[LargeFormat] BIgger I say! BIGGER!!

[tripspud]

Hi Craig!

      When I decided to move back into large format I got a 5x7
because 'it's the biggest of the small large format'.  I dream of
an 11x14.  Now that I see the large 5x7 groundglass image,
there's no turning back to 4x5.  I think so much of large
format photography is seeing it big before the exposure.
All other systems of magnified groundglass, prism, just
don't compare to seeing the direct image.

Cheers,

Rich Lahrson
Berkeley, California
tripspud@transbay.net


Les Newcomer wrote:

> Instead of putting the weight out in the field, put it in your
> darkroom.   Shoot 4x10 with a wood mask in the Doodle dorf, add an 8x10
> enlarger (clive's got loads of Dursts by now) and at 2x enlargement
> your at 8x20 with no visible loss in quality, you won't have to cut
> your film or pay for odd emulsions and you'll only have 30 pounds to
> lug out in the field  instead of 75.
>
> Next option.  Take a seminar from this pair.  MichaelandPaula.com  Once
> you see the big stuff in action you'll be able to make a more informed
> decision.
>
> Les
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2003, at 07:42  PM, Craig Koshyk wrote:
>
> > O.K.
> >
> > since it is a bit slow lately I guess I could ask for some old
> > fashioned advice/opinions.
> >
> > Here's the deal.
> >
> > I got the large format bug....bad.
> >
> > I have two Sinar F 4x5's ....great studio cam's
> >
> > I have a 5x7 Kodak 2D....love it.
> >
> > I have a Deardorff 8x10...learning to love it.
> >
> > Now I have a hankering for something bigger. Something panoramic.
> > Something in a fine 7x17, 8x20 or 12x20. BIG, baby, BIG!!
> >
> > So let's hear it folks. Which format should I choose and why? I have
> > seen some awesome work in all of the above sizes (especially Dick
> > Arentz's masterpieces and Kerik Kouklis's amazing prints) so I would
> > probably be happy with any of them but I'd still like to hear what you
> > all have to say.
> >
> > C'mon folks, give me both barrels!
> >
> > CK