16 x 20 ?

[Dave Wooten]

Anyone actively working in 16 x 20 format?

Pros and Cons


Thanks

 

[Tom Stanworth]

A............16 x 20 format? Pros and Cons

You have to be kidding Pros -Massive, Cons- Massive.

I would love to see such a contact print....

 

[Dave Parker]

There must be as we have sold 5 screens for this format of camera, I have also had requests for 20 x24 screens.

Dave Parker

 

[Dave Wooten]

Would 600 be normal or a bit wide?

Maybe there is an apuger out there currently involved with this format.

 

[Flotsam]

Big Deal.
I regularly shoot 24x36.

 

[bmac]

Big Deal.
I regularly shoot 24x36.

you mean 2400x3600 pixels... right?

 

[Flotsam]

you mean 2400x3600 pixels... right?

Sir. Ah take that as an insult. Your' seconds shall hear from my seconds

 

[Dave Parker]

awe ha, a 35mm shooter!

 

[BradS]

Would 600 be normal or a bit wide?

going by the "nomal focal length for a format is approximately equal to the diagonal of the format" rule of thumb, the "normal" focal length for 16X20 inches would be....

sqrt(16*16 + 20*20) = 25.6 inches

which is about, 650mm

Thus, the 600mm is probably considered normal for this format

 

[Joe Lipka]

Ummm, I don't think there is anything "normal" about a 16" x 20" format camera.

 

[lee]

there is a guy here in Ft Worth that has a Wisner 16x20 camera. The contact prints are very nice.

lee\c

 

[Alex Hawley]

Sir. Ah take that as an insult. Your' seconds shall hear from my seconds

You forgot to leave your card and demand satisfaction. That is even a greater insult to honor!

 

[Tom Duffy]

Dave,
before you sign up, you might want to check the price of film relative to 12x20. 12x20 has a nicer aspect ratio for landscape than 16x20. And once, when I looked out of idle curiosity, Bergger was charging almost twice as much for 16x20 as 12x20! I think they considered 12x20 a normal ULF and 16x20 was special order.
Take care,
Tom

 

[fhovie]

OK - so - I am having a lapse - and not telling my wife but ... I am looking at an 11x14 camera with great interest. I like the 8x10 and the contact prints are stunning but .... I really like the 11x14 size print. It is what I would settle for on the wall - big enough to draw in attention and not so small as to be discounted. I am going insane and I know it but I am considering it ...

 

[Dave Parker]

Heck, I own a 20 x 24 so don't think your crazy at all! LOL

Dave

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks all,


we can have some fun with this thread, and Have so appreciated apug, however I am seriously considering this....life is short...maybe it could be a joy..a couple of souls have said that they are working in this format and larger etc...if anyone has specifics I would appreciate details...lenses techinical details ets...I am not worried about the weight, I i will transport on truck or use in studio.....

thanks to all for their input....

dave in vegas

 

[Dave Wooten]

Hey J Lipka, I checked out your site....nice...exceptional photographs/

 

[Ole]

I don't shoot anything larger than 18x24 - cm, that is.

But this thread led me to take a look at the classical German plate sizes - still in cm:

6x9, 9x12, 10x15, 12x16, 12x16.5, 13x18, 13x21, 18x24, 24x30, 30x40

Now 18x24 is the "metric" equivalent of 8x10" (20x25cm), and 13x18 is almost identical to 5x7". 9x12 holders are the same size as 4x5" ones, so I use both these sizes.

But what I'd really like is the "lost format" of 24x30cm, which is usually translated to 9.5x12"... D*mn nice size, and not all that much bigger than 8x10" in terms of weight and "cumbersomeness". And it's still a standard paper size in this part of the world...

BTW, print sizes were determined by image height:
Visit - 9.5cm
Kabinett - 13.5cm
Boudoir and Promenade - 19.5cm
Imperial - 21.7cm
Royal - 23.5cm
Paneel - 30cm.

Good "normal" lenses in focal lengths from 600mm and up were made by (among others) Goerz (Porträt-Celor), Voigtländer (Porträtanastigmat and Heliar). These were portrait lenses, so were probably not intended for the really big plates. More "appropriate" lenses - still 1910 vintage - might be Goerz Dagor Serie III 60cm f:7.7, Rietzscel Linear Serie C F/6.3 in 60, 75 and 90cm (!), or Meyer Doppelanastigmat F/7.7 in 60 and 75cm.

Getting into convertibles and "Satz" lenses there are more alternatives, with Meyer generally delivering the longest focal lengths.

Most of this was fully off topic, but I just thought I'd mention it

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Just a thought - I don't know how things are in the US, but In Britain there are still quite a few disused wooden process cameras around.They are not often advertised, since demand is very low, but I am sure people would offer them in response to a plea, and would probably let you haul them away complete with lens for nothing. This type of camera used to be mounted on a metal carriage which ran on a metal track like a railroad track, and to which an easel (often 6 x 6 feet or so) and lighting (very often potentially lethal carbon arcs) were also attached, but the camera could easily be detached from the carriage and would weigh, at a guess, 40 or 50 pounds or so. These cameras commonly had a darkslide with a "rolltop-desk" style sheath and containing a sheet of plate glass coating with non-drying adhesive, onto which sheets of film would be placed. An ortho film would be best to use, since you can handle this under red safelight.
A camera like this would be great to experiment with, no problem to transport in a truck (or station wagon/SUV), and very cheap!

PS: In response to Ole. Cameras do disappear without trace. When I was young, every portrait studio with any pretensions had a 10x12" or 12x15" camera on a wooden studio stand, very often equipped with a Petzval-type lens with a big aperture (f3 or so). In most cases, smaller films or plates would be used with reducing backs, but these giant cameras were in everyday use. Nowadays I see maybe one of these cameras advertised per year. Did people chop them all up for firewood?

 

[Joe Lipka]

Dave - Thanks for visiting the site. My new year's resolution is to update the site, adding "more purty pitchurs" and putting some "fun" in the functionality.

 

[Dave Wooten]

I recently picked up a 760 mm from a process camera 35.00 looks like new, no shutter...projecting on the wall it seems to cover 16 to 20 inches,

I am concerned about the cost and availability of the 16 x 20 film as mentioned...and am also interested in the 14x17, might be more useable in the long haul...I presently shoot 7 x 17 and am happy with it for my landscape projects.

 

[janvanhove]

All of you guys interested in ULF, you might want to pay us a visit at http://www.mamutphoto.com, I try to put as much useful information as possible on the ULF side of photography, so you might have an enjoyable visit...

PJ (shamelessly promoting his own website...)

 

[5x7Deardorff]

Well,.....

I've got a 16x20 Wisner,...(not the lightweight version) that tips the scales at about 35 lbs. I use an old early Hollywood version of the Ries Model A with the Photoplane tilting head. The platform for the head is big and square which you need to support the camera,...you need as much surface contact as possible and as little wind as possible to use this beast! My one lens is a Goerz Dagor 16.5" F7.7,... a bit wide for the format but very usable since the DOF is very narrow in ULF photography. My film holders are all Wisner, but when I bought the outfit he was having 'design' issues and I sent 2-3 back because the dark slide didn't seat correctly and or his production crew didn't get the dimensions consistent etc. If I were to do it again I'd look elsewhere for film holders. I've migrated to vignette's verses the 'grand landscape' that I've shot for so long so I'm OK with the somewhat square format. Of course I also own a 4x5 and 8x10 that I use for other types of shooting along with the requisite 6x12 back for 4x5 and a 6x17 panoramic camera when the urge strikes.
The leap to ULF is intoxicating, a very large pain in the B**t, expensive,....no very, very, very expensive, but ultimately you will have to decide if it is worth it. I can promise you one thing,...once you look at the ground glass you'll have a hard time going back....Enjoy.

 

[Donald Miller]

Would 600 be normal or a bit wide?

Maybe there is an apuger out there currently involved with this format.

The normal lens for a given format is determined by the determining the diagonal of that format. The formula for determining the diagonal measurement is the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides. If we square 16 we come up with a value of 256 and when we square the other dimension it becomes 400. So the hypotenuse squared is 656. When we take the square root of 656 we arrive at approximately 25.5 inches. By converting the inch measurement to milimeters we arrive at 647 milimeters as the normal focal length for the 16X20 inch fomat. So a 600 mm lens would be almost normal.

I have worked with 12X20 and believe me everything becomes increasingly difficult with larger formats. The camera is increasingly heavy. (My Korona as modified weighed 24 lbs without film holders. It requires a head and tripod that will handle that weight. Depth of field is a consideration of focal length and at 600 mm it is one half of what it would be at 300 mm. Shooting at F64 is normal with more likely F90 or F128 if your lens and shutter are so equipped. Miscues cost more. I figured each shot with 12X20, using the cheaper PhotoWarehouse film, was costing me $10.00. That was the cost of the negative when the chemicals were factored in. That does not include the cost of gasoline getting to the site. Nor does it include the cost of the print. 20X24 Azo costs an additional $5.00 per sheet. So if you made a perfect print without any screw ups the cost would be an additional $3.50 to $5.00 when you include the cost of Amidol and related chemicals. If one works in Pt/Pd the costs would be higher.

As you can see the "price of poker" goes up. How large is your ego and your bank account?

 

[Emile de Leon]

It's always interesting to see which ULF formats are preferred amongst photographers. The only disadvantage I can see in using the 16x20 and larger cameras is the weight and the cost of materials etc...esp if you like to shoot a lot. But I think as a user of 7x17/12x20 and soon 11x14, I would suppose if you were to carry around as much weight as a 16x20...why not just go whole hog and get an 18x22 or 20x24. Emile/www.deleon-ulf.com