Urge of ULF Panorama

[xkaes]

Well then, I suppose that Douglas Busch holds the record for contemporary ULF field cameras.

"Contemporary" is the important qualifier. His 40x60" is no where near the record. Perhaps he had an Oedipus Complex as well.

[Monty McCutchen]

The question that always needs to be asked is whether it's about the image that's arrived at (and if the metaphysics of the camera used really matter to that) - or if it's simply about owning the biggest camera.

I’m always fascinated at how quickly others assign value/judgement to others choice of tools. Invariably the old easy trope of the final product is the only valued assessment that is applied to the tool. For the pro I would think that absolutely is true. The most efficient tool to produce the product of value—the print should be used. But I would hazard to guess most of us on this site aren’t pros—if we are we are hungry ones based on how much time we spend here. Process for the rest of us has value. How do we want to spend our discretionary photographic time? I shoot 20 x 24 and it most certainly has nothing to do with winning a biggest camera contest. Hardly anyone outside of the limited readership of this forum even know I shoot with it. It isn’t efficient. It’s difficult to take into the field. Processing is cumbersome and a full body sport and my final products are more likely to be given away than purchased—a function of limited time/commitment and possibly talent! But I love every second of its illogical pursuit. The experience with sitters is superior to any other format I shoot. They participate in a way no other format provides in MY experience. We end up closer through the collaboration. For landscapes the pace and effort puts me in a place where I’m more in tune with the moments I spend composing and enjoying the shoot. I walk away happy even in the failures of final product. I understand that line of thinking is individuated to me but that’s the point—there are as many reasons for photography as there forum members and it can’t be contained in a caricature of motivation. If the OP wants to pursue a unique format he may very well end up in the rarified air of Kenro Izu whom most certainly didn’t care about efficiency, or he may tool away is mediocre anonymity like I do. If it brings him joy I hope he pins his ears back and sprints toward the finish line. Unreasonable art is the best kind!

Monty

[maltfalc]

Enlargement is not a goal. Building an enlarger for 12x30 is beyond my wildest dream. Contact print 99% most likely

if you ever do want to try it, your camera will work just fine as an enlarger with some pretty basic addons.

[wsit]

if you ever do want to try it, your camera will work just fine as an enlarger with some pretty basic addons.

Good call. I did not think of that. I was fixated on the fact that there is hardly any standard enlarger of this size. Thank you!

[wsit]

I’m always fascinated at how quickly others assign value/judgement to others choice of tools. Invariably the old easy trope of the final product is the only valued assessment that is applied to the tool. For the pro I would think that absolutely is true. The most efficient tool to produce the product of value—the print should be used. But I would hazard to guess most of us on this site aren’t pros—if we are we are hungry ones based on how much time we spend here. Process for the rest of us has value. How do we want to spend our discretionary photographic time? I shoot 20 x 24 and it most certainly has nothing to do with winning a biggest camera contest. Hardly anyone outside of the limited readership of this forum even know I shoot with it. It isn’t efficient. It’s difficult to take into the field. Processing is cumbersome and a full body sport and my final products are more likely to be given away than purchased—a function of limited time/commitment and possibly talent! But I love every second of its illogical pursuit. The experience with sitters is superior to any other format I shoot. They participate in a way no other format provides in MY experience. We end up closer through the collaboration. For landscapes the pace and effort puts me in a place where I’m more in tune with the moments I spend composing and enjoying the shoot. I walk away happy even in the failures of final product. I understand that line of thinking is individuated to me but that’s the point—there are as many reasons for photography as there forum members and it can’t be contained in a caricature of motivation. If the OP wants to pursue a unique format he may very well end up in the rarified air of Kenro Inzo whom most certainly didn’t care about efficiency, or he may tool away is mediocre anonymity like I do. If it brings him joy I hope he pins his ears back and sprints toward the finish line. Unreasonable art is the best kind!

Monty

Thank you for validating my thought. If I didn’t want to self inflict pain and just want to pursue efficiency, there are easier way to shoot film pano. Xpan or 617. As being someone who works on high speed computer, the planning, setting up and shooting of LF brings me some balance to my daily life. I am not pursuing photography as my profession, but simply as a passage to my happiness.

[wsit]

Both 7x17” and 8x20” can be easily scanned and stitched on something as simple as an Epsom V700/750/800 etc with high acuity, massive file size results.

Both also allow magnificent contact prints at native size. Or, you could produce high quality, pre-processed digital negatives for larger contact/carbon/alt process contact prints.

If you are going to go with the bigger film size, you probably should factor in the cost of a new iPhone Pro because, like the old saying goes, the best camera is the one that you have with you, and I doubt that, once the dust of the initial purchase of a 12x30” camera settles, it won’t be with you much…

Here’s someone’ struggle with *just* a 12x20”: https://youtu.be/0tlgk6pmXyA

A d 16x20”:

https://youtu.be/78tfSJhoTQA

how do you can 7x17 and 8x80 on V800?

Thank you for the links. Always eager to learn from other's experience.

[Neal Chaves]

My largest format has been 8X10. Ever since I started 8X10 in 1986, I have made enlargements from various self-made rigs and Beseler mods to the late production Beseler I use now. I like to print many subjects 8X20 or 10X16 on half sheets of 16X20 paper. Sometimes I know at the time of exposure what the format will be, but I have gone through negatives made years ago and printed them with a new cropping. Either way, because I expose on 8X10, I can take out my narrow crop from anywhere on the negative. I was sort of a purist at first and only printed the entire 8X10 negative, but then I saw a Walker Evans exhibition and lost my silly insistence on not cropping.

[Lachlan 717]

how do you can 7x17 and 8x80 on V800?

Thank you for the links. Always eager to learn from other's experience.

Double scan (half and half) and stitch in PS. Simple!

[Tom Nirider]

Wow. I do admire your commitment. And, I absolutely understand the "regret factor"... I ain't getting any younger myself. I too have been considering ULF for awhile now. I thought an 8x10 would satisfy this but alas, I still desire big panoramic cameras. Wish you well, my interest is in something about 1/2 the size you are pursuing..

[xkaes]

I don't quite get the large camera -- small panorama connection "thing". You don't need a large camera to take panoramas. I do it all the time with my 4x5" and create 2x6' prints.

Maybe it's because my first panorama picture was taken with a 16mm Taiyokoki Viscawide-16 ST-D. 120 degree angle of view on a 10x52mm negative. With AGFAPAN 25 or Ektar 25, the 10x52" prints are amazing.

I'm not trying to talk anybody into or out of anything. I'm just trying to understand this large camera -- small panorama "thing".