a brief theory of large format

[DREW WILEY]

Since I have a pretty nice shop setup, if I were younger, I'd no doubt be tempted to make my own ULF hardwood camera, perhaps a 16X20. Whether I'd ever use it much would be unlikely. For me personally, 8X10 is the sweet spot in film size - small enough to conveniently enlarge, big enough to contact print when I'm in the mood to do that. Unfortunately, it's been so much windier this year than normally, that on most recent outings I've had to default to medium format. View cameras with their big bellows are just a little too costly to realistically serve as kites.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, all things being equal. A 16 x 20 is better, all else being equal. A No. 16 Cirkit is better if you need such a huge image and eventually, it becomes ridiculous and impracticable.

Bob

a no.16 wouldn't be better, it would be. impossible to process the film.
I have a 28x22 camera which works pretty well. 4 sheets of 11x14 paper. ...
a 16x20 is a bit large, but easy to make out of foam core.

I have an 11x14” camera, and I’m not convinced it’s better than 8x10”.

best thing about 11x14 is you can use a 7x11 back on it or do split 11x14, 7x11 has something to do with the golden mean, and anything looks good in those dimensions ..

 

[nosmok]

My 'Theory of Large Format' is that it starts with Whole Plate (6.5 x 8.5 inches). Whole plate is a great place to start for LF-- in the hand, it's really close to 8x10, but the cameras are significantly smaller. And a whole plate camera with a 5x7 back would be better than a 5x7 because of the larger bellows. 4x5 'feels' barely larger than 6x9, more like a snapshot but the gear isn't pocketable (I love my 4x5, just talking about holding a 4x5 neg in hand). Only problem is, whole plate film is almost impossible to find!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just take either 4x5 or 5x7 film instead, then place it in the film stretcher with the stops set for "whole plate". That's analogous to how we used to turn 2X6 dimensional lumber six feet long into 1X12 boards ten feet long. Came from Rubbermaid trees.

 

[Robert Maxey]

a no.16 wouldn't be better, it would be. impossible to process the film.
I have a 28x22 camera which works pretty well. 4 sheets of 11x14 paper. ...
a 16x20 is a bit large, but easy to make out of foam core.

best thing about 11x14 is you can use a 7x11 back on it or do split 11x14, 7x11 has something to do with the golden mean, and anything looks good in those dimensions ..

Not at all impossible. If they did it old school back in the day, it can be done now. What is difficult is printing the negatives. LF this size can be processed. Film is difficult to find, however.

And here again, not impossible, just a bit trying. I have determined that these days, 11 x 14 is at the limit. A 16 inch negative by many feet is overkill. Difficult to scan, difficult to print.

Bob

 

[removed account4]

Not at all impossible

yea. .. I know nothing is impossible, but a real PITA to process and print. processing could be see sawed printing in a giant sandwich on hand coated paper in the sun with a $500 pane of glass .. both a PITA and a Pane in the ...

 

[fdonadio]

Bob's your Uncle.

This is the second time I see you use that expression. By “Bob”, you mean yourself?

 

[grat]

Something more embarrassing like the spray on hair. Let us see ... How about something Hello Kitty themed.

There is in fact, an Instax Hello Kitty camera.

Then again, there is such a thing as Hello Kitty beer.

 

[Vaughn]

I have an 11x14” camera, and I’m not convinced it’s better than 8x10”. It’s interesting to have the big camera out occasionally and look at the world upside down on the big groundglass, and it makes interesting portraits, but it definitely feels like maybe I’ve passed the point of diminishing returns, as DOF is even shorter, it takes more chemistry, forces the print size to 11x14”, takes more room for everything to dry, and the negs and prints require more storage space and a bigger wastebasket, and I can’t take as much film into the field, because the holders are bigger and substantially more expensive, not to mention the cost of film. Maybe if I lived in a big house with lots of wall space to fill up, I’d be more interested in formats larger than 8x10”.

7x17” is another story, because some subjects lend themselves to panoramic formats, and that feels like the panoramic counterpart to 8x10”, but my 7x17” Korona is overdue for a bellows replacement.

Not being able to take too many 11x14 holders out into the field (and the chore of changing film on long trips) has helped me reduce the waste basket load comapared to 8x10. I tried a 7x17 for awhile while (Ritter), and did not fall in love with the large dedicated camera...and the extra 3" in length of the film over 11x14 bumps up the size everything (trays) again. Going half-frame 11x14 (5.5x14) using a modified darkslide has become a very good work-around, as I wanted to give bumping up from 4x10 a try. And no camera modification or set-up differences to go from 11x14 to 5.5x14...nor to vertical 5.5x14.

I think that all explains my tallness, glasses, white beard, wide-brim hat, occasional pipe, shorts&vest, socks&sandals, and a vehicle I can sleep in and photograph from on top of.

Pine, El Capitan, 2020
5.5x14 platinum/palladium print

 

[mmerig]

Ah yes, the slowing down is good myth.

Here is a statistical relationship you should add to your theory:

Qp α 1/Af2,

where Qp represents quality of photography and Af is the surface area of the film.

I am probably taking the formula too seriously, but, quality would go down as film area went up

 

[Neil Poulsen]

Ah yes, the slowing down is good myth.

Here is a statistical relationship you should add to your theory:

Qp α 1/Af2,

where Qp represents quality of photography and Af is the surface area of the film.

I think that this relationship is more psycho-sensory, than it is statistical.

 

[Neil Poulsen]

. . . But what about the 4th dimensions? Well, if we assume that time is the 4th dimension, then actually shooting 8x10 should be 16 times more difficult and time consuming. Having just shot a couple of test sheets, I'm thinking that may actually be the case.

I think that weight qualifies as a fourth dimension. (The weight of the camera, not the weight of the photographer.)

And no, I don't think that length of beard could possibly be the fourth dimension. Because then, length of legs could be a huge confounding factor.

 

[KenS]

At what point can I use my pipe?

Bob

When it is gently 'clasped' by your teeth?

Ken

 

[mmerig]

Yup, you’ve got it.

Well, now after seeing other responses, I am not sure what I got. The formula seemed facetious to me, and still does, but post #65 says otherwise..

 

[removed account4]

But what about the 4th dimensions? Well, if we assume that time is the 4th dimension, then actually shooting 8x10 should be 16 times more difficult and time consuming. Having just shot a couple of test sheets, I'm thinking that may actually be the case.

hi abruzzi
have you started shooting paper negatives yet .. they can be addictive and lots of fun ( you can control the contrast with a yellow filter if it is too much ) and cost goes way down . I think you can get 250 sheets of rc paper from ultrafine for $130 . have fun
John

 

[abruzzi]

hi abruzzi
have you started shooting paper negatives yet .. they can be addictive and lots of fun ( you can control the contrast with a yellow filter if it is too much ) and cost goes way down . I think you can get 250 sheets of rc paper from ultrafine for $130 . have fun

actually, I jut got a couple of boxes of xray film, and while it was hard to find any clear concise info on how to shoot it, I took a guess at EI-100 and rodinal 1:100 for 10 minutes for my first shot, and it actually came out pretty darn close to well exposed, shadows were a bit too dark. It was Fuji HR-U Green. I also have a box of the blue, that is supposedly a bit faster, but I haven't tried it yet. For practice this is great--33 cents a sheet is really cheap.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Here's the correct formula: Qp1/Af = BS X 100. Maybe that's why mathematicians and statisticians are lousy photographers.
Beware of Geeks bearing gifts. Leave your calculator at home and bring your groundglass loupe instead.

 

[removed account4]

actually, I jut got a couple of boxes of xray film, and while it was hard to find any clear concise info on how to shoot it, I took a guess at EI-100 and rodinal 1:100 for 10 minutes for my first shot, and it actually came out pretty darn close to well exposed, shadows were a bit too dark. It was Fuji HR-U Green. I also have a box of the blue, that is supposedly a bit faster, but I haven't tried it yet. For practice this is great--33 cents a sheet is really cheap.

excellent ! I've never shot X-ray film before — I think there are threads on the large format website about specifics even with those specific films...
and how they render different subjects, but im guessing if you got good results the way you shot it don't fix it unless its broke and all that !

33¢ that's sweet ! .

 

[Vaughn]

excellent ! I've never shot X-ray film before — I think there are threads on the large format website about specifics even with those specific films...
and how they render different subjects, but im guessing if you got good results the way you shot it don't fix it unless its broke and all that !

33¢ that's sweet ! .

8x10 X-ray, developed at the local hospital -- the techs loved seeing something besides body parts!
A test taken in open shade. I think this is a platinum/palladium print. Print was scanned -- rephotographing w/ digital camera seems to handle paper texture better.

 

[abruzzi]

yeah, I'm not sure about doing anything serious with xray film, unless I can get a process that eliminates scratching, but for practice its not bad at all, especially for the price. I do want to figure out what kind of dynamic range I can get with it. There is a particular location here which is a kind DR torture test (a slot canyon), and it would be fun to lug a huge camera there--fortunately only about a quarter mile hike from the road. I was going to go this past weekend, but we got huge rainstorms washing away paved roads. Didn't seem to be a good time to hang out in a canyon like that.

 

[removed account4]

8x10 X-ray, developed at the local hospital -- the techs loved seeing something besides body parts!
A test taken in open shade. I think this is a platinum/palladium print. Print was scanned -- rephotographing w/ digital camera seems to handle paper texture better.

man, that's nice, you've shared that before and I always love seeing your family work! thanks for sharing.

 

[abruzzi]

for me at least, evidenced by my initial post, most of the addtional time spent on 8x10 is currently less about thoughtful compositional decisions, and more about setup, dealing with limitations, figuring things out.

One example is that it is easy to forget is while so-called bellows factor affects all formats from sub-35mm and up equally, the larger the format the more your images are likely to be affected. For instance a head and shoulders portrait in 35mm is nowhere near 1:1, but in 8x10 its pretty close, so rather than thinking about composition, you're thinking about all the other complexities.

OTOH, I think there is some truth to the "slow down" mantra. Its just that its a significantly diminishing return.

 

[Vaughn]

...A common bit of “wisdom” in LF and ULF lore is the whole thing about bigger cameras slowing you down and this slowing down leading to better photographs because you are forced to be more careful, considerate, thoughtful, whatever. As appealing and logical as that might seem, in my experience I have most often observed it to be untrue, and often the opposite, for a few reasons.

Since this thread is specifically about LF cameras, if we exclude roll film backs (ie limit the discussion to sheet film), 4x5 is realistically the biggest most people should probably consider, especially if photography isn’t a continuous activity. 8x10, for most people, ends up being too much about the “doing”, whether or not they realize it...

I disagree, but not because you are wrong, but I just have a different point of view. The speed in which one can work with a roll film camera (or a tiny 4x5) can be as liberating and as constricting as the slower pace of a view camera. As we shape the world with our tools, our tools also shape how we see.

PS -- my time under the darkcloth, from 4x5 to 11x14, is all about composition...and how to use my tools to achieve it. If one is worrying about how to use one's tools, that just means one needs to learn more about one's tools.

 

[DREW WILEY]

With experience, 8x10 setup can be nearly as fast and intuitive as with smaller tripod-dependent camera systems. What should slow you down is the deliberate process of contemplating what's on the ground glass. Often I'll study compositions on the big ground glass without even taking a shot. The second thing that might deliberately slow you down is the sheer cost of the film and weight of the holders out on the trail. One tends to be choosy. But after a personal history of doing that, when one goes back to smaller cameras, they do tend to be more thoughtful about composition there too, and less careless. Smaller cameras have the advantage of more spontaneity; but one can often tell even in small camera work who once had a background in sheet film, and who didn't.

 

[takilmaboxer]

You guys are impressive! I rarely use even 4X5, and when I do, it's attached to a tripod that is already extended, with the camera open and focused on infinity...just in case...lying in the back seat of the car, or over my shoulder. Setting up a shot is that much faster.
Not a practical technique with 8X10.