purpose of ULF?

[edgar_njari]

I have never shot anything in LF, but I'm currious about one thing:

while I definitivley see a need and a purpuse for 4x5 and 8x10 LF

photography, can someone explain to me what is the purpuse of

larger formats like 20x24? What do you do with such large negatives?

What do you use them for?

 

One thing that comes to my mind is that they are made for the sole

purpuse of making contact prints, amd I right?

[william_littman]

Dear Edgar;

this is part of a research project which i released last month, it is not the only reason.

 

It all started because at first there were no enlargers and as we now find ourselves at the end of the rainbow of the film era as a " needed comodity it is still embraced as a preference but there is more:

Theory of original magnification by optical projection

( research not yet completed) released 3.29.05

If I was asked why would anyone " need " large format photography in 2005 I would have to reply that while you gain resolution , sharpness, detail and range as to be able to have latitude of points of interest and differentiation I would say that to me those are obvious advantages of the enlargement of the capture area/ surface but the major advantage in my opinion is the lack of optical compression or the absence of an effect created by a lens in a Lf Photograph which is a direct result of the original magnification by optical projection which tends to make things look more natural.

 

You can increase the sharpness and resolution of a 35mm slide but the image will always look compressed more like a photograph than if taken with a large format camera in which case the picture will look more like if you are looking thru a window than at a picture.

 

Some will argue it is because of the gain in quality, to which I reply that helps but if you lowered the quality of the LF image artificially/ digitally the outlines/ line drawing aspect of the image would still be truer to life the bigger the format ,the main reason has to do with the distance between film plane and lens which results in straighter projection lines / less need for correction as well as the fact that while a proportional coverage may exist between formats the smaller the format the more optical compression results because of distance from lens to film plane , optical design requirements and the properties of optical projection itself.

 

Many have said why use a 4x5 camera as a snapshot camera and I believe that would appeal to those who wish to be able to take a picture in" a snap" while seeking a more true to life feel in the image rather than something which looks less true to life.

 

I think that a lot of people stay away from large format because it has been presented as only needed if you want a more detailed textured image and the truth is many don't need nor want such high quality or that kind of quality . I myself prefer the subtlety of vintage lenses or find myself pushing films while using modern lenses and decreasing quality intentionally but the quality which I do believe is needed in large format for is that which is generated by the original magnification by optical projection as even the worst glass/ vintage uncoated will render a less compressed image than would a lens offering a comparable coverage in a smaller format.

 

If you look at vintage postcards in street fairs which may have faded they still have a feel that you are looking thru a window which has not been cleaned but otherwise non distorted as opposed to the images that you may see hanging at a 1 hr photo which look like you are looking thru a clean window but the optical effect of the lens is quite noticeable by comparison . so it is my opinion that large format

is a valuable aid for those who prefer the line drawing/ outlines of the image to look more true to life while accepting that those who choose it for industrial/ pure quality gain preference purposes are justified as well and may be more interested in the gain in technical quality while they can still benefit from the more proportionate image quality as well, subtle and minute differences in numbers but huge ones from a perceptive standpoint.

 

I believe that LF will live on after film is no longer used because to achieve what I have described the ratios need to be present and in time a digital capture area the size of the current films up to 5x7 could be a reality.

 

I am currently working on the concept for an inexpensive full frame LF digital capture area.

 

I have shot some polaroid 20x24 and it was remarkeable , not very portable but think of when they had to take a life size image of a locomotive by placing another on a parallel rail and using a full wagon as the camera to get a full image of the locomotive for the worlds fair. times change but physics dont.

 

those who shoot really big formats know it is a world in itself, not my cup of tea but i love apreciating the work in galleries and museums when I have had the chance.

 

[edgar_njari]

I understand the the usage of LF in general, there is an obvious gain in sharpness and grain from MF, but what I originally wondered about are formats much larger than 8x10, like I said 20x24

 

My gues would be that you can make a full size image of a man with 8x10 and still have it sharp, but isn't 20x24 a bit of an overkill in case of optical printing?

 

Is there really a way to tell between 8x10 and 20x24 in a gallery size print?

[richard_ilomaki]

Edgar

 

As a practitioner of 8 x 10 photography, however poor, I think that anything larger- 16 x 20 etc- is an example of "the narcisism of minor differences".

 

Having said that, I know that the only thing better than an 8 x 10 contact print is a 16 x 20 contact print, and the only thing better than a 16 x 20 contact print is a 20 x 24 contact print.

 

Why do people pay a million $$$ for a Stradivarius violin, or $15 000 for an IWC watch, or 1 million for a McLaren F1 street vehicle?

 

A simpler answer is "ART" Or Style. Or vanity! Or because they can.

 

Cheers

[tom_gross1]

Because people like Clyde Butcher make 4ft by 5ft enlargements with unbelievable detail

[RobertChura]

Sounds obvious, but take a look at some and you will see a difference in large format contact prints. The clarity is amazing.

[edgar_njari]

It its for contact prints, I understand it, sure

 

I was talking about optical use of LF larger than 8x10

[matt_needham]

As they say, a picture is worth a 1000 words. See if you can find a print made from ULF, and then you may understand.

[mendel_leisk]

Isn't there something inherently different in the tone gradations of a contact print, as compared to a print produced with an enlarger? Perhaps that's just the feeling I got, from contact printing 35mm, not sure. Totally out of my depth, I'll be going now.

[pvp]

It's just another degree of the sickness...

[marvt]

I saw a bumper sticker on a Jeep that said "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand". I think that may be part of the mystique of LF, and ULF in particular. If you haven't been bitten by the bug, it is darn near impossible to explain, and beyond understanding for the un-bitten.

 

It can be almost spiritual and the images reflect that type of committment. Some find their level of spirituality at 4X5, some at 8X20. You are not there and until then it will be a wonderment to you. To paraphrase Obe Wan, "Let it go, these are not the view cameras you want."

[smieglitz]

Consider that 11x14 is the first format where you can capture a full, life-sized, head-and-shoulders portrait image without enlarging. The subject actually fits and fills the sheet.

 

Also, I don't find enlarging fun at all and the absolute quality of a contact sheet can't be beat. From my point of view a better question might be: "Why choose a small format that causes you to invest in a lot of extraneous equipment in order to produce a degraded image in the larger size you desire?"

 

Joe

[bob_gentile]

"... can someone explain to me what is the purpuse of larger formats like 20x24? What do you do with such large negatives? What do you use them for...?"<p>

------------------------------------<p>

Billboards on the side of the highway.

[michael_briggs2]

Probably a strong majority of users of 8x10 cameras are contact printing. Probably 99% of users of ULF (larger than 8x10) cameras are contact printing. Some like the ability to compose on the ground glass at the final size of the print, others like the quality of a contact print. Many are using "alternative" processes for printing -- these processes are generally too slow for use with enlargers -- Azo, platinum, etc.

 

"I was talking about optical use of LF larger than 8x10" -- contact printing is an optical process.

[streetlevel]

"... can someone explain to me what is the purpuse of larger formats like 20x24? What do

you do with such large negatives? What do you use them for...?"

 

If they're chromes, you can frame them and hang them as stained glass. :D

[brian_ellis16]

(1) They like the odd size panoramic aspect ratios of many ULF cameras (e.g. 7x17). By "odd" I don't mean "weird," I just mean not conforming to standard paper sizes like 11x14, 16x20, etc. I don't think there are many ULF users actually using 16x20 or 20x24 cameras.

 

(2) It's a lot of fun to see and compose on a big ground glass (at least that's why I like 8x10).

 

(3) They print with alternative processes and aren't interested in learning how to make enlarged negatives digitally and/or don't think the quality is as good as in-camera large negatives.

[john_shriver]

<p>At the exhibit<a href="http://www.tufts.edu/as/gallery/shows/amazingandimmutable.html">

The Amazing and The Immutable:

Photography from the Collections of Robert Drapkin and Martin Margulies</a> at Tufts University, one of the photographs was a (approximately) 20x24 contact print of a western US mining town in the late 1800's on albumen paper. It was obviously a contact print of a glass plate negative, probably a wet plate. Quite incredible, despite the faded image, there was an enormous amount of detail to be seen. It must have been more amazing when the albumen paper still had it's original dark purple blacks.</p>

 

<p>I have a small collection of albumen prints of Washington DC from the same era, and while they are only 8x10's, many have no fading, and they are extraordinarily beautiful.</p>

[christopher perez]

Its a contact print kind of thing.

 

After you inspect an enlarged print and then look at a contact print, everything becomes, er, um, well, clear. There's no other way to put it. :-)

[dan_fromm2]

On the other hand, why not?

[jim r]

regarding large Polaroids Timothy Greenfield-Sanders says...

 

http://www.modellaunch.com/biz/article.php?id=1000053&pg=5

[edgar_njari]

One question, why was my post subject edited to ULF?

Is that "ultra large format"? Does such a phrase exist?

[daniel_smith6]

"I saw a bumper sticker on a Jeep that said "It's a Jeep thing, you wouldn't understand"."

 

But Jeeps now are a far cry from the Willys they came from. Not nearly the same thing.

 

Large & Ultra Large Format cameras are still very close to their roots. Big cameras and Big negatives make Big contact prints. If you want to enlarge you can. For some it is the only way to photograph. Others wonder why they go to all the trouble.

[michael_briggs2]

Edgar, Ultra-Large Format (ULF) is the standard term for formats larger than 8x10, which is precisely what you are asking about. The original title, "purpose of LF", implies a much broader question.

[joe_harrigan]

Some people just love to make contact prints. There is no dealing with the enlarger and getting it perfectly square. You don't have to focus the neg, or deal with the neg popping out of focus. You do have alot of dust to deal with! You can also make your alternative process images with monster negs. You can not enlarge using platimun printing. Also you can not enlarge to pure chloride paper (azo). Finally the big cameras are a load of fun to use and the quality of a contact print is very much as good as it gets.

[john_shriver]

OK, my Washington DC albumen prints are full plate size, 6.5 by 8.5 inches. However, reduced down to 510 pixels wide, you really don't see what's so neat. I'll follow this up by a 2400 dpi close-up.<div></div>