butch_welch Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 I am going to build one more camera that will interchange on the bed of an 11x14 Phillips Explorer. I am leaning toward 7x17, but I am also very tempted by 8x20. It would be helpful to hear other opinions and preferences between the two formats and why. I realize the two formats are nearly identical in shape and only differ in size, is the extra size worth it? I have lenses that will work well with either format (210, 305, 450, 600, 760 - all cover 8x20+ except the 210, which cover 7x17 well), so lens availability is not an issue. I am not concerned with film availability. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_galli4 Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Butch, As long as we're dreaming out loud here, (correction: <i>dreaming</i> for me, you'll actually do it!) one of these days I'm going to build a 9 1/2 X 21 format camera so I can use 9 1/2 inch aerial rollfilm. You could make a rollfilm back and roll enough for 20 exposures. It would be a monster but all this ULF stuff is anyway once you depart from 717. 717 still seems compact to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c_p_goerz Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Before I settled on a format size I cut out a sheet of paper in 7x17, 8x20 and 12 x20 shape. I lay them on the floor in front of me and it became really clear to me in a very short time that the image size I was most comfortable with was/is 8x20. I know other photographers have great success with the other two sizes but my eye tended to steer towards the 8x20. Maybe give that a try, its bit more concrete than trying to imagine what 'kind' of camera may work. CP Goerz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_weese Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 I've found that there is a critical difference between this formats. For some reason, the 20" length "needs" to be put on the wall to appreciate, while the 17" length can look good on the wall or held in your hand, as in a portfolio. Without scientific testing I have had a quite a few people try this, with agreement. Worth noting that 17 inches is the width of a typical magazine spread. I don't know which is chicken and which is egg, but 17 inches does seem to be a cutoff in what we can take in comfortably holding a print by hand. This has led me to use a set of cameras in 810/717/1220. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy_king Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Carl makes a good point regarding viewing distance for the 7X17 and 8X20 formats. Another issue is size. A 7X17 camera and 4-5 film holders is much smaller and quite a bit easier to work with than a 8X20. The additioanl inches may not seem such a big deal but in the field they really are, at least for me. And in your case, since you already have a 12X20 camera it would appear that the most sensible thing would be to put the 7X17 on the Phillips Explore and make an 8X20 reducing back to use on your 12X20. Or you could just do like Dick Arentz, crop your 12X20 negatives to 8X20!! Sandy King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary_meader Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Butch- Oddly enough, I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about this very topic. He's built a 7x17 back for his 11x14 and the reasons he chose the 7x17 format were ones of developing procedures, the need for a larger set of trays, the need for a lot more chemistry to cover that bigger tray,etc. For his money, and mine, there's not a heck of a lot of difference in the two sizes visually. It's the need to expand one more huge step in equipment and logistics that made up his mind. FWIW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donald_miller1 Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Butch, A lot of good information that has been shared. I personally like the aspect ratio of the 12X20 format. It along with the 7X11 are the only two formats that have that aspect ratio. It seems to me that the other banquet formats are excessively long and narrow and the more conventional 8X10, 11X14, 16X20 are excessively square. I would opt for something in the 10X16 range or possibly a 9X14 or 11X17. I find that aspect ratio more attractive. I checked with Bergger when I was strongly thinking of the 10X16 format and they indicated they would supply the BPF 400 film in that format and Sandy said he would build film holders. Just for what it is worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_richardson6 Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 Butch, I like to think of it in terms of film area. 11x14 is 154 sq. inches. 8x20 is 160, while 7x17 is only 119. So 8x20 is closer to 11x14, just the shape is different. 11x14 (and vertical, at that!) is my primary camera, but I am surprised by how often I use the 8x20, especially when my composition has more sky or forgeground than I would like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now