ironhorse
Joe DuPont
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
The big Polaroid portraits I've seen have been very very nice. Two friends have Elsa Doorman portraits.
Part of the demise is that we can now make excellent 20x24 prints from today's digital sensors.
Would the big Polaroids be that much better than from a 24MPx body with good lens and technique? 36MPx? Or MF digital? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think not, or the money would be there to make more of the film.
Part of the demise is that we can now make excellent 20x24 prints from today's digital sensors.
Would the big Polaroids be that much better than from a 24MPx body with good lens and technique? 36MPx? Or MF digital? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think not, or the money would be there to make more of the film.
Jan Pedersen
Well-known
8x10 is the largest format i have used and i would claim that no small camera will ever compete with a well made contact copy same size.
A Polaroid is a direct positive so in theory should be even better. I don't think any small format or medium format camera will ever compete with a 20x24 direct positive.
A Polaroid is a direct positive so in theory should be even better. I don't think any small format or medium format camera will ever compete with a 20x24 direct positive.
x-ray
Veteran
Imo the quality was not that good and feel it was mostly a gimmick.
KM-25
Well-known
If I were Mr. Close I would not "Go Digital" but just use Ilford special run ULF 20x24 HP5 and contact print.
If there is one thing the photography world needs less of it is phenomenal artists like Close succumbing needlessly to digital imaging.
If there is one thing the photography world needs less of it is phenomenal artists like Close succumbing needlessly to digital imaging.
lynnb
Veteran
I remember RFF member Frank Petronio made a few very nice images with that camera.
BTW pictures of the camera itself are pretty impressive. What a beast.
BTW pictures of the camera itself are pretty impressive. What a beast.
Emile de Leon
Well-known
There really is nothing like ULF...
Nothing...!
Nothing...!
KM-25
Well-known
rogue_designer
Reciprocity Failure
Yeah - lots of variables. Shooting conditions, what sizes we are talking about, lens coverage and availability, portability, film selection, paper/process ... etc. ULF introduces challenges that must be overcome or at least well planned for at all stages, but when they are, the results can be staggering.
With that said, a boring picture made well, is still boring.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Polaroids are magical. The big 20x24 is the stuff of legend. I'd love to rent a session and make a few prints with it, but I'm not wealthy enough for that. Wish I could go for the 8x10 stuff even, but it's just not in my income bracket.
I'll be content with my Impossible Project work.
G
I'll be content with my Impossible Project work.
G
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
It is ENTIRELY different in looks, in ways that no digital camera can imitate. In that portraits taken with that camera are firmly macro, with a enlargement ratio greater than 1:1. As long as nobody makes a digital sensor of 20x24" size (and even 4x5" sensors have already vanished), the closest digital substitute are these scanners DIY converted to ULF cameras - but these are restricted to the size of a reasonably light weight scanner, so they aren't anywhere as big.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
True. Frances and I have a 20x24 Polaroid portrait of ourselves taken in '95 and it's pure magic. NOTHING else looks like it.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Jan,
I used to agree but then I tried 3x enlargements off Linhof "6x7" (56x72mm), which are within a millimetre or two of whole-plate and are indistinguishable from a whole-plate contact print. The biggest camera I have is 12x15 inch so I am not unfamiliar with ULF.
Cheers,
R.
robert blu
quiet photographer
Years ago I had the opportunity to assist a portrait session of Enzo Biagi, a famous italian journalist. I do not remember who the photographer was, only know she was a woman.
The camera itself, the session, the procedure was something so special the my limited english cannot adequately describe.
And the final result was impressive.
robert
The camera itself, the session, the procedure was something so special the my limited english cannot adequately describe.
And the final result was impressive.
robert
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Having just followed the link, I have to say that the article was drivel.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
ian_watts
Ian Watts
The quoted rental charge of $1750 for the day and $125 per polaroid seems quite reasonable if you view the exercise as a kind of once-in-a-lifetime opportunity (clearly Polaroid won't be making any more of the cameras or the chemistry). Daily charge and, say, 10 polaroids, all for less than half the cost of a poxy digital Leica. All a question of photographic priorities, I'd say.
brennanphotoguy
Well-known
I think it's sad that a format this interesting is dying. It's not whether a digital file can emulate this or not, it's about WHAT the actual format is and how unique it is for that reason.
farlymac
PF McFarland
If Polaroid had kept making the old roll films, I never would have put my 110B out to pasture.
Though the article may be drivel, Roger, at least I hope it helps Mr. Rueter to use up the rest of the film stock.
PF
Though the article may be drivel, Roger, at least I hope it helps Mr. Rueter to use up the rest of the film stock.
PF
zuiko85
Veteran
I'm not knowledgeable on ULF but could the camera still be used with photo paper as a negative and then contact printed? At least for B&W?