A reasonably affordable modern hard-sharp 14 inch lens that will cover 11x14 would be the 355 G-Claron. But for portraiture you might want something older which renders softer edges. My own preference is for a light yet very rigid 8x10, a category which certainly includes my Phillips camera, combined with a solid wooden
tripod like my Ries. No tripod head, that's another secret to stability; but if I did use one it would be the Ries also.
Trying 14" Commercial Ektar today.
Tin Can
My commercial Ektar needed to be dead center to properly cover. The least amount of movements induces disproportional artistic circular edge effect. That is why I am constantly reaching for the 355 G Claron.Originally Posted by Randy Moe
I shoot 8x10. I think it's the sweet spot with large format. Contact prints are a decent size, it's the largest size negative that I can put on my Epson V750 flat bed scanner, 8x10 enlargers are available on the used market if you are patient, there are plenty of lenses available that will cover, the ground glass is a joy to compose with, etc., etc., etc.,.
The only reason I would want to shoot 11x14 would be for contact printing. It's a real nice size for contact prints.
11x14 was once popular for studio stand cameras because the big neg was so easy to retouch.
And the big camera looked impressive to the sitter.
I had a friend who lost a job photographing an engine for the manufacturer in the 1950s because he only had an 8x10 and not an 11x14.
“You often feel tired, not because you've done too much, but because you've done too little of what sparks a light in you.”
― Alexander Den Heijer, Nothing You Don't Already Know
Tomorrow i'm using the big Deardorff SC11 with 8X10 back. 43 inches to nose, for 1-2 macro ratio, 14" Imagon. Try for 1-5 lighting in morning setup.
Tin Can
I love 4x5 and use it a lot.
But there sure isn't anything quite like setting up an 11x14 for a portrait shoot.
If I want to use it, I'll figure out how to get it there.
And if all else fails, I'm not proud. I'll just find a mule.
Believe it when I say that Ansel didn't pack everything he needed into the Sierras on his back.
The Viewfinder is the Soul of the Camera
If you don't believe it, look into an 8x10 viewfinder!
Dan
Sounds from his few posts that he has made one good 4x5 negative that he has misplaced and that he wants to do landscape ala Clyde Butcher. From having taught LF for decades I really believe that one works there way up to larger formats from smaller ones or the logistics of shooting larger formats quickly become an obstacle to seeing. Also one simply needs to burn film trying things out and learning the ropes and therein lies a large affordability issue. If he were to jump to 11x14 at this point I think his interest would be short lived.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
from the looks of everyones input i will most likely not go above 8x10 unless film makes a good comeback and more larger formats become available more. but 8x10 seems like a good max ground in terms of film, lenses and actually being willing to strap a camera on me and walk a few miles. I am scrawny but I'm young and could build the appropriate muscle within a month or two.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks