If we include contemporary practice, Binh Danh has some incredibly large images. Since the plates are produced out of camera this may not be pertinent to the topic you had in mind.
Thanks Corey, I have pointed the author of the lst to Adam Fuss’s images also as they also are very large (see attached). He thought David Burder’s 28×48 inch plate was a little outside the scope as it has many small images on the plate, albiet of the same scene.
Having made a run of about 1 dozen 8×10 dags for a London artist I feel qualified to say that large daguerreotypes are a colossal pain in the ass to make. Alan, I’m sure, would also agree that the cases for such a daguerreotype are preposterous.
Because I’ve tried it I really have to admire the gumption of Mr. Fuss and our 19th century brethren!
Humbug… I’m switching to freakin’ sixteenth plates. Do they make a 1/32nd plate? Grumble grumble mumble hurumph.
Yes a case for 14×11 inch plate would be a challenge, I did once make a passe partout for Adam Fuss for a plate that size. At those sizes the hand held concept really goes right out the window so a case is not necessary, they are wall pieces requiring specific lighting rather than white walled gallery spaces.
Saw this big dag in London about 4 years ago (attached). Never seen one bigger (DB not with standing). Found 5×7’s much more difficult than 4×5’s which are somewhat more difficult than 3X4’s.
Great pic Sean, I think that part of the science museum has been redone now and those dags are no longer on display.
The image illustrates well how difficult it is to view such large plates, they become much less an image and more of a object. Often people will look at a dag and say ” great, I’d love one in 8×10″ or 10×12″, but at those sizes its not the intimate view where you see the whole breathtaking and captivating image.