... I can see as good as the next guy, but no process will defy the physical limits of optics, obviously you feel different about this.





> You talk about film flatness without talking about depth of focus.

Ahhhh, the reason film flatness is so critical is due to how sensitive the Depth of Focus equation is. I did not think it was prudent to start that discussion, as most people in this arena understand how critical Depth of Focus is at the film plane. And, in ULF, specially a format like 20x24, I would be more concerned with DOFocus as it relates to parallelism vs. film flatness. But I should have thrown a neg. factor in my comparison above for the resolution degradation that becomes more prevalent with larger formats. ULF is much more vulnerable to DOFocus issues than smaller formats, but I am sure you will disagree with this also. In your world, I am sure a piece of 20x24 film is easier to keep flat in a film holder vs. a 4x5 film. I guess we have had different experiences in our photography.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL....let me recap, don't have an ULF camera, don't do contact prints, can't see the difference between a contact print and an enlarged one, don't know how to best use an ULF camera.. but you all that use an ULF camera are wrong... LOL...

[John Kasaian]

Of course there is! It helps to own controlling interest in a public utility in order to afford the film holders! :D

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Of course there is! It helps to own controlling interest in a public utility in order to afford the film holders! :D

And the camera, and the film and the nice tall blonde amazon to carry all the stuff.. :)

[bglick]

> let me recap, don't have an ULF camera,

Is it mandatory that I own the cameras, or does simply using them not qualify me? I did not realize I had to have ownership of one to udnerstand how to use them...not to mention years of use of 8x10, I have a lot of pro photographer friends that rent much of their gear, as its too costly to own EVERYTHING.




> don't do contact prints,

Jorge, really, it's time you start comprehending what I write. If you just want to throw stones, that is OK, but you are trying to make this appear like a serious thread. You need to go back and re-read what I write, I have made MANY contact prints in my life. What part of this don't you understand?




> can't see the difference between a contact print and an enlarged one,

As I stated previously, I can see a difference between many contact prints and enlarged ones. Most of the time, the enlarged ones look better due to the explanation above. Please re-read my posts....




> don't know how to best use an ULF camera..

have you ever seen me use an ULF? How can you make such a slanderous claim about me? Am I throwing stones at your skills? Am I attacking you personally? All this anger over the physical limits of optics? Sheeeesh, it's time to take a chill pill Jorge, really, you need some downers. I thought the digital disciples were bad...you have raised the bar for them!



> but you all that use an ULF camera are wrong... LOL...


HUH? WRONG? Who ever said anything about being wrong? What is wrong anyway? PLEASE RE READ WHAT I WRITE!! I will have to assume since its late at night, you are writing these posts after cocktail hour. Because I can't think of any other reason how you can possibly mis quote and slander someone this bad. If that is the case, I forgive you Jorge. Or maybe you are so blinded by your chosen format, you can't accept the facts? Or since you never ONCE presented anything technical regarding this matter - maybe you don't understand the facts? Just because you don't understand something Jorge, doesn't mean it's not true. Whatever your cause, I think its time to cool off. I have seen some oddities on different forums through the years, but this one is becoming a real comedy. I can't wait to read your next response!

Is there any mods on this forum?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

LOL...jeeezz...good thing you have no opinions... and sure as hell don't want to convince anybody you are right...

[bglick]

Last call Jorge.... bar is closing...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Last call Jorge.... bar is closing...

closed a long time ago, you are the one still hanging.. :)

[David Vickery]

Using a large format camera or an ULF camera can be about Craftsmanship--Craftsmanship in the use of the equipment and Craftsmanship in the use of the materials.

Some of the issues discussed here are typical arguments against using ULF cameras, but in practical use they are not relevant.

The idea that Parallelism is a potential problem with large format or ultra large format cameras is funny, unless the camera has no ground glass, only then would it would be an important issue.

Keeping film flat in ULF film holders has never been an issue for me. Contrary to a statement made somewhere above, Depth of Focus is less of an issue with larger cameras. It, and just about every other camera specific technical problem, gets to be more of an issue with the smaller cameras due to the amount of enlargement that is required.

I have some process lenses that cover film sizes much larger than 8x10 that are sharp enough for any film format size. It simply isn't true that there aren't any lenses that cover larger than 8x10 that are sharp. And yes I mean sharp for any 2-D or 3-D subject located somewhere between my camera and infinity, or even at infinity.

Modulation Transfer Functions are irrelevant to almost anyone using large format or ULF cameras to make a photographic print. There are many, far more important, user based criteria that determine the suitability of the final image than MTF curves.

I have never stood behind my 8x10, 11x14 or 12x20 camera and, while looking at the ground glass, thought that there was not enough depth of field to make the image. In fact the only time that I have ever thought about depth of field issues is when people use it to say that bigger cameras are not as useful as smaller cameras for making photographic prints.

The possibilities within digital imaging are of no significance to the potential user of ULF cameras.
The utility of the ULF camera is solely based on the printmaker’s desired results.

[sanking]

Keeping film flat in ULF film holders has never been an issue for me. Contrary to a statement made somewhere above, Depth of Focus is less of an issue with larger cameras. It, and just about every other camera specific technical problem, gets to be more of an issue with the smaller cameras due to the amount of enlargement that is required.



You are absolutely right about this. Depth of Focus is much less of an issue with larger cameras, where longer lenses are typically used, than with medium format and 4X5 and 5X7. Anyone who may doubt this should carefully read Lambrecht and Woodhouse's article on the subject in their book Way Beyond Monochrome, and do their own figures for the focal length of the lens being used.

To avoid any confusion, please note that Depth of Focus is not the same as Depth of Field, and is calculated differently.

Sandy King

[Dan Fromm]

Bill, in past discussions you've been completely impervious to the idea that physical limits exist and that they can be found by calculation. In fact, you were worse than impervious. You denied limits' existence.

What caused your change of heart?

And why did you pick this fight? Or, to put it another way, what launched you on your current crusade?

[John O'Connell]

As I recall from VCT, the depth of focus formula indicates that depth of focus increases with magnification (or, as the term is generally used here, "focal length"). As far as I know, depth of focus is rarely an issue in formats larger than 4x5---unless, like me, you occasionally load film in front of the septums . . .

Don’t have much to add, otherwise, because the argument is apparently over reproducible lp/mm in formats used for processes where the final print can only display 20 lp/mm if contact printed with a test chart.

[bglick]

> Depth of Focus is much less of an issue with larger cameras, where longer lenses are typically used, than with medium format and 4X5 and 5X7

DOFocus is a function of f number, parallelism and film flatness. I agree of these three variables, film flatness is the least significant. As I mentioned above, I would be more concerned with parallelism as the larger the camera, the more of technical challenge it is to keep the standards parallel on both axis.


But with ULF, DOFocus is very application specific. If you contact print the film, DOFocus becomes much less critical - agreed. But if you do 120" enlargements like a poster mentioned above, DOFocus with ULF is extremely critical, specially if you shoot a non depth shot and open up the apt. to reduce diffraction effects. So again, no one right answer here, it depends on the application.






> Using a large format camera or an ULF camera can be about Craftsmanship--Craftsmanship in the use of the equipment and Craftsmanship in the use of the materials.


David, I fully agree, and I tried to stress this 3x above, but some people continued to ignore it. I love ULF cameras, just like I love a Lamborghini's and Model T's. They all have their place.





> What caused your change of heart?

Hi Dan, I can only assume you have me confused with someone else....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Using a large format camera or an ULF camera can be about Craftsmanship--Craftsmanship in the use of the equipment and Craftsmanship in the use of the materials.

Some of the issues discussed here are typical arguments against using ULF cameras, but in practical use they are not relevant.

The idea that Parallelism is a potential problem with large format or ultra large format cameras is funny, unless the camera has no ground glass, only then would it would be an important issue.

Keeping film flat in ULF film holders has never been an issue for me. Contrary to a statement made somewhere above, Depth of Focus is less of an issue with larger cameras. It, and just about every other camera specific technical problem, gets to be more of an issue with the smaller cameras due to the amount of enlargement that is required.

I have some process lenses that cover film sizes much larger than 8x10 that are sharp enough for any film format size. It simply isn't true that there aren't any lenses that cover larger than 8x10 that are sharp. And yes I mean sharp for any 2-D or 3-D subject located somewhere between my camera and infinity, or even at infinity.

Modulation Transfer Functions are irrelevant to almost anyone using large format or ULF cameras to make a photographic print. There are many, far more important, user based criteria that determine the suitability of the final image than MTF curves.

I have never stood behind my 8x10, 11x14 or 12x20 camera and, while looking at the ground glass, thought that there was not enough depth of field to make the image. In fact the only time that I have ever thought about depth of field issues is when people use it to say that bigger cameras are not as useful as smaller cameras for making photographic prints.

The possibilities within digital imaging are of no significance to the potential user of ULF cameras.
The utility of the ULF camera is solely based on the printmaker’s desired results.

David, while your response is very good you are responding to someone who obviously does not own or know how to use an ULF camera, this was clear from the first post.

For example, as I implied David very conveniently fails to talk about depth of focus as related to film flatness, and when he does he talks about it like it was something so incredibly difficult to understand that only he can do it and does not want to confuse us.

I disagree with you in that depth of focus is not relevant, in fact it is relevant in ULF because the depth of focus is so great that it allows us to not worry so much about film flatness or parallelism. For example, if we accept that for an ULF shot an acceptable circle of confusion is 1/150 then we see that for a shot taken at f/45 the depth of focus is 0.6 of an inch. That is about 13 mm.... no ULF holder, not even the latest by AWB have that much play. Using the same circle of confusion, if you then use f/64, the depth of focus is almost an inch...lol. What David does not seem to understand is that depth of focus increases with film size, since the circle of confusion increases with it. So for a 20x24 shot, the circle of confusion reaches the theoretical limit of 1/100.

So, with one variable that he very conveniently forgot to mention we have taken care of all his objections. Film flatness...no big deal with almost a half an inch to an inch if you use small apertures. Depth of field...well, here we go again as the gipper said. Is taken care of with small apertures. Parallelism?...funny, I thought this was the purpose of view cameras, to be able not to have parallel standards. Given that the depth focus increases with size, it is the reason why we can move the standards, specially the front standard and still have a capability of having everything sharp at the film plane.

As to the lenses and their MTF curves, etc. Well, all that one needs to do is look at the negatives.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

DOFocus is a function of f number, parallelism and film flatness. I agree of these three variables, film flatness is the least significant. As I mentioned above, I would be more concerned with parallelism as the larger the camera, the more of technical challenge it is to keep the standards parallel on both axis.

Wrong, depth of focus is a function of f stop, and circle of confusion. The formula is DFo=2Xf/stopXCoC.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As I recall from VCT, the depth of focus formula indicates that depth of focus increases with magnification (or, as the term is generally used here, "focal length"). As far as I know, depth of focus is rarely an issue in formats larger than 4x5---unless, like me, you occasionally load film in front of the septums . . .

This is not right John. Here are the rules for depth of focus.

Depth of focus increases as the lens is stopped down.
Depth of focus increases as object distance decreases
Depth of focus is not affected by focal lenght.
Depth of focus increases as film size increases.

[John O'Connell]

Jorge, there is some difference of opinion on the correct formula for DOFocus.

VCT apparently states that depth of focus = 2(f-number)(acceptable circle of confusion).

But, a quick check indicates that the formula provided may be an approximation for infinity, leaving out a term presumed to be negligible for distant subjects:

"depth of focus is two times the f-number times the circle of confusion times the quantity of one plus the magnification factor"

or

"U = 2NC(1+M/P)"

So DOFocus does appear to vary with magnification as image size approaches and exceeds subject size.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, there is some difference of opinion on the correct formula for DOFocus.

VCT apparently states that depth of focus = 2(f-number)(acceptable circle of confusion).

But, a quick check indicates that the formula provided may be an approximation for infinity, leaving out a term presumed to be negligible for distant subjects:

"depth of focus is two times the f-number times the circle of confusion times the quantity of one plus the magnification factor"

or

"U = 2NC(1+M/P)"

So DOFocus does appear to vary with magnification as image size approaches and exceeds subject size.

You are correct John when you are talking about close up or macro work. Which makes sense, right? I have yet to see someone using an ULF camera to make photographs where the subject is 1:1 or greater. Although I don't discount it, clearly someone doing macro work would have to worry about not only depth of focus, but film flatness as well as difraction, since it would require extremely small apertures to obtain an acceptable depth of field.

In the case we are talking about, we are concerned moslty with low magnification ratios where typically apertures of f/45 to F/64 are commonly used. Unlike it was made belive by the previous poster these apertures do not cause difraction. Another reason why it is obvious this person is not familiar with the use of ULF cameras. If you look at the f/64 of a lens mounted in a copal 3 shutter, you will see it is still a big hole.. :)

[Nathan Potter]

Yep, John is correct. You can pick an acceptable circle of confusion, then the depth of focus is 2c'N(1+m) where c' = acceptable Image of confusion
N = effective f/no.
m = the magnification factor

and providing that c' may depend on the focal length of the lens.

Nate Potter

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

and providing that c' may depend on the focal length of the lens.

I have to disagree with this. The CoC is independent of focal lenght. The important thing is the magnification ratio, regardless of what lens one used to attain that ratio.

[Asher Kelman]

>
Jorge, it would be prudent IMO to stop now, as statements like this truly demonstrate your lack of understanding of basic photo optical principles. Before I found it humorous, now, I kinda find it sad that someone with your lack of knowledge can scream so loud. Really, its time to read a book on basic optics.

> Someone would buy a LF camera, could not take a sharp picture with it and blamed the camera, the lenses, etc, etc.

Well, some of my best shots are on ULF, cause I fit the camera to the application well....but, that's irrelevant to your rant. It's amazing how you know so much about me, and we never met! Well, I guess this is an improvement over your previous allegation that I am a covert digital disciple who was pushing the digital agenda! LOL :-) Your imagination really has run wild.... and you have provided some great entertainment value in this thread.... I can only guess - this is your defense mechanism.

> If you call throwing stones showing how wrong you are, you are correct, I am throwing stones at you.

........Too bad you are so headstrong - because you could really benefit from these exchanges if you would stop throwing stones, comprehend what others are writing, and try to back-up your position instead of trying to win a debate by continuous insults.

I think you guys, arguing incessantly as you have, do a good job in stirring up juices. Maybe people will now consider ULF for their own work. It's so easy to make DOF calculations and only the photographer knows the destination of the final print: contact or enlargement and how detail rich the scene is or graded or contrasty the light range is to decide what format is appropriate.

One kind of photograph might be initiated with an M8 digital rangefinder camera (or from a scan of a 4x10) and made into a trannie and contact printed at 8x20 whereas another will only look impressive with an 8x20 negative from direct exposure of film. Do you really need the silver grains or can you tolerate spots or holes in the first negative and then in a second negative and degradation of the tone curves in going to a larger negative however well scanned.

If one is going to the trouble of doing a platinum print, then how one gets there can be critical. I can hand hold a digital camera and map a huge building or Arizona desert scene to get a large digital file. However for trees and leaves or moving clouds only a ULF exposuret can get a perfect image irrespecitve of any other compelling esthetic such as liking the "look" or grain and special favorites lenses.

If the two of you weren't naturalyl so stalwart in your stands, then the information eked out would be sparse.

So kudos for you for each being mostly right. Jorge you are sometime overreaching, that's your nature. On the whole, this is a very useful thread. What would be helpful would be to move to a new and practical stage. Examples of real photographs showing the limits of different choices for format would be appreciated right now.

Asher

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Examples of real photographs showing the limits of different choices for format would be appreciated right now.
Here is one for a subject not at infinity....The mision is about 35 meters from the camera, taken with a Korona 12x20 made in the 1930s at f/90 with back movement.



Another one where the remains of a small chappel is about 40 meters and in the print you can see sheep grazing close to the horizon line, they must have been about 500 yards or so.

[timparkin]

Here is one for a subject not at infinity....The mision is about 35 meters from the camera, taken with a Korona 12x20 made in the 1930s at f/90 with back movement.
Another one where the remains of a small chappel is about 40 meters and in the print you can see sheep grazing close to the horizon line, they must have been about 500 yards or so.

Hi Jorge,

What are the vertical lines and discontinuities on both pictures? It almost look like they've been cut into slices?

Tim

p.s. From my recollection, the f-stop of a lens is lens diameter over focal length - I don't think the shutter size has anything to do with it (although you need a large shutter to fit larger aperture's in the lowest f-stop is determined more around the optical design and then a shutter is chosen to fit around this).

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hi Jorge,

What are the vertical lines and discontinuities on both pictures? It almost look like they've been cut into slices?

Tim

p.s. From my recollection, the f-stop of a lens is lens diameter over focal length - I don't think the shutter size has anything to do with it (although you need a large shutter to fit larger aperture's in the lowest f-stop is determined more around the optical design and then a shutter is chosen to fit around this).

I had a bad scanner, I bought one of those HP scanners that was worthless right out of the box. I called them and they said those lines were "normal"... took it back to the store and will never touch and HP product again. Unfortunatelly Perez moved from HP to Kodak and brought with him the same attitude.. :(

You are correct in the focal lenght determination. It has nothing to do with the shutter, but the bigger the lens cells to correct for aberrations the bigger the shutter and the bigger the entrance pupil. I am sure you have seen two lenses of the same focal lenght but one is much smaller than the other. While the ratio of the f stop is the same, the diameter of the entrance pupil is much bigger for the bigger lens, thus avoiding difraction. Of course this does not mean you do not have difraction with the bigger lenses, but it is mostly at the edges, and since they have such great coverage it is negligible.

WHat the previous poster does not understand is that a 500 mm in a 4x5 and 500 mm lens in a 12x20 DOES NOT deliver the same image. Depending on the lens design the 12x20 500 mm can deliver a much greater image than the one for 4x5 and that we are only cropping with the camera and holders. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the circle of confusion and why it increases with film size.

[John Kasaian]

Uhhh.....what do you guys mean by "real utility?" :confused:

[Ole Tjugen]

Just FYI, there's a lab in Sweden with an enlarger that takes negatives up to 20x24". send then a contact print along with the negative, and they will match it as well as possible, at any size up to the width of a master roll of paper.

[Mick Fagan]

I also would like to know what "real utility" is as well.

As of yesterday, with a new acquisition, I obviously became the third person in the world, who can enlarge 11x14 negatives, I don't think so!

17 years ago I was making single 6'x18' colour enlargements, they were very sharp. I still have a couple of 6'x17' prints, they still have a wow factor when put alongside current state of the art prints manufactured by commercial ink printers 48" and 72" wide.

Mick.

Ps:- some of this has been very interesting, it's a nice ride :-)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Just FYI, there's a lab in Sweden with an enlarger that takes negatives up to 20x24". send then a contact print along with the negative, and they will match it as well as possible, at any size up to the width of a master roll of paper.

I know, there is another in France that takes some as big as well.

[Patrik Roseen]

Ole, I have visited that lab (in Stockholm right?) I have seen Teddan's portrait of Lennart Nilsson which is an enlargment from 12x20 if I remember correctly and where it is possible to see the reflection of the flash on the inside/backside of the eyeglobe.

I do not do ULF myself, but to me 'the real utility' might be - 'making an impression'!

PS: Now I need to get my knowledge corrected regarding DOF, Diffraction, CoC etc...elsewhere.

[Ole Tjugen]

PS: Now I need to get my knowledge corrected regarding DOF, Diffraction, CoC etc...elsewhere.

I haven't visited the lab, but I have seen Teddan's print. Up (very) close.

May I suggest "Optics in Photography" by Rudolf Kingslake for anyone who wishes to get the confusion out of "Circle of Confusion"? It requires a little work to get through, but no more than Leslie Stroebel's book does. In both cases working at it until you really understand what it's all about is really the only way to learn anything.

[bglick]

thank you QT

[timparkin]

You are correct in the focal lenght determination. It has nothing to do with the shutter, but the bigger the lens cells to correct for aberrations the bigger the shutter and the bigger the entrance pupil. I am sure you have seen two lenses of the same focal lenght but one is much smaller than the other. While the ratio of the f stop is the same, the diameter of the entrance pupil is much bigger for the bigger lens, thus avoiding difraction. Of course this does not mean you do not have difraction with the bigger lenses, but it is mostly at the edges, and since they have such great coverage it is negligible.

Not sure what your mean about the ratio of the f stop being the same but the entrance pupil is bigger? The f-stop is the size of the entrance pupil so diffraction is intrinsically linked to f-stop for the same focal lenfth (i.e. f64 will always have the same size diffraction when focused at infinity, regardless of focal length)

Shame about the scanner

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

f64 will always have the same size diffraction when focused at infinity, regardless of focal length

I know difraction as the interference of the light wavelenght by the pupil. IOW the hole is so small that the light wavelenght degrades by interference. So for example of the lenses I have owned I have a 300 sironar N in a copal 3 and I had a 300 mm in a copal one. At f/64 the entrance pupil of the Sironar was about 5 mm, on the one with the copal 1 it was about 1 mm.

While I have used the one in the copal 3 at f/90 without any loss if resolution due to difraction, I could not use the one in the copal 1 at f/90 because I was able to clearly see loss of resolution in the negatives. I don't know what MTF tables say, but real life practice tells me this is happening.. :)

[Ole Tjugen]

No Jorge, a 300mm lens at f:64 has an entrance pupil at slightly less than 5mm. That's the definition of f-stop.

While diffraction is a result of the edges of the aperture, it gets enlarged along with everything else with longer focal lengths. So in the end it all cancels out, and you end up with diffraction being only dependent on f-stop.

MTF tables don't enter into this at all, you get exactly the same diffraction with a (large) pinhole.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

No Jorge, a 300mm lens at f:64 has an entrance pupil at slightly less than 5mm. That's the definition of f-stop.

hmmmm... you are right, it should be the same diameter in the entrance pupil, yet it is not what I saw in the lenses I had. I wish I still had the other so you could see the difference. Maybe it was mislabeled.

[sanking]

hmmmm... you are right, it should be the same diameter in the entrance pupil, yet it is not what I saw in the lenses I had. I wish I still had the other so you could see the difference. Maybe it was mislabeled.


View Camera Technique by Stroebel treats this topic.

See page 99 ( if you have the 5th edition). Stroebel provides a diffraction-limited formula for resolution. It is R=1800/f-N, where R is the resolution in lines/millimeter, 1800 is a Constant, and f-N is the f-number. The formula is approximate because diffraction is different for Red, Green and Blue light, and the Constant of 1800 is an average figure.

Diffraction-limited resolution is an absolute, and is the highest possible resolution that can be had at a given aperture. The formula works for all lenses regardless of focal length. The diffraction-limited resolution at a given f-stop is the same for a lens of 200mm as for one of 800mm. It has nothing to do with depth of field, depth of focus or circle of confusion. Ole is correct in that it is dependent on f/stop. It is also dependent on how the Constant for wavelength is calculated.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

View Camera Technique by Stroebel treats this topic.

See page 99 ( if you have the 5th edition). Stroebel provides a diffraction-limited formula for resolution. It is R=1800/f-N, where R is the resolution in lines/millimeter, 1800 is a Constant, and f-N is the f-number. The formula is approximate because diffraction is different for Red, Green and Blue light, and the Constant of 1800 is an average figure.

Diffraction-limited resolution is an absolute, and is the highest possible resolution that can be had at a given aperture. The formula works for all lenses regardless of focal length. The diffraction-limited resolution at a given f-stop is the same for a lens of 200mm as for one of 800mm. It has nothing to do with depth of field, depth of focus or circle of confusion. Ole is correct in that it is dependent on f/stop. It is also dependent on how the Constant for wavelength is calculated.

Sandy King

I know Ole is right, I am just wondering why the hole looked so much smaller in one of the lenses.

[Nathan Potter]

Sandy, I've been following this thread intermittently and perts have been interesting. Stroebel gives a form of the classic Airy disc calculation in the form of cycles per mm. Thus for an f/5.6 lens we get about 320 cycles per mm. resolving power. This must assume a perfect optical lens since 320 would not be achievable with a full visible light lens. Maybe the best would be about 1/5 of that resolving power. Although using monochromatic light both Zeiss and Nikon have been able to produce lenses in the 600 to 800 cycles per mm. range for microchip replication purposes. The Ultra Micro Nikkor series being one example - albeit covering only about a 15 by 15 mm. reduction field.

A convenient nomograph for resolving power determination for a perfect lens can be found on page 976 of the SPIE Handbook of Photographic Science and Engineering (my bible). It's interesting because we see how difficult it is to design the glass to reach the limit imposed by diffraction effects esp. at wide apertures.

Nate Potter

[bglick]

> From Jorge, So for example of the lenses I have owned I have a 300 sironar N in a copal 3 and I had a 300 mm in a copal one. At f/64 the entrance pupil of the Sironar was about 5 mm, on the one with the copal 1 it was about 1 mm.

> From Ole... No Jorge, a 300mm lens at f:64 has an entrance pupil at slightly less than 5mm. That's the definition of f-stop.


Thank you Ole for taking the baton..... sheeeesh.... The entire premise behind the fstop system, is that f ratio is ALWAYS THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF LENS FL ! If it weren't, our light meters would all be useless ! If the same fl lens has a larger diam apt. opening vs. another lens of the same fl, one of them has the wrong shutter on the lens!




> Diffraction-limited resolution is an absolute, and is the highest possible resolution that can be had at a given aperture.


Sandy, key words being "highest possible"..... one of the previous posters kept missing this point.... the wider the lens coverage, the further from "highest possible" the resolution becomes, hence why there is "diminishing levels of return" in photography, i.e. bigger formats are not always better. If they were, I would shoot mostly 20x24 :-)




> This must assume a perfect optical lens since 320 would not be achievable with a full visible light lens. Maybe the best would be about 1/5 of that resolving power. Although using monochromatic light both Zeiss and Nikon have been able to produce lenses in the 600 to 800 cycles per mm


Nathan, nice post. From test results I have seen, and the lenses I have tested myself here is some findings..... high quality 35mm can have aerial resolutions at diffraction limited values.... the BEST MF lenses are very very close to diffraction limited, specifically Mamiya 7 lenses, (Mamiya achieved 350 lp/mm aerial resolution at f4)..... the best of the modern bunch of 4x5 lenses fall just a tad below the M7 lenses (specifically the 110, 150 SSXL), but there is others, most fall in the normal fl range....most of the older 4x5 or larger image circle lenses fall off up to about 30 - 40% of diffraction limited values... and older vintage LF lenses can fall down to 70% of diffraction limited values. Chris Perez's list of LF lens tests represent a bounty of data in this regard. Kudos to Chris for his contributions. Since MTF data is not available for many vintage lenses, Chris test results often are the best reference.


It's interesting to note, lens designs really started to make huge advancements with the advent of optical software. By the mid 90's, the big makers were benefiting greatly from the ability to design lenses with huge optical gains vs. the previous generation. For example, comparing some of the digitar lenses to LF lenses of the same fl and "almost" the same coverage.... the digitars lenses have very similar MTF curves throughout the radius, however, the curve lines for the LF lenses are at 5,10,20, whereas the Digitar lenses are recorded at 20,40,60. This represents a 300% gain in aerial resolution..... whereas previous to this "optical software era", it was impressive when lens makers jumped aerial resolution 10 - 20%.


With the advent of digital, its easy to test these lenses... I had a custom back made to accept a digital SLR. Shooting Test Targets is a fast and easy way to compare lenses aerial resolution. Using a small, highly dense sensor makes this process a breeze vs. testing with film. During these tests, I also learned how long shutter times (several seconds) can also degrade resolution, as the mechanical shutters, specially the 3's vibrate the lens!


I find it ironic, that throughout the early days of photography, the means to higher resolving prints was by using larger formats, and their corresponding larger fl lenses w/ longer shutter speeds. This was a result of 1) the lenses of all fl's were all poor resolvers (compared to today), and 2) the recording media was the same for all formats. (same as film today). However, with the advent of super high resolving digital lenses, combined with super dense digital sensors (allowing a smaller format size, therefore shorter fl lenses)...... the trend of "bigger for more resolution" is now being reversed.



With these highly dense recording media (digital sensors vs. film) the photographic process can finally benefit by using shorter fl lenses which benefit from MUCH higher aerial resolutions as a result of avoiding the dreaded apt. diffraction effects. This is why the 39MP backs today have been considered on par with scanned 4x5 film. (regardless which is actually better is not relevant, the fact they are this close demonstrates the value of shorter fl lenses combined with smaller formats)


Some of the optical engineers I work with are designing 100MP sensors which will be close to 6x7 format. This will make another monumental jump in recording higher resolutions images with shorter fl lenses and faster shutter speeds. It took the advent of highly dense digital sensors to defeat (or drastically reduce) the physical limits of apt. diffraction, which has always been the achillies heel of gaining more resolution in photography. Digital sensors finally reversed the "bigger is better" systematic approach to gaining resolution. Who would have dreamed this just 10 years ago? A revolution right during our life time.... I find it quite fascinating, even if I never use them.


Disclaimer - other than family snapshots, I ONLY SHOOT FILM! :-)

[timparkin]

Nathan, nice post. From test results I have seen, and the lenses I have tested myself here is some findings..... high quality 35mm can have aerial resolutions at diffraction limited values.... the BEST MF lenses are very very close to diffraction limited, specifically Mamiya 7 lenses, (Mamiya achieved 350 lp/mm aerial resolution at f4)..... the best of the modern bunch of 4x5 lenses fall just a tad below the M7 lenses (specifically the 110, 150 SSXL), but there is others, most fall in the normal fl range....most of the older 4x5 or larger image circle lenses fall off up to about 30 - 40% of diffraction limited values... and older vintage LF lenses can fall down to 70% of diffraction limited values. Chris Perez's list of LF lens tests represent a bounty of data in this regard. Kudos to Chris for his contributions. Since MTF data is not available for many vintage lenses, Chris test results often are the best reference.

Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution? I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...

Interesting thread...

Tim

[Ole Tjugen]

Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution?
To a certain extent, yes.

Before computer design at least, lenses tended to be optimised for either sharpness or coverage - and improving one reduced the other. Within the central 10 degrees or so a Petzval is at least as sharp as any modern lens, but the resolution drops off very rapidly away from the center. Aplanats have somewhat greater coverage, and are equally sharp in the center (my Meyer Aristoplan 270mm f:7.2 seems to me to be diffraction limited at fwide open aperture - dead center). The early Anastigmats improved the evenness of resolution over the image circle at the cost of some peak resolution (yes, a good Aplanat is sharper in the center than a good Protar).


I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...

It's not so much that there is a tipping point as that the maximum theoretical resolution is a function of focal length. If you think of resolution not in terms of lines on film but as very small angles between light rays, you will see that two lenses with the same angular resolution but different focal lengths will give different resolution on film. So a 150mm would theoretically be exactly twice as sharp on film as a 300mm lens of the same construction.

There is still a trade-off between resolution and coverage, but modern design methods have allowed lens designers to make lenses with both good coverage and high resolution across the image circle.

[sanking]

Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution? I only ask because presumably a lens in front of 4x5 that would cover 10x8 would mean 2x the number of lines across the photograph than 4x5? This sort of implies that the best 4x5 lenses should have the smallest coverage which goes against my (admittedly simple) knowlege? Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...

Interesting thread...

Tim

Generally that is so, as Ole has noted.

However, there are exceptions. The new Schneider 550 XXL lens, which is a modern multi-coated Dagor design, gives very even coverage over nearly all of its 900+mm circle of illumination. This lens was designed for ULF work and the huge coverage that is needed for these large formats.

Sandy King

[bglick]

> Does this imply that, all else being equal, the bigger the image circle of a lens the lower aerial resolution?


Tim, as a general rule, yes, this is the case, unfortunately. As Ole and Sandy mention, there has been, and always will be a trade-off between resolution/contrast vs. coverage. Hence the continued trend to smaller formats through the years, reversing the "bigger is better" history of photography.




> Perhaps there is a tipping point around 10x8 that makes lenses a lot harder (or more expensive) to create...


I would add some caveats to this statement to make it more accurate. First, it's not just lens design and MTF that limits resolution, it's the apt. you are forced to shoot at using the longer fl lens for the bigger format, to accommodate the DOF in the scene. So with a DOF shot (i.e. not infinity, not flat subject) the larger format lenses often have two strikes against them, smaller apertures required, and often less resolution to begin with, due to the larger coverage. IMO, there is a tipping point in this balancing act, and it falls between 4x5 and 810. If the shot requires some DOF, then 4x5 is the crown jewel. However, if the shot does not require DOF, then additional gains can be appreciated jumping to 810. IMO, this is one of they reasons 4x5 has dominated LF photography for many years. Of course, their is other reasons that are obvious, such as size, no need for prints larger than 4x5 can produce, larger and better lens selection, etc. I also think 4x5 will continue to hold its own in the future due to our excellent films and optics for this format size.


ULF faded many years ago for a very good reason - the advent of higher resolving films which allowed equal resolutions with smaller formats via enlargements.... todays digital trend, (downward in format size) is merely a continuation of the ULF to LF trend 50 - 70 years ago. Both times, it was higher resolution recording media that allowed (or welcomed) the use of shorter fl lenses. Shorter fl's lenses (relative) is one of the few physical laws of optics, that works in our favor. These shorter fl lenses, have the potential to produce much higher resolutions and faster shutter speeds. This same principle is what opened the flood gates for the f2.8 digicams - which are taking over the world. At f2.8, (most common) diffraction limited aerial resolutions are about 530 lp/mm. Compare this to f64 on 8x10, 23 lp/mm. oh yeah, also a "small" gain in shutter speeds, just 8 stops :-)

[Nathan Potter]

bglick, splendid info on lens matters. These latest posts get a bit more at the point of the original post.

I've not used any ULF format cameras but have historically done 35 mm. to 8X10. I agree that as the format goes up beyond about 5X7 it becomes more noticeably difficult to capture the plane of focus using movements and my photos became more static. I didn't always mind this depending on the subject matter but I always seemed to gravitate back to the 4X5 format for the flexibility.

By the way bglick you seem to be into lens design and I seem to remember a pioneering company, I think in CT, that specialized in computer optical design in the 70s' or 80s'. They did design work for Leitz and Nikon - I think. I wonder if they are still in business?

Nate Potter

[bglick]

Thanks for the kind words Nate

> I agree that as the format goes up beyond about 5X7 it becomes more noticeably difficult to capture the plane of focus using movements and my photos became more static.


Yep, this is another good point which I avoided previously, as the discussion revolved around format / apt. / diffraction / format size. However, as you suggest, another reason 4x5 is such a sweet spot for photography is movements. While, rise/fall corrects distortions or alters composition, it's the tilts that can ease the focus issue and prevent stopping down (degrading the resolution via apt. diffraction) as the only form of capturing the image plane. But to utilize tilt, you must have sufficient image circle, which 4x5 lenses offer. You also will benefit by the relatively shorter fl lenses (vs. 8x10 or larger), as a 300mm fl lens requires 2x the tilt as a 150mm lens. So as you double the format, you eat up the image circle first by the larger format size, then, to make matters worse, you need 2x the degrees in tilt for equal focal plane placement..... quite often, you simply don't have enough enough image circle for all these requirements, so you resort back to stopping down as the only option to attain adequate focus from near to far - which brings on apt. diffraction. Even when you can tilt with the larger formats, it's often the very poor resolving portion of the image circle you are capturing. So due to the over-sized image circles available to 4x5, combined with the shorter fl's which require less degrees in tilt.... 4x5 will very often provide you with an alternative focus means (tilt), allowing you too open up several stops vs. keeping the standards parallel. Yep, another "feather in the cap" for the 4x5 format.

As a general rule, if I have an infinity scene, or a scene with very little depth, I will use 8x10, or the occasional ULF. Otherwise, 4x5 has proven untouchable in versatility, size, weight, etc. Of course, 5x7 is a nice compromise of the two. I have recently acquired a 5x7 back also, so I might eventually settle on one format as most of my lenses have very large coverage, and I really hate carrying so much gear. I think QT figured this out looooong ago!


I am not aware of the optical design firm in CT you refer to...hmmmmm.....

[David Vickery]

If you want proof that Optics is not a relevant issue when deciding whether or not ULF has utility for you, the potential user, or for those of us already using ULF cameras, just look at a good Albumen Print by Carleton Watkins. The High Museum of Art in Atlanta, Ga. has a print on display that is absolutely amazing--for its superb optical quality(sharp throughout-foreground to background-you can count blades of grass if you want), for its beautiful tonality, and for the complete Craftsmanship in its execution. The one in particular that I am thinking of is a 16x20 contact print made over One Hundred years ago!! I can't remember the name of the print and I can't find it on the High's web site, but if any of you have been there and seen it and really looked at it then you know what I am talking about.

[David Vickery]

Does it need to be emphasized that the photographer who wishes to expose hundreds of rolls of film per day or the equivalent in sheets, that ULF does not have utility for them and the goals of that type of image making? Isn't this obvious?

[bglick]

> If you want proof that Optics is not a relevant issue when deciding whether or not ULF has utility for you, the potential user, or for those of us already using ULF cameras, just look at a good Albumen Print by Carleton Watkins.


David, ULF users can maximize the benefits of the big format. For example, an infinity shot on 11x14 with a modern oversized 8x10 LF lens is truly breathtaking. No doubt about it. It will look superb whether it was contact printed, or enlarged. As mentioned in the deleted posts, ULF still has a niche IMO. However, it doesn't change what was discussed above regarding the limits imposed by apt. diffraction.


Even Ansel Adams shot atop a tall ladder, in his later years, as he too was trying to reduce the amount of DOF, so he could limit diffraction effects by opening up more. I shoot atop an RV with 810 and 11x14 to do the same. So there is tricks at every level to maximize a given formats utility.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This thread is about the relevance of using ULF cameras. Someone responded that there is not and proceded to cite all kinds of resolution arguments, MTF tables, that enlarging is better and should be considered and of course the ever present digital.

Well, while all these rationalizations sound reasonable as an attempt to demonstrate there is no relevance for ULF, in the end the proof is in the pudding. Somtehing that those of us who actually USE and photograph with these size have known for a long time.

So in an effort to show and yes discredit all thes rationalizations I am posting pictures and magnifications done with a 12x20 Korona camera, a Nikon Nikkor 450 M lens and Ultrafine 125 film.

I took two shots of this scene, I liked the clouds on negative one better than the other one so I had this extra negative that I do not use and decided to cut for this demonstration.

The first picture is a shot of the finished 12x20 print. All the scans are straight, no manipulations, not even sharpening on photoshop.

Then, I cut up the 12x20 negative and the second shot is the section I cut to put on my scanner. This scan was made at 100 dpi resolution. I then scanned the same cut at 2400 dpi and cut off a part that looked the same as my negative under a 10x loupe. And this is the third picture.

Bear in mind that all the scans have no sharpening in photoshop not even to correct for the loss in resolution when scanning.

So lets examine the arguments that were proposed.

1.Because you have to use small apertures you loose resolution and the resolution of the lenses used is not adequate for these formats.
--- BS. This shot was taken a f/45, for 5 seconds, in windy conditions as you can see by the movement of the branches in the tree.

2. Difficulty to mantain squareness of the camera, film flatness and parallel standards.
--- These are reasons borne out of inexperience and ignorance in the format. These shots were taken with a 90 year old Korona 12x20 camera with S&S holders. A little bit of care, a good tripod and good holders take care of this. If a 90 year old camera is capable of this kind of pictures, the modern ones are far more capable. My Wisner has stops to set parallel standards and I have yet to see a modern ULF camera that is not square both to an horizontal and vertical axis.

3. I can disregard circle of confusion because the lens does not see format size and the depth of focus is unimportant. I want to see the print at any distance I want.
--- specious argument. This person wants to look at a print that is 10 feet x 16.66 feet from a 10 inch distance. If that is the case, so be it...but clearly it is demonstrated in these pictures that even at close examinations the lenses and film are capable of delivering outstanding images.

Conclusion: Theory and tables are good to form an intial impression, but nothing beats experience, knowledge of the material and actually using the cameras to verify that the initial impression obtained form the theory are accurate. IOW, bigger IS better

PS, I forgot to add that the negative under a 10X magnification looks far sharper than the scan.

[bglick]

> This thread is about the relevance of using ULF cameras. Someone responded that there is not and proceded to cite all kinds of resolution arguments, MTF tables, that enlarging is better and should be considered and of course the ever present digital.

I am sorry Jorge, I did not read a post where someone mentioned "ULF - there is no relevance in its use". Can you please reference that post? I keep seeing mentioning of, ULF still has a niche, even today....but not what you are suggesting? Maybe its in a different thread?




> Then, I cut up the 12x20 negative and the second shot is the section I cut to put on my scanner. This scan was made at 100 dpi resolution. I then scanned the same cut at 2400 dpi and cut off a part that looked the same as my negative under a 10x loupe. And this is the third picture.

Can you please explain what these scans demonstrate as it relates to your position?




> 1.Because you have to use small apertures you loose resolution and the resolution of the lenses used is not adequate for these formats.

Again, I am not finding such a reference in a previous post. Can you cut n paste it for us?




> 2. Difficulty to mantain squareness of the camera, film flatness and parallel standards. These are reasons borne out of inexperience and ignorance in the format.

I re-read some of the previous posts, and the only reference mentioned is...... ULF can be more difficult to maintain parallelism, such as 20x24 cameras vs. 4x5 camera. A relative issue, not an absolute issue. Can you show where these posts are you refer to? We should find this ignorant individual and educate him.

[David Vickery]

Well, The point that I am trying to make is that since there is a large variety of lenses that have been manufactured through the years that will cover ULF sizes with excellent characteristics, and with a multitude of beautifully crafted images produced for well over a hundred years by a large variety of people, using the idea that limited depth of field with longer focal length lenses, or other optical constraints, is a reason why ULF cameras have no utility is potentially misleading to people who may be considering the use of these larger formats.
My argument is that the inherent limitations of optics are Not the criteria that should be used to determine the utility of ULF.
Now, if I where photographing Jewelry or even Architecture for clients, then I would have a significant amount of interest in the characteristics of individual lenses and best use practices for those particular applications.
I am not saying that optical theory is unimportant to the ULF user, I'm just trying to say that there is a lot that can be done with ULF and we shouldn't try to discourage people from getting into it.

[bglick]

> using the idea that limited depth of field with longer focal length lenses, or other optical constraints, is a reason why ULF cameras have no utility is potentially misleading to people

David, I agree with you 100%. I did not see any reference of posts suggesting that ULF has no utility. I really think, these discussion bring out the passion behind ones choice in formats, and people at times, sub consciously, read between the lines to justify their chosen format. The way I read it, this discussion revolved around - isolating the best possible criteria for ULF, and other formats as well, and some of the least advantageous criteria for ULF. I consider it a healthy format exchange.


> My argument is that the inherent limitations of optics are Not the criteria that should be used to determine the utility of ULF.

For me, I like to work backwards....first set the criteria for the desired finish print, then figure out, what tool can best accomplish this goal. Sometimes, ULF would be the best tool for the job, other times ULF would not be the best tool for the job. It might be due to the optics, long exposure times, camera shake from wind, film choice not available, etc. Lots of issues to consider when selecting the best tool....at least this is how I work. I leave all options open. I am not committed to any single format. The ol adage "Horses for Courses" certainly applies to photography.




> I'm just trying to say that there is a lot that can be done with ULF and we shouldn't try to discourage people from getting into it.

Fully agreed.... but at the same time, it's nice to give people all the pros n cons, and let them decide what fits their style, budget, life style, shooting technique, etc. etc.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I am sorry Jorge, I did not read a post where someone mentioned "ULF - there is no relevance in its use". Can you please reference that post? I keep seeing mentioning of, ULF still has a niche, even today....but not what you are suggesting? Maybe its in a different thread?


Here is you, of course I am sure that now you are going to claim you were mis understood... typical of those who use digital


OTOH, if you the end goal is the final print, and you are not stuck on contact printing, or anti digital (scanning and printing) then, the ULF case is weakened tremendously, or almost dismissed


However, it was not till the 60's (guessing here) that films resolution grew to the point where ULF did not make sense. Of course now, with todays film trumping 1960 film, ULF makes even less sense. (assuming a sharp print is the desired goal)


There is probably one exception to this, and that is an image that is captured on ULF which is shot at infinity, or the subject is near flat, allowing the user to not stop down to such ridiculously high f stops to achieve even shallow DOF. Outside of this one exception, its DOF and the require aperture diffraction that prevents bigger from always being better.

Can you please explain what these scans demonstrate as it relates to your position?


My post is very clear.


ULF can be more difficult to maintain parallelism,

You are the only one having this problem. If any camera should have had problems with parallelism it was my Korona, yet it delivered perfect pictures.

[timparkin]

Well, The point that I am trying to make is that since there is a large variety of lenses that have been manufactured through the years that will cover ULF sizes with excellent characteristics, and with a multitude of beautifully crafted images produced for well over a hundred years by a large variety of people, using the idea that limited depth of field with longer focal length lenses, or other optical constraints, is a reason why ULF cameras have no utility is potentially misleading to people who may be considering the use of these larger formats.
My argument is that the inherent limitations of optics are Not the criteria that should be used to determine the utility of ULF.
Now, if I where photographing Jewelry or even Architecture for clients, then I would have a significant amount of interest in the characteristics of individual lenses and best use practices for those particular applications.
I am not saying that optical theory is unimportant to the ULF user, I'm just trying to say that there is a lot that can be done with ULF and we shouldn't try to discourage people from getting into it.

I personally am far from discouraged but it's good to know that the increase in resolution isn't linear, far from it. I get approx a maximum of 600dpi or 8 line pairs per pmm on Jorges picture - although he says there is more - wheras on a 4x5 negative I would expect to scan at 3300 dpi (some would say 4000) which would give
43 line pairs per mm. This means that when I enlarge to 16x20 then I would get 11 line pairs per mm..

Now this is all theoretical and given a good print or enlargement you still have over 400dpi on the final result which is way more than you can see...

Any difference that you can see on a print such as this is nothing to do with resolution/MTF etc and everything to do with the operator of the camera, unique quality of lenses etc...

For me, I would use ULF if I wanted to experience the process (which would be great). Whether experiencing the process is to do with utility is another matter... If I wanted higher resolutions than this I could scan and stitch medium format digital but the fact of the matter is that most people use the formats they do because the results are good enough for them and they enjoy the process..

I'm probably going to stick with 4x5 and may use 8x10 - I will probably play with a large format at some point just to see what it's like and I'd love to see some contact printed results from ULF...

The original poster wanted to know if there is something unique about the results from ULF that can't be acheived by other means (e.g. 4x5 or 8x10) .. unless someone can show me some other evidence (a comparison of real prints / negs or some maths that helps me understand the relevant problems) then this thread leads me to believe that somewhere between 4x5 and 8x10 is the most 'utilitarian' format - I've also discovered that a lot of people love ULF --- some possibly a little bit too much...

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I get approx a maximum of 600dpi or 8 line pairs per pmm on Jorges picture - although he says there is more

Tim I purposely did not sharpen the image so that I would not be accused of cheating. I would be glad to send you a portion of the negative so you can verify that it is a lot sharper than the scan. I could post a sharpened scan if you want, I am sure it would increase the l/mm.

Bear in mind that this kind of magnification would result in a print that is 10x16 feet. My purpose of posting these prints was to show that someone can quote all the resolution, MTF tables, parallelism and squareness problems they want. In the end it comes down to results.

[sanking]

The original poster wanted to know if there is something unique about the results from ULF that can't be acheived by other means (e.g. 4x5 or 8x10) .. unless someone can show me some other evidence (a comparison of real prints / negs or some maths that helps me understand the relevant problems) then this thread leads me to believe that somewhere between 4x5 and 8x10 is the most 'utilitarian' format - I've also discovered that a lot of people love ULF --- some possibly a little bit too much...

Tim

Let me say first that although I love ULF I am not tied at the belly button to it. I have a 12.1 mp digital camera, a great MF outfit (Mamiya 711) and 5X7 is probably my favorite format. I can think of circumstances where any one of these camera might be the most utilitarian, if I understand the term as it is being used.

However, the answer to the original poster's question is definitely yes in that there are some results that can be obtained with ULF that can not be obtained with smaller sheet film formats. That would be the case if you want to make very large prints and are photographing scenes that can take full advantage of the ULF format and the lenses that we typically use with it.

An example. You want to make a 48" X 80" and the subject is one that allows you to use a high quality lens at the optimum aperture with an 8x20" camera. Such a scene might be one with most of the subject at a distance of 100' to infinity, as we often see in the west, or one that has all of the subject on the same plane so that depth of field is not an issue. If you were to expose such a subject at f/16 or f/22 with a high resolution film you would have on film somewhere between 60-80 lppm of resolution all over the negative. A 4X magnification of this negative, which involves doubling the negative size only twice, would leave you with between 15-20 lppm of real resolution, beyond the threshold of human resolution at 10 inches viewing distance.

Shoot the same scene with a 4X5. Assume you can get 80-100 lppm of resolution by exposing at f/8 or f/11 (and I don't think you can can much more because of the limitation of film and most 4X5 lenses. In order to make a print 80" on the long dimension you would need to double the size of the negative four times, which would take you down to 5-7 lppm.

I think this is a very reasonable example of the advantage of ULF in a specific condition.

Sandy King

[Nathan Potter]

Yes David, I agree with you also. For some of the nature photography work I do in 4X5 I would rather use 11X14 or 16X20 - in a heartbeat if I were younger. In situations where I can contain the composition in or near a single plane and where the intent and desire is to accentuate the textural nuances within the image I'd jump at the chance of using a ULF format. This not to mention the advantage of making brilliant contact prints and eliminating those pesky optical enlarging lenses. I do use pretty hard (collimated) enlarging setups but there is some kind of an intangible edge that a first rate contact print has that grabs me and makes my heart beat faster.

Maybe I have this feel that a great negative is directly connected to the original scene in some mystical way and the conversion to a print is some sort of sacred metamorphosis that needs to be accomplished in the most direct way possible to preserve the integrity of the original scene.

Nate Potter

[timparkin]

Maybe I have this feel that a great negative is directly connected to the original scene in some mystical way and the conversion to a print is some sort of sacred metamorphosis that needs to be accomplished in the most direct way possible to preserve the integrity of the original scene.

Nate Potter

I think you've hit on something important their... I personally think that an enlarged 4x5 (optically) is inferior to a very good scanned and lightjetted 4x5.. The enlargements I have seen have had 'ringing' around hard edges..

So if you want to stick with an analogue process, want resolution, are happy to work with less depth of field, can get good sharp lenses that cover the area then I think ULF not only has utility but is unique in what it can achieve...

Does this sound right?

Tim

[bglick]

> then this thread leads me to believe that somewhere between 4x5 and 8x10 is the most 'utilitarian' format -

Tim, a very accurate statement.....



> I've also discovered that a lot of people love ULF --- some possibly a little bit too much

Tim, also a very accurate statement :-) Your on fire today!


Jorge, your quotes are accurate, thank you. And they all support my position then, and my position now.... Although ULF has lost much of its utility vs. its' heydays, it still has niche applications today, even after years of advancements in film, digital sensors and lenses.


> typical of those who use digital


yes, guilty as charged Jorge... as mentioned, I do take family snapshots with a tiny digicam. But after this thread, I plan to carry a handheld 16x20 for those candid moments.




> My purpose of posting this prints was to show that someone can quote all the resolution, MTF tables, parallelism and squareness problems they want. In the end it comes down to results.


Jorge, we are on the same page again.... if one executes a test properly, it should match the MTF data, 1/R computation very closely. I have confirmed this many times. I would suggest shooting some test targets, so we have something objective too look at.....it will provide a better illustration of your assertions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I would suggest shooting some test targets, so we have something objective too look at.....it will provide a better illustration of your assertions.

I would suggest you actually learn how to use an ULF camera before you claim they have no relevance and that digital does it better. Photography is not about test charts, in the end, I would put any of my prints against any of yours (enlarged or contact) any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

I have posted images, you have nothing but theory and conjecture. I think people can arrive at their own conclusion as far as the subject of ULF having any utility.


I plan to carry a handheld 16x20 for those candid moments.

Don't waste your time, you could not use one on a tripod... ;)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

In fact you know what? why don't you put your money where your mouth is. You say stitching is better than ULF, well, why don't you make a 12x20 print, I will make a contact print and we send them to any one in this forum you choose and we will see which one is better. I have issued this challange to those using digital many times...no takers so far, will you be the first one?

[bglick]

> then this thread leads me to believe that somewhere between 4x5 and 8x10 is the most 'utilitarian' format -

Tim, a very accurate statement.....




> I've also discovered that a lot of people love ULF --- some possibly a little bit too much

Tim, also a very accurate statement :-) You're on fire today!



Jorge, your quotes are accurate, thank you. And they all support my position then, and my position now.... Although ULF has lost much of its utility vs. its' heydays, it still has niche applications today, even after years of advancements in film, digital sensors and lenses.




> typical of those who use digital


yes, guilty as charged Jorge... as mentioned, I do take family snapshots with a tiny digicam. But after this thread, I plan to carry a handheld 16x20 for those candid moments.





> My purpose of posting this prints was to show that someone can quote all the resolution, MTF tables, parallelism and squareness problems they want. In the end it comes down to results.


Jorge, we are on the same page again.... if one executes a test properly, it should match the MTF data, 1/R computation very closely. I have confirmed this many times. I would suggest shooting some test targets, so we have something objective too look at.....it will provide a better illustration of your assertions.




> The answer to the original poster's question is definitely yes in that here are some results that can be obtained with ULF that can not be obtained with smaller sheet film formats. That would be the case if you want to make very large prints and are photographing scenes that can take full advantage of the ULF format and the lenses that we typically use with it.


Well said Sandy. And really, for those who really want to understand how best to apply ULF techniques for the highest resolution images possible (assuming that is your end goal) read about it at this link, which is the Gigapixel project (its just a play on words, its about an ULF project)

http://www.gigapxl.org/technology-format.htm

The author of this site is brilliant, he has applied every bit of knowledge out there, and honed it to meet the objectives he was after.... he was meticulous about every part of this project....but beware, he does rely heavily on MTF calcs, but the good news is, the test results supported his calc. assertions, gee, what a surprise.


For those who don't bother going to the link, here is pix of the 16x20 camera.... brilliant storage and transport system too....


http://www.tow.com/photogallery/2004/20040713_gigapxl/images/fullsize/2004-07-13_1915-48.jpg

I thought this particular part of his explanation was ironic after our thread..... again, he is trying to control apt. diffraction, and he chose the film format IIRC is 16x20..... so he carefully picked the scenes that would meet the objectives.... brilliant.


"Taking these factors into account, we find that the highest practical resolution falls in the 30-60 cy/mm regime. Fortuitously, this value remains consistent with the diffraction limits associated with the f/11 to f/22 range while, at the same time, being well matched to scanning resolutions of 100-200 pixels/mm."

[bglick]

> In fact you know what? why don't you put your money where your mouth is.

Money has germs, so I never put it where my mouth is.....




> You say stitching is better than ULF,

Well, it can be, assuming the subject is static....




> well, why don't you make a 12x20 print, I will make a contact print and we send them to any one in this forum you choose and we will see which one is better.

Well, I use film Jorge, so I would not be the right person to propose this challenge. (I only mentioned this about 20x) But you may want to run this by Max Lyon, he makes 1 + Gigapixel images by stitching hundreds of small 8MP images together. Visit his web site, and throw the challenge out there, I am sure he will be eager to work with you..... you seem fair and level headed, give it a go! Keep us posted!



> I have issued this challenge to those using digital many times...no takers so far, will you be the first one?


If I shot digital, I would be happy to oblige Jorge, but I shoot film. But if you want some of my family 6MP digicam shots, (I assume they are the ones you refer to) I would be glad to send you some, then you can compare them against your 16x20 B&W landscape images. That's the best I can do..... cause it sounds like you're eager to demonstrate your point. I think it would be a fair comparison to prove your point, would you agree? Let the cards fall where they may.... as you say, the proof is in the pudding, and so far, no one has made puddin as good as yours... I will be the first to admit, the scans you posted demonstrated all I need to see. I am out-matched technically and aesthetically.

[Matt Magruder]

For me, I would use ULF if I wanted to experience the process (which would be great). Whether experiencing the process is to do with utility is another matter...

well said tim.
I shoot with a 90+yr old 12x20 camera solely because it "feels" right, it feels comfortable, and I enjoy every aspect of it. I think the intangible and unquantifiable aspects of format choice play a large part in the "why", at least for me personally.

The whole argument and debate seems sort of pointless (the BG/Jorge one) as its likely as relative as defining "what is art".

shoot with what you love, create images in the process you love, and the rest seems like it would all fall into place.

:)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

> In fact you know what? why don't you put your money where your mouth is.

Money has germs, so I never put it where my mouth is.....




> You say stitching is better than ULF,

Well, it can be, assuming the subject is static....




> well, why don't you make a 12x20 print, I will make a contact print and we send them to any one in this forum you choose and we will see which one is better.

Well, I use film Jorge, so I would not be the right person to propose this challenge. (I only mentioned this about 20x) But you may want to run this by Max Lyon, he makes 1 + Gigapixel images by stitching hundreds of small 8MP images together. Visit his web site, and throw the challenge out there, I am sure he will be eager to work with you..... you seem fair and level headed, give it a go! Keep us posted!



> I have issued this challenge to those using digital many times...no takers so far, will you be the first one?


If I shot digital, I would be happy to oblige Jorge, but I shoot film. But if you want some of my family 6MP digicam shots, (I assume they are the ones you refer to) I would be glad to send you some, then you can compare them against your 16x20 B&W landscape images. That's the best I can do..... cause it sounds like you're eager to demonstrate your point. I think it would be a fair comparison to prove your point, would you agree? Let the cards fall where they may.... as you say, the proof is in the pudding, and so far, no one has made puddin as good as yours... I will be the first to admit, the scans you posted demonstrated all I need to see. I am out-matched technically and aesthetically.

Sounds fine with me. Make a 12x20 stiched image and I will be glad to make a 12x 20 and we will send them to any one you choose here, I don't want your print since if I say it is not good enough you will accuse me of being biased. We are not talking about aesthetics here, we are talking about technical quality which is what you claim ULF is not good enough anymore.

BTW, you are also welcome to use one of your LF cameras (you have many if I recall correctly) scan the negatives or transparencies and stitch them.

Any way you want is fine with me. All we need is someone who is willing to volunteer to judge.

[Ole Tjugen]

Now for my personal opinion on ULF, with no mathematics or optical theory:

I use sheet film formats from 6.5x9cm to 30x40cm. The smallest one is not LF according to the only viable definition I've seen (more than 100 square centimeters), but at least it gives me a "small format" basis of comparison.

I do mostly landscape photography. where you live it might be different, but around here the landscapes tend to be rather rugged and near vertical. This has the advantage that I can always find a mountain to stand on, so getting the whole scene at close to infinity is not a problem. But that again leads to a different problem: I have to haul the bl**dy thing up that mountain first - and by the time I get thereem the whole valley is fogged in!

I've come to the conclusion that the 30x40cm (12x16") camera is just too big and heavy to use more than 50m from the car. The 24x30cm (9.5x12" for the metrically challenged) is a neat compact German "Reisekamera" only marginally larger than my 8x10" - in fact it's thinner when packed up! I can carry this for quite a distance.

8x10" and the 18x24cm metric equivalent is a sort of "inbetween" size for me. When I enlarge smaller negatives I usually make 24x30cm prints, very rarely 8x10". So since I'm limited to contact prints from all the sizes mentioned so far - at least if I'm not paying someone else for the printing and/or scanning - the 8x10" falls between two chairs: Too small to be big, too big to make bigger.

So most of the time I end up using 5x7". Unless I know I'm going to need lots and lots of movements, or a very narrow field of view - then I'll use 4x5". Or I'll use 4x5" with barrel lenses, since I also have a Speed Graphic.

My personal conclusion after a couple of years of hauling LF around is this: 5x7" is generally good, and generally good enough for really large prints (I have a 5x7" enlarger). 4x5" is convenient when I need a focal plane shutter or all the movements of a monorail somewhere halfway up a mountain. 24x30cm is beautiful, and gets less use than the 5x7" only because A: I can't choose to enlarge it without paying someone else to do it; B: There's a limited selection of films, C: I only have three double plate holers for it, and D: The bellows is so full of holes it looks more like lace than leather.

30x40cm is too big for me - maybe it would have been different if the camera had been an antique German precision instrument like the 24x30? A Russian copy of an old German camera is in no way the equivalent of the original...

[timparkin]

Sounds fine with me. Make a 12x20 stiched image and I will be glad to make a 12x 20 and we will send them to any one you choose here, I don't want your print since if I say it is not good enough you will accuse me of being biased. We are not talking about aesthetics here, we are talking about technical quality which is what you claim ULF is not good enough anymore.

BTW, you are also welcome to use one of your LF cameras (you have many if I recall correctly) scan the negatives or transparencies and stitch them.

Any way you want is fine with me. All we need is someone who is willing to volunteer to judge.

Hey Jorge... Why can't we just compare the scan of your 12x20 with one of the gigapixl images? I think we could fairly double the resolution from your scan because, as you say, there is more detail in the negative... sooooo....

You managed 600pixels per inch, lets say 1200 pixels per inch to give double the detail on the real negative.. The gigapxl image gives 88,000 pixels across 20" which is 4,400 pixels per inch...

I don't know what way you can slice this in your favour Jorge? Even if we say that the negative contained 16x as much data as your scan, it's still less than the gigapxl image?

Could you at least provide some rationale as to how you could approach this resolution, never mind exceed it?

As I said, I'm not particularly going to say A is better than B but if we're talking a straight head to head match on resolution....

Tim

[bglick]

Jorge, I don't want ignore your post - it's not my style. But you need to re read my post, cause based on your response, you must have mis-understood it....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hey Jorge... Why can't we just compare the scan of your 12x20 with one of the gigapixl images? I think we could fairly double the resolution from your scan because, as you say, there is more detail in the negative... sooooo....

You managed 600pixels per inch, lets say 1200 pixels per inch to give double the detail on the real negative.. The gigapxl image gives 88,000 pixels across 20" which is 4,400 pixels per inch...

I don't know what way you can slice this in your favour Jorge? Even if we say that the negative contained 16x as much data as your scan, it's still less than the gigapxl image?

Could you at least provide some rationale as to how you could approach this resolution, never mind exceed it?

As I said, I'm not particularly going to say A is better than B but if we're talking a straight head to head match on resolution....

Tim

No, it does not work that way. You are talking about a camera that has been made to take those high resolution images. Now, I don't see what the big deal is, give me 100k (I beleive this is what he spent is his camera) to make a vacuum holder, reinforce the camera, buy an optimzed lens like the Schnider 550 or 1000 and I will be glad to put any negative I make against his high res captures. You gotta compare apples to apples.

WHat we are talking about here is normal everyday use cameras as they come form the manufacuturer with lenses that are not too expensive and easily available. One side says that stitched digital images are better than ULF because of the lenses and apertures I say it is not so.

[sanking]

Just to put things in perspective re: the Gigapixel project, when I scan a 12X20 negative with my EverSmart Pro scanner, at 2540 ppi in 16 bit Grayscale, I get a file size of 2.88 gig. If that is not large enough I can go to 3175 ppi for a final file size of 4.5 gig.

I can not understand how anyone could work with larger files, or why they would want to, since from the 4.5 gig file one could potentially print an image 96" X 192" in size at 400 ppi. Even with a modern Intel duo-core MAC processing the smallest of these files takes an eternity.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, I don't want ignore your post - it's not my style. But you need to re read my post, cause based on your response, you must have mis-understood it....

I thought you said you will stitch 6MP images. All I am saying is that you are welcome to use scanned LF negatives as well if you want. If you are so confident that stitched 6MP images are better than a 12x20 ULF negative then use them... is up to you.

It is starting to sound to me like you don't do digital, you don't do ULF yet you have very strong opinions about their use and capabilities.... Had you started with this I would not have even bothered to respond.

[timparkin]

No, it does not work that way. You are talking about a camera that has been made to take those high resolution images. Now, I don't see what the big deal is, give me 100k (I beleive this is what he spent is his camera) to make a vacuum holder, reinforce the camera, buy an optimzed lens like the Schnider 550 or 1000 and I will be glad to put any negative I make against his high res captures. You gotta compare apples to apples.

WHat we are talking about here is normal everyday use cameras as they come form the manufacuturer with lenses that are not too expensive and easily available. One side says that stitched digital images are better than ULF because of the lenses and apertures I say it is not so.

OK

http://www.maxlyons.net/locreadingroom.htm

This guy is using an off the shelf digital camera and getting the same resolution images..

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

OK

http://www.maxlyons.net/locreadingroom.htm

This guy is using an off the shelf digital camera and getting the same resolution images..

Tim

Well lets see, he has a 116x110 inch print. I see no problem with doing this. You want to pay for the enlargement? I can send the negative to France or Norway to have a print made and I bet you it will be just as crisp as the one shown in the link you provided, and it was taken in one shot, not 243.

Let me remind you that I made a scan on a cheap flat bed scanner. I am sure that if I use a drum scanner, apply all the stuff people do to the scans and make a file big enough I can get just as good resolution. Then again, even if I just come close, heck not even close lets leave it at 8 l/mm.... taking just one shot and being able to make a 120x200 inch print in one take sure beats sitting around taking 243 shots.

PS. I forgot, how about we even things out. You take the 243 shots, make a 12x20 and I take my negative and make a 12x20.... I would be willing to do that as well.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Now for my personal opinion on ULF, with no mathematics or optical theory:

I use sheet film formats from 6.5x9cm to 30x40cm. The smallest one is not LF according to the only viable definition I've seen (more than 100 square centimeters), but at least it gives me a "small format" basis of comparison.

I do mostly landscape photography. where you live it might be different, but around here the landscapes tend to be rather rugged and near vertical. This has the advantage that I can always find a mountain to stand on, so getting the whole scene at close to infinity is not a problem. But that again leads to a different problem: I have to haul the bl**dy thing up that mountain first - and by the time I get thereem the whole valley is fogged in!

I've come to the conclusion that the 30x40cm (12x16") camera is just too big and heavy to use more than 50m from the car. The 24x30cm (9.5x12" for the metrically challenged) is a neat compact German "Reisekamera" only marginally larger than my 8x10" - in fact it's thinner when packed up! I can carry this for quite a distance.

8x10" and the 18x24cm metric equivalent is a sort of "inbetween" size for me. When I enlarge smaller negatives I usually make 24x30cm prints, very rarely 8x10". So since I'm limited to contact prints from all the sizes mentioned so far - at least if I'm not paying someone else for the printing and/or scanning - the 8x10" falls between two chairs: Too small to be big, too big to make bigger.

So most of the time I end up using 5x7". Unless I know I'm going to need lots and lots of movements, or a very narrow field of view - then I'll use 4x5". Or I'll use 4x5" with barrel lenses, since I also have a Speed Graphic.

My personal conclusion after a couple of years of hauling LF around is this: 5x7" is generally good, and generally good enough for really large prints (I have a 5x7" enlarger). 4x5" is convenient when I need a focal plane shutter or all the movements of a monorail somewhere halfway up a mountain. 24x30cm is beautiful, and gets less use than the 5x7" only because A: I can't choose to enlarge it without paying someone else to do it; B: There's a limited selection of films, C: I only have three double plate holers for it, and D: The bellows is so full of holes it looks more like lace than leather.

30x40cm is too big for me - maybe it would have been different if the camera had been an antique German precision instrument like the 24x30? A Russian copy of an old German camera is in no way the equivalent of the original...

You know, I think my ratio is 25 8x10 shots per 1 12x20. I just don't find enough subjects that fit my vision for the 12x20. So in that sense I would agree that some sizes fit us better, I love 8x10, and when I get a good 12x20 it is a thing to behold. Sadly I get more failures than keepers with the big camera....nice big, sharp negative, boring shot.. :)

[timparkin]

Well lets see, he has a 116x110 inch print. I see no problem with doing this. You want to pay for the enlargement? I can send the negative to France or Norway to have a print made and I bet you it will be just as crisp as the one shown in the link you provided, and it was taken in one shot, not 243.

Let me remind you that I made a scan on a cheap flat bed scanner. I am sure that if I use a drum scanner, apply all the stuff people do to the scans and make a file big enough I can get just as good resolution. Then again, even if I just come close, heck not even close lets leave it at 8 l/mm.... taking just one shot and being able to make a 120x200 inch print in one take sure beats sitting around taking 243 shots.

So your 120x200 inch print would be less than one line per mm wheras his images are 8 pixels per mm (3 lines per mm) .. The problem isn't just enlarging, it's keeping the resolution...

What we'e all talking about is that if you stitch 6mp images enough you will get a 20x12 at greater than 300 dpi. If you take a sharp 4x5 and enlarge 4x you will get a resolution greater than 300 dpi .. if you contact print a 20x12 you will get a resolution greater than 300dpi... The differences between them can be discounted by user error, atmospherics, lens design, wind etc etc etc ...

So unless you are enlarging ULF.. the resolution tends not to really matter ...

If you want to get larger than 20x12 then you need to find somewhere that can enlarge a 20x12 or somewhere that can enlarge a 4x5 or 8x10 - I'll leave the utility of that up to someone else... I'm finished now..

Tim

[Matt Magruder]

Just to put things in perspective re: the Gigapixel project, when I scan a 12X20 negative with my EverSmart Pro scanner, at 2540 ppi in 16 bit Grayscale, I get a file size of 2.88 gig. If that is not large enough I can go to 3175 ppi for a final file size of 4.5 gig.

I can not understand how anyone could work with larger files, or why they would want to, since from the 4.5 gig file one could potentially print an image 96" X 192" in size at 400 ppi. Even with a modern Intel duo-core MAC processing the smallest of these files takes an eternity.

Sandy King

I had a conversation similar to this a few year back Sandy. It was through email with a guy who was creating 1GP digital images with massive amounts of 3.2mp digital camera files... stitching them all together. I asked about how he was processing and creating the massive images, this was back during the intro of the G4 motorola Power Macs. He mentioned that he would create small 400pixel wide JPGs of each original 3.2MP capture and would create a workflow stitching all the images together and then would basically hit "play" in photoshop on the original sized images and would just let the machine run through the workflow for a few days.
Makes you wonder if this is a possibility or something built into PS nowadays.
Seemed to make logical sense to me.
Luckily I dont have to worry about files that big... my day to day grind revolves around a miniscule little magazine sized files :)

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So your 120x200 inch print would be less than one line per mm wheras his images are 8 pixels per mm (3 lines per mm) .. The problem isn't just enlarging, it's keeping the resolution...

What we'e all talking about is that if you stitch 6mp images enough you will get a 20x12 at greater than 300 dpi. If you take a sharp 4x5 and enlarge 4x you will get a resolution greater than 300 dpi .. if you contact print a 20x12 you will get a resolution greater than 300dpi... The differences between them can be discounted by user error, atmospherics, lens design, wind etc etc etc ...

So unless you are enlarging ULF.. the resolution tends not to really matter ...

If you want to get larger than 20x12 then you need to find somewhere that can enlarge a 20x12 or somewhere that can enlarge a 4x5 or 8x10 - I'll leave the utility of that up to someone else... I'm finished now..

Tim

No, the third image that you calculated as 8 l/mm is already the enlarged portion to what would be equivalent of a 120x200 in photograph. Consider that this was a shot taken in the wind, long exposure, at f/45 and scanned in a cheap flat bed scanner that does not even hold the negative flat.

No, YOU are talking about dpi and all that and I am well aware that the idea is to keep resolution this is why I am talking about final quality. You posted a link of someone who took 243 shots to make one 116x110 image. Very convenient for you to post this...tell me, what size and what resolution would he have gotten if he only took ONE shot?

The question presented was, does ULF have any utility? It does, if you want the best possible negative for contact printing, regardless of the MTF tables, resolution, etc. SIZE DOES MATTER, most people I know buy and USE these cameras to make contact prints, not enlargements. Even so, you want enlargements then you got it, but lets talk apples with apples. You take your digital camera, the best one you can get or even a LF with a scanning back and you take ONE shot and you enlarge it to 120x200 inches and I take my 12x20 negative and I enlarge it to 120x200 inches and we will see which one keeps the better resolution, was easier to take and looks better.

[timparkin]

? It does, if you want the best possible negative for contact printing, regardless of the MTF tables, resolution, etc. SIZE DOES MATTER, most people I know buy and USE these cameras to make contact prints, not enlargements.

I think I said in a previous email

"So if you want to stick with an analogue process, want resolution, are happy to work with less depth of field, can get good sharp lenses that cover the area then I think ULF not only has utility but is unique in what it can achieve."...

to paraphrase "If you want to contact print with the best resolution then ULF is unique"? Why are you trying to disagree with me by restating what I said previously ...

I'm beginning to think you are a troll...

Tim

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I think I said in a previous email

"So if you want to stick with an analogue process, want resolution, are happy to work with less depth of field, can get good sharp lenses that cover the area then I think ULF not only has utility but is unique in what it can achieve."...

to paraphrase "If you want to contact print with the best resolution then ULF is unique"? Why are you trying to disagree with me by restating what I said previously ...

I'm beginning to think you are a troll...

Tim

Lets see, a troll with more than 2000 posts, member of this forum since it was back at photo.net.... the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts... yep I am a troll alright.

I don't disagree with you on the above statements. What I disagree on is this falacy that digital is soooo much better at everything....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The whole argument and debate seems sort of pointless (the BG/Jorge one) as its likely as relative as defining "what is art".

I have to disagree with this. If the person making these claim posted I did not choose/have chosen ULF because.... then it is fine with me, we all have reasons to do or not do, like or not like what we do. But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF and presents arguments which appear reasonable then someone reading those arguments sees no opposition then they might decide the arguments were correct.

I want to shoot ULF for as long as I can, part of that is not only shooting it, but encouraging other people to try it, without film your camera as well as mine are nothing more than expensive fire wood....

[bglick]

>But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF

I agree Jorge..... but the problem is, that person NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM! At some point, you must respond to what a person ACTUALLY writes. But after several thousand posts, it's hard to teach an ol dog, new tricks.


> the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts...

But Jorge, all his posts are logical ? Doesn't that account for something here? It's not all about volume, what about some substance?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

>But when someone cathegorically procalims there is no longer any usefulness for ULF

I agree Jorge..... but the problem is, that person NEVER MADE SUCH A CLAIM! At some point, you must respond to what a person ACTUALLY writes. But after several thousand posts, it's hard to teach an ol dog, new tricks.


> the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts...

But Jorge, all his posts are logical ? Doesn't that account for something here? It's not all about volume, what about some substance?


OTOH, if you the end goal is the final print, and you are not stuck on contact printing, or anti digital (scanning and printing) then, the ULF case is weakened tremendously, or almost dismissed

I am sorry, I thought it had been you who posted this. Must have been your double I guess. Funny, now that I read this again you say "not stuck on contact printing"..LOL... The main reason someone buys an ULF is exactly to DO contact prints...certainly no one buys a 20x24 camera so they can enlarge the negative... Should have caught that from the beguinning and realized you have no idea about ULF.

And yes for most of us who use an ULF the end goal is
the best possible final print.

[David Vickery]

You can get the same quality from a 35mm negative made into a print that you can from a 12x20 negative... if you contact print the 35mm negative.

No. You can get the best possible print from 35mm by contact printing it -- that is, it will be as good as it can be, but it will not be as good as a 12x20 print. The 12x20 negative has a vast amount of information in it that a 35mm sized negative will never have --- Assuming two negatives of equivalent execution. That is the reason for using larger film sizes. The larger the film the more information contained within it.

[timparkin]

Lets see, a troll with more than 2000 posts, member of this forum since it was back at photo.net.... the accuser... a new comer with 32 posts... yep I am a troll alright.

I don't disagree with you on the above statements. What I disagree on is this falacy that digital is soooo much better at everything....

OK.. You are exhibiting troll like behaviour.e.g mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks...

It's difficult to have a rational discussion when each response ignores many previous responses and makes such huge assumptions about people's intentions.

Both myself and bglick have said that if you don't want to use digital and are contact printing then ULF has great utility (we agree) but if you ultimate goal is resolution then it's utility is arguable at best (and included various evidence to back up the statement).

Your only reponse is to say that because we're "pro digital" (huh?) we must be wrong and that it's obvious ULF is better because why would people do it otherwise (an odd argument)..

Jorge, If you are still offering to send a slice of the negative to me I am more than happy to get this scanned on a howtek 4500 and I will do the same with a 4x5 negative taken with a 150 Sironar S at f16. I'll then upload the scans - would this be an adequate test for you? (my mail details are on the http://pollenation.net site).

Tim

[timparkin]

No. You can get the best possible print from 35mm by contact printing it -- that is, it will be as good as it can be, but it will not be as good as a 12x20 print. The 12x20 negative has a vast amount of information in it that a 35mm sized negative will never have --- Assuming two negatives of equivalent execution. That is the reason for using larger film sizes. The larger the film the more information contained within it.

Hi David,

I think the argument has been 'The larger the film the more capable it is of containing more detail' but the problem is that this detail can get blurred by issues such as the 11lppmm cap on resolution caused by f64 diffraction.. We were trying to find out if there is an optimum size of format that maximised detail. The analogy is arguing that if you want more depth of field you just stop down.. but if you stop down too much then diffraction effects start to decrease the quality of the result..

So the potential for more detail can be realised if you don't stop down too much.. Once you stop down beyond a certain point, then the advantages of large film are cancelled out by diffraction..

I don't mind taking part in these sorts of discussions as long as there is real information being exchanged (either through experience, experimentation or calculation) but we seem to be hitting the limits of this now and have moved onto "yes it is" "no it isn't" type conversation...

Tim

[David Vickery]

Hello Tim,
I don't think that lp/mm is the only requirement for a fine print.
I think that there is more to the information contained in the film than just lp/mm. I didn't say "detail". I said information, and I think that it is the sum total of the film--micro contrast, tonal quality, etc.-- that determines the potential quality of the final image.
Since the question is about the utility of ULF, and since the overwhelming majority of ULF images are contact printed, I just don't agree that Diffraction is a limiting factor.

But I guess that if the question isn't about using ULF cameras to make negatives for fine prints of some sort, but about maximizing detail, then I have no interest in the argument and none of what I said would be relevant.

[bglick]

> OK.. You are exhibiting troll like behavior.e.g mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks...

Thank you Tim for being the voice of reason here. One of the reason Jorge continues taking subjects out of context, altering the topics, etc., is because very few people on forums have the energy or the willingness to engage him. I tried it, but it becomes a full time job, as Jorge can NOT be wrong and has limitless energy and time to defend his mistakes / biases.


Although he did get a scare, regarding the two lenses he owns, with the same fl, at the same f stop, but have different diam. apt. openings. While this may have occurred, anyone with the most basic and simple understanding of photo optics would have realized this is NOT possible. A few posters finally stepped up and emphasized this B&W case to him, and yet, he still tried to squirm his way out of this one.... at first, his reasoning was, their is a difference between Copal 0 f32 vs. Copal 3 f32. He described the Copal 3 as having a larger Entrance pupil at the same f stop as Copal 0, since it was a larger shutter. Anyway, this is what we are up against. While the average forum PRO would be humiliated and embarrassed by making such an elementary mistake (while acting like the highest authority on ULF on planet earth), Jorge comes back with 5x the fuel in his tank, and will change the topic, then attack even stronger to bring down others, so he can gain superiority - regardless of how senseless the subject matters becomes. He is determined to be the ultimate authority on photography, but the more he posts, the more it becomes obvious, he needs to stop screaming, and start learning.





> It's difficult to have a rational discussion when each response ignores many previous responses and makes such huge assumptions about people's intentions.


Tim, I sure you realize, its not just you, he does this to everyone. Which is how he wins these exchanges, the other person defaults, out of frustration. Jorge considers these victories.





> Your only reponse is to say that because we're "pro digital" (huh?) we must be wrong and that it's obvious ULF is better because why would people do it otherwise (an odd argument)..


Sheeeesh, glad other people are picking up on this..... after 21x, I got tired of typing it. After someone counters Jorges position, he assumes the person must be a covert marketing agent sent down from the Digital headquarters to convert the last few film users over to digital. I gotta admit - it's humorous...






> I think the argument has been 'The larger the film the more capable it is of containing more detail' but the problem is that this detail can get blurred by issues such as the 11lppmm cap on resolution caused by f64 diffraction.. We were trying to find out if there is an optimum size of format that maximised detail. The analogy is arguing that if you want more depth of field you just stop down.. but if you stop down too much then diffraction effects start to decrease the quality of the result..


BINGO! This is nothing more than applied elementary photo optics. Thank you for the perfect recap.... It really is that simple....






> So the potential for more detail can be realised if you don't stop down too much.. Once you stop down beyond a certain point, then the advantages of large film are cancelled out by diffraction..


EXACTLY.... AND, it also matters what you are comparing it to, cause smaller formats offer lenses of higher MTF values, which actually increases aerial resolution. Cause remember, what gets recorded on film is a function of the film MTFs combined with the lens MTF, and this is brought together by the simple 1/R equation. If anyone is the least bit interested, I will lay this out again.




> I don't mind taking part in these sorts of discussions as long as there is real information being exchanged (either through experience, experimentation or calculation) but we seem to be hitting the limits of this now and have moved onto "yes it is" "no it isn't" type conversation...


I feel the same way Tim.... The purpose of these forums is, people helping each other, and the sharing of information. But when Jorge is involved, he can't discuss the issues without defending his chosen format, his passion for that format is so great, he refuses to accept the fundamentals and limits of photography. (well, combined with his lack of knowledge)


To reiterate the other issues that surfaces... as a few other posters talked about choosing a format based on how it feels for your style, sort of like trying to define art, etc. In many ways, I fully agree with this. I gave the analogy of people buying old wooden boats (throwbacks to the 50's), vintage cars, etc. The performance of these rigs are often very inferior to other options available to them, but that is not what matters to them, its the feel and enjoyment of that particular boat / car, etc. My position on "utility" was only based on the sheer resolving capability of the different formats, not peoples personal preferences towards a given format. That needs no discussion, cause it's based on the vanilla / chocolate preference. If you like making 16x20 contact prints, ULF is the way to go. And yes, sometimes, ULF is the BEST tool for a given shot. Anyway, NO matter how many times I presented this, Jorge stomps on it.... with.... YOU ARE DIGITAL, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND CC, YOU USE ULF, BUT YOU DON'T OWN, SO THIS MAKES YOU DUMB. etc. etc.


As for the digital stitched vs. ULF debate, this is a bit absurd. Again, no boundaries, just screaming. To break this down to its simplest elements.... a 8x20 piece of film has 160 sq inches. A full size digital SLR sensor has ~1.5 sq inches. If you combined 107 stitched shots, the virtual digital sensor size will equal the size of the 8x20 film, 160/1.5 = 107. The 107 would be net shots, after overlaps, etc. So, if this is equal to taking ONE shot of the SLR, and comparing it to a 1 x 1.5" section of the 80x20 film. As you will see, its senseless to even do the experiment.....


Now, for arguments sake, lets say the 8x20 is shot at f64, which delivers a MAX. apt. diffraction value of 23 lp/mm aerial resolution. (it will never hit this high, but its irrelevant) Now, compare this to a 35mm lens, that can be shot at f8 when stitched, or 188 lp/mm aerial resolution delivered to the SAME SIZE recording media area. Now, if this is not bad enough, next, you look at a 16MP sensor, vs. the cropped 1 x 1.5" piece of film, and analyze which has more resolving capacity. This varies with the film type, but regardless, there is NO film of this size that can match a 16MP sensors resolving capability. When you combine via 1/R, the 8x higher aerial resolution of the 35mm lens, with the huge gain in the digital recording media, the difference is so dramatic, it's not worth discussing. This is why such a generic comparisons that Jorge purports, i.e. I CHALLENGE THE WORLD TO FIND A STITCHED DIGITAL TO MATCH MY ULF...... with no boundaries in place, the challenge is absurd.


However, if you want to compare a single shot digital vs. film, thats a sensible argument. And there is many applications where ULF would win. But that would not be sufficient for Jorge, he also wants ULF to beat a 3 GigaPixel stitched shot. When a subject is static, and all the other elements allow you to stitch as you please, there is practically no limit to how much resolution you can have with stitched digital. Somehow, these basic premises elude Jorge, just like the Copal 0 vs, Copal 3 issue I mentioned above.... it's basic photographic concepts at work here, no rocket science.

[bglick]

> I just don't agree that Diffraction is a limiting factor.

David, I agree with this 100% within the context of how you present it. And again, this goes back to the application of the format to the desired final product. I don't think anyone has ever argued this point. Although ULF does force diffraction to radically reduce aerial resolution of lenses, when combined with film, the total will "almost" always record more lp/mm than the avg. human eye can resolve on the print. When you combine this with the lack of noise from ultra tight grain (from zero enlargement), you surely have the potential for gorgeous prints at that size.

Of course, even here, there is some caveats, as if you jump up too high in format size, and are forced to deal with DOF, you may use apts. that do bring the final image resolution below what the human eye can resolve. I have seen this many times with 20x24 contact prints.


However, there is can be a "perfect storm" of variables that can negate what I wrote above, such as combining, the use of inferior lenses from the early 1900's, large DOF in the scene, poor film registration, low MTF film, long exposures creating blur, etc. etc.

But, when properly executed, I doubt you will ever get an argument with your position - from anyone! Hence the beauty of a well executed contact print....and that is, IMO, one of the best utilities of ULF today.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Some of the utility of ULF, in portraiture and figure work at least, has nothing to do with resolution, diffraction, lenses, film, tripods, or cameras, but rather the interaction between the photographer and the subject. The big camera can make the setting into more of an "event," particularly for people who are used to being photographed, and requires that the subject collaborate in the process by knowing when to hold still and understanding a bit about what the photographer is doing.

[sanking]

I think the argument has been 'The larger the film the more capable it is of containing more detail' but the problem is that this detail can get blurred by issues such as the 11lppmm cap on resolution caused by f64 diffraction.. We were trying to find out if there is an optimum size of format that maximised detail. The analogy is arguing that if you want more depth of field you just stop down.. but if you stop down too much then diffraction effects start to decrease the quality of the result..


Tim

Where did you get that figure of 11 lppm of diffraction limited resolution for f/64. Based on various formulas and constants I have seen the correct figure for diffraction limited resolution at f/64 is in the 24 - 28 lppm range.

My experience is that a negative shot at f/64 will hold up well to doubling the size twice and still have sufficient detail for viewing at close distance. If you were to scan such a negative and print on an inkjet it would show as much detail as a negative exposed at a much lower aperture. Doubling the size twice would result in a 32X40 print from an 8X10 negative, or a 48" X 80" print from 12X20. You could probably print much larger with the same sharpness if scanning and rezing up the image size and sharpening.

I have made contact prints from 20X24" negatives exposed at f/90, and they are visually very sharp. Even at f/90 you get 15-20 lppm of resolution, which is beyond the threshold of human resolution according to the studies I have read.


Sandy King

[Patrik Roseen]

Some of the utility of ULF, in portraiture and figure work at least, has nothing to do with resolution, diffraction, lenses, film, tripods, or cameras, but rather the interaction between the photographer and the subject. The big camera can make the setting into more of an "event," particularly for people who are used to being photographed, and requires that the subject collaborate in the process by knowing when to hold still and understanding a bit about what the photographer is doing.

Good point! It's like I wrote before about Tedd Soost's portrait of (the world known photographer) Lennart Nilsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Nilsson) taken with a 12x20" camera. I think this photograph would not have happened with a Digital or smaller format.

Regarding details of different formats. I have understood that there is another issue regarding lightrays (frequencies) and how they 'stick' on the film/ccd i.e. interference and noise. So getting 12MPs on the same CCD size as previously only delivering 5 MPs does not necessarily produce better quality. I guess this would be the same when scanning a film. How would this affect ULF in relation to LF, MF and 35mm?

[sanking]

Some of the utility of ULF, in portraiture and figure work at least, has nothing to do with resolution, diffraction, lenses, film, tripods, or cameras, but rather the interaction between the photographer and the subject. The big camera can make the setting into more of an "event," particularly for people who are used to being photographed, and requires that the subject collaborate in the process by knowing when to hold still and understanding a bit about what the photographer is doing.

I agree with you on this, and with some of the things the other David has said. However, I still believe it useful to engage the nay sayers on their own turf. If people are left to make any type of claim they want there is a danger they might go over board.

Sandy King

[Gordon Moat]

Good point! It's like I wrote before about Tedd Soost's portrait of (the world known photographer) Lennart Nilsson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Nilsson) taken with a 12x20" camera. I think this photograph would not have happened with a Digital or smaller format.

Regarding details of different formats. I have understood that there is another issue regarding lightrays (frequencies) and how they 'stick' on the film/ccd i.e. interference and noise. So getting 12MPs on the same CCD size as previously only delivering 5 MPs does not necessarily produce better quality. I guess this would be the same when scanning a film. How would this affect ULF in relation to LF, MF and 35mm?

One big difference in working with large format, especially when photographing people, is that the interaction of photographer and subject is very different than when using smaller cameras. Partially that is due to the slower pace of large format, or a more deliberate approach. Avedon supposed early in his career that the subject was not in control, then in mid career decided that the subject controlled the interaction, and finally nearing the end of his career saw that there was a collaboration . . . a sort of dance of wills, and the final result was that interaction. Of course, it could happen when using smaller cameras, but for some reason it does not.

Sandy King puts forward some of the technical reality, in that you could enlarge and retain detail beyond what the human eye can resolve (generally 5 to 8 lp/mm). However, even when the eye cannot resolve details unaided, there can still appear a difference on comparison. I recall seeing a 4x5 and 8x10 shot of the same still life subject; the 8x10 was a contact print, and the 4x5 was an enlargement to 8x10. Both images contained more detail than the human eye could see, and one could place a loupe on either print and see more detail. However, the 8x10 seemed different, somehow smoother; I suppose my perception was that the tonality was different.

Consider that a sky contains no lp/mm, yet the tonal changes we might see can affect our perception of an image. So ULF contains still more information than the human eye can see, and even when we could match that information in smaller formats, there can be a perceptual difference. Maybe that is very subtle, but I think for the few using ULF they appreciate that fine subtlety.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[bglick]

> Some of the utility of ULF, in portraiture and figure work at least, has nothing to do with resolution, diffraction, lenses, film, tripods, or cameras, but rather the interaction between the photographer and the subject. The big camera can make the setting into more of an "event," particularly for people who are used to being photographed, and requires that the subject collaborate in the process by knowing when to hold still and understanding a bit about what the photographer is doing.


David, I agree 100%, and have tried to express this since the begining.... its similar to my fascination with 35mm manual rangefinder cameras. Can't find a sensible reason to use them, other than, I really like them. With ULF, I agree that often its the spectacle of the set up that attracts some... as you say, a real "event".... I guess its our only moment to feel like a rock star :-) Or an odd character, its according who is watching....but it sure does evoke peoples curiosity.



> I have made contact prints from 20X24" negatives exposed at f/90, and they are visually very sharp. Even at f/90 you get 15-20 lppm of resolution, which is beyond the threshold of human resolution according to the studies I have read.


Sandy, due to different wavelengths of light, the factor for apt. diffraction varies, but it seems the most accepted avg is 1500/f stop. Which, 1500/90 = 17 lp/mm. Which represents, the MAX. apt. diffraction aerial resolution that lens can deliver. Most ULF lenses will NOT apt. diffraction limited, they have many other abberations which will reduce their overall resolution. In addition, you have a wide disparity between the on axis and off axis resolution. To put things in perspective, lets say this 17 lp/mm is reduced in half, 8 lp/mm, averaged out over the entire image area. But now, this only represents HALF the equation.... what is recorded to film, is the combined lens resolution and film MTF at a given subject contrast. To run this example out, lets use 80 lp/mm for an average real world contrast subject for film MTF. Now, the max. recordable resolution (eliminating all other variables, such as camera shake, subject movement, parallelism, etc) is expressed as.... R=1(1/r1 + 1/r2)... in this case, R = 17 lp/mm (it was just coincidence this returned back to 17 lp/mm you mentioned)


Now, consider all the variables, you may want to account for a some small losses due to the other factors, such as long exposures, shutter vibrations, subject movement, etc. Maybe 1/4? Its subjective. But regardless, your point is well taken here, and it is accurate, 12 - 17 lp/mm on film, at f90 will make an awesome contact print. Of course, user technique is critical as these numbers can fall dramatically as the variables begin to degrade. But.....


But lets explore f90 on 20x24.... this will provide the same DOF as f19 on 4x5, .....as each time you double the format diag. you must double the fstop value to achieve the same resolution on at equal size final prints. 20x24 is 4.8x the format diag of 4x5, so f90/ 4.8 = f19. So this suggests the scene being captured must have very very shallow DOF, or an infinity shot, to hold the resolution values stated above. And if that is the case, combined with excellent technique, quality lenses, quality printing, etc. etc.... then the final print will be superb indeed, sometimes breathtaking.... an excellent application of ULF.


Of course, where this can fall apart is, when the scene has more depth, and you must stop down further to gain DOF. It doesn't dismiss ULF, it simply widdles away its advantage when comparing it with other formats. Often times, the result is equal.... and IMO, 20x24 is one heck of rig to carry for "equal" results. Again, as mentioned, there is also other benefits to ULF, which is the NON enlarged grain, smoothness, etc. I am not discounting these benefits, and this is where personal preference starts to enter the equation.




> So getting 12MPs on the same CCD size as previously only delivering 5 MPs does not necessarily produce better quality.

Patrick, this is true, but only to a certain extent. Smaller pixels have greater s/n ratio, which degrades image quality. However rarely is it significant enough to "cancel" the effects of the greater pixel count. Sensor manufacturers certainly know this, and design sensors that have the greatest "gain" possible when they make denser sensors. In the past few years, digital sensors have less n less noise per pixel size, as technology continues to improve. So while this is a theoretical issue, it will never be a practical issue on the applications we are talking about here. I think it is an issue with the small digicams, where they try cramming 12MP in a 7MP sized sensors....hence the term, marketing based pixels (i.e, the added pixel have very little added value, due to the increased noise they produce, canceling most of the benefits of higher pixel count)




> However, even when the eye cannot resolve details unaided, there can still appear a difference on comparison......and even when we could match that information in smaller formats, there can be a perceptual difference.

This is VERY true Gordon, glad you brought this up..... When we discuss lp/mm, this is a means to express what can be recorded to film as it relates to what a human eye can resolve. The human eye can resolve on avg, 2-3 lp/mm (varies greatly with age), and this assumes a 10" viewing distance, which many of us need corrective eyewear to focus this close. The best human eyes have been known resolve 7 lp/mm on test targets. But the viewing distance is a mute point, because you can half the resolution, and double the viewing distance, till you can focus without corrective eyewear....same result, so it's all applicable.


However, when viewing photographs, there is another factor that I think Gordon was hinting at..... - edge contrast in the 3 - 5 lp/mm region. Human vision perceives good edge contrast in the 3 - 5 lp/mm range as added resolution. In one test I read, users were given test targets, one with high edge contrast at 3 lp/mm and the other with low edge contrast at 10 lp/mm. All test subjects picked the 3 lp/mm print as the sharpest. This is a very obscure fact about human vision, and explains part of the majestical properties of perfectly executed contact prints, specially with high contrast subjects. This also explains the mysterious benefit of digital sharpening, and why it seems so unexplainable how resolution can be "added", which was not captured during exposure. The reason is, through the miracle of software, you can gain edge contrast, which tricks human vision into seeing higher resolution. This is why digital capture is so impressive, because the pixels themselves have the ability to capture greater edge contrast vs. grain on film, due to analog bleed. Hence why a measly 39MP sensor can nearly match 4x5 film...and yet, the pixel / scan math would suggest this is NOT possible.


And there is more.... Ctein did a very interesting test regarding human vision and photographic prints. He meticulously made the same photographic print (an image, not test targets) at 5, 10, 15,.......30, 35, 40 lp/mm. He is a wizard in the darkroom and is brilliant at applying physics with photography, so I won't bore you with his technique. He gave these 8 or 9 prints to each person, and asked them to place them in order from sharpest to least sharp. Almost all the participants placed the prints in proper order, it may have been90% + accuracy, BUT, interestingly, only up to 30 lp/mm max. After this, it seems people have lost their appreciation for added resolution. This was the first, and ONLY test I have ever seen that demonstrates our ability to discern (not necessarily resolve) very high resolution images.... and this plays perfectly into one of the great benefits of ULF contact prints, as we do have the ability to discern (appreciate) higher resolutions, vs. what we can resolve. Hence ULF's niche that still exists in this day of high technology. And Jorge thought I was anti-ULF. :-)


So, there is MANY factors at play here.... and all should be considered for those who like a meticulous approach. Unfortunately, digital does hold many of the keys to maximizing image quality with such tiny sized gear. Some of it comes from the pixels that capture the image, and other parts come from the manipulation software. It's hard to believe digital is still in its infancy, I can't fathom what we will see in the next 5 - 10 years. But even then, I bet ULF will still have its niche.

[John O'Connell]

"But lets explore f90 on 20x24.... this will provide the same DOF as f19 on 4x5,"

You know, this is why I found the whole Jorge/Bill extravaganza weird. The statement above is incorrect. It's not wrong in the troll sense, but it applies the concept of DOF in a manner inconsistent with the definition of DOF. This thread seems to be about being right rather than answering a question or providing any value to the archives at this point.

To me, the larger formats are all about freedom from having to enlarge. You put an enormous amount of struggle and effort into the initial capture—whether it is a split second or a few minutes—and the payoff is simplified effort on the printing end. It’s a different model of work, one that is probably inefficient, but one that I prefer.

[sanking]

Most ULF lenses will NOT apt. diffraction limited, they have many other abberations which will reduce their overall resolution. In addition, you have a wide disparity between the on axis and off axis resolution. To put things in perspective, lets say this 17 lp/mm is reduced in half, 8 lp/mm, averaged out over the entire image area.

No, I think you are wrong about this.

First, lenses are lenses, regardless of what format you use them on. There are not ULF lenses and other lenses. Most lenses, even very old ones, shed the effects of aberrations very soon on stopping down. Beyond f/16 or f/22 the loss of resolution is primarily due to diffraction. At f/90 it is about 99% due to diffraction with most lenses.

The issue of axis and of axis resolution apply to all lenses. With most old formulas (Dagors for example) the wider you go the more you lose resolution. But this is a lens issue that relates to design type, not an issue of ULF versus LF.

BTW, the issue for me has never been what format is the most practical to use. You should drop this issue from your discussion. If the issue is whether it is less hassle to carry around a 12.1 mp point and shoot or a LF or ULF camera, that is kind of non-brainer, right?

Sandy King

[bglick]

> You know, this is why I found the whole Jorge/Bill extravaganza weird. The statement above is incorrect. It's not wrong in the troll sense, but it applies the concept of DOF in a manner inconsistent with the definition of DOF.


Can you explain this? If I am wrong, I would be the first to admit it, but you offer no explanation?





> First, lenses are lenses, regardless of what format you use them on. There are not ULF lenses and other lenses.


Would I have been more politically correct by saying, huge coverage lenses, vs. med. coverage lenss, vs. small coverage lenses? Can you use a MF lens on ULF? Would you ever use a lens that has a massive image circle (that covers 16x20) on MF film? All lenses are designed with a specific format in mind. I used the term ULF lenses, designating lenses that have sufficient image circle to cover formats this wide, the list of lenses is very short vs. 4x5 lenses.




> Most lenses, even very old ones, shed the effects of aberrations very soon on stopping down. Beyond f/16 or f/22 the loss of resolution is primarily due to diffraction.


Of the limited data I have seen on this, I would not fully agree. However, on the more modern ULF lenses, 1970's ? +, I would probably agree. This is why I would be very curious to see the MTF curves on the new Schneider Fine Art ULF lenses.... but, strangely enough, its the ONLY lens they do NOT publish the MTF's on their web site. I don't know if this is coincidence or not. The good news is, if you feel this is not accurate, then plug in the factor you think is more accurate. It was just an example, as mentioned, lots of variables to tackle....






> If the issue is whether it is less hassle to carry around a 12.1 mp point and shoot or a LF or ULF camera, that is kind of non-brainer, right?

Agreed, but I was working from the desired end product, then backtrack to best tool(s) to achieve such. If the biggest camera you want to ever carry is an SLR, than you work forward from that format size. Again, different approaches. Most people who do photography (not the ones that live on forums) often find the camera that best fits in their shirt pocket. They make prints accordingly based on what that size camera can produce.

If you can achieve your end goal with small camera, most people would prefer the small camera. (but not everyone, as there is other reasons I have not ignored, such as the "event" of setting up, ULF, portraits, etc.) But the purpose of this was to help people determine what tools will fit their needs, if they are basing their decision on the desired final print size and resolution. Then, they can decide if they are willing to lug around such a rig, cost issues, etc. etc. For those who will just make the biggest print possible based on what their digicam will allow for, I doubt they are hangin out in this forum. but, I could be wrong....

[sanking]

>

> First, lenses are lenses, regardless of what format you use them on. There are not ULF lenses and other lenses.

Would I have been more politically correct by saying, huge coverage lenses, vs. med. coverage lenss, vs. small coverage lenses?

Is that question really relevant? Seriously, why would I, or anyone else, care how politically correct you are? We are talking about lenses here, right?

Sandy

[bglick]

> Seriously, why would I, or anyone else, care how politically correct you are?

it was a pun (that missed its mark). You corrected me for using the term ULF lenses. You mentioned their is just lenses, NOT ULF lenses. So I was asking you, how should have I defined lenses that can cover formats this big? I thought the term, "ULF lenses" would suffice, you obviously disagreed.... you offered no alternatives....

Not sure why this upset you..... but if nitpicking has come down to this level, I think this thread has ran its course....

[sanking]

> Seriously, why would I, or anyone else, care how politically correct you are?

it was a pun (that missed its mark). You corrected me for using the term ULF lenses. You mentioned their is just lenses, NOT ULF lenses. So I was asking you, how should have I defined lenses that can cover formats this big? I thought the term, "ULF lenses" would suffice, you obviously disagreed.... you offered no alternatives....

Not sure why this upset you..... but if nitpicking has come down to this level, I think this thread has ran its course....

I think you missed the point. The comment did not upset me in the least. Why in the hell would I care a hair on a rat's ass about your concept of political correctness?

But I agree that the thread has gone on too long. You seem hell bent to win the discussion, whatever the cost. In fact, I thought this to be case many pages ago.


Bye,

Sandy

[bglick]

> Why in the hell would I care a hair on a rat's ass about anyone's concept of political correctness?

A pun, a joke, play on words, whatever!!! Sheeeesh! Let it go already!!!!



> You seem hell bent to win the discussion, whatever the cost.

Win? How can I win? I don't even have a strong position this entire thread..... my position was how best to define what the best tool for the job.... I don't know why you care about a hair on a rats ass......... maybe thats what this thread has degraded too..

[timparkin]

I think you missed the point. The comment did not upset me in the least. Why in the hell would I care a hair on a rat's ass about your concept of political correctness?

I'm not sure mentioning rodent bottoms is going to help the situation...


But I agree that the thread has gone on too long. You seem hell bent to win the discussion, whatever the cost. In fact, I thought this to be case many pages ago.


I'm quite surprised you feel that way Sandy. It seems to me that bglick is only guilty of pushing to get a rational alternative viewpoint (rather than the occasional irrational reflex responses, this is not aimed at yourself).

I for one would be very happy to hear evidence, either anecdotal, experimental or theoretical, that can contribute to the conversation.

As for whether a lens can be categorised as ULF or LF or MF - I think you'll find that most retail stores and manufacturers label their output as such. Schneiders section on lenses has two categories '35mm or Large Format' and even in the large format section they talk about the Fine art lenses as being for "between 8x10 and 20x24" which I think you'd agree means ULF in accepted parlance.

By the way bglick - that 30lp/mm equates to 1500 pixels per inch - sorry to mention pixels but the only real world experiments I've done were printing pictures at 150, 300 and 600 pixels per inch - I couldn't see anything more at 600 than 300. I'd love to have taken part in the study :-)

I think both myself and bglick think there are ways to get more resolution our of ULF than from a 4x5 transparency - however you need to know how to do it.

Also, there are aesthetic differences in the output and process which can make working with ULF a unique experience and the results can display a unique quality (possibly to do with the idiosynracies of the lenses etc).

Also, it seems that you definitely don't get a 4x increase in resolution by using a 20x24 instead of a 4x5 enlarged.

and finally most people seem to be saying that ULF gives the best solution when contact printing.

Is there anything in these statements that I've misunderstood or got wrong? If so could anybody tell me why I've got them wrong?

Thanks

Tim

[sanking]

As for whether a lens can be categorised as ULF or LF or MF - I think you'll find that most retail stores and manufacturers label their output as such. Schneiders section on lenses has two categories '35mm or Large Format' and even in the large format section they talk about the Fine art lenses as being for "between 8x10 and 20x24" which I think you'd agree means ULF in accepted parlance.


Tim

Other than the two recent Schenider lenses, which were introduced as lenses for ULF photography, I have never heard lenses described as ULF lenses. The lenses that people use for ULF photography are the same designs that we use in regular LF work. For example, the 305 and 355 G-Clarons, the 450 Nikkor M, the 450 and 600mm Fujinon C, various Dagors, etc. None of these lenses were designed for ULF work; they just happen to be long enough and with a design that covers specific ULF formats. So as far as I am concerned there is no category of ULF lenses, and that was my point to bglick to which he responded with the gratuitous remark about political correctness.

I have made it clear throughout this thread that as a ULF user I am interested in discussions which involve getting the most out of our equipment in order to maximize final image quality. That seems logical to me. Ultimately, however, many of us are not always using ULF for the most logical of reasons, as people do not always use LF, MF and DSLR for the most logical of reasons.

Sandy King

[Marko]

It seems to me that bglick is only guilty of pushing to get a rational alternative viewpoint (rather than the occasional irrational reflex responses, this is not aimed at yourself).

I for one would be very happy to hear evidence, either anecdotal, experimental or theoretical, that can contribute to the conversation.

Ain't gonna happen. You just can't come to an Internet Discussion Board and expect to get rational discussions or logic, you go there to get self-confirmation from the like-minded individuals or to fight silly little flamewars with anybody who thinks a bit different. This is especially true of niche activities and niche products and the topic of this thread is a niche within a niche.

Speaking of this thread, could anybody explain why is it not in The Lounge? Rationally, if possible... ;)

[bglick]

> I'm quite surprised you feel that way Sandy. It seems to me that bglick is only guilty of pushing to get a rational alternative viewpoint (rather than the occasional irrational reflex responses, this is not aimed at yourself).


Again, thanks for being the voice of reason. One of the reasons I drop out of forums is.... peoples inability to separate their passions and desires, and their desire "to be right" about their position, or equipment selection...in the end, as you are pointing out above, it prevents high quality sensible exchanges.... I consider this a travesty, as forums in general have such amazing potential. How else could we bring together like minded individuals using such rare equipment? This thread is typical IMO, whereas, the "clear" answers are not so easily defined. Lots of nitty gritty details that are required, which obviously you are picking-up on.... but to many others, its just a sore spot, a desire to nit pick, etc.



> I for one would be very happy to hear evidence, either anecdotal, experimental or theoretical, that can contribute to the conversation.

yeah, me too, but you can see how hard that becomes....




> As for whether a lens can be categorised as ULF or LF or MF - I think you'll find that most retail stores and manufacturers label their output as such. Schneiders section on lenses has two categories '35mm or Large Format' and even in the large format section they talk about the Fine art lenses as being for "between 8x10 and 20x24" which I think you'd agree means ULF in accepted parlance.


Its hard to believe this much chatter can be raised over the term ULF lenses, as a simple means to describe lenses with sufficient coverage for ULF formats.





> By the way bglick - that 30lp/mm equates to 1500 pixels per inch - sorry to mention pixels but the only real world experiments I've done were printing pictures at 150, 300 and 600 pixels per inch - I couldn't see anything more at 600 than 300. I'd love to have taken part in the study :-)


Yeah, I would have enjoyed being part of that study.... his technique to achieve these prints was of course, in the darkroom. BTW, you can read about the study in one of his books, IIRC, its the first one.





> I think both myself and bglick think there are ways to get more resolution our of ULF than from a 4x5 transparency - however you need to know how to do it.


BINGO AGAIN! Plain and simple, its about optimization of formats to meet your desired end result, its that simple!!!!!






> Is there anything in these statements that I've misunderstood or got wrong? If so could anybody tell me why I've got them wrong?


I can understand why you feel you must be mis interpreting things, based on the way this thread has diverged..... but, you have fully comprehended the overall concept, plain and simple. You understood my position all along....but others have mis interpreted my position as, I HATE ULF, I want to win (win what?), I am pushing a digital agenda, etc. etc. .. to me, this is coffee talk, its something I have an interest in.... I am not tied to any photographic tool, I use just about everyone, except high end digital.....






> None of these lenses were designed for ULF work; they just happen to be long enough and with a design that covers specific ULF formats. So as far as I am concerned there is no category of ULF lenses,


I would guess 90% of the LF lenses will not cover ULF, at least in the 16x20 + format. Therefore, I needed a designation of the ones that do cover ULF. You named most of the modern lenses that cover ULF, but, many of them ONLY cover the very low end of ULF, not the 16x20 + formats. So lots of designations would be required within ULF, which is why this discussion is so relevant, cause as the formats get bigger, the lenses become fewer, and their optical performance degrades (as a general rule)


marko, well said.... which is the reason I will probably avoid forums in the future again, cause, unless you are newb, its hard to have sensible exchanges.... it's human nature I guess....

[Patrik Roseen]

I do not think that there is a general problem with internet forums ...it's rather a reflection of how people interact in social communities as a whole.

There are several people on this forum who I respect for the way they always manage to add lots of value/knowledge yet stay out of war-like discussions, name-telling etc. Some of them have made clear and precise statements in this thread despite the flames surrounding it.

[Marko]

I do not think that there is a general problem with internet forums ...it's rather a reflection of how people interact in social communities as a whole.

The general problem with the Internet fora lays in the fact that they attract certain type of "individuals with issues", shall we say, and enable them to communicate in a manner that would be guaranteed to cause a bar brawl in the real world.

Personally speaking, I found a strategically formed ignore list to be a real sanity-saver, although I used to avoid it for the longest time because I considered it the method of last resort.

[bglick]

>The general problem with the Internet fora lays in the fact that they attract certain type of "individuals with issues", shall we say, and enable them to communicate in a manner that would be guaranteed to cause a bar brawl in the real world.

Agreed..... and being faceless, nameless and not traceable allows all kinds of hidden agendas to be executred, further complicating all the other issues previously mentioned.

IIRC, several years ago, a few of the members here started their own forum, as they saw the potential benefits of LF forums, but realized the need for "by invitation only". I was lucky enough to be invited in, and participated for a bit, and it was very civil and informative.... then, I just disappeared from most forums for awhile... I need to look them up again, I can't even recall the name of the group right now....anyone remember?

[sanking]

Bglick

On the whole I have found your contributions to this thread factually correct and interesting. However, you appear to have reacted to virtually every single issue that has come down the pike, especially in the long exchanges with Jorge. I guess it is possible to put people on ignore status but most of us tend to wade through the exchanges no matter how off-topic and irrelevant they get.

With re: to the "ULF lenses" question I found your remark about political correctness to be gratuitous and somewhat inappropriate given the previous civil exchanges between us. I said that it did not bother me, but in fact I was pretty taken aback by your comment. This may be due in part to the fact that I come from a university environment where being political correct is a religion. Or perhaps I read more into the comment than you meant. Whatever, let's just put it to rest and hopefully no hard feelings.

Sandy King

[Nathan Potter]

Tim,thanks, your summary is helpful and I agree. There have been pieces of useful discussion in this thread despite maybe a lot of extraneous back and forth stuff. The original poster was after the utility of using ULF equipment. The hope was to illuminate the advantages through a discussion. I think the discussion revealed, that there are both technical and aesthetic reasons and advantages to engage in ULF photography. But the photographic objectives of the user really will determine the utility of ULF as a function of the issues discussed.

By the way I was a bit fuzzy about this whole issue of DOF. That is, when were we referring to Depth of Focus and when Depth of Field? In a simple form they are quite different. DOF (Depth of Focus) does not depend on the focal length of the lens while DOfld (Depth of Field) does. That is:

DOfld = 2u^2NC/f^2 where u = lens to object distance
N = f/no
C = circle of confusion diameter
f = focal length of the lens

So for everything else being equal when we double the lens focal length the DOfld is reduced by 4X. I think this was implied earlier by someone and clearly appears to be one of the disadvantages as formats get larger insofar as it becomes more difficult to obtain sharp focus with out of plane objects.

Nate Potter

[bglick]

> Or perhaps I read more into the comment than you meant. Whatever, let's just put it to rest and hopefully no hard feelings.


I can assure you, I meant nothing by the use of the "PC" term, it was an "at the moment" thought while typing a fast response, as I could not come up with a better way to express myself..... no hard feelings taken...thank you for your comments... As for reacting to issues, unfortunately, most the issues in this thread needed reacting to .... most of them nonsense IMO. I kick myself in the butt for being baited into "those" particular exchanges.


Nathan, when i wrote, I always used the nomenclature of DOF (Field) and then used, "DOFocus" .....as yes, these two can get intermixed easily. And you are correct, DOFocus is not related to format size, but rather f stop and cc. But, quite often, as you mention, when you increase format size, you are "often" forced to stop down further. This actually increases DOFocus margin of error, however, its counteracted by longer lens to film distances, parallelism, etc.


I agree with your assessment of DOF, and lens fl is the MAJOR factor in DOF. You mention DOF is reduced 4x when doubling the fl. (all else being equal). For clarification, expressing it in a more "Photo friendly way" I prefer to present it this way.........


when you double the fl, (and therefore double the format size) but desire:

Same composure
Same size final print
Same on-print resolution over the entire print area

you loose 2 stops of shutter speed (cause you were forced to stop down 2 extra stops)


This is a simple way to remember the effects of DOF as it relates to larger formats. However, as mentioned earlier, its not 100% accurate, as 1/R is not considered...... Although aerial resolution is cut in half when you double the fl and stop down 2 stops, (assuming both fl lenses are fully apt. diffraction limited), the on-film resolution does not drop exactly in half, but close enough, for a simple "rule of thumb". When you need to be more accurate, just run the formula...but this will get you close.


Adding 2 stops of ss may not seem like much, but when you jump from 4x5 to 16x20, this increases to 4 stops of shutter speed. Using EV10 as an avg. (I prefer to shoot in overcast, no direct sunlight) , at f22 for 4x5 = 1/2 second exposure at ISO100. On 16x20 you now have an 8 second exposure. For my landscape work, I find it hard enough dealing with 1/2 second exposures. I would really struggle with 8 second exposures.... very challenging.

[Nathan Potter]

bglick, I agree, your way of looking at the Depth of Field effect is more photo friendly - just not what I'm used to. Exposures longer than a few seconds also bug me and ULF work would drive one in that direction.

Nate Potter

[Dave Wooten]

For me ulf, is just a lot of fun. I really enjoy it, the access, searching for the lenses, materials, cameras and most of all the process of making an exposure and print. I could care less about the practicality or "use".! I am not a "professional photographer" and do not aspire to give myself a job via my passion for photography. Discovering how different environments "look" when photographed with a large neg is a very rewarding experience for me...one does not have to head out into the grand landscape with the camera to discover the joy and reward of "ulf" photography. You don t even have to take it out of the house. Those so dedicated will know and have more than a little bit of communion with what I am saying, and that to me is also a very important part...

It takes a good dose of dedication to stick with it and maybe a pinch or two of insanity, but that is the price and that is the spice.....the majority I would say put their toes in the water and head for high ground....seeing it through certainly has its own rewards....

Many processes, venues, and opportunities that are avenues of expression, that bring joy, personal satisfaction, and a sense of being often have no "practical value" when measured by the profit, loss, faster , safer more efficient yardstick....

Those few souls among us who endure the the joy of the suffering, have an understanding and no need to evangelize beyond the initial sharing, I enjoy preaching to the choir and I enjoy singing in the choir.

:):)

[bglick]

Dave, wonderful post! I needed the laugh... sort of....

ULF - Truth & Reality, w /humor!

> You don t even have to take it (ULF camera) out of the house.

I know that feeling.... Even though I have no real use for this Sinar, I wouldn't mind having one in my Living room as a work of art...

http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/preview/37_0_p3_frontview.jpg

[Marko]

There's a nice new car right there!

If I had enough left once I bought the car, I'd go for the Sinar. :D

[Nick_3536]

I know that feeling.... Even though I have no real use for this Sinar, I wouldn't mind having one in my Living room as a work of art...

http://www.sinarcameras.com/file_uploads/preview/37_0_p3_frontview.jpg

That is one UGLY thing. Reminds me of the worst 1950s TV designs. :rolleyes: Yuck

[bglick]

> That is one UGLY thing. Reminds me of the worst 1950s TV designs

Excellent observation.... the knobs really does have that 50's tv look, but UGLY is a stretch IMO. Regardless I still want one to sit on my coffee table. I also would like to compliment it with an Ebony 810 with mahagony n brass...

btw, I think they are both about the same price... ~ $8K - $9K

[Nathan Potter]

It seems to be a masterpiece of design before function, (although I've never used one) - but it is indeed a splendid mantel piece.

Nate Potter

[Marko]

btw, I think they are both about the same price... ~ $8K - $9K

That might be right for the camera only, but the back on the picture is a digital one. Looks like 54 series back, which would add another ~$30K, give or take. Plus the lens another grand or so. Safe bet is that the config you see would list for $35-$40K or thereabouts.

Edit: And I've yet to see a Sinar camera where design does not serve the function in the best possible way. :)

[Jim Ewins]

What is (are) the relationship between utility and art/self expression??

[Ole Tjugen]

What is (are) the relationship between utility and art/self expression??

That is perhaps the only relevant question in this whole discussion.

[Brian Bullen]

"To each their own on this journey unknown."

Is there any real utility to ULF? Yes and No, depends on who you ask. I think so!

[robert]

I think Jim and Ole are spot on here. We are fortunate to live at a time that we have every aspect and medium at our disposal that has ever been introduced to the art of photography since its inception. To dismiss anything as not having utility is a very narrow minded point of view. Then to argue about lp/mm of resolution of lenses as a basis for this is somewhat absurd. Would a pictorialist want a razor sharp lens? Would a wetplate artist worry about 2 sec. exposures? Will a digital camera give me a file the size I need to contact print a 20x24 print with the same specular highlights that an old Verito lens and ULF film will give me? Do I really care about lp/mm when I'm printing in pt/pd where the medium itself has limits to resolution? My point is: It is impossible to argue the utility of anything used for making art. It is what best meets the artist's vision. I have no dog in this fight nor do I wish to. I just want to point out that photography from an artist's point of view has nothing to do with lp/mm of resolution unless that is what is important to the artist. We are lucky to have all these great mediums and formats in front of us to allow us to define our voice as artists and for that we should be grateful that we still have these choices available to us.

[bglick]

> I just want to point out that photography from an artist's point of view has nothing to do with lp/mm of resolution unless that is what is important to the artist.


Fully agreed, hence why I prefaced my position, as many times as possible with, "assuming resolution is the desired goal". Heck, I know lots of people who use pinhole LF cameras, and this is the vision they like to express....and remarkably, even though I am a sharpness freak, I find the pinhole shots very appealing.


> We are lucky to have all these great mediums and formats in front of us to allow us to define our voice as artists and for that we should be grateful that we still have these choices available to us.


Well said, I think the fact we have many choices today, begins to overwhelm people when trying to make equipment selection....


Marko, for mantel piece art, I would substitute the $40k digital back with a roll film holder.... I am not that particular :-) Oh yeah, I would need the $4k lens though...

[Monty McCutchen]

Twenty-five years from now when I am gumming my Ovaltine with powdered up Viagra in it I won't care about the lp/mm in the picture of my son taken when he was four with my Ebony 20 x 24 or the fact that the camera cost as much as any of the 4 cars I've gone through in those 25 years--I'll just go down to his room where he will probably still be living, passing this portrait in the hall, ask him to load up the camera I still own on its tripod--probably the only lifetime purchase I will have ever made and see if he will pose one more time for me. I'll do all this with a smile on my face while I scream at him for the umpteenth time in his life--Don't move!!! And we will share something. Worth every penny. Worth every effort.

Monty

[Dave Wooten]

Well Monty that about sums it up....and the camera really never has to leave the house.....

Either one "gets it" or one doesn't "get" it, and if ya don't got it, ya aint never gonna "get it".

[Brian Bullen]

Unfortunately I "got" it and now it won't go away! :)

[sanking]

bglick,

And anyone else interested. I am attaching .pdf files of charts, including MTF, of the Schneider 550/11 XXL Fine Arts Lens.

I am not very good at reading these charts, so the comments of more informed persons would be appreciated. I do know that it one hell of a good lens.

Sandy King

[robert]

Sandy, I have no idea what the charts mean but I was visiting William Corey a few weeks ago and had the chance to play with his new 550 XXL. It is like the Rolex of ULF lenses. f11- f128. Robert

[Monty McCutchen]

The 550 XXL is what the lens was on the picture of my son Satchel Cochise. Shot wide open at f11 from about one meter away give or take.

Monty

[sanking]

Sandy, I have no idea what the charts mean but I was visiting William Corey a few weeks ago and had the chance to play with his new 550 XXL. It is like the Rolex of ULF lenses. f11- f128. Robert

I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to use and be the temporary custodian in time of this lens. In terms of what it can do in the world of ULF it is truly a unique piece of glass.

Sandy

[sanking]

The 550 XXL is what the lens was on the picture of my son Satchel Cochise. Shot wide open at f11 from about one meter away give or take.

Monty

Monty. That is really a great picture of your son.

Sandy

[Monty McCutchen]

Thank you Sandy.

Monty

[timparkin]

Monty. That is really a great picture of your son.

Sandy

I'll echo that too... beautiful!!

[bglick]

Sandy, nice find, where did you get these MTF charts? I wish you had the same for the 1100mm XXL also...

These MTF curves are very interesting IMO, as these Fine Art XXL lenses had all the benefits of the newest glass types available, surfacing techniques, computer design optimization and high tolerancing machining, high tolerance testing, etc. None of these were available back when ULF was the Soup-de-jour. So IMO, this this lens design might represent the limitations in making lenses with such huge coverage, even with all the modern design tools, glass types and manufacturing techniques available to the lens designer. Considering the price of these lenses (~$10k for the pair), I would suggest that Schneider dedicated a lot of R&D into this lens set. And Kudos to Schneider for even making such lenses in these times. Also, this is the first MTF chart I have ever seen on a lens of such massive coverage. It's possible, it may be the only MTF data that exist with 900mm image circle? Hence, I was interested in comparing it to other lenses.


It's hard to express details without lots of numbers and math.... so I will generalize some of my comments to avoid irritating many... (I would love to hear others comments also) Also, keep in mind, this 550 XXL is WA lens, this has pros and cons. The pros are, as discussed previously, shorter fl's have huge advantages...the Cons are, when shorter fl's fall into the WA category, the image quality at ~ 50% out on the radius, degrades rather fast. This is true with most all lenses, except with some of the BEST newest WA designs, such as the Digitar 35 / 47 and Mamiya 43mm, as well as the SSXL110 and 150. (I am sure there are a few others, these are the ones that come to mind)

550 XXL

Lens coverage is 900mm diag. Quite impressive. 20x24 = 800mm

Light fall off - about 1 stop at 50% of the radius (image circle radius), almost 2 stops at full coverage (varies bases on f stop, just an avg.)

Distortion at 80% radius, .5%, quite impressive.

Resolution:

The MTF values provided are for f11,22 and 45. For a lens of this coverage, I would have preferred to have seen f45/64/90, but.... this is what they provide. This lens is CLEARLY an f45+ lens (although without seeing higher f numbers, can't be assured of the values)

There is some debate on how to convert MTF to aerial resolution, (it's not an exact science) so I don't want to open up that can of worms. So, some general comments about the lenses performance...

IMO, the simplest way to gage the performance of this lens, is to compare it, on a relative basis to other LF lenses. The reason is, the MTF of the lens is NOT the lenses measured aerial resolution.....which was the basis of the previous discussions. Instead, the MTF value expresses what % of the targets contrast will be transmitted by the lens. To create an apples to apples comparison, I will pick 60% contrast transmittance value for all lenses compared. Higher resolving lenses have the ability to transmit higher l/mm targets, at the same 60% contrast transmittance. So we will use the l/mm value as the comparative factor. (I tried to avg. rad. and tang. values) I will also try to select each lenses sweet spot, (f stop and focus distance) to shorten this post. Also, these are the values AT the focus distance only - throughout the entire image circle. MTF does not consider DOF issues.


I will use the following image circles.... shooting for the bulk of a formats area, (forgoing the corners) by using only the long dimension of each format...

4x5 = 125mm
8x10 = 250mm
11x14 = 350mm
16x20 = 500mm


So here is the MTF values, stated in l/mm on avg. at the following image circles ....(some estimating here)

125mm/250mm/350mm/500mm+

The 125mm refers to the center 125mm image circle, the 250, refers to the area between 125mm and 250mm, the 350mm refers to the area between 250mm and 350mm..... This should give a good feel for the resolution capability per format size. However, this is NOT a chart of lens coverage for a format size.... (trying to cut down on the number of variables here) "x" designates, not enough coverage, so no resolution...


10/10/6/2 - Fine Art XXL 550mm fl

20/18/x/x - APO Symmar 150L (will not cover 810)
Similar results for Super Angulon 90/6.8

20/20/10/x - Super Symar XL 150 (Aspherical) covers 810

20/20/15/x - APO Symar 300L

20/20/15/x - APO Symar 480 (500mm image circle)

30/x/x/x - Digitar 210 6.8 (120mm image circle)
Similar results for 180 Digitar, same image circle.


40/x/x/x - Digitar 80, only 80mm image circle,
only used to demonstrate relationship
between image circle and resolution.


My prelim. thoughts....


As expected, even with all the modern tools / glass at the designer disposal, it seems with current optical technology, there is a huge price one pays in over-all lens performance when gaining coverage in the 500 - 900mm image circle range. Simple example is comparing the APO Symar 480 vs. the 550 XXL. The 480 will cover 11x14.... you can 2x enlarge the 11x14, = 22x28.... and still be ahead in the resolution department vs. shooting 20x24 with the 550 XXL (divide the 480's numbers by 2). Yes, different composures if the camera is in the same location, but without the 1100mm XXL MTF values, this is the best we have to work with to compare.


I still believe 8x10 benefits the most from current lens technology, as the fall-off becomes significant after this level...and if one is not forced to stop down far for extreme DOF, this format has the largest selection of lenses and a relatively compact system (as it relates to ULF) Just compare the pix above with the 16x20 in the guys trunk, vs. a person backpacking with 810. Of course, when DOF is big variable, 4x5 is still the most versatile of all formats.


Also, notice the Digitars amazing resolution, but of course, at the expense of a smaller image circle. The beauty here is, this is combined with super high resolving recording sensor, as discussed earlier. Surely a trend that will continue.


Also, MTF values is an optical expression of lens performance. It was not created for the photographic field, so the charts are not as photo friendly as many would like. But they do contain very useful data. My methodology above was my "best attempt" to present MTF data in a means that photographers can more easily relate to. I did some approximations along the way. If you have a better method to express this data, please do present it. Overall, IMO, an interesting exercise ....


DISCLAIMER: this post only relates to lens performance as it relates to format size. This post does NOT make any implications of what format is the right choice for each person. For that decision, as discussed above, there is many other factors, in which, "I GET" !! The event of setting up, the thrill of the gg view, the relationship with the people you shoot, the desire to make contact prints, NOT enlargements, the methodical approach, etc. etc. etc. Lens and resolution performance is ONLY one of many variables one should consider as it relates to format selection. (as thorough as I feel this disclaimer is, I will probably still get clobbered)

[Nathan Potter]

Hey bglick, thanks for your interesting and informative post. You mentioned distortion at 80% radius on the 550 XXL being about 0.5%. What kind of distortion are you referring to; non rectilinear (pincushion or barrel type). Just curious.

Nate Potter

[bglick]

Pin cushion...

[Eric Leppanen]

Sandy, nice find, where did you get these MTF charts? I wish you had the same for the 1100mm XXL also...Here you go! ;)

[bglick]

Thanks Eric!

As expected, the 1100 performs slightly better.... same image circle coverage of 900mm. Distortion not worth discussing, very impressive. Light fall off, very marginal.


Using the same methodology as above....

12/12/10/5 - Fine Art 1100mm XXL


I would consider this a very impressive lens for ULF, specially 16x20 format (or other rectangular formats with the same diag.) When compared to the 550 XXL, which would probably demand use of a ND center filter, this lens will also gain ~1.5 stops of shutter speed.

Focussed at infinity, at f45, on 16x20 or equiv., this is probably the sharpest image one record with one click of the shutter. Very impressive...

[Dave Moeller]

The 480 will cover 11x14.... you can 2x enlarge the 11x14, = 22x28.... and still be ahead in the resolution department vs. shooting 20x24 with the 550 XXL (divide the 480's numbers by 2).

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this assume a "perfect" enlarging lens? I thought that any time a lens entered the process, whether a taking or enlarging lens, resolution was lost.

Thanks.

[bglick]

Hi Dave, yes, there is lots of variables here, too many to mention. If you scan the film and sharpen it, then 2x, you will probably be a bit ahead, if you enlarge with an inferior enlarging lens, you will loose some rez, but a good enlarging lens at 2x magnification will produce min. losses.

The goal of this exercise was to put an ultra large coverage lens in perspective with LF lenses which most of us are more familiar with.... as this might be the first MTF data provided on a photographic lens that covers 900mm image circle.

[robert]

I'm not trying to get off topic here. But as an old contact printer I've always wondered why if I take a piece of 22x28 paper, I can lay 4 pieces of 11x14 paper on top of it to cover it. Why is it then considered only a 2x enlargement, when it appears that it takes 4 pieces of 11x14 film to cover the surface of a 22x28 piece of film? In other words...if film was elastic and I could take an 11x14 piece and stretch it to the corners of a 22x28...wouldn't I be stretching it to 4 times its size? So does 2x magnification actually mean 2x sq.? .....Just some food for thought. 154 sq" vs. 616 sq" is only a 2x enlargement?...hmmm.

[Marko]

It's not the area, it's the diagonal. The diagonal of 22x28 is only twice the diagonal of 11x14.

[Dave Wooten]

so inverse square? it is also as robert mentiones 4 x's the amount of real estate!

[bglick]

Robert, as mentioned, the enlargement factor is a function of how enlarged the diag. is..... the fact a 2x enlargement produces 4x the area demonstrates just how far film gets pushed. A 6x enlargement (which is not much) is 36x the area.

[sanking]

Robert, as mentioned, the enlargement factor is a function of how enlarged the diag. is..... the fact a 2x enlargement produces 4x the area demonstrates just how far film gets pushed. A 6x enlargement (which is not much) is 36x the area.


The magnification factor was brought in relation to loss of resolution. Basically, every time you double the magnification factor in enlarging or in a scan there is a loss of one-half of the resolution. Consider the following figures, where you begin with a 4X5 negative that has 80 ml of resolution on the film.

Magnification New Size Maximum Possible Resolution
2X 8X10" 40 lppm
4X 16X20" 20 lppm
8X 32X40" 10 lppm
16X 64X80" 5 lppm

I find that these theoretical limits are fairly constant in scanning. In projection printing with an enlarer you are likely to lose some additional resolution.

Sandy King

[Richard K.]

snippet>>> ....... the 550 XXL, which would probably demand use of a ND center filter, ......

IS this the case? I can see maybe on 20x24 (Sandy?) but would a center filter be needed on 16x20 or 12x20 (without movements, you're only about 2/3 of the way into the image circle)?

-Richard

[sanking]

IS this the case? I can see maybe on 20x24 (Sandy?) but would a center filter be needed on 16x20 or 12x20 (without movements, you're only about 2/3 of the way into the image circle)?

-Richard

I am not finding that the 555/11 on 20X24 needs a center filter. There may be some light fall off toward the edge of the, but this is often a good thing when we contact print.

However, I should remark that to this point I have not used the 550/11 very much on 20X24, though I plan to do so a lot in the future. Zebra may have something to say about the light fall off issue.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

The magnification factor was brought in relation to loss of resolution. Basically, every time you double the magnification factor in enlarging or in a scan there is a loss of one-half of the resolution. Consider the following figures, where you begin with a 4X5 negative that has 80 ml of resolution on the film.

Magnification New Size Maximum Possible Resolution
2X 8X10" 40 lppm
4X 16X20" 20 lppm
8X 32X40" 10 lppm
16X 64X80" 5 lppm

I find that these theoretical limits are fairly constant in scanning. In projection printing with an enlarer you are likely to lose some additional resolution.

Sandy King

Along with this, are there any figures about what resolution the eye can perceive at various viewing distances?

[sanking]

Along with this, are there any figures about what resolution the eye can perceive at various viewing distances?


Kirk,

John Williams has a chapter on this in his book, Image Clarity: High Resolution Photography.

He says basically this. And it is based on optimum viewing distance of about ten inches, and is related to studies of the actual fovea of the eye which process light.

1. 5-7 lppm has traditionally been accepted as about as much detail as the eye can appreciate, but that this figure is based on a false premise.

2. Studies which show that the eye can resolve from 40 seconds to one minute of arc suggest that the resolving power of the eye is really in the 15-20 lppm range.

3. Some differences in perceived quality may be seen by persons with very good eyesight in the 20-25 lppm range.

4. Resolution beyond 25 lppm can not be appreciated by the human eye.

Sandy King

[bglick]

> 5-7 lppm has traditionally been accepted as about as much detail as the eye can appreciate, but that this figure is based on a false premise.

lpmm must be converted to lp/mm, for most photographic discussions..... it somehow became the norm. So this represents 3 lp/mm avg,. which seems to still be an accepted norm, using black and white targets. My eyesight for most my life was 20/10 in each eye... and yet, by 40, the most I could resolve was 2 - 3 lp/mm....very hard, grab a chart and try it..... you can double the view distance and double the size of the chart to compensate for our un-accommodating eyes, for us 40+.




> 2. Studies which show that the eye can resolve from 40 seconds to one minute of arc suggest that the resolving power of the eye is really in the 15-10 lppm range.

or, 6 lp/mm avg.... and yes, this has been stated as the very best human vision.




> Some differences in perceived quality may be seen by persons with very good eyesight in the 20-25 lppm range.

IMO, this is the significance of the Ctein study I quoted above... truly the best test to date that I have read - on human vision as it relates to sharpness of photographic prints. Quite impressive results, and really supports the value of tack sharp prints. The other interesting study looked at edge sharpness in the 3 - 5 lp/mm range as having a higher perceived sharpness than much higher targets with slightly less edge sharpness, also explained above.


Sandy, what ULF sizes do you shoot? Do you have both the 550 and 1100?

[sanking]

> 5-7 lppm has traditionally been accepted as about as much detail as the eye can appreciate, but that this figure is based on a false premise.

lpmm must be converted to lp/mm, for most photographic discussions..... it somehow became the norm. So this represents 3 lp/mm avg,. which seems to still be an accepted norm, using black and white targets. My eyesight for most my life was 20/10 in each eye... and yet, by 40, the most I could resolve was 2 - 3 lp/mm....very hard, grab a chart and try it..... you can double the view distance and double the size of the chart to compensate for our un-accommodating eyes, for us 40+.





Sandy, what ULF sizes do you shoot? Do you have both the 550 and 1100?


You mean lpm, right? lppm is lp/pm.

I use 7X17, 12X20 and 20X24 formats. But by far 7X17 has been my favorite over the course of many years. I just got a RR 20X24 and plan to use it a lot this year.

I only have the 550/11 XXL, not the 1100.

Sandy

[Ole Tjugen]

You mean lpm, right? lppm is lp/pm...

It should have been lppmm, Line Pairs Per MilliMeter.

"lpm" as an abbreviation doesn't make sense in any case - is that "linepair-meters", or "lines per meter"?

lp/mm is probably the least ambiguous notation.

[sanking]

It should have been lppmm, Line Pairs Per MilliMeter.

"lpm" as an abbreviation doesn't make sense in any case - is that "linepair-meters", or "lines per meter"?

lp/mm is probably the least ambiguous notation.

Ole,

Thanks for the clarifcation. lp/mm clearly makes the most sense. I have been using lppm for a long time and I can now see why that might be confusing.

Sandy King

[Kirk Gittings]

4X 16X20" 20 lppm from 4x5


Some differences in perceived quality may be seen by persons with very good eyesight in the 20-25 lppm range..... Resolution beyond 25 lppm can not be appreciated by the human eye.

Sandy King

Interesting, whether traditional or digital prints, I have always considered a 16x20, from a good 4x5, the maximum size enlargement before obvious degradation of the sharpness set in on close inspection.

[Monty McCutchen]

I have not felt the need to use a center filter on the 550 XXL and I use this lens for both 16 x 20 and 20 x 24. I only shoot for Pt/Pd and Wet Plate Collodion out put and to be honest I have noticed as a much more limiting factor in terms of fall off to be my NuArc 26 1KS uv unit (Amerigraph here we come!) which is significant as it moves out towards the edges. The negatives don't show near that drop off. Admittedly I haven't put them under a densitometer to confirm this as I cleary have more passion than skill when it comes to the vast majority of the contents of this thread. Pure and simple the lens is better at its job than I probably ever will be handling my end of the bargain! It is a phenomenal lens and is the only lens I have for the formats that is in a shutter. I would love to have the 1100 but damn there has to be a line drawn somewhere and my wife used a big boot to scrape it out in the dirt so I wouldn't mistake it for anything else. The 1100 is just on the other side of that line!

Monty
aka Zebra



I am not finding that the 555/11 on 20X24 needs a center filter. There may be some light fall off toward the edge of the, but this is often a good thing when we contact print.

However, I should remark that to this point I have not used the 550/11 very much on 20X24, though I plan to do so a lot in the future. Zebra may have something to say about the light fall off issue.

Sandy

[bglick]

> I would love to have the 1100 but damn there has to be a line drawn somewhere and my wife used a big boot to scrape it out in the dirt so I wouldn't mistake it for anything else. The 1100 is just on the other side of that line!

this is just too funny..... gosh, what we do for the right glass, huh.....



Sandy, when I read your lppm, I assumed it was a typo, and assumed lines per mm. I should have mentioned that. I hate the way these lpmm, lppmm, lp/mm is tossed around so loosely. Assuming the author truly meant line pairs per mm, then I would suggest his assessment is pretty high compared to most data i have read. What is the copyright of the book?

I can assure you, the eye can not resolve 20 lp/mm, even under the best of circumstances. Grab a test chart and try it, you can't fathom how tiny these targets are. Again, you can double the target size, and double the viewing distance to 20" to test yourself assuming you can't close focus.

[bglick]

> I just got a RR 20X24 and plan to use it a lot this year.

Sandy, what lenses do you have that covers this?

[sanking]

> I just got a RR 20X24 and plan to use it a lot this year.

Sandy, what lenses do you have that covers this?

Depends on critical you are for coverage on the edges.

I have a 450mm Nikkkor M and a 600mm Fujinon-C that have a circle of illumination large enough for the 20X24" coverage. But to get acceptable definition on the edges of the field you must stop down to f/64. Even them the far corners are just a bit soft.

Then I have the 550/11 XXL, which covers 20X24 with some movement.

I also have a 30" Red Dot Artar, which covers 20X24 nicely, but again you need to stop down to f/32 or f/45for good performance on the far eddges.

Sandy King

[sanking]

Sandy, when I read your lppm, I assumed it was a typo, and assumed lines per mm. I should have mentioned that. I hate the way these lpmm, lppmm, lp/mm is tossed around so loosely. Assuming the author truly meant line pairs per mm, then I would suggest his assessment is pretty high compared to most data i have read. What is the copyright of the book?

I can assure you, the eye can not resolve 20 lp/mm, even under the best of circumstances. Grab a test chart and try it, you can't fathom how tiny these targets are. Again, you can double the target size, and double the viewing distance to 20" to test yourself assuming you can't close focus.

The use of lppm is mine. John Williams uses "lines per millimeter" throughout the text. Not lpmm or lp/mm. I meant the term to mean one white line and one black line in every mm, thus line pairs per millimeter, or lp/mm.

There appears to be a lot of confusion on this with photographers, because many use lpm for lines per millimeter. But lines per millimeter in Williams' text is understood to mean line pairs per millimeter.The book was published in 1990, in the very early days of digital imagery. But it is still a good read.

Frankly there would be no need for me to get out a chart and try to resolve (pun) the issue with my eyes. I used to have 20/20 vision but now have very severe astigmatism in one eye, and the other is myopic and has a cataract that will need to be removed in a year or so. Also, I had a retinal tear last year in the myopic eye that caused some loss of vision. Fact of the matter I should probably quite talking about high resolution imagery and start working wth one of these "artsy fartsy" Holga cameras, or even the mythical Diana if I could afford one of those plastic marvels.

Sandy King

[bglick]

> The use of lppm is mine. John Williams uses "lines per millimeter" throughout the text. Not lpmm or lp/mm. I meant the term to mean one white line and one black line in every mm, thus line pairs per millimeter, or lp/mm.


OK, but I assume you did not divide his values by 2, as I did.... if you divide his numbers by 2, things make more sense with other data, that used the more conventional lp/mm.



> There appears to be a lot of confusion on this with photographers, because many use lpm for lines per millimeter. But lines per millimeter in Williams' text is understood to mean line pairs per millimeter.The book was published in 1990, in the very early days of digital imagery. But it is still a good read.


Huh, that is interesting...the optical community often does use lpmm. (i.e. lines per mm) Then, when used in terms of test targets, they simply disregard the white line between the black lines, and still use lpmm. I think the photographic community began counting the white lines also, as we were always making comparisons to cc... i.e., one cc is the black line, and one cc is the white line. (which there is not a simple relationship)


I hear ya about vision.... astronomers suffer the most from vision degradation. It ruins the hobby for many...and its very unfortunate, because its the Sr.'s that have the time and money to pursue the hobby. Photography does not punish us as severely when our eyes degrade some. But gosh, what a battle just to read the damn f stops and ss's on the lenses.... how I miss those days when everything was always in focus...

> I have a 450mm Nikkkor M and a 600mm Fujinon-C that have a circle of illumination large enough

I have these two lenses also, interesting, I never knew they had that kind of coverage. Hmmmm, maybe I will add a 1100 XXL and I will have a nice 16x20 kit. But, I still prefer color film, and to my knowledge, no one makes ULF color film, do they?

Very impressive line up of cameras...I would love to see this line up one day.....do you happen to have a web site showing you under the hood of these?

[sanking]

Very impressive line up of cameras...I would love to see this line up one day.....do you happen to have a web site showing you under the hood of these?

In a few minutes I am going to drift out of cyberspace for a week or so. When I return I will send you some images of me working with the big cameras, and sites where you can see my work also if interested.

Sandy

[Nathan Potter]

Ole has the nomenclature correct. We should use lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter). It refers to one white or clear line beside one black or opaque line. As bglick has pointed out the contrast ratio between the black and white line in an aerial image is intimately related to the MTF of the lens. 1 lp/mm then means 1 black line 500um wide and 1 white line 500um wide within 1 mm (1000um). For reference the average human hair width is taken as about 75um or 3 mils (.003 inch). 3 mils represents about 7 lp/mm. So a black human hair is an approximate guide to what 7 lp/mm looks like. By the way I think recently there was a dandy guide to all this written by a UMass professor in View Camera - don't have the issue handy though.

Nate Potter

[Dan Fromm]

Um, Nate, when I look at a single black line on a white background I can't see the edges of the white lines on both sides of it. If there are n black lines, n-1 pairs of lines can be discerned.

[Nathan Potter]

Yes, my example of 1 lp/mm is a poor example. I takes at least 2 lp/mm to determine the width of a white line as you point out.

Nate Potter

[robert]

bglick, I think if you are willing to pay Kodak for the minimum order they will still cut to size. But you're talking about quite an investmant. Of course you can always get creative and start doing tri-color gum. ( just a little humor there). robert

[robert]

I think the Ebony 20x24 is probably the only one that can focus that 1100 xl at 1:1. I think it has 70" of bellows. The new Canham 20x24 may have that much extension also. Of course that's not required for landscapes. But if you're going to spend that much on a lens you may as well buy the camera that can handle it in every situation. robert

[robert]

The Ebony 20x24 has 78" of bellows and the Ebony 16x20 has 66". So the 20x24 will almost get you close to 1:1. Let's see...you'd need about 86-87" maybe. Ah hell you might as well buy both the 550 and the 1100.... lol... robert

[bglick]

Nate, nice analogy....but, only very fine human hair is 75um (.003").... I think avg. human hair is 200um. Interestingly enough, I think standard copy paper is .003" thick. If you buy black and white sheets and interlace them, you will have a very nice 7 lp/mm target. (looking at the edges)

BTW, if you can resolve this target, its said, you can resolve 7 lp/mm, as the white line counts as a line.

I think Kodaks min. order is $15k for cut-to-size? too steep for me....

[Hyok Kim]

It's real easy fellas, "Real photographs are born wet"

Mr. Sherman, I love that phot of bridge with the city at the background. Did you use flash for that scene?

Also, At what size do you see the difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10? Do you think using wet printing accentuates the difference between 4 x 5 and 8 x 10?

[Kirk Gittings]

Mr. Sherman made that post in 2004, 8 years ago. It is not likely that he is still following this thread. You might want to PM him with your questions.

[evan clarke]

It's real easy fellas, "Real photographs are born wet"

Well said.. You can use a little digital, a little more digital, a lot more digital, you could draw, you could do video, you could forget it. I use my 11x14 when I want the most options for prints with a really nice subject..I carry it all the time and use it at least once a week..

[Drew Bedo]

Hello Tom,


In all kindness I say:

"If you have to ask this question, I don't think it can be explained to your satisfaction".

The above remark is well-ment. Perhaps you should shoot in 8x10 format for a while and see if you still have an interest in Ultra-Large Formats.

I myself have an interest in something larger than my Kodak 2-D, but haven't persued it for several reasons. The expense of anything larger than 8x10 is exponentially higher from film holders to film and the developing kit. Everything is larger and even more cumbersome than 8x10 . . .and I'm not getting any younger. I do not drive and transportation is always an issue. For these and other reasons I shoot my 4x5 more and more while the 8x10 comes out of the closet less and less.

I admire and envy those whop can and do practice ULF photography.

Regards,

[carterwj]

Hello, I read this thread thoroughly. Excellent input. I have a XXL 1100mm. I hope to get the 550mm one also, but it is not currently available.

[Tin Can]

Yes

No enlarging

[Axelwik]

This is a really old thread. But I'd be curious to see how format size correlates to the quality of the photograph, and I'm not talking about technical quality, I'm talking about making memorable photographs that sell in high end galleries.

I'm sure there are some ULF photographers who produce excellent work, but I suspect that most who delve into it are more into the tinkering aspect, or more into the "bigger is better" mentality similar to "my truck is bigger than yours" mindset.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

These images have sold well for me. They are both 8x20 carbon transfer contact prints.

[cgratham]

Those are beautiful Jim - even on my computer monitor. I can only imaging how stunning the prints look like in real life!
Chris


These images have sold well for me. They are both 8x20 carbon transfer contact prints.

[Michael Wellman]

I know quite a few ULF photographers none are "tinkering". All of them are excellent photographers that make superb prints. In fact, given the cost of ULF photography, anyone venturing into this world is a serious and quality photographer. This isn't a 4x5 where you trying something out.

But more to the point of why ULF photography today. For me, I have been in photography for over 50 years and I went down the digital road and just didn't like it. I wasn't having fun. I came back to analog 3 years ago and I'm having fun again. There are several reasons I prefer ULF photography: first, it puts limits on what I can and can not do. It requires patience and forces me to slow down, read a scene and enjoy it. Instead of taking several hundred images of a scene I will take one or two. I like the fact that the image on my GG will be the final image size. No cropping or enlarging (except at on the GG). A contact print is a thing of beauty no matter what the medium and it is the reason I love ULF photography. Yes, there are down sides like the weight, size and cost but the benefits outweigh them.

The beauty of the time we are living is that we have many different ways to photograh. You need to find the style that fits your life. For me it is ULF

[Drew Wiley]

Galleries show and sometimes actually sell all kinds of things. These days you might encounter inkjet renditions of cell phone shots as often as finely crafted contact prints. Novelty reigns. If you don't have the love for a particular form of craft to begin with, assuming its going to be your ticket into recognition is make-believe. And even that kind of thing- artistic recognition - is terribly evanescent and fragile, your hollow "15 minutes of fame". I happened to find my own sweet spot at 8x10 format. But even that is way too expensive these days for mere commercialistic motives. Ya gotta love what you're doing for its own sake.

[Michael Kadillak]

For me, I have been in photography for over 50 years and I went down the digital road and just didn't like it. I wasn't having fun. I came back to analog 3 years ago and I'm having fun again.

The beauty of the time we are living is that we have many different ways to photograh. You need to find the style that fits your life. For me it is ULF

Glad that you had the ability to come back to ULF and film Michael and the pure enjoyment it represents. I get that. Long live film.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Those are beautiful Jim - even on my computer monitor. I can only imaging how stunning the prints look like in real life!
Chris

Chris, thanks a lot. They look better in the flesh.

[Tin Can]

I never sell art

Show us yours



This is a really old thread. But I'd be curious to see how format size correlates to the quality of the photograph, and I'm not talking about technical quality, I'm talking about making memorable photographs that sell in high end galleries
I'm sure there are some ULF photographers who produce excellent work, but I suspect that most who delve into it are more into the tinkering aspect, or more into the "bigger is better" mentality similar to "my truck is bigger than yours" mindset.

[John Kasaian]

I can say that ULF size ground glass is an absolute joy to work with.

[Drew Wiley]

Axelwick - ULF is counterintuitive to a "bigger is better" mentality. Nearly all the output is contact print style, whereas giant prints from even tiny format originals are now as ubiquitous as corner Starbucks. In contact printing, one is obviously limited to the size of the original film itself. Anything bigger than 8x10 is classified as ULF, and an 11X14 print ain't all that big! Even a monster 20X24 camera produces a print only equal to a modest enlargement. So you need to identify other motives.

I technically don't even belong in this discussion because I top out at 8X10 format, and even then mainly enlarge it. But anyone who has stood in front of a row of Carleton Watkins mammoth plate albumen prints from well over a century ago covets the ability to do the same thing. There is a particular richness to it.

[Durst L184]

My interest in ULF is related to my interest in contact prints. I will never forget my response to my first contact print (8x10), which was the result of a progression of sorts.

I began photography well after people were already strangely embracing digital photography. But from the very beginning I found inkjet prints extremely unsatisfying, and therefore rejected that medium –and I continue to reject it today. Accordingly, I built a small darkroom and began enlarging 35mm negatives. I was deeply distressed by my early results because I could not understand why my prints did not look anything like my favorite Ansel Adams prints (my earliest influence after my father). I had no idea that Adams was using mostly medium and large format cameras (surely the only real difference between us). After I finished sweeping away the scales that fell from my eyes, I immediately purchased an 8x10 camera. At approximately the same time I discovered Edward Weston, amidol, and contact printing.

I was absolutely stunned by the elegance of a contact print --so stunned that I instantly concluded that the enlarger was just as guilty of crimes against photography as the digital camera and the inkjet print. My experience was so strong that I was convinced that if Edward Weston had not been making contact prints he might very well have died in obscurity. And I also concluded that if Ansel Adams had it within himself to make a masterpiece enlargement (which he obviously did), he also had it within himself to make an even greater contact print. This nearly forgotten view was fortified lately when I fairly recently had an opportunity to see a number of very early Adams contact prints –one of which brought tears to my eyes. I am very curious now why Ansel Adams did not make more contact prints –or even mostly contact prints.

My thinking about enlargers has softened lately to a certain degree, but I still hold that the most satisfying, elegant, and powerful way to make a large photograph is to simply (or perhaps not so simply) use a larger camera, and then make a contact print –hence my interest in cameras larger than 8x10. From my seat, ULF is most valuable as a way to make larger photographs without sacrificing the integrity of a contact print.

[Hugo Zhang]

Axelwick - ULF is counterintuitive to a "bigger is better" mentality. Nearly all the output is contact print style, whereas giant prints from even tiny format originals are now as ubiquitous as corner Starbucks. In contact printing, one is obviously limited to the size of the original film itself. Anything bigger than 8x10 is classified as ULF, and an 11X14 print ain't all that big! Even a monster 20X24 camera produces a print only equal to a modest enlargement. So you need to identify other motives.

I technically don't even belong in this discussion because I top out at 8X10 format, and even then mainly enlarge it. But anyone who has stood in front of a row of Carleton Watkins mammoth plate albumen prints from well over a century ago covets the ability to do the same thing. There is a particular richness to it.

I was in a juried local art exhibition a few weeks ago. About 30-40 photographers among 260 artists in drawings, paintings, 3-d art and photography. I walked around and found out my two 8x10 contact prints are the smallest work among them. Everything else is digital. They were all very beautiful and impressive. To pity me, they gave me a first prize and someone bought my work.

[Drew Wiley]

Don't jump the gun too fast, D184. Masking skills can bring enlargements well within the micro-textural qualities of contact prints. Or one could combine both if they wished. And it can be interesting to try different varieties of printing style using the same negative, which is possible in my case because the largest film I shoot is 8x10, and I have several 8x10 enlargers (including an L184), so can generate both enlargements as well as contact prints from the same image. My contact frame is even pin-registered, in case I decide to use a mask as well in contact. Each style has its own advantages. Bigger (enlarged) brings out more detectable detail, while contact prints have their own special look.

I think it's more about how one views things. A bigger ground glass tens to makes one compose more contemplatively, even when simply sizing up from 4X5 to 8X10. But then depth of field management often requires an adjustment in strategy, so you're really into playing a different ballgame. But alas, at my age I'll have to be content with merely watching the big-league games. If I'm still carrying around even my 8x10 in my 80's, that's good enough for me.

[Durst L184]

A note to Drew.

To be sure, I am very fond of the expression "never say never." And even outside the context of masking efforts aimed at bringing an enlargement closer to the integrity of a contact print, I am indeed interested in the value of enlargement even as enlargement, namely for exploring the value of opening-up a contact print (especially faces) to a small but very effective degree. Still, I think that it is easy to degrade a photograph one tiny compromise at a time, and the contact print is worthy of great respect --this consideration is the primary motivation of my interest in ULF. I mentioned my fairly recent experience with the early Adams contact prints because they are truly sublime. And it's hard for me to imagine enlargement of at least those images by Adams himself in any degree without losing some measure of their intense sublimity.