To be exact; 14" x 36" Straight, 25/box film size.
What would a one by three foot contact print look like? What lens could cover a format that size?
I think a one by three foot carbon print would look out of this world, imagine the subjects; a redwood tree, a skyscraper, a river or ocean scene, a full length portrait.
How much would you charge for a print of this size?
Curt
The Schneider Fine Art XXL lenses with a 900mm image circle could just about cover it, with some vignetting in the corners. Or you could use a pinhole camera, but the exposure time would be too long for a portrait.
So Xray film comes in gargantuan sizes at a reasonable rate, eh? Hmmm... Could make a holder that takes two or three at a time.
I think the way to do it would be to stitch together three scanned negatives ... make a digital negative and then contact print it. I think you might have to do some solar printing though ... to get that size contact print.
It would make a great project for a workshop.
I suggest a home built vacuum frame -- it would be an interesting project. The other way is a thick piece of glass (sanded edges). I'm thinking 1/2" of so. Weighs a ton and but gives good contact. Loading and unloading it will build up those hand and lower arm muscles!
Exposed with one or two 450W to 1000W HI or merc vapor lamp suspended over it. Well, the lights might be over-kill but they would get the job done! You might get raided when your neighbors report that you are growing weed inside.
A bank of BL bulbs -- perhaps made out of two separate banks so that the halves can be used independently for smaller prints -- would be a neater solution. And less UV light bouncing all over the place.
Dagor77 occasionally puts monster lenses on ebay -- in the 1000+mm range. And he is a carbon printer. Might be a good person to talk to.
The camera -- fixed focus, built in to the back of a pickup -- sort of a park-and-shoot camera. Reversable back for verticals, of course!
well, there were cameras made for shooting maps at 1:1 and 1:2 ratios, sometimes 2:1 and bigger.
so its definitely feasible, but practical? Somehow I think that making 8x10 or 11x14 negatives, scanning, PS'ing(dodging/burning, contrast adjustment,etc..), and then outputting a digital negative would provide the easiest route.
but then again, the largest I've shot with is an 8x10, so I'll leave the rest of this discussion up to the "ULF" guys, their 8x20's and bigger make my 8x10 look like a P&S
-Dan
Not enough to make it pay? Lots of work at X$/hr for every print. And it better be a petty darn good image to begin with. I doubt you would get enough to justify the work unless you were a big name and already selling your work for that kind of money. And if you were, why would you do the extra work. You would be better off teaching workshops to idiots like me. Or banging out prints on Azo, and teaching workshops to idiots like me. Of course if you dont care about the money, go fer it.Originally Posted by Curt
David
Sounds like a good candidate for a roll film back...
Someone with a bit of common sense, and from Ireland too!
David
Enlargments could be made, first borrow the Eiffel tower and have NASA make a lens. It's fun to think of the challenges to make something out of it.
I've seen that at the xray sites and thought that would be fun for pinhole use. Didn't buy any because I'd need to build the camera, film holder, and would need different trays in my darkroom for it. Not to mention I have too many unfinished projects that deter me from starting another one. Until I get some projects done and produce some nice images from them, my interest will be vicarious.
I've already got a 400w metal halide light from a warehouse. It's nice for automotive work in my garage.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks