Is bigger always better?

[Ted Harris]

Aside from all the responses that readily come to mind, a legitimate question when you cnosdier factors that go beyond negative/transparancy size. Simply put at 62 and nearly 63 years old I realized the other day that I have not shot any 8x10 in many many months, maybe 6 months and maybe more. Haven't had any commercial assignments that required it and haven't done any of my usualy landscape work that cried out for 8x10. Or is it me?



Is the real problem that I am just not willing to lug around the larger and heavier camera, lenses, film holders and go through the additional hassle of processing the film, etc? Of course I see and absolutely appreciate the value of the larger format but I am really wondering if, now that (yeah I am willing to admit it reluctantly) I am no longer a kid, there is a part of my brain that just says "it ain't worth it." I know that for the past two weeks, when I have been stomping up and down hill sand mountains and putting many many miles on the car capturing as much of the spectacular Fall Foliage as I can, I haven't even thought about putting the Compact II in the car along with my 4x5 and panoramic gear. I do know that it is a very different state of mind for me ... who knows maybe it will pass.



On the other hand, am I the only one? Any of my fellow 'codgers' going through or gone through the same thought process? What outcome if you have?



By the way, I put this in the esthetics and philosophy category as opposed to the 8x10 category because it is as much a question of change in approach at various times in your life sa it is a simple question of how many pounds you are willing to carry.

[Jim Galli]

You've got 10 years on me and I feel like I'm in my stride. So how much for that big old nasty clunker. (A Phillips would be one of few that I would actually replace the 'dorff with.) Yesterday I had the 8X10 with me and fully expected to do some lens tests when a piece of firewood rolled wrong and broke my nose. That was pretty much the end of shooting yesterday.

[John Cook]

Let me give you “The History of Photography, by John Cook”.

In 1900, the quality of film and lenses was so poor, good enlargements were not possible. If the photographer required an 8" by 10" print for a magazine cover, he had to shoot an 8" by 10" piece of film and contact print it. Thus, many large cameras were commonly in use.

As each decade passed, Kodak (and other) scientists made astounding improvements in equipment and materials. Every few years, photographers had to choose between making better images at the same large format or reducing to a more convenient format and offering images of the same quality.

For the most part, they chose the former. Thus, as the decades rolled by, commercial photographic quality became much better than necessary. No point in submitting an 8" by 10" contact print for an ad which would appear in a single column of a newspaper.

Then came the Hippies with their “tell it like it is” philosophy of realism and candor. Large format photographs were undeniably posey and phoney. Especially fashion. Very difficult to achieve that intimate fireside romantic hand-holding mood when ten thousand watts of light were required to expose LF film.

So in response, the pendulum swung way too far in the other direction as everyone switched to a slightly out-of-focused, motor-driven Nikon F, impossibly-pushed Tri-X and available (crummy) light. Candid, alright, but technically indefensible.

We have now regained our senses and returned to high-quality LF whenever the subject doesn’t involve movement. But it may not be absolutely necessary to return to the overkill of the 40's and 50's. I, for one, must confess that I can not easily differentiate between an 8" by 10" contact print and one projected from a proper 4" by 5" negative.

And I earned my living for several decades exclusively with 8" by 10" sheet film. (Back when my knees worked!)

[Andre Noble]

Choosing formats goes in phases. Right now, I'm in the Medium format phase. Just came off a 35mm phase, which was preceeded by the 4x5 stage.

[Don Wallace]

4x5 is big enough for me. Having said that, I also shoot 8x10, not because it is better than 4x5 but because I use those negs for contact printing. 5x7 contacts are nice but 4x5 is too small, imho, for contact printing.

[Louie Powell]

Interesting question. John is, of course, correct that there have been technical advances that make the use of 8x10 less critical. But at the same time I believe that it is also true that there are more people using mammoth cameras than at any time in history.

I find myself going through cycles. There are periods when I just want to do LF, and then there are times when I want to wander around the side streets in Lower Manhattan with a 35mm rangefinder. And the ability to switch between these two modes (and all of the variations in between) is what makes photography continuously exciting.

Of course, advancing age means that you can't remember what you did yesterday, so that makes everyday a new adventure.

[John Kasaian]

Jim---I've got plenty of left over vicodin if you need some for your schnozz!

Quimby,

I have no problems with my 8x10 'dorff. In fact I enjoyed prepping some of my film holders for loading tonight(one of the few things I'm up to while waiting for my hernia op to heal;-))

The 'dorff and the ULF never travel very far from the truck and I like the bigger viewing area of that giant gg as I find it much easier on my eyes. I even got one of those coolers that comes with a hand truck like affair and find it quite useful on flat ground while a lowe pro trekker comes in handy when on a "forced march"---its a little easier on the equipment than the large ALICE pack I used before.

FWIW, the most awkward piece of gear I find to cart around is the tripod. Holders are by neccesity bigger but I limit myself to 3 or 4 at the max at a time unless I'm working from my truck.

While I like using the big ektars and artars in #4 and #5 shutters, if I have to lug my kit any great distance my little 240 G Claron and 159 WA Wollensak will invariably get pressed into service. With the exception of the 6x6 lensboard, these are the same size lenses you'd find in a typical 4x5 kit.

A self casing camera like the 'dorff, Kodak Master View or Century Universal is really not too heavy(for me---YMMV) but there is also the option of the Gowland monorail which is probably lighter in wieght than most 35mm SLR kits if weight is that big of a problem for you.

Now my handheld 60+# K-17 aerial camera that takes 9-1/2"x9-1/2" roll film is too much for me. Unless I can find someone with a A-26 to be my tripod it will be soon finding a home in an air museum:-( I had to step down to a more lightwieght (25#) Keystone F8 that takes little 7" wide roll film so I'm down-sized but still in the game. For terra firma("more firma---less terra" I think Groucho Marx said that) 8x10 and ULF still rocks!

[ronald moravec]

Been doing some side by side comparisons of same subject, same color film. 4x5 portra 160 new Schneider glass vs Leica. Very very close in a 8x10. At 11x14 vs 9.5 x14 it shows a little.

Now with black and white, Bergger 4x5 at 8x10 vs the Leica with Delta 100 both developed in in D76 full strength. Same subject. I absolutely can`t see the difference.

You would be amased how full strength developer hides grain. I never used it in 45 yrs of photography because it was said the solvents will soften the image. Well maybe it does, but I don`t see it up to 11x14.

Anyway my answer is 8x10 and smaller, Leica`s got it no contest. 11x14 the bigger neg pulls away. Then again I can go miles and miles with a small camera.

[John D Gerndt]

Quimby,

“Ain’t worth it” is a personal decision that one makes at every stage, at every age. I am with you about pain and taking pictures. Satisfy yourself. NO need to get hurt or even feel put out by the process, so long as you are at peace with the results. I have shot up to 12x20 and find myself coming back to 5x7 (b&w) and 120 size roll film (color) more than feeling the need to get out the really big stuff…ain’t worth it (most of the time).

Cheers,

[Bruce Watson]

Quimby,

You've got a few years on me (not that many though), but I've been around long enough that I understand your question I think.

I moved from 35mm to LF a few years ago when I finally came back to photography. It wasn't a migration, I studied it for a while to learn the state of the art, what it costs, what it takes to put it all on your back and take it with you... I came to the conclusion, much as my heart was telling me to go 8x10, that my head was telling me to go 4x5.

I went 4x5, making it all as light as possible (Toho, carbon fiber tripod, etc.) because I wanted to do it as long as my body could take it. And I don't regret that decision. I haven't yet felt any restriction on what I'm doing that would require a bigger negative to fix.

Is the real problem that I am just not willing... I doubt it. I suspect that the real problem is that you've discovered that 4x5 and smaller formats will do what you need, and you just don't need the 8x10 anymore. We live in good times - 4x5 is really that good these days.

[Sergio Caetano]

Quimby,
I use 4x5 because we don't have here where I live ( Sao Paulo, Brasil ) 8x10 stuff. For me bigger is better (always).

[Gem Singer]

Hi Ted,

Just remember, the true measure of a man is not the size of his CAMERA! I'm eleven years older than you, and after twenty-five years of using 4x5 field cameras, I'm hell bent on mastering the 8x10 format. Taking the 8x10 camera out into the field is a logisyical challenge, but it's a heck of a lot of fun.

[Francesco]

Quimby,

I only contact print so an 8x10 is an absolute must for me. I am younger than you but that is not the reason why I hike with my pack 5 times a week. This year alone I have exposed over 300 sheets of 8x10. It is so much fun! And it is heavy! I have one rule: I hike only with one lens and 4 holders. That is it. If you are enlarging then perhaps it is a different story.

I love the 8x10 so much that I have sold my Leica, Hassie and Master Technica so that all I have is my 8x10. If anything, to force me to use it more (lol).

Francesco (www.cicoli.com)

[Brian Ellis]

I use 4x5 and 8x10. As between comparable quality 4x5 and 8x10 negatives I don't think bigger is better until you start making prints in at least the 20x24 range. At smaller enlargements I see no difference between prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives. Since I no longer do alternative processes I don't use my 8x10 nearly as much as I used to and when I do it's just because I enjoy using it, not because anything I photograph "cries out" for 8x10.

[CP Goerz]

I find that when I go to a new 'photo area' I use the 8x10/8x20 and mine the landscape for all its worth, after a number of visits though I seem to get more pics on the 4x5/5x7 film sizes. When I revisit those areas already done/redone over in large format or don't expect anything interesting I only take a 2 1/4 and 35mm for the less than spectacular or the interesting little filler shots that aren't worth a big sheet of film.

I do love to use the 8x20 etc but its expensive and large/heavy and not always necessary.

CP Goerz

[Michael Mutmansky]

Ted,

Right now, I find that bigger is always better, because I figure that as I get older, I will eventually have to put aside the large cameras in favor of cameras that I can more easily work with in the field. That is hopefullly a long way away.

I figure that as long as possible, I will use the largest camera that I can use in the field that meets the particular vision I have for the location. On some trips, that will be a 7x17, on some it may be an 8x10, and when I need to travel light, it will be a 4x5. If I wish to do pt/pd, I can use either of the large cameras, but if I want to make silver, then the logical camera is 8x10, since I can enlarge from that.

The above all falls under the realm of B&W photography. If I have a specific need for color, then the 4x5 or maybe medium format rules the day due to availablilty of film. It may be that you are not as driven to make B&W images right now, and so your 8x10 sits in a corner while the 4x5 and MF cameras get the use.

You can eliminate some of the pressure to use your 8x10 camera by getting rid of the rest of your equipment! If you only had one camera, you would (probably) use it, regardless of the size/format. Fundamentally, this is a significant distinction that you have to decide for yourself about, but if you wouldn't use it as your ONLY camera, then it is definitely time to get rid of it in favor of the smaller cameras.

---Michael

[Ted Harris]

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts,



For the moment the 8x10 isn't leaving the kit. I was just very curious to see if others sometimes went through the dame decision process that I have gone through and thanks especially to John for your comments. I suppose that part of the equation is that ther really is no reason to use 8x10 all the time but just in case ... evbery once in a while ... it might be nice to have around. It is really not a question of weight with the Compact II but it is definitely a question of convenience. I'll pack it up and take it with me this aftyernoon when I catch the tail end of the fall foliage in the NH Lake District.

[CXC]

Brutal honesty time. I have a bunch of different-sized LF cameras, that I make a point of using, and I have a blast with them all. But in terms of results, I make better images in medium format (Veriwide, Mamiya TLR). I rarely print bigger than 11x14, and I find the technical quality comparable.

[Bill_1856]

There is a certain pleasure in using fine tools, whether it's a Snap-on torque wrench or an 8x10 view camera, and the satisfaction in knowing that you have used the right tool for the right job. Is it the jobs that have changed, or your emotional response to doing them? Ansel Adams and Brett Weston both changed from using view cameras to 6x6 reflexes, not because they got old and couldn't handle the large ones (they could both have had helpers to carry their equipment for them) but because the smaller cameras could do the (same) jobs and gave them pleasure in accomplishing it. On the other hand, after a lifetime of exciting work many small format photographers give up their Leicas and Nikons and enjoy the contemplative pleasure of a large view camera. I think of Don McCullin, the great war photographer, who quit and began photographing the English countryside, and even Cartier-Bresson who gave up the Leica completely and turned to drawing instead. I don't think that it's your age which is the problem, but your outlook. Only YOU can evaluate why that has changed, and what to do about it. (PS, want to sell your Compact II to an even older geezer?)

[David F. Stein]

Great responses all round, esp. about formats we choose to use and why. Still, on the technical side, I wish film carrier systems had advanced while large format and traditional processes were in their heyday. It would be great to have lighter weight, more rigid, less cumbersome film holder systems. And to this day, with ultra-sophtisicated and expensive medium format camera systems, roll film hasn't really changed since George Eastman's day. Best, Ted and others.

[tim atherton]

"It would be great to have lighter weight, more rigid, less cumbersome film holder systems. "

my 8x10 mido system sure makes carrying 8x10 around a lot easier....

[Bill_1856]

Tim, what's a "MIDO" system?

[Ted Harris]

Bill,

MIDO is a type of film holder that is now (I believe) discontinued. They were slimmer and therfore a good bit lighter than the normal holders.

[tim atherton]

Yep - there were two versions. In 4x5, the Mido I was like a sort of reloadable readyload system - very light, rather fiddly. Some swear by them others swear at them.

The Mido II system used filmholders shaped and sized like regular holders, but about 1/3 or so as thick (though maybe slightly only under 1/2 the weight? never actually compared them on a scale).

It uses a (very light) "clamshell" holder that went with the system which you placed the filmholder in before putting in the camera back, thus setting the holder in the same plane as a standard holder.

They are still a bit more fiddly than regular holders and not quite as robust. They can be prone to light leaks, but those can usually be fixed fairly easily.

They were made in 4x5, 8x10 and I think 4x10? The latter two sizes are quite hard to find. The 4x10 are quite sought after I think. The 4x5 come up on ebay every now and then, or show up at Keh (actually the Mido I's in 4x5 come around quite regularly - I had a set, but never really liked it).

I have 12 8x10 holders. If I am travelling light or carrying as many holders around as I can, I will use the Midos. All 12 + clamshell take up only as much room as about 5 regular holders. If I'm walking around the city I can easily work with the 8x10 camera on tripod over my shoulder and 8 or 9 Mido holders in an over the shoulder bag.

Sadly they haven't been made for some time - Shin Kumanomido died a few years ago now. I'm sure he would have probably kept on refining and improving them were he still around

There is a bit on the 4x5 versions here:

http://www.butzi.net/reviews/filmholders.htm#Mido%20versions%20I%20and%20II

[Desperate Sam]

For the past few years I've gone through a variety of formats, from 6x7, 4x5, 5x7, to 8x10, back down to medium, then to 4x5, and finally ..... 8x10.

Why 8x10 ? For me, it turned out that I actually LIKE using a camera that large. The viewing screen is wonderful and a pleasure to look through. 4x5 was a pain. Controlling the camera, using movements - much easier for me with the 8x10. There's more leeway in making the adjustments (that is, with 4x5 the movements are of course smaller in terms of inches, which requires more precision and care), and it's easier to see what is happening on the larger groundglass.

For me the camera and the tripod are not an issue, when it comes to carrying them around. What is an issue are the 8x10 film holders. It's much easier to carry 4x5 holders or the quickload/readyload stuff. However I just carry about 4 holders in my pack and leave extras in the car, which mitigates it a little.

I liked 5x7, but I shoot only color, and there's not much choice, but the main reason I didn't stay with it is that at the time I couldn't find labs that would charge much less than 8x10 processing.

Results - I really get a kick out of 8x10 transparencies. Practical - no. If I want prints I could use 8x10 neg, or scan the transparencies and do the digital dance. Are prints from 8x10 negs that much better than 4x5, or whatever difference there is, it is worth the extra effort and expense? Each person will have to make their own determination. There still are some 8x10 color neg pros out there, like Richard Misrach, Joel Meyerowitz, Joel Sternfeld. Whether they use the 8x10 just because they are famous for it from years ago, or whether they sell some very large prints in galleries I don't know. But, the difference is subtle for me, even for prints from 4x5 as small as perhaps 11x14. But, I rarely get prints made - it's the trannies that get me.

Practicality - then forget all large format for color work. 6x7 color gives great quality up to 11x14. Digital is making great strides and probably in a few years medium format and maybe 4x5 color film will be a very small niche area. It's so much easier and quicker (when you need to be quick to catch changing light for example) to use medium format that to use any large format, i.e it's much more 'practical'. But if I want practical, for me that means 35mm slides shown in a darkened room, or prints from fine grained film like Fuji Reala. For practical purposes most people don't seem to notice much difference in 8x10 prints from 35mm compared to from medium format, en (although 'WE' would). Then again, most people seem pleased with photos from 3 megapixed point and shoot cameras. LONG LIVE 8x10.
Ok, that my highly biased opinion : -)

[Diane Maher]

I agree with a lot of what has been said here. I have shot some 8x10 transparencies in the last year and I must say that when I took one of them to work recently to view with an overhead projector, it was so cool! I did this just before a meeting and no one had ever seen anything like it. I had some 4x5 transparencies with me at the time, but they didn't look as good without something to block out the excess light. It makes me feel so much better for taking out the big gear when I see the results. :)

[Herb Cunningham]

I am 5 yrs older than thee, but have arrived at a solution. Get a light 5x7, one that weighs less than 5lbs, and you have the best of both worlds- forget the #5 shuttered lenses and carry a 4x5 back if you must.

Happy trails

Herb

[Toyon]

I had an 8x10 for a while and I found that it cramped my style. I tend to move the camera around a lot and get into tight spaces. The 8x10 was a burden. The quality of 8x10 can be extradinary. But many brilliant images have been made with 4x5 cameras. I think the difference tends to be overrated, kind of like the car guys who buy the "S" version of a car and then believe they couldn't have lived with the lower horsepower version.

[David Karp]

Since this is an old thread, it would be interesting to hear what Ted decided? Is the 8x10 gone? If no, is it used?

[Kirk Gittings]

Happy birthday by the way!

I've owned a few 8x10's, but they never became my "go to" camera. But they did look cool on the desk to clients. I finally realized some years ago that they I didn't like them because they just slowed me down too much and I got rid of them (Gave one away here remember? via Jim Galli-maybe you should try that Ted though I doubt Deep Springs college would be where it finally found a home anyway given what Jim said above....).

My solution to the aging process is simply lighter 4x5 equipment, better backpack, lighter camera (Phillips), readyloads, carbon fiber tripod, new knees. Keep it simple, keep it light.

What good is getting old if you can't get around with the camera far enough to put all those hard earned lessons to work?

Now I wish I could jettison all those brain cells that aren't pulling their weight anymore. That ought to be worth an once or two.


Is bigger always better?
Your wife may have an opinion on that metaphor too.:rolleyes:

[Ted Harris]

Kirk,

Thanks for the birthday wishes. Yeah, I was surprised to see this old thread revived. David the Phillips Compact II is gone and has been for several years. I still have an ancient beater and I do mean beater of a Wista/Tachihara 8x10 around but haven't put a sheet of film through it in more years than I can remember. I still shoot lots of 5x7 but that too may change (anybody want to buy holders :)). It's all a question of traveling as light as possible and getting setup with some speed. Actually, its not always the setting up that is as much of a pain as the gathering of all the gear and getting it back into the truck.

Add to the desire to go lighter and easier the fact that with the scans I now do from the Creo IQsmart 3 and the Cezanne I can print razor sharp 24x36 prints from my 4x5 negatives and transparencies. I know :), I could make that monster prints from an 8x10 but I can get there from 5x7 and even 4x5 most of the time. And, do I really want to print a lot larger? Don't think so. Long conversation this morning with a very successful fine art and commercial photographer. As we were talking we got into a discussion of print size and the fact that once the long dimension, framed, got over around 40 inches you have maxed out the space over most everyone's mantle; so, unless you are shooting for offices or other commercial reasons you can get most everything you will ever need from a 4x5 negative.

I'll stick with 5x7 for awhile but I do find that I have shot a lot more 4x5 film than 5x7 film over the past 6-8 months and that is unusual for me. Keep your eyes on the Want Ads here.

[Daniel_Buck]

4x5 is plenty large enough for me! largest I really print is 11x14

However, I would love to have some 8x10 or 11x14 transparencies to hang up! :D There are a few locations that I know I would love to have the large transparencies, maybe one day I'll break down and rent a big camera to shoot them.

[paulr]

Bigger is better, but the relationship isn't linear. For example, 8x10 has 4 times the surface area as 4x5, but can only move the viewer's soul 40% more powerfully.

At least according to my calculations.

[John Bowen]

Ted my friend,

Just get on the waiting list for one of Richard Ritter's new ULW (ultra light weight) Carbon Fiber cameras.... :o)

I recently decommissioned the Zone VI HEAVY duty tripod in favor of a Ries J-800. Reduced the weight of my 8x10 kit by about 5-6 lbs.

As you know, my 8x10 is my primary camera for serious photography, but I'm on Richard's list because I'd much rather carry a ULW 8x10 than that heavy Zone VI 8x10 of mine...

Perhaps Richard will finish the testing etc, and have them ready for sale before I become eligible for AARP later this month...

John

PS..I've attended a number of Fine Focus Workshops with Ted since 2005 and never even knew he owned an 8x10. I've seen Ted with a Shen Hoa (sp) 4x5, a Canham 5x7 and a Fuji Digital SLR, but NEVER an 8x10.

PPS Happy Birthday

[John T]

I, for one am extremely happy that Ted questioned the bigger is better philosophy. I was the one lucky enough to buy his Phillips from him a few years ago.

I had been shooting an extremely modified Eastman 2D 8x10. The image quality is not really an important aspect for me. All the large format negatives produce acceptable quality for my purposes. But the process of working with the 8x10 affects the aesthetics of my images. Because carrying and setting up the larger camera is a bit of a hassle, I tend to look more. As a result, the photos from the 8x10 have a much quieter (still) quality to them. Photos from a 5x7 weren't appreciably different than from a 4x5, so that size didn't offer any appreciable value to me.

P.S. Happy Birthday Ted. Thanks for the camera. It has gone to a very appreciative home.

[David Karp]

Ted, Happy Birthday to you.

I found your answer to my question interesting. I have gone bigger to a whole plate camera, just because I no longer have a workable darkroom with enlarger situation at home. I can make a bathroom dark though, and decided that whole plate was as small as I wanted to go with contact prints. Unless I somehow become addicted to contact printing (so far negatives but no prints), I think if the situation ever changes, I would go back to 4x5 only in a flash.

[John Kasaian]

It "horses for courses" for me. I have a 12x20 that seldom gets out. The 8x10 is the most used. When I need a "to go" I have an 8x10 Gowland hand held and a 5x7 Speeder. I actually now have a pretty decent 4x5 GV2 but bigger to me is funner. I suppose when I'm too frail for the rigors of the 8x10 I could still putz around with ye olde GV2, sheepishly hiding from view :D

[Ted Harris]

Thanks to all for the birthday wishes,

Paul -- what can 20x24 do for the viewers soul?

John B -- Richard said "soon" when we last talked a day or two ago. He may stop working and take time out to kill both Bruce and me if we keep asking. Trying to think when you saw me with a Shen Hao since I've never had one. I think it was a Kwok which was/is a Shen look alike that Jim Andracki was thinking of importing and I was testing. My main 4x5 then and now is a Toyo 45AII and I know you've seen that. The Canham 5x7 Traditional is frequently with me the 8x10 never. There's also a very lightweight 5x7 Gowland Pocket View that sits at home with good thoughts of Peter.

John T - Glad to see you on the Forum and happy that you are still enjoying the Compact II.

David - I've often thought of full plate and once almost swapped my Canham for a full plate Gandolfi. I love the aspect ratio but hate the lack of film availability, especially in color film.

[David Karp]

Ted,

I think Keith Canham is making some WP backs for his 4x5/5x7 wood/aluminum cameras. Hey, its your birthday, splurge! :)

[Ted Harris]

David, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... if I don't decide to chuck the whole works (Canham and Toyo) for an Arca and Chamonix.

[Bill_1856]

Happy Barfday from me, too, old fellow.

[Michael Kadillak]

I must admit that after shooting with a number of formats from 4x5 through and including 12x20, there is something simply marvelous and especially unique about an expanse of ground glass at and beyond 8x10. I actually find 8x10 much easier to shoot (operate the camera, focus and make an exposure) than some of the smaller formats because of the fact that the operating controls are large and easy to manipulate and with the assistance of a much larger focusing cloth I use reading glasses and no loup for focusing. Yes, the camera is a bit larger and possibly heavier but that is why I regularly go to the gym. The price of admission is well worth it.

That said, I find that there is a point of diminishing returns relative to format size. Me personally I find it much more difficult to fill a frame for 12x20 than 8x20. Plus my darkroom that was originally designed with 8x10 as the far end is being pushed to the limit of my capabilities. However I know others that find 12x20 and larger the cats ass and they have darkrooms smaller than mine. The possibilities of self expression are boundless and there is never a right or wrong decision - only what works for you.

Cheers!

[davidb]

Ted's gonna buy a Chamonix ?

[John Bowen]

Ted,

Now that I think of it, you did mention the camera was a "Shen Hao Look Alike".

Hmmmm....If Richard kills you and Bruce, does that mean I get serial #1 :-)

[Ted Harris]

Nahhhhhhhh, it'll go to Moses.

[davidb]

so has a price been set on the Ritter 4x5?

[Maretzo]

Hi Ted,

Happy birthday!

[D. Bryant]

Sadly they haven't been made for some time - Shin Kumanomido died a few years ago now. I'm sure he would have probably kept on refining and improving them were he still around


A couple of years ago or so there was a thread discussing Mido holders and in that thread it was mentioned that Mr. Kumanomido is still living and perhpas prepared to make holders again. Does anyone know if these holders are available now?

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19771

Don Bryant

[neil poulsen]

I'll paraphrase what Chris Burkett said. 4x5 can pretty much do just as well as 8x10, except in a minority of cases. He uses THE black double-rail Calumet of which we're all familiar, and a HUGE carbon fiber tripod. He also uses a Hasselblad outfit.

There are compromises.

There some very lightweight cameras out there. The lighter the camera, the lighter the tripod. Also, some very light lenses, like the f6.7 250mm Fujinon. Etc.

Use the 8x10 for photos closer to the vehicle.

Use an assistant to carry stuff.

[Donald Miller]

I must admit that after shooting with a number of formats from 4x5 through and including 12x20, there is something simply marvelous and especially unique about an expanse of ground glass at and beyond 8x10. I actually find 8x10 much easier to shoot (operate the camera, focus and make an exposure) than some of the smaller formats because of the fact that the operating controls are large and easy to manipulate and with the assistance of a much larger focusing cloth I use reading glasses and no loup for focusing. Yes, the camera is a bit larger and possibly heavier but that is why I regularly go to the gym. The price of admission is well worth it.

That said, I find that there is a point of diminishing returns relative to format size. Me personally I find it much more difficult to fill a frame for 12x20 than 8x20. Plus my darkroom that was originally designed with 8x10 as the far end is being pushed to the limit of my capabilities. However I know others that find 12x20 and larger the cats ass and they have darkrooms smaller than mine. The possibilities of self expression are boundless and there is never a right or wrong decision - only what works for you.

Cheers!

Michael, I shot 12X20 for awhile. It became too much of a hassle for me to deal with. Transporting the camera, setting it up, developing and printing was getting in the way of making photographs for me. However, as you said and I agree, there is no right or wrong way about this. I sold my 8X10 equipment and now shoot 5X7 as my largest format simply because it is "right" for me.

[John Bowen]

so has a price been set on the Ritter 4x5?

Not yet, or at least Richard hasn't announced it yet. After reading other discussions, I've come to the conculsion that the larger the camera "Run" is the lower the costs will be.....thus the lower the selling prices can be. If you are truly interested in one then contact Richard and let him know. As those of us who have dealt with Richard over the years are well aware, his prices are always fair.

[John Bowen]

Nahhhhhhhh, it'll go to Moses.

Damn, done in by the bird

[Bruce Barlow]

Not just ANY bird, but my African Gray Parrot.

[RichardRitter]

Happy Birthday Ted.

Well have to go and lug my big I can't believe its an 8 x 10 light weight camera around.
To nice out to be working on cameras, someone gave me a box of film that wants to see the light of day.

[Ted Harris]

To nice out to be working on cameras, someone gave me a box of film that wants to see the light of day.

Thanks for the Happy Birthday ... my sentiments exactly, the temp i nicely up, some snow may even melt and there is a nice soft fog tht is so thick I can't even see down to the bottom of the hill. Gonna go take a walk and see if I can find a picture or two before I go to work in the studio.

[John Bowen]

Hey Ted and Bruce,

You New Hampshire guys need to go vote. How 'bout y'all take an 8x10 with you to the polls and see what type of reaction you get... could just make the national news... :-)

[John O'Connell]

Maybe the reporters’ reaction will be like the one from a gang of joggers that passed me two weeks ago, with my 8x10 hoisted over my shoulder: “Hey, medium format!”

[John Bowen]

Maybe the reporters’ reaction will be like the one from a gang of joggers that passed me two weeks ago, with my 8x10 hoisted over my shoulder: “Hey, medium format!”

The Joggers must have been ULF guys :D

[David Karp]

David, hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ..... if I don't decide to chuck the whole works (Canham and Toyo) for an Arca and Chamonix.

Or add an A-S monorail and one of Kerry's (forthcoming) WP backs, ala his Franken ARCA.

So many options, so little $.