Pano LF or enlarged crop

[J_3]

I shoot 8x10 and have enlarged to 7x17" image size on 16x20 paper. There were at least two 7x17" camera owners in our meeting group and they would give me sneers and dirty looks when I showed those

It's kind of amazing to me that large format photographers can be so cliquish. We all share more similarities than differences even if we do come to different equipment preferences. In my neck of the woods the chances of finding a 7x17er, let alone two is slim so I have no such community to offend. I don't have access to an 8x10 enlarger either though so I cant go that route. Also I like platinum printing. That said, IMO a 4x10" camera is really a little gem if your willing to cut film or wait for the Ilford order period. They are much lighter and pack better than 8x10. If I did have a large enlarger I'd probably have one for backpacking into the wilderness. I'd agree on 8x10 being about the most flexible camera out there above 4x5.

Personally I prefer an 8x10 negative enlarged to 16x20" rather than a 7x17" image. I'm sure 7" seems big when hauling the camera around and processing & printing the negative, but on the wall, 7" is pretty small in my opinion.

Id have to agree here too. 7x17" for a final print is not large at all, but I don't see that as a disadvantage per say. I was talking with someone once and there happened to be two framed matted contact prints near by - an 8x20" landscape and a 7x17" plant study in pt/pd. It was described that the 7x17" was the largest size you could hold at arms length and admire at one go. And it was true. With the mat it was just the perfect size for an intimate study (11x14 if you like squarish more). The 8x20" by contrast was just a bit too big for that. At the same time it wasn't at all large enough to have the mural effect either. Combined with the lens restrictions, camera rarities, weight, etc... I just could never see myself going for an 8x20". A 14x17" maybe - there are a lot of cool things you can do with that camera (e.g. contact print portraits), but not an 8x20. No if I were trying for the mural effect, I'd go for enlarged 8x10 for sure IMO. But for everything else it's not always clear to me what the best camera would be.

[Corran]

Eric,

I absolutely think you should get a 7x17!

But only if you let me borrow it occasionally .

What did you think about the 8x20 ground-glass image when we were out last? I kinda wish I had a 7x17 instead (more options in lenses, slightly smaller, easy x-ray film usage) but on the other hand, I am lucky to have found a cheap ultrawide for 8x20 so I guess it all worked out. I only wish I could afford a Chamonix or any "better" 8x20 than the kindling I am currently. using. Also I figured, if I was going ULF might as well go full-on stupid and get the biggest I could reasonably carry.

I'm scanning a new 8x20 shot right now actually...

there are a lot of cool things you can do with that camera (e.g. contact print portraits), but not an 8x20.

Well...



Not that it makes sense normally .
I was out today and saw a really fine vertical pano comp I am going to go back and do later in the winter. My fav 8x20 image I've made is still a vertical pano.

[Corran]

Oh one more thing Eric - I need to show you the ~10x24 enlargements from my 6x15 camera (120). Might change your mind about shooting MF.

[Vaughn]

I have have mixed results using a modified darkslide to get two 5.5x14 images on a single 11x14 sheet of film. I believe the mixed results are due to the mix of holders -- but I will continue to play with it. Perhaps just use my two Fidelity holders with it. (I use the same method for two 4x10s on an 8x10 with little problem.)

I found 7x17 to be a little awkward -- perhaps after using the 11x14, I would no longer find it so.

A 5.5"x 14" negative:

[Jim Andrada]

I do a lot of 6 x 12 verticals with my Technika and a Sinar Vario 120 film adapter. Never had an issue with flatness but the adapter's fairly large and quite heavy - on the other hand it lets me do about any 6 X ... aspect ratio. And a bit of crop and I make quite a few 7 x 17 (inch) prints from the 6 x 12 (cm of course) negs. I keep thinking/fantasizing about building a 7 x 17, though.

[esearing]

The small print sizes do not bother me. I like to hold and view prints up close vs mount and hang them. I saw some color images yesterday sized 6x9 from 135 format and enjoyed viewing that size as much as the content.

[C Henry]

I photograph using a dedicated 4x10" camera, buy film from Ilford's yearly ULF run, and contact print in a small darkroom. I love the little prints, they look lovely in the hand, but are lost on a wall in a mat and frame. I could never justify larger, but 7x17 is a dream...

[CreationBear]

Wonderful work on your website, Carwyn. (FWIW, while I'm practically neighbors with Bryan and Eric, I've also spent some great days kicking around the Marches...a beautiful part of the world.)

[jon.oman]

I photograph using a dedicated 4x10" camera, buy film from Ilford's yearly ULF run, and contact print in a small darkroom. I love the little prints, they look lovely in the hand, but are lost on a wall in a mat and frame. I could never justify larger, but 7x17 is a dream...

Carwyn, very nice images on your web site!

[C Henry]

Thank you both