ULF sizes and history - anyone got any?

Kimberly Anderson · Nov 7, 2005

Curious about the ULF sizes and ratios (i.e. 12x20 = 3:5).

I know that the 12x20 format was very popular, and am wondering about other negative sizes, their corresponding ratios, and why they were/are popular.

I know I see things in a pretty traditional wideangle view, and am trying to decide if how I see the world corresponds to a common ULF film size ratio.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Thanks!

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 7, 2005

Above 8x10" the common sizes are 11x14", 7x17", 8x20", 14x17", 12x20", 16x20", and 20x24".

There are a few not terribly common sizes like 7x11" and custom sizes like Kenro Izu's 14x20".

The Cirkut rotating panoramic cameras also have their own formats, and could produce negatives of variable size depending on how large an arc was set.

sanking · Nov 7, 2005

Some of the most popular ones.

5X12
7X11
11X14
7X17
8X20
12X16
12X20
16X20
14X17
18X22
20X24

To say nothing of the custom sizes that some people are using, such as 10X10, 20X20, 9 1/2 X 20, etc. etc. I know because we have made custom holders in most of these sizes

Sandy

Michael Slade said:
Curious about the ULF sizes and ratios (i.e. 12x20 = 3:5).

I know that the 12x20 format was very popular, and am wondering about other negative sizes, their corresponding ratios, and why they were/are popular.

I know I see things in a pretty traditional wideangle view, and am trying to decide if how I see the world corresponds to a common ULF film size ratio.

Any thoughts or ideas?

Thanks!

Dave Wooten · Nov 7, 2005

Check out Carlton Watkins photographs in the 1860's of Yosemite, quite humbling....18 x 24 ! Nearly a century before Ansel and his 8 x 10!

Kimberly Anderson · Nov 7, 2005

Was there any reasoning to the sizes that were popular? Were they based on any magic ratios or anything like that, or was it just merely the easiest sizes based on film you could buy and cut down?

John Kasaian · Nov 7, 2005

I read somewhere that 12x20 corresponds somehow to the dimensions of a large banquet hall. A photographer would be able to include the all the tables as well as three walls and the chandeleers within the shot, capturing all the opulence of the room as well as recognizable images of all the faces of the guests---since each guest was a potential customer who would therefore want to recognize his/her self in the photo. Since they were called 'banquet' cameras I think there might be something to the story, but I don't know that applies to the ratio of a 12x20, unless it has something to do with the short bellows one usually find on the old timers. There is no way my 12x20 F&S could accomodate a 24" lens properly. With an 18-19" lens I probably could 'cover' most banquet halls from one position (preferably on a ladder!)

If you're thinking of messing about with a ULF, good for you! My path involved building a ULF pinhole camera, which you can do with cardboard boxes and flashing (for a curved film plane) in any ULF format you want to try. Paper negatives are cheap enough, and when you get a good negative it'll kick in your afterburners when it comes to shopping for a ULFer.

Good luck!

David · Nov 8, 2005

I think Watkins format was 18x22.

removed account4 · Nov 8, 2005

tom yanul in chicago is one of the few people left who does traditional "banquet photography" as john kasaian talked about.
he has an image on his website with a typical "banquet shot" ...

http://hometown.aol.com/citypan/citypan.html

these cameras were also used to shoot non-banquet groups too. i have a dozen of so banquet photographs of my grandfather + his batallion in ww2.

Dave Wooten · Nov 8, 2005

I stand corrected, Watkins was 18 x 22.

Thanks

janvanhove · Nov 8, 2005

From Sandy's list there is one pattern that can be seen:

5X12 ----- 10x12
7X11 ----- 11x14
7X17 ----- 14x17
8X20 ----- 16x20
12X16
12X20 ----- 20x24
18X22

Basically, the basic formats are the "squarish" formats with aspect ratios near 4:5, and that the "long" formats are those same squuarish sheets, cut in half, either on the long side or the short side, giving aspects ratios in the 2:5 (as 5x12 or 7x17) or 2.5:4 (as in 12x20)...

So, why the aspect ratios?... I'd say practical reasons brought about by cutting sheets (or glasse plates, more likely) in half...

I know, not very poetic..

PJ

Ole · Nov 8, 2005

Classic German sizes (plate sizes) are:
6.5x9
9x12
13x18
18x24
24x30
30x40
40x50

All in cm. There were some other sizes for a while, but these are the ones which survived - and all of them from 13x18cm and up are standard paper sizes on the European continent. It used to drive me crazy when I could only find 18x24cm paper when I wanted to print portraits on 8x10" (20x25cm). The measurements are colse, but the proportions are very different.

David A. Goldfarb · Nov 8, 2005

I've read that the "full plate" format (6.5x8.5") came from a common size for copper engraving plates in the printing industry. I'm not sure whether it might not also have been a common size for window glass.

Another factor that might make 12x20" popular is that it would print conveniently on half a 23x29" sheet of drawing/watercolor paper for alt process.

re: Watkins--I'm always amazed to recall that he was carrying those big glass plates over bumpy roads, coating and developing them in the field, and getting them home over the same roads.

janvanhove · Nov 8, 2005

David, that "full plate" thing actually makes a lot of sense for early processes such as tintypes or daguerrotypes which actually used metal plates as support...

And Watkins with his mammoth plates, well, he's one of the awe-inspiring people that sparked the idea behind the name of my website...

PJ

sanking · Nov 8, 2005

Ole,

I am wondering about the origin of the 12X16" format. You have a camera of this size, right? This format appears to be very uncommon in the US so I am wondering if it did not originate in the UK, or somewherre else in Europe?

Sandy

Ole said:
Classic German sizes (plate sizes) are:
6.5x9
9x12
13x18
18x24
24x30
30x40
40x50

All in cm. There were some other sizes for a while, but these are the ones which survived - and all of them from 13x18cm and up are standard paper sizes on the European continent. It used to drive me crazy when I could only find 18x24cm paper when I wanted to print portraits on 8x10" (20x25cm). The measurements are colse, but the proportions are very different.

lee · Nov 8, 2005

I got my first largeformat in early 1970. Is that the info you are requesting?

lol,

lee\c

jimgalli · Nov 8, 2005

Aspect ratios are interesting. Most being a variation of the 4 to 5 oversquare. As someone has said cutting that aspect in half gives a normal 2 to 5 for pano's 3 to 5 is less common but it's interesting that Wisner has offered one as a 6X10 custom back. I think he's only built less than 20 of those. An interesting aspect to me is the so called "golden mean" which is about 1.62 to 1 and is only seen in the uncommon 7X11 format and the now obsolete but once common 5X8. I haven't heard of 12X16 but I have heard of 12X15 across the pond. If you're curious to see if any of these aspects are more magical than others, don't put in an order to Ron Wisner for a 6X10 and wait for 4 years. Simply get your scissors out and mask a 4X5 down to see if you like something different.

janvanhove · Nov 8, 2005

12x16" is simply the inches measurements of the 30x40 cm european format, isn't it?

PJ

Dave Wooten · Nov 8, 2005

I once read that Clyde Butcher was the impetus behind Ron Wisner's 6 x 10

could be easily enlarged and same ratio as 12 x 20- close to the golden mean...guess we could just ask Clyde...btw his everglades studio was right on Tamiami Trail...wasnt that the path of the last hurricane?

another thread could be a discussion of golden mean/ratio...the ancient Egyptians were into it and the Mayans,

Kimberly Anderson · Nov 8, 2005

Dave Wooten said:
I once read that Clyde Butcher was the impetus behind Ron Wisner's 6 x 10

could be easily enlarged and same ratio as 12 x 20- close to the golden mean...guess we could just ask Clyde...btw his everglades studio was right on Tamiami Trail...wasnt that the path of the last hurricane?

another thread could be a discussion of golden mean/ratio...the ancient Egyptians were into it and the Mayans,

I think that's what I was looking for in my original post. I couldn't remember what it was called (I think I called it the magical ratio or something silly...hehe).

Interesting to me are the various ratios that are being showin in common motion pictures, there seem to be about 4-5 different ratios that are common.

I made a 7x17 inch negative last night and am getting ready to print it today. I like the ratio...almost more so than 12x20...maybe after looking at the print I'll find that I like it better.

So many decisions to make. Ain't it grand!?!

*sigh*

Ole · Nov 8, 2005

janvanhove said:
12x16" is simply the inches measurements of the 30x40 cm european format, isn't it?

PJ

So it is. I should perhaps have listed the inch equivalents of the "metric" sizes, but decided to leave that as an exercise in conversion.

Very briefly 13x18 = 5x7", 18x24 = 7x9.5", 24x30 = 9.5x12", 30x40 = 12x16", 40x50 = 16x20".

colrehogan · Nov 8, 2005

How are aspect ratios calculated?

jimgalli said:
Aspect ratios are interesting. Most being a variation of the 4 to 5 oversquare. As someone has said cutting that aspect in half gives a normal 2 to 5 for pano's 3 to 5 is less common but it's interesting that Wisner has offered one as a 6X10 custom back. I think he's only built less than 20 of those. An interesting aspect to me is the so called "golden mean" which is about 1.62 to 1 and is only seen in the uncommon 7X11 format and the now obsolete but once common 5X8. I haven't heard of 12X16 but I have heard of 12X15 across the pond. If you're curious to see if any of these aspects are more magical than others, don't put in an order to Ron Wisner for a 6X10 and wait for 4 years. Simply get your scissors out and mask a 4X5 down to see if you like something different.

After Jim's interesting post, I started wondering, how are aspect ratios calculated?

Dave Wooten · Nov 8, 2005

divide one into the other 10/8 =5:4 8/10 = 4:5

1.6 or therabouts golden mean

tdeming · Nov 8, 2005

jimgalli said:
An interesting aspect to me is the so called "golden mean" which is about 1.62 to 1 and is only seen in the uncommon 7X11 format and the now obsolete but once common 5X8.

I always thought the 7x11 format was used mainly for making 2 5x7 images using splitter boards in the back of the camera. In the Kodak 2D 7x11 cameras I've seen, like here:

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/ekc/2d.htm

The lensboard has a shift movement that allows one to reposition the lens so that it can be centered for each 5x7 image -perhaps suggesting that making 5x7s was the main usage?

I'm sure you could always use it full-frame in any case though..

cheers

Tim

Struan Gray · Nov 8, 2005

I have a Optimus "Wide Angle" 12x15" camera (see here for an original advert). A plate that was exactly 15" across would be a little too small for the holders I have. 30x40 cm paper is just a tad too large.

30x40cm was a popular and readily-available size for graphics arts film until very recently. It is a standard size for drawing and watercolour papers with a very long history.

colrehogan · Nov 8, 2005

Dave Wooten said:
divide one into the other 10/8 =5:4 8/10 = 4:5

1.6 or therabouts golden mean

Thanks!

ULF sizes and history - anyone got any?

Kimberly Anderson

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

sanking

Dave Wooten

Kimberly Anderson

John Kasaian

David

removed account4

Dave Wooten

janvanhove

Ole

Moderator

David A. Goldfarb

Moderator

janvanhove

sanking

lee

jimgalli

janvanhove

Dave Wooten

Kimberly Anderson

Ole

Moderator

colrehogan

Dave Wooten

tdeming

Struan Gray

colrehogan

ULF sizes and history - anyone got any?

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency