Images have a lot of different qualities. Where ULF shines in film is in contact printing. A 16x20 enlargement from an 8x10 negative may have the same resolution as a 16x20 contact print, but it won't have the same rich tonalities. The enlargement may have nice tonalities, but they won't be the same.
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
The larger the negative the harder it is to obtain a sharp negative, for all the reasons mentioned above.
If you are working in the studio, this is a non issue, in the field, the smaller the better.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. A contact print is a contact print. An 8x10 contact print is just as nice as a 16x20 contact print, just not as big. It is certainly easier to get a sharp 8x10 contact print compared to a 16x20 contact print without resorting to a vacuum frame.
Ok, thanks guys.
I've never shot anything larger than 8x10, and honestly don't feel the need to, but I'm curious nonetheless.
I had heard, from a friend who shoots 11x14, that the jump in IQ from 8x10 was slight.
That prompted me to ask at what size negative would the IQ see a big jump, thus making it worthwhile to use the larger format.
The question wasn't about how LF and ULF compare in ease of printing. No one gets into either for easy photography...Originally Posted by karl french
"I love my Verito lens, but I always have to sharpen everything in Photoshop..."
Really? I think making an 8x10 contact print is a whole lot easier than enlarging a negative. No enlarger, no focusing, no easel required.
If by image quality you mean resolution:
As film size goes up, lenses get longer. As lenses get longer, depth of field decreases and lens performance declines. Apertures get smaller and exposures get longer.
A normal lens for 8x10 is 300mm. For 11x14 it's 450mm. A "portrait" length for 8x10 can be 360 or 450mm. For 11x14, it's 600mm.
If you're shooting at infinity distance, depth of field doesn't matter, but infinity itself gets pretty far away with really long lenses.
Conclusion: performance gains may disappear, depending on choice of subject and distance.
For me I simplify by only contact printing 8x10, 8x20, 11x14 and 14x17. Now my 8x10 is my point and shoot and I love the carbon prints I'm able to produce. 8x20 is the format that gets the most attention when I show prints. The 14x17 has so much more presence than the 11x14. If I had to pick two it would be 8x10 and 14x17. You just have to work harder in the field with any ULF. It has to be right on the film. I don't dodge or burn so it needs to be as perfect in the exposure stage as possible. Then the fun comes when I contact print. It simplifies my process. A beautiful contact print is something to see especially at 14x17.
It seems to be coming down to "Does size matter?" It does, but not necessarily as in "bigger is better", but just that size is an important consideration.
I just put up a show of some new work. All 2 1/4' sq platinum/palladium prints from camera negatives (mostly from my Rolleicord). I approached taking the images (esp. composition) very differently than I do with LF.
But that all said -- the few 11x14 carbon prints I have made are pretty sweet!
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
I'm not trying to be a number-cruncher about this, just wondering about ULF users' perceptions and real-world observations.
I can tell from the comments that it's a whole 'nother ball of yarn, but I'd like to know if the results are so much better than those obtained with 8x10 that it makes all the extra effort worthwhile.
Thanks, Jim, that's some very good and practical advice.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks