when i got my 11x14 then my once 'big and cumbersome' 8x10 field camera almost immediately became small and nimble and i began apreciating 8x10 as the ideal and perfect format.
i have a 12x20 that ive yet to get a lot of use from due to some equipment obstacles but i think going any larger is a little pointless for what i do. 11x14 is on the edge of practcality.
Second this, though not about 8x10. I went from 5x7 to 11x14 because I thought 8x10 would be too little a jump. And don't get me wrong, I love the format, but now my 5x7 seems simply, convenient and super easy to use.
To add one more thing to the "With each increase in size, X happens" statements
With each increase in size, being intentional about your work matters more and more.
I am currently shooting (and loving) 4x5, however have been contemplating a jump to 8x10 but am thinking that it may make more sense to just skip right to 11x14. Decisions, decisions....
Also consider if you want a digital or hybrid work flow. I have resisted 11x14 up to now because most flatbed scanners will only scan 8x10. If you want to digitize anything then you will need a large scanner or light table/digital camera set up.
After you have an 11x14 camera, choosing what to photograph is different from 4x5, and 8x10. Camera set up takes more time, bellows factor adjustments happen more often, getting sharpness within the depth of field is challenging and soon you recognize what scenes are more viable. Plus the cost of a sheet of film and processing chemicals adds up quickly.
But keep at it, persistence pays off. Holding a sheet of ULF film after the final wash is awesome. Seeing the detail in a carefully done composition will make you smile. And seeing other photographs from huge formats makes you appreciate the work that went into them.
For me the big difference is not so much the weight difference from 8x10 as I have a very light 11x14 but the development time for the film. I can do 5 8x10 or 10 4x5 in the time to process 1 or maybe 2 11x14 sheets in my Jobo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I found 11x14 too big and heavy to be practical. a standard lens, 450mm, requires half a meter of bellows draw in the field, that is a big camera and it requires a very sturdy tripod. Remember that at 1m bellows draw and 1:1 you have a subject aproximately the size of the negative, so you may find yourself there quite often, that requires a really rigid camera and really sturdy tripod. I limit myself to Whole Plate, 5x7 and 4x5 depending on requirements and can print large digital negatives for alt printing if I need them. A 4x5 negative makes a very fine 16x20 piezography print. My guess is 95% of ULF cameras sit unused, and I know how fun it is go out into the world with a smaller view camera. Smaller cameras get used more often. Also I know that a gorgeous 450mm tessar can be used just as effectively on a smaller camera such as whole plate or 8x10, so there is really no practical reason, except enthusiasm, to go ULF.
David Cary
www.milfordguide.nz
Bookmarks