Logical Progression -

[Ed Sukach]

After reading about the glories of Large Format - and the enthusiastic endorsement of it over smaller formats ... I've noticed a tendency to go from 35mm to 2 1/4; from there to 4 x 5; 5 x 7 (might as well - only a little bit bigger); 8 x 10; thence to 11 x 14 ...

Anyway ... I wonder if anyone would like to eliminate the middle "steps" - and bid on this:

 

[Alex Hawley]

I say "Go For It" Ed. Why waste time with Girly-Man size cameras?

Kind of reminds me of the Barling Bomber; an attempt (and a clumsy one) to produce a huge rendition of an already obsolete technology in the belief that huge was better.

 

[JHannon]

Looks like you will need 7-8 friends to help you focus it. Does it come with the rail car?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Makes sense to me. Most other cameras don't have a door to let you dust off the film before the shot, so you might as well go with this one and avoid all that pesky spotting.

(Actually I found I came to appreciate 4x5" after shooting 8x10" for a while, so there's potentially a little back-and-forth in that progression.)

 

[John Kasaian]

Ed,
On my path from 35mm, I skipped MF, dabbled in both 4x5 and 11x14 for a nano-couple of days, blew past 5x7 and have happily roosted in the 8x10 coop for several years now with the exception of a quantum leap into 12x20 and occasional retro excursions with my 5x7s(fun!) and 35/MF only when neccesary. I uess this makes me a poster child for illogical progression?

 

[sergio caetano]

Beautiful. As far as I can remember it was called mammoth.
But what about the enlarger ?

 

[Alex Hawley]

Beautiful. As far as I can remember it was called mammoth.
But what about the enlarger ?

The enlarger would be a Wooly Mammoth I believe.

 

[papagene]

Nah - a wooly mammoth would leave too many wooly hairs on the negative when printing!
I think it would be a real MF enlarger. :0

gene

 

[Ed Sukach]

Here is more, from the Encyclopedia of Photography, Vol. 11, p. 1990:

"The construction of the world's largest camera in 1900 resulted from an order for "a perfect contact picture not less than eight feet long" - the subject, a new Chicago & Alton railroad train. Lawrence (George R. Lawrence) explained that with existing cameras he could only make sectional views and piece these together. This, officials felt, would never do.
With assistance from J. A. Anderson, a local camera builder, Lawrence designed a special camera for the job. It weighed some 1400 pounds and required 15 men for its operation. The camera's bellows extended 20 feet on wheels running upon a steel track; the plate holder size was 10 x 6 feet, making possible pictures measuring
8 x 4 1/2 feet, or three times the largest print previously available.
Lenses used were the largest ever ground for photographic work, one being a wide angle affair of 5 1/2 feet equivalent focus, the other a telephoto rectilinear lens of 11 feet equivalent focus. The camera featured a rising and swinging back and front, a sheet of transparent celluloid for focusing, and light-proof curtains, resembling window shades, to protect the negative before and after exposure.
A "door" in the bellows permitted access to the interior where a man with a camel's-hair brush could dust off the plate before exposure. Plates were manufactured to special order at a cost of $1800 per dozen." (Note: these were 1900 dollars).

I wonder how they developed the plates..?

 

[Alex Hawley]

I wonder how they developed the plates..?

I wonder how they moved the plates around. Looks like a crane would have been necessary to load/unload the camera.

Being the camera was commissioned by a railroad, you would think the thing would have been mounted on a rail car and track laid wherever necessary. Remember the railroad Artillery?