Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I ask this question half in jest and half serioiusly. I've been using a Tachihara 4x5 and enjoy it qute a bit. I get out on the weekend and over two to three hours I expose and develop 4to 6 4x5s TMax400. I've played around with an 8x10 pinhole as well.
I've been curious to try my hand at some contact printing with silver, cyanotype, and/or POP and I recently purchased a Kodak #2 to give it a try. Weight and expense seem to go up exponentially with increase in size and longer lenses become more difficult to use.
As I try out the 8x10, I'll answer the question for myself, but I'm curious about those who decided to switch from 4x5 to 8x10 - why did you make the jump? What was there about 8x10 that attracted you? Did you ever regret switching to 8x10 or even decide that 8x10 wasn't for you and went back to 4x5?
Thnak you and best regards.

Mike

[Marcus Carlsson]

When I entered LF a couple of years ago, I didn't had the money to buy an enlarger for 4x5" and therefore I built an 8x10" which I could contact-print the negs.

Today I would have saved the extra money and bought an enlarger for 4x5", but that was my reason why I choosed 8x10".

/ Marcus

[Diane Maher]

I moved up because I was just starting contact printing via pt/pd and found that the 4x5 negative just looked too small as a contact print. An 8x10 color transparency is also pretty cool. :D

I do not regret making the jump from 4x5 to 8x10.

[Walter Calahan]

Looking at a ground glass of an 8x10 or larger is like looking through a window.

Looking at a 4x5 gournd glass, being 4 times smaller, is like any other camera viewfinder - small. :D

Don't get me wrong, I do shoot 4x5 and soon 5x7 (Graflex SLR for portraiture), but with 8x10, or larger, something magical happens. :p

[reellis67]

I used 4x5 first, and got an 8x10 camera primarily so that I could do contact printing with a larger negative, although you should keep in mind that 8x10 costs more, weighs more, and requires a much heavier tripod than smaller formats. For what it's worth, I find that the 4x5 is useful still, and I choose the camera based on what I want to accomplish. I use MF, 4x5, and 8x10 depending...

- Randy

[David A. Goldfarb]

My first LF camera was 8x10". It all felt more intuitive to me than 4x5". I liked the idea of working at 1:1, where the print would be the same size as the image on the groundglass, and the effects of movements were easier to see at first on the big screen. Contact prints from in-camera negs still look better to me than enlargements. 8x10" is about the size of a sheet of paper, so it seemed like the normal size for a photograph.

After shooting 8x10" for a few years, 4x5" and even 2x3" started to feel more natural to me than they did at first.

[Bill_1856]

Except for the ability to contact print, I think that it's some people like driving a staid old Bentley, some prefer a Corvette.

[Ken Lee]

I tried 5x7 and 8x10 for Platinum/Palladium printing, and went back to 4x5 (and kept the 5x7), because I found that Pt/Pd images did not always suit my subject matter.

I do intend to make Pt/Pd prints, but via digital negatives instead. This will allow me to size and crop according to the needs of each image, and make Pt/Pd prints from 4x5, medium format, digital, whatever.

Ironically, the increase in detail that we see in 8x10 and beyond, is often lost in the fibers of the paper that we coat by hand for alternative processes. That would not be the case, of course, when contact printing onto smooth commercial Silver-based papers.

[paulr]

I use a 4x5, but if I switched to 8x10 it would be to contact print, and also to find out how looking at the world through that big ground glass effects the way I see.

I'd also be curious to know what would come out of the different working habits that such a beast would force on me.

[David Louis]

I started with my intended end product and let the camera format flow from that. When I went into large format photography I knew I wanted to make essentially two types of prints – contact prints, and 30 x 40 enlargements. So I asked myself: Self, what is the BEST tool to accomplish this? The answer was 8x10. Sure it’s more expensive, heavier, and sometimes more difficult to work with than 4x5, but that’s the sacrifice I had to make as an artist, and I wasn’t willing to compromise. Your needs may be different given your goals and constraints. For what I needed to do, 8x10 was the best choice

[Stephen Willard]

I looked into making such a move a number of years ago. My motivation was for greater clarity of image. I ended up shooting 4x10 and 5x7 as a result from that investigation. Consider this:

For 8x10



Image quality is much better for 8x10.

Equipment is a lot more expensive than 4x5 with bigger everything in the field as well as in the darkroom.

Supplies are a lot more expensive for operating a 8x10 camera.

8x10 is not very portable because it is bigger and heavier

DOF with the bigger lenses needed for 8x10 was more restrictive.

Film can sag in the middle of the holders resulting in uneven focusing.


For 5x7



The improved clarity between 5x7 and 8x10 is not significant. The improved clarity between 4x5 and 5x7 is significant and very notable.

Cost of equipment was much less. All ten of my 4x5 lenses worked with my 5x7 camera except my 75mm lens.

Cost of supplies are much less for 5x7 than 8x10. I cut my own 5x7 film from 8x10 film and get two sheets from a single sheet of 8x10 film.

There is not a lot of 5x7 film available on the market. Most likely you will have to cut your own film.

My 5x7 camera is very portable. My 5x7 camera weighs less than my 4x5 camera and is smaller than than an 8x10 camera.

I love the aspect ratio of 5x7. 4x5 and 8x10 are more boxy in shape while 5x7 is more elongated like 35mm. 5x7 is a better fit for doing landscape photography.

I do have a 4x5 reducing back, and I still shoot 4x5 when doing macro photography, need more lens coverage, or need more telephoto range with my bigger lenses.


Currently, I have two separate camera bodies, 5x7 and 4x10, I port into the back country of Colorado with two llamas. This allows me to shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10 which gives me the flexibility of fitting the format to the composition rather then compromising the composition to fit the format. I am investigating switching to a single 8x10 camera body with 4x5, 4x10, and 5x7 reducing backs. Ebony offers such a configuration. I believe that this approach will be lighter and require less space than carrying two camera bodies. This will also allow me to use 8x10 on occasions where the composition and lighting is extraordinary.

Hope this helps.

[Brian Ellis]

I've switched from 4x5 to 8x10 and back three times. The nice thing is composing on the big ground glass and making 8x10 contact prints. The bad thing is the weight.

[John Kasaian]

For me its the size of the ground glass---it is a lot more enjoyable to use and I find 8x10 contact prints more interesting to make. 5x7 I see as a compromise---a good comprimise (I like the format) but 8x10 is, for me, more enjoyable to work in.

[John O'Connell]

I started using 8x10 because I thought that 8x10 contact prints would be a good output medium. I was sort of right--I like the contact prints, but the prints are too small.

As soon as I can afford an 11x14, I'll be out of 8x10.

[Eric Leppanen]

After shooting 4x5 exclusively for three years, I found I wasn't happy with the image quality, so I bought an 8x10 system. It's always a bit of a love/hate relationship -- the 8x10 gear is heavy, bulky and inconvenient compared to my 4x5 system with Quickloads/Readyloads -- but for situations where it is feasible 8x10 is frequently the only system where I am truly happy with the results. I still shoot 4x5 in cases where 8x10 won't work.

I seriously considered 5x7, but since I have a variety of picture frames around the house through which I rotate a variety of prints, I wanted to stay with a single aspect ratio. 4x5, 8x10, my older 6x7 system, and most likely a future digital capture system all (more or less) share the same aspect ratio, allowing me to use my existing frames and matts. 5x7 would have been an oddball, and I don't frame 35mm-based prints larger than 8x12" due to image quality concerns.

For more info, take a look at these threads:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=23008
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=21057
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=18218
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17521

[scott_6029]

Size of ground glass and silver contact printing...I think is the big advantage of 8 x 10 for me. I agree with the loss of detail on an 8x10 pt/pd. vs. 4x5 digital scan neg in the fibre of the paper - that makes it a toss up....for pt/pd printing.

If you scan and print digitally? Well, I think it's only the vision with the ground glass....for the most part...

I use 8 x 10 a lot more than 4 x 5.....fwiw for B&W.

For color, 4 x 5 is the way to go imo.

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I felt the need to "keep up with the Joneses"- all my photo buddies were switching from 4X5 to 8X10, so I needed to as well. In addition, the 8X10 is even more of a chick magnet than the 4X5. ;)

[Gene McCluney]

If you want to do alternative printing techniques, you usually need a negative that can be contact printed. 8x10 is the minimim size that works well for most exhibition prints. 8x10 prints look good.

Also, 8x10 looks different from 4x5. Creamier, smoother, and of course the longer lenses give a different depth-of-field.

Even scanning, an 8x10 negative scanned looks creamier than a 4x5 negative scanned.

I have all options from 11x14 to 35mm. I have never felt the need to eliminate any format. They all have their purposes and reasons for use.

[MenacingTourist]

Finally I'm in the majority!
Pretty much the same reasons Gene mentions.

Alan.

[George Losse]

Went from my speed graphic to the 8x10 when I started printing in Pt/Pd back in 1990. After a couple of years the 8x10 print began to look small, so I tried 8x20 and 11x14. Didn't really like working with the 11x14 outdoors, but have stayed with the 8x20 and 8x10 ever since. I stopped printing in Pt/Pd a while back but still contact print both formats. I still shoot with the 4x5 using a reducing back on the 8x10 and also with the speed graphic. Depends on where and what I'm shooting.

[Ken Lee]

"Even scanning, an 8x10 negative scanned looks creamier than a 4x5 negative scanned."

Definitely. Even though my scanner can only scan 8x10 at 1250 ppi, and 4x5 at 2500ppi, and even though I print at 12x15, the difference is there. The 8x10 shots are just... creamier.

But not creamier enough for me, to merit the loss in depth of field or 4x longer exposures that accompany the lenses of 2x the focal length.

We all have to determine our own "sweet-spot": the convergence of image quality, portability, availability of equipment, and affordability.

[Ed K.]

3 Cents worth -
Personal Pros for 8x10 -
1. For moderately sized digital prints, a flatbed scanner is pretty darned good.
2. Alt-process negs! AZO contacts!
3. Plenty of extra if a tad of cropping is desired - one picture can be 3 versions of it.
4. Faster film with a contact print is not grainy.
5. Slides, when drum scanned and printed, are amazing, as are slides just to look at.
6. Easier to see the effects of movements, and well, easy to load film too.
7. Enough film to capture more detail on distant objects in a landscape or architectural scene.
8. With reducing back, a fairly long lens is a usable really long lens for 4x5 format. Plus, can use 5x7 if desired too, again with reducing back.
9. Group shots work out very well, with plenty of detail for a large print.
10. If the print is small, or a contact, the DOF issue doesn't seem to matter as much for me, especially with portraits which look really nice.

Cons for 8x10
Bulky, expensive film, slower to set up, harder to find long lenses.
Much more worry about the expense and time to replace it if stolen, which tends to keep me more "car bound", or strain my back lugging all the junk in and out every night while in the field. It's not just the money...it takes time to assemble a full, tested, working kit from lenses to holders to boards, backs and all that. Generally, there is a tendency to shoot stuff that stands still - while shots with moving things are quite okay, it's just a tendency, which can affect the subjects of a shot. It takes a bit of mental effort to make things dynamic.

I still use both 4x5 and 8x10. Lately, when things are not just right, I don't take the 8x10 out of the case - I do a lot of "air photography"/"wish shooting" - if it isn't just right, I tend not to take the shot. With 4x5, the cost is enough less that I take more shots in marginal conditions, less pain for the chances.

I do love the feeling of using the 8x10, and the new friends I meet in the field when I do use it. And, when it works, it's pretty darned glorious. For some things, it seems to be the only way, for other things, it's just bigger, but not always better. The modest 8x10 contact print has a certain honesty about it that is just very hard to beat, even more so for a "one of a kind" Polaroid - it represents that very moment, unaltered by Photoshop or darkroom tricks.

I agree that 5x7 provides most of the 8x10 benefit with lower weight and bulk, but the camera stuff costs nearly as much and the film choices are at least less convenient. 5x7 is a really wonderful size.

[Jack Flesher]

the 8X10 is even more of a chick magnet than the 4X5. ;)

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If any camera can be considred a chick-magnet, I guess this is the best reason I've heard to keep my 8x10!

[Turner Reich]

I have all formats but the 5x7 is the most portable per image size. 8x10 is heavy, 4x5 is cost effective. The 5x7 can be enlarged or contact printed, great combination. A contact print from a 4x5 is too small in most cases. The 8x10 contact print is great but the cost is higher so wouldn't an 11x14 contact print look better or a 12x20?

5x7 is just right, a nice portrait size contact print is exquisite, an enlarged landscape at only 2x is brilliant.

[Mark Sawyer]

Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

Because it gives me the negative I want, and the print that I want.

It seems right working in the field or working at home, and it seems right in the darkroom.

When I hold an 8x10 negative in my hand, it seems just right for an 8x10 print, the same way an 11x14 negative seems just right for an 11x14 print, or a 5x7 negative for a 5x7 print...

But more often than not, 8x10 seems juuuuust right...

Why not 8x10, if it seems just right?

[Gene McCluney]

But more often than not, 8x10 seems juuuuust right...

Why not 8x10, if it seems just right?


And it's creamier.

[John Kasaian]

And its a chick magnet.

[Rory_5244]

Wha'? It's a chick magnet??! Oh no. That means it's me repellen' the chicks all this time? :(

[Chris Strobel]

I figured it would be harder to steal an 8x10 rig in the field ;)

[John Bowen]

I started with 4x5, about 3 years ago I "graduated" to an 8x10. I really like the larger ground glass. It's like looking at a 50" tv screen vs a 19" tv screen. I also like the 8x10 Azo contact prints. I still use 4x5 on occasion, but I must shoot 8 times more 8x10 than 4x5. I now see the 4x5 as a compromise.

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I appreciate the input. Most of the posts are from 8x10 afficianados. Any folks who tried 8x10 but returned to 4x5 want to share their story? Best regards.

Mike

[Brian Vuillemenot]

Hello! I appreciate the input. Most of the posts are from 8x10 afficianados. Any folks who tried 8x10 but returned to 4x5 want to share their story? Best regards.

Mike

I think that too many people fall victim to the "bigger is better" mentality, and when they see all their buddies with new 8X10s, thier 4X5 just seems inadequate by comparison. All of us can invent technical justifications for our move upward in size, but for most people the emotional element of just wanting a bigger, more impressive looking camera surely plays a role, at least at the subconscious level. Although I wouldn't say that I've completely "returned" to 4X5, after shooting 8X10, I think that 4X5 will remain my main format, with the 8X10 only being used for appropriate special projects. I should indicate upfront that I shoot color and then scan my transparencies, so contact prining is not one benefit that I get out of 8X10. In addition, there is not much to be gained from 8X10 over 4X5 when using high res scans in a digital workflow.

I feel that 4X5 is definately the "sweet spot" between ease of use, portability, depth of field, price, and lens/ film /accesory equipment availability. It is not hard to backpack the 4X5 for up to 5 miles or so, whereas I don't want to drag the 8X10 more than a mile. In a brief period of sublime light, which usually lasts for 10 minutes or less, I can easily expose 10 sheets of 4X5, whereas with the 8X10 I'm lucky to get off 2. With the recent increases in film price, each shot with my 8X10 and E-6 processing costs about $15.00- not exactly cheap. One huge turnoff for the 8X10 is the lack of depth of field. With all else being equal, using a 300 mm normal lens on 8X10, you would have to stop down 2 more stops to get the same depth of field as you would with a 150 mm normal lens on 4X5. At these small apertures, any gain that you get from bigger film size is dilluted from the losses due to diffraction and longer shutter speeds (camera and subject movement due to wind, etc. Also, 8X10 cameras of the same design tend to be quite a bit less stable than 4X5s) In addition, you just can't do the same "near-far" compostions that 4X5 allows you to do.

One additional point, although many users rave about the big ground glass on 8X10, I much prefer to look at a 4X5 ground glass. The 8X10 gg experience is kind of like trying to watch a movie on the big screen from the second row back in the theater. The 4X5 gg is far easier to take in the whole view, since I like to look close up with my loupe and make sure everything is sharp.

I'm sure other people have different reasons why they select 8X10 over 4X5, and everyone's experience and photographic desires are different. However, 4X5 is a better choice for many, and in general a far more versatile camera for shooting landscapes in the field. Do not feel inadequate if your camera is smaller than your buddies- it's not the size of the camera, but what you do with it that matters! ;)

[Jim Ewins]

:) To see whats on the other side! or Because I could!

[Jack Flesher]

One additional point, although many users rave about the big ground glass on 8X10, I much prefer to look at a 4X5 ground glass. The 8X10 gg experience is kind of like trying to watch a movie on the big screen from the second row back in the theater. The 4X5 gg is far easier to take in the whole view, since I like to look close up with my loupe and make sure everything is sharp.


Brian -- you need a bigger darkcloth!

:D,

[Jim Rice]

I'd shot 4x5 since my teens (I'm nibbling on fifty now). It's a wonderful format, especially for color work. Unfortunate circumstances forced me to sell my dream 4x5 rig (Wisner Tech, say what you will about Ron but when he was hitting on all fours he made a fine damn camera) about two years ago.
Having regained my footing I'm starting back in 8x10. Why? Because I always wanted to.
I'm not making actual photographs yet (sorting out the darkroom issues). The ground glass is indeed a dream. I fully expect to fall smooth in love with Azo contact prints. The DOF issue is indeed a little scary at this point (there isn't much at all at the stops I'm used to). My exposures on 4x5 were always in the 1/2~1 second range for Velvia, so I don't really see that as an issue.
Check with me in six months, I'll let you know.

[buze]

I have a 8x10 on the way. My primarily reason is the contact print size. I don't think 810 is very practical for pure landscapes, for the reasons mentioned before.
I think 4x5 will still be my "primary" format, to scan, enlarge+print, do E6 etc. The 8x10 will be exclusively for getting negs to contact print... And yes, a few E6s too just to get a slap in the face on the lightbox :D

The other reason mentioned above is also very valid : "because I can". As a new photographer, I realize I might arrive just in the nick of time to be able to enjoy it... soon it might get a lot harder...

[John Kasaian]

I think a lot of it just depends on what happens to float your boat. With a computer you can make enlarged negatives any size you want for contacts so honestly I see it as more of an excuse to buy into another format than a need, but that also strikes me as being another 'degree of separation.' The less going on between my initial exposure and the final print the better I feel about it. YMMV of course!
Oh yeah, go ahead and buy the 8x10---it will spoil you! ;)

[Ben Calwell]

After 20-some years of shooting strictly 4x5, about five years ago I jumped into 5x7 (used Linhof) and then 8x10 (Kodak 2D).
I began shooting the larger formats because I like contact prints, and in my opinion, there's nothing more beautiful than a black and white contact.
I use 4x5 when I want to enlarge bigger than 8x10, or when I want to shoot color transparencies.
The only down side, for me, is having to lug several cameras around. I guess I need an 8x10 with reducing backs for all formats.

[David A. Goldfarb]

With a computer you can make enlarged negatives any size you want for contacts

You can even do it with an enlarger and ortho film--no computer required.

[Ed Richards]

As others have said, it depends on what you want to do. I wanted to some of the same work as I did with 35mm, but with more detail and tonality, so a 4x5 rangerfinder gives me that flexiblity. I think Linhof did build a few 8x10 rangefinders, but you would have to go on Ole's body buildling program to use one.:-)

Print size is also important, but the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 depends on a lot of things going right - DOF, wind movement, etc., very quickly eat into the theoritical advantage of 8x10. I have shots with my Technika (pretty wind resistant) that would not have been very sharp on 8x10 because you could not have kept the camera still enough for long enough - remember, you are going to be stopping down more. OTOH, when you can control the situation, 8x10 would be great.

[John Kasaian]

It almost comes down to a Plato vs. Democratus debate dosen't it? Democratus would reduce every aspect down to numbers and the higher number "for" would indicate the path (perhaps 4x5 if other criteria beat square inches) while Plato would espouse that there is an immeasureable element of satisfaction that comes from working with, perhaps, an 8x10.

What a wierd thing to think about at 7:44 in the morning!

[Robert Hughes]

As a LF newbie I am shocked - positively shocked! that people would shoot 8x10 or larger formats.:rolleyes: I mean, I thought moving from Super 8 to 16mm movie format was a big step, so shooting 4x5 is Valhalla for me. Of course, there's the "chick magnet" effect, but I've only noticed that when shooting one of those cute French Beaulieu S8 cameras. In my experience, LF cameras are more of a "hairy old fart" magnet.:D

[Alan Davenport]

This has turned out to be an interesting thread. We have all of the expected side of the debate well covered.

I've still not had the experience of working behind an 8x10 camera, and I'm quite frankly afraid of what might happen if I ever do. My 4x5 cameras proved an epiphany for me, when I realized that I was spending less money on my photography while getting a higher number of excellent results. I doubt if 8x10 would pencil out as favorably, and I'm dead certain I wouldn't want to schlep an 8x10 farther than the first level spot next to the car, so I'm not going out of my way to get under the larger darkcloth...

[Turner Reich]

I've still not had the experience of working behind an 8x10 camera, and I'm quite frankly afraid of what might happen if I ever do. My 4x5 cameras proved an epiphany for me, when I realized that I was spending less money on my photography while getting a higher number of excellent results. I doubt if 8x10 would pencil out as favorably, and I'm dead certain I wouldn't want to schlep an 8x10 farther than the first level spot next to the car, so I'm not going out of my way to get under the larger darkcloth...

I understand what you are saying but don't discount 8x10 all together, you might be surprised by the experience.

[Jerry Flynn]

Like others, I have jumped back and forth among 4X5, 5X7 and 8X10 over the years. It didn't make my pictures any more incisive.

When I do take pictures now (rarely) I use 4X5 because I can enlarge to any size I want without a noticable difference in print quality. So, I guess I differ from those folks who say there is a huge difference between a contact print and a well-made enlargement.

[Brian C. Miller]

I doubt if 8x10 would pencil out as favorably, and I'm dead certain I wouldn't want to schlep an 8x10 farther than the first level spot next to the car, so I'm not going out of my way to get under the larger darkcloth...

Oh, don't worry about that. There have been many wonderful photographs made 20ft from the bumper. If I pack something, I use a smaller camera.

"Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic." -Brett Weston