purpose of ULF?

[john_shriver]

OK, this is really over-enlarged at 2400 ppi from the original, you can see the crackling of the albumen emulsion. But still no film grain.<div></div>

[dave_moeller]

Asking "what is the purpose" of anything in photography has the possibility of opening up a discussion that gets to the very roots of photography as an art form. Assuming that you're more interested in why a photographer would choose ULF, I'll offer the following thoughts.

 

An overwhelming majority of ULF photographers are making contact prints...but enlargements are not out of the question. (Remembering that an enlarger is just a camera with the light coming through the other end, any view camera can be used as an enlarger if you have enough space.)

 

Absolutely huge enlargements, with the sides measured in feet rather than inches, can be made from ULF negatives without showing grain in the final print. A 20"x24" negative, enlarged 4x, gives a print that is 8 feet on one side. This is the same degree of enlargement that takes a 4x5" negative to 16x20", or a 35mm slide to a 4x6" print. Grain isn't an issue at these optical enlargement sizes, so huge prints with invisible grain are possible. Clyde Butcher has done this for years. Whether or not any person find value in such enlargements is a subjective thing, but obviously enough people find this artform to be attractive, as Clyde Butcher has been a very successful artist for many years.

 

Note that to get the same 8' x 6'8" print from an 8x10" negative would require an englargement that's about the same as taking a 35mm negative to 8x10". Many people think the grain in such prints is objectionable.

 

Now, to make these sort of enlargements takes a darkroom that's a bit larger than the usual disused closet or temporary setup in the bathroom. Most of the equipment will end up being custom-made for the process, and tanks and trays are bound to be enormous. (I've read of ULF photographers laying their prints on the floor and "mopping" the chemicals on...this might actually be the easiest way to develop such prints.) Because ULF negatives are already plenty large for viewing purposes, working with contact prints is orders of magnitude easier than actually enlarging the images. And contact prints from ULF cameras are amazingly beautiful things. May ULF photographers have chosen their equipment based on their artistic vision, with the sole intent of making contact prints. An 8x10" contact print is very beautiful; a 16x20" contact print has the same beauty in something that's got 4x the area. Quite a thing to behold.

 

But enlargements can be done and are being done today. Don't discount ULF as a "contact print only" format, even if the majority are only making contact prints. I've been contact printing 8x10" negatives for a while, but this summer I'll be building an 8x10" enlarger so I can make larger prints of some 8x10" negatives. Very large prints can have an impact that goes far beyond anything that can be shot in-camera, and my artistic vision is driving me in that direction at the moment.

[big toys are better]

Answer ONE: The contact prints themselves are superb compared to even excellent "enlarged" images, and contain a special character that is obviously hard to describe much less duplicate by other means. And like many things, the bigger it gets the more magnificent it becomes.

 

Answer TWO: even with the increasing quality of flat-bed scanners, can you image what you'd be able to get after doing a 4800dpi or better scan of a ULF image and then printing it out on the next generation or two of archival ink-jet printers? WOW! All we need is photo scanners capable of doing 20x24 images.

 

Answer THREE: Because it's there!

[benjamin_lineberry]

Because for some the creative process of making an image is just that: the magic is in the process.

There is no more purer form of photograph than a contact print. Yes, with a high rez digital camera, I could crop an image to 7x17, and even give it those "contact print" boarders. It would look just like a 7x17 contact at first glance.

But it's sorta like a diamond ring. CZ looks just like a diamond, unless you're a gemologist, but try convincing your wife of that.

ULF is the same thing. In the art process of making the image, ULF is the most pure to me.

 

b.