5X7 Format...what reasons for shooting 5X7?? [Archive]

audioexcels

15-Dec-2007, 21:46

alec4444

15-Dec-2007, 22:02

audioexcels

15-Dec-2007, 22:09

QT wrote a great article on this a while back - have a look here:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

I chose 5x7 because I like the shape and it's the smallest format (IMHO) that can support contact prints, which is important to me because I want to do alt. process stuff. Sometimes the 11x14 is just too bog! :)

Cheers!
--A

I've read that article a few times actually;). Alt process is a different story and definitely a reason to go with 5X7 over 4X5, and if you prefer the 5X7 size, would be better than 6.5X8.5 since it is easier to access 5X7 vs. 6.5X8.5 and of course 8X10 is just like 4X5 ratio so that wouldn't help you any:)!

So one reason aside from what I said is "alternative processing" with a larger sheet of film with 5X7 being the final print that you are working with. BTW, I have posted it here, I believe, but there is a person on Flickr that has "amazing" 5X7 alt processed contact prints. I don't know how many years it took her to learn how to do what she does, but it's amazing.

Nick_3536

15-Dec-2007, 22:18

Nicest format ever created. Except maybe for 5x8.

Better question is why waste time on formats like 8x10 etc that need to be cropped to 5x7?

audioexcels

15-Dec-2007, 22:26

Nicest format ever created. Except maybe for 5x8.

Better question is why waste time on formats like 8x10 etc that need to be cropped to 5x7?

6.5X8.5 is a format and it doesn't need to be cropped;). As a side note, there's a ton shifting to 8X10 cameras at the moment if that says anything, though I don't want things to get too off-topic.

So another reason, but is the same reason as I have mentioned in the original post=proportion/ratio of image.

Curious, is there honestly a 5X8 format and with a spring back and available holders?

rippo

15-Dec-2007, 22:33

5 x 8 = 6 x 9 x Scissors

audioexcels

15-Dec-2007, 23:00

5 x 8 = 6 x 9 x Scissors

6X9 has backs and holders?

rippo

15-Dec-2007, 23:11

it was a joke. i have no idea what 5x8 is. i'll leave that up to Nick to explain.

but yes, 6x9 has backs and holders. 6x9 is metric, which is 2x3...baby press size. i have a great Busch Pressman Model C, with a bunch of cute little 2x3/6x9 holders.

audioexcels

15-Dec-2007, 23:20

Eric Woodbury

16-Dec-2007, 00:07

I like the ratio, but feel I can always crop any format to get the ratio.

Most of the lenses I have cover 5x7.

The camera isn't much bigger than 4x5.

5x7 is the largest size film I can handle with one hand.

It's fun.

John Kasaian

16-Dec-2007, 00:22

My reason is that
5x7 is the largest hand holdable camera I have that can be folded and the holders are also lighter and smaller than 8x10, so I can take the Speed Graphic places where the 8x10 Gowland can't go.

Jim Galli

16-Dec-2007, 00:25

I'm a contact printer. 5X7 is the threshold. An engaging 5X7 contact can be jewel like. That said I prefer the full plate. My 5X7 gear is languishing.

audioexcels

16-Dec-2007, 00:40

I'm a contact printer. 5X7 is the threshold. An engaging 5X7 contact can be jewel like. That said I prefer the full plate. My 5X7 gear is languishing.

LOL:)

Thanks for the responses so far which are inevitables, but also curiousities of mine because I know many use the 5X7 as their primary format and I'm simply curious why that is aside from reasons posted, and the others such as alt process and of course weight is substantially different than 8X10.

Another thing that came up was that 5X7 is the largest sized film the user can feel safe to load. So loading film larger than this becomes more difficult for some which is a good point here.

Capocheny

16-Dec-2007, 00:55

audioexcels

16-Dec-2007, 01:18

Hi AE,

Because 5x7 is the only format that allows you to dive in and bid on items such as this:

http://cgi.ebay.com/6-brand-NEW-Fidelity-Deluxe-5x7-film-holders-RARE_W0QQitemZ160189119659QQihZ006QQcategoryZ15247QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Although this may be considered an oddity in the bidding prices of these holders... it still speaks to supply and demand.

And, given the trend toward more people looking for 5x7 equipment... $50 - $80 per holder for the Fotoman or Toyos wouldn't be too, too unreasonable.

But, seriously, 5x7 is a great format to use...

Cheers

$610 with a day to go...that's a ripoff. I wish my auctions ever sold for 1/2 what they should be selling for. Maybe I need to REALLY make the move to Europe and start selling goods on the EUR currency/market. I can just pack a bag of 50K+ worth of Schneider XL lenses as my carry on bag and sell them for 75K over on Ebay auctions Germany.

Were you watching the Sharks/Nucks game the other day?:)...Milan and Marleau had some highly reel goals that even Luongo would have been stunned by as Luongo gets beat top shelf where those pucks went.

Penguin/Vancouver game was absolutely awesome. It was one of the loudest and eventful nights, especially going 1-1 and a fairly long shootout.

Martin Miksch

16-Dec-2007, 04:14

In inches 4x5 and 5x7 dont seem to be a big different, but metric its 9x12 to 13x18, its at least double the size and the cameras arent a lot bigger or heavier. I just looked, my Seneca Improved View with a Xenar 180 brings exactly 2550 gr.

Regards
Martin

Ole Tjugen

16-Dec-2007, 04:19

5x7" is the smallest format where I feel comfortable looking at the ground glass with both eyes, which gives a better view of the composition.

Most of my lenses cover 5x7".

A 5x7" camera is not significantly larger or heavier than a 4x5" one.

I can decide afterwards whether to contact print or enlarge - a 4x5" contact print is almost always too small.

I also use 6.5x9cm, 9x12cm, 4x5", 10x15cm, 18x24cm, 8x10", 24x30cm and 30x40cm. But 5x7" / 13x18cm is my "main format", insofar as anything is.

Capocheny

16-Dec-2007, 04:22

Hi AE,

I hesitate to call it a "ripoff" but, rather, it's just the market that is working as it should. If the demand for these holders wasn't as great as it is, then, the price would be lower than what it is. Obviously though... there is a market and buyers are willing to pay such a price. :)

Perhaps, other companies such as Fotoman and Toyo will take note of the pricing of some of these sales and get back into producing them.

Of course, as things go... this auction could also be a bit of an oddity and not repeatable in the future. The next set may sell at a much, much lower price. Who knows what may happen in the realm of auctions and the free-market? :)

Cheers

PS: Yes, quite possible Luongo could have let them go in. Or, he could have stopped them. :)

Unfortunately, I didn't see the Penguins/Vancouver game... I've tended to enjoy the Montreal/Toronto/Ottawa games from the East and the Calgary/Edmonton games out the West more than the Vancouver/Sharks games. Having said that, I also have to say that the Vancouver versus Calgary always provides interesting battles too. :)

Nick_3536

16-Dec-2007, 06:27

I think Chaminox is currently building a 5x8. But it's an old format.

Ted Harris

16-Dec-2007, 06:51

Chamonix is building 5x7 holders so is Shen Hao. The Chamonix is around $130.

John Brady

16-Dec-2007, 06:53

I am seriously considering the Chamonix 5x8. They have offered to build me one with a rotating back and a minimum bellows draw of 70mm. By my calculations my 72xl will cover this format and could produce some crazy wide images. They make the film holders and any film available in 8x10 can be cut in half to make 5x8.

If any of you have experience with this camera or format I would love to hear. Sorry not trying to high jack this thread.
jb
____________________
www.timeandlight.com

Ken Lee

16-Dec-2007, 07:03

Some photos just want to be made with 5x7 equipment. Nothing else will do.

Don't trust me on this: Get a 5x7 camera and you'll discover for yourself.

Some of us tend to err on the side of sterile logic. Too many years chained to a school desk, perhaps ?

We like to think that we are in control, and that there is a strict order: "I choose the subject. I then choose the right equipment, to best capture that subject. All has been carefully previsualized by ME." It doesn't always work that way.

Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/tavern.htm) is a photo that could have only been made, because I had my 1920's Kodak Number 2 5x7 camera, with its red bellows, as restored by Richard Ritter.

I was admiring the building, and thinking how it would fit the 5x7 format perfectly. An attractive woman interrupted her dog walk, just to admire the camera and see that I was doing under the dark cloth. I stopped to chat with her. During that time, a fellow in 18th century clothing opened the door and stood in the doorway. I saw him and asked him to pose...

For more reasons than one, the photo would have never been made with other equipment.

J_Tardiff

16-Dec-2007, 08:13

5x7" is the smallest format where I feel comfortable looking at the ground glass with both eyes, which gives a better view of the composition.

How funny--- this is, of course, exactly correct and while I *immediately* took to 5x7 after using my old B&J for the first time, I hadn't consciously thought of this simple fact. Along those same lines it is also easier to point things out to someone else on the ground glass -- has been helpful in engaging my teenager in the process.

And add me to the contact print list -- *fun* stuff.

I'm about to sell off the Shen Hao 4x5 to move to a 5x7.. completely hooked on the 5x7 portraits.

JT

Mike Castles

16-Dec-2007, 08:39

Some 4x5 cameras are actually 5x7, so the size weight is pretty much the same. The ratio of 5x7 is very close to the 'golden mean' (much like 7x11 and 12x20).

Most of all the format 'fits' the way I see. At the time I started using 5x7, the whole plate cameras, holders and film were not out there like are today. That said, I still find the format very nice to work with...most lens you have for 4x5 will cover 5x7. I tried 8x10 and found it more square and thus move to the 7x11 (now it is not a common format - but it is 1/2 of 11x14).

Most of what I do is contact print (plt/pld and gum/pld) so that has something to do with it as well. That said, I am in a project with a 4 other photographers, we had a group show this past spring and I can say that the 5x7 prints held their own even though there were contact prints up to 12x20. They tend to compliment the other work and not compete.

One other comment, either you like the format or you do not. It is not something you can try to rationalize, IMO, just ones way of looking at the world upside down on the GG.

steve simmons

16-Dec-2007, 08:43

The University of New Mexico has a photo collection. One of the images is a 5x7 contact print by Paul Strand. It is the only perfect photo I've ever seen.

I like the aspect ratio, the fact that it is big enough to make elegant contact prints (4x5 contacts still feel like proof prints to me) and the equipment and the holders are so much more portable than 8x10.

In the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site there are articles on the 5x7 format.

Film is readily available (probably mail order), most 4x5 lenses will cover, and 5x7 enlargers can be had on the very cheap.

I've gone from the 5x7 to 7x17 for the moment but I could easily go back.

steve simmons

Michael Graves

16-Dec-2007, 08:49

I love 5x7 contact prints, and my Beseler 57MB lets me enlarge them. The camera is only slightly larger than my 4x5, but significantly smaller than my 8x10.

But I like 'em all. And forgive me for confessing the, but I love my Mamiya 7.

Eric Biggerstaff

16-Dec-2007, 08:52

I am begining to use 5X7 more than my 4X5 for the reasons everyone notes in the above threads.

It is just a fun format - the aspect ratio is great for landscape work, the film is not much more expensive than 4X5 (and available!), the weight and size of the camera is still easy to hike with, setting up is fast, all of my 4X5 lenses work with the 5X7, the contact prints are wonderful and 5X7 is a great size of alt processes,

I like 4X5 for abstracts and portraits, and I like 5X7 for pretty much everything else. All in all, I have been the 5X7 bug and wish I would of started using it long ago.

mattpallante

16-Dec-2007, 09:37

I like 5 by 7 because I like the shape, it's closer to my normal final crop usually, compared to 4 by 5. I also feel I get a better enlargement, or scan if I'm going to print digital, due to it's 75% larger surface area than 4 by 5.

Ken Lee

16-Dec-2007, 09:58

The University of New Mexico has a photo collection. One of the images is a 5x7 contact print by Paul Strand. It is the only perfect photo I've ever seen.

May I ask, which photo is it ?

rfesk

16-Dec-2007, 11:22

I have and use 5X7 -- and again here are the reasons I don't want to go to a larger format:

I can handle the film with one hand in the darkroom. This is a very important plus in my opinion.

5X7 makes useful contact prints sizewise.

I have an 5X7 enlarger if the negative warrants a larger print. And there is hardly a limit to the size print that could be made from a sharp 5X7 negative.

The filmholders are not much bigger than 4X5.

Most of my 4X5 lenses cover.

It is possible to handhold some of the 5X7 press type cameras if necessary.

All in all I believe it is the maximum relatively convenient format.

Dave Aharonian

16-Dec-2007, 11:39

I moved up to 5x7 from 4x5 just over a year ago and I love it. I prefer the aspect ratio, its only marginally larger than my 4x5 outfit. The main reason was my desire to start Platinum printing and while I find 4x5 to be too small, 5x7 is a very nice size for small contact prints. Of course, I've also just learned how to make digital negs......

false_Aesthetic

16-Dec-2007, 12:26

Because Frank Gohlke uses it.

Nate Battles

16-Dec-2007, 12:48

May I ask, which photo is it ?

I second that. I would also like to know which photo it was.

audioexcels

16-Dec-2007, 13:18

I think Chaminox is currently building a 5x8. But it's an old format.

You know that I saw this...Actually, I think it was a 6X8 camera I saw. I wish I could get my hands on just the back and some holders for 5X8 and use that 72XL on it. Even on 6X8 I think it could cover ok. I like the idea of having things without the .5's such as the plates have it.

audioexcels

16-Dec-2007, 13:31

So given the 5X7 format has the virtues that I have pointed out and others have stepped in to add in what I did not include, I have to ask if any have used the 5X8, 6X8, or 6.5X8.5 format?

I pose this question because some can argue the scarcity of one of these formats, but one can also see from that auction that 5X7 holders are selling for much more than new 8X10 holders...two X less size than 8X10, but selling for more. So obviously, and as Quong?'s article and others have pointed out, a lot seem to be cutting film, or to shoot with the emulsion of choice, seems cutting 8X10 color down to 5X7 is necessary. Given that film likely needs to be cut at some point or another in the 5X7 adventure, why not cut 6.5X8.5 film, or even the others mentioned (5X8/6X8)? You gain 1 more inch on the horizontal at the very least, at the most, 1.5"'s both ways...and still maintain an aspect ratio similar enough to 5X7 without needing much heavier if at all a camera to do it with.

Just curious why, with all the struggles to get holders and needing to cut film every now and again, people would not shoot a larger negative that has similar looking proportions-close enough to 5X7 that cropping would be negligable really.

Cheers!

Ole Tjugen

16-Dec-2007, 13:37

First of all, the selection of available emulsions is FAR greater in 5x7" than in any of the other sizes you mention. If you also get a couple of 13x18cm holders, the selection is greater than even 8x10"!

Second - I also shoot 18x24cm. Same proportions, but needs a camera as big as an 8x10" one. Or sometimes it is one; the holders are intherchangeable.

D. Bryant

16-Dec-2007, 14:06

I know a few around here shoot 5X7, but I am curious why. Here are some reasons I can come up with respect to why a person chooses 5X7 as their format of choice:

1) Ratio is better than 4X5.

2) Can achieve a larger contact print though is this really all that satisfying compared to Whole Plate/8X10?

3) Access to enlargers to make larger prints. In other words, one has to have a mega huge enlarger to enlarge 8X10 film. Then again, 4X5 can be enlarged no differently than can 5X7.

Aside from wanting super large prints, I'm having trouble understanding why people use this format instead of just shooting with 4X5 and just enlarging the 4X5 to the proportions/print ratio size you prefer (i.e. print it to 10X14, 11X14, 12X17, etc. etc.).

Have you ever compared an enlarged 5x7 to an enlarged 4x5 of the same subject and exposure using the same film?

If you haven't there is a major difference in the appearance of the print. Also the aspect ratio of the 5x7 avoids some compositional "problems" that 4x5 and 8x10 can present without cropping the image which is a good thing if you are contact printing.

Also looking at and composing on a 5x7 ground glass is quite different than using a 5x7. And the nice thing is that a 5x7 is just about as portable as a 4x5 camera.

My 2 cents,

Don Bryant

alec4444

16-Dec-2007, 16:44

So obviously, and as Quong?'s article and others have pointed out, a lot seem to be cutting film, or to shoot with the emulsion of choice, seems cutting 8X10 color down to 5X7 is necessary.

Well, I've found some outdated 5x7 (frozen - still great) color film on the market. Also rather curious, B&H is selling 50 sheet boxes of 5x7 color Portra NC film for $187. (Has anyone purchased that?!?) So color options are out there. There's quite a few B&W emulsions, and with this trend in 5x7 film holder prices, there may be more.

I wish I could get ahold of film sales data per format.....I'd love to see a graph. My guess is that 5x7 is on an up-swing. Just a guess.

--A

Capocheny

16-Dec-2007, 22:03

$610 with a day to go...that's a ripoff.

Hi AE,

With 32 minutes left to go... they're at $920! :eek:

LOL - I also have a few that are in pretty much "like-new condition"... maybe, retirement will become a reality after all! :)

Cheers

Nick_3536

16-Dec-2007, 22:15

So given the 5X7 format has the virtues that I have pointed out and others have stepped in to add in what I did not include, I have to ask if any have used the 5X8, 6X8, or 6.5X8.5 format?

You're missing the point. Whole plate is just wrong for some of us. It's basically 8x10 in shape. So whats the point?

5x8 could be shot in an 8x10 camera with a slider I guess and is interesting but 6x8 starts getting squarish again.

The main reason for shooting 5x7 is the look. Why shoot a bigger format and then crop it? I'm happier with a 645 or 6x9 camera then a 6x6. I end up cropping the 6x6 image most of the time.

17-Dec-2007, 00:53

The discussion of aspect ratio gets interesting, but keeps assuming the camera should dictate the aesthetic. Shouldn't the photographer and the subject and the photographer's treatment of the subject dictate, among other things, the format and cropping? I like the idea of a camera big enough to have image area to sacrifice so cropping doesn't materially weaken the result.

That criterion pushes one toward 5x7 and bigger just on the basis of having plenty of square inches of film surface.

C

Jiri Vasina

17-Dec-2007, 06:33

I'm only using 13x18cm format for some months, but it's almost perfect - as previously noted, you can easily look at the ground glass with both eyes, it's just right to judge composition (not too large that you can not see it all without stepping back), the holders and film are of manageable size (loading one-handed). I can either contact print, or enlarge, or scan very conveniently with a cheapish flatbed scanner. For me, I think that I have found my perfect format. Only sometimes I want to compose for a panorama and think a 5x12" would be just right :)

Scott Davis

17-Dec-2007, 07:44

5x12 is another reason to work in 5x7. The two print sizes compliment each other very nicely. 4x10 might be somewhat more convenient, but it just looks too small, like 4x5 does. 5x12 is a very nice size panoramic - big enough to look at from a distance, as well as held in ones hands. And in the case of my camera, my 5x7 and 5x12 backs are interchangeable on the same chassis (canham woodfield). I do alt-process printing, and the 5x7 and 5x12 formats make beautiful prints, and are easy to manage.

5x7 is also a terrific portrait format - long enough to show a whole face, or true head-and-shoulders proportion. It is also good for full-length shots, as it doesn't lead to excess dead space on either side of the subject, so you end up with a proportionately larger, more frame-filling shot of the subject, printed to the same size.

Amund BLix Aaeng

17-Dec-2007, 07:54

5x7 wasn`t for me, I found the weight and bulk too close to my 8x10 setup...

Ron Bose

17-Dec-2007, 08:04

Now that I have Nelson's 5x7 adapter for my Phillips Compact-II my 'new' 5x7 camera IS the same size as an 8x10 :-)

nelson_chan

17-Dec-2007, 08:30

I'm glad you got the adapter Ron. I for one, am not a fan of the 5x7 aspect ratio. I like the more square ratio of a 4x5 and 8x10. I shot 35mm for a long time and started to hate the elongated frame. I have nothing against cropping either. I just like cropping in camera. If I don't like what I shot, I would crop accordingly or return to re-shoot if it permits. Unfortunately, some of my portraits are done on the fly and I can't return for those. I'll crop if it comes down to that. You guys should check out the work of photographer, An My Le. Her book, Small Wars was all shot with a 5x7 in Vietnam. Great work and inspirational maybe for all you 5x7 guys.

Nick_3536

17-Dec-2007, 09:18

I shot 35mm for a long time and started to hate the elongated frame.

I wonder how many of like 5x7 because of years with 35mm?

John Bowen

17-Dec-2007, 13:14

My current 5x7 is actually a reducing back Richard Ritter made for my Zone VI 8x10.

My next 5x7 will be one of Richard Ritter's lightweight (carbon fiber tubing) cameras. Richard is currently developing a camera that will be readily convertable from 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10.

5x7 is a great format. As someone mentioned above, 5x7 contact prints can be absolute jewels.

audioexcels

18-Dec-2007, 06:36

Hi AE,

With 32 minutes left to go... they're at $920! :eek:

LOL - I also have a few that are in pretty much "like-new condition"... maybe, retirement will become a reality after all! :)

Cheers

That's absurd. I'd rather have a whole plate camera with bookform holders for $300 than pay that price. Sure, the whole plate would be less versatile, but that contact print, $600's worth of them, surely would look nice with all that money leftover;)

audioexcels

18-Dec-2007, 06:43

You're missing the point. Whole plate is just wrong for some of us. It's basically 8x10 in shape. So whats the point?

5x8 could be shot in an 8x10 camera with a slider I guess and is interesting but 6x8 starts getting squarish again.

The main reason for shooting 5x7 is the look. Why shoot a bigger format and then crop it? I'm happier with a 645 or 6x9 camera then a 6x6. I end up cropping the 6x6 image most of the time.

6.5X8.5 looks a lot different than the squarish 8X10 IMHO. It's more like a 5X7, but on steroids. I personally love the 6X6 look. I don't think anything in the land of MF can touch a Rollei with Schneider or PQS glass on it, and why chop it down when it takes on such a nice expression in that square format. Surely not for all, but I'm a huge fan of the 6cmX6cm, but much more of a fan of 6.5X8.5...really wish the 5X7 had a larger size for contacts. I think 7X10 would look great too. Even 6X10...cutting it off so you have a 4X10 and 6X10 from one sheet of film. With whole plate, not many options when it comes to cutting down the film, though one could do 5.5X8.5 or 6X8.5, etc.

I guess I just like a larger contact print, though there are a ton of things going for 5X7 as I have mentioned and if I got into alt processing, that's one more thing though I'd love to alt process larger contacts...

All my opinion of course.

Jim Rhoades

18-Dec-2007, 07:59

I was using 8x10 and learning to make Pt/Pd prints. It was like feeding a campfire $10 bills. I had wanted to upgrade my 4x5 to a 5x7/4x5 Deardorff anyway so I did, telling myself that 5x7 Pt/Pd printing would save some money.

Now I was looking at these wonderful 5x7 negatives and thinking, Wow this would make some enlargement. What do you know, a 5x7 Durst enlarger follows me home.

Now I use 8x10 only for Pt/Pd because of the death of AZO. 5x7 I use mostly for enlargements with some Pt/Pd depending on the subject. 4X5 is used anytime I have to work a distance away from the Jeep.

Because of the size, shape and choice between silver and Pt/Pd contacts 5x7 is my favorite.

Turner Reich

18-Dec-2007, 23:48

It's the largest size that I like to carry on the plane, works great and has a nice large negative size that makes using an adjustable camera worth taking. The only thing that goes in the check in is the tripod.

kjsphotography

19-Dec-2007, 00:08

I like the ratio and it is perfect for contact printing. That is why I love the format.

Mike Castles

19-Dec-2007, 06:04

I think 7X10 would look great too. Even 6X10...cutting it off so you have a 4X10 and 6X10 from one sheet of film. With whole plate, not many options when it comes to cutting down the film, though one could do 5.5X8.5 or 6X8.5, etc.

Not 7x10, but I (and a few others) do use 7x11, which is very near the same perspective as 5x7 (and 12x20). If you were to crop/mask 8x10 to get to the same ratio, you would want 6.125x10 (the golden mean). Would agree that a 6x6 print does look rather nice (or 7x7, etc).

audioexcels

19-Dec-2007, 18:40

Not 7x10, but I (and a few others) do use 7x11, which is very near the same perspective as 5x7 (and 12x20). If you were to crop/mask 8x10 to get to the same ratio, you would want 6.125x10 (the golden mean). Would agree that a 6x6 print does look rather nice (or 7x7, etc).

Ahhhh...7X11...wish I could get into that one, and it is refreshing hearing other's opinions on the 5X7 format.

I am guessing many have not had the opportunity to use strictly whole plate/6.5X8.5 format for a comparison to using 5X7 as it sounds like the nice ratio of 5X7 is better for most than 8X10, though 6.5X8.5 is greatly preferred to 8X10...

Any whole platers around that can make their opinions here about their use of it vs. 5X7?

Thanks everyone for your responses. Excellent stuff!!!

sanking

19-Dec-2007, 18:49

Ahhhh...7X11...wish I could get into that one, and it is refreshing hearing other's opinions on the 5X7 format.

I am guessing many have not had the opportunity to use strictly whole plate/6.5X8.5 format for a comparison to using 5X7 as it sounds like the nice ratio of 5X7 is better for most than 8X10, though 6.5X8.5 is greatly preferred to 8X10...

Any whole platers around that can make their opinions here about their use of it vs. 5X7?

Thanks everyone for your responses. Excellent stuff!!!

I have used 5X7, 6.5X 8.5 and 8X10. To my eye 6.5X8.5 is more similar to 8X10 than to 5X7, and the mathematics of the aspect ratio agrees.

Eight inches is 80% of ten inches.

Six and one-half inches is 76% of eight and one-half inches.

Five inches is 71% of seven inches.

Sandy King

rfesk

19-Dec-2007, 20:31

And if you crop a little on the edges, as is usual, the proportion of width to length decreases slightly more. 4.75/6.75 = .704

aduncanson

21-Dec-2007, 16:35

I use 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 cameras but 5x7 is my favorite pretty much for the reasons given above; good size for contact prints, pleasing aspect ratio, easier composing on the larger ground glass, compatibility with lenses acquired for 4x5 and (much) lighter than my (Calumet C1) 8x10. Within reason, I suspect that bigger simply is better. If I had a more transportable 8x10, it might be my favorite but I often find it awfully square. Not to say that there are not some subjects that work perfectly in a square, I just find that they are not very frequent.

Years ago a friend advocated a 6x6 camera, while I was contemplating buying a 6x7. He finally influenced me when he pointed out from his experience that there is no way to contact print a roll of 10 6x7 negs on an 8x10 sheet of paper. (Why don't we hear that very practical consideration more often?) So I perversely decided to buy the Fuji GW690 6x9 range finder camera instead. I have loved it and the results are great, but I decided to acquire an old Rollei TLR just so that I could experience composing on the ground glass in medium format as I do in large format.

I have not been as happy as I expected. It may be the limitations of the old Rollei's focusing screen & finder, but I think that some of it is that the square format does not help me to "see" the composition. Instead I find myself just trying to get the subject mapped onto the film and leave the final composition for later. 6x6 shooters often say exactly this as an argument in favor of their format, but while of course I crop in printing, I prefer to study the composition in the making of the negative.

I also wonder if years spent using the 35mm format did not form my preferences.

audioexcels

22-Dec-2007, 07:07

I have used 5X7, 6.5X 8.5 and 8X10. To my eye 6.5X8.5 is more similar to 8X10 than to 5X7, and the mathematics of the aspect ratio agrees.

Eight inches is 80% of ten inches.

Six and one-half inches is 76% of eight and one-half inches.

Five inches is 71% of seven inches.

Sandy King

Sandy and others:

Are you strictly using 5X7 or do you shoot with a 4X5 reduction back? Also, if you are shooting exclusively with 5X7, is it b/w or a mix of both b/w and color? Last thing...When you are viewing a contact print of a 5X7 vs. Whole Plate vs. 8X10 and larger sizes, what is it about the 5X7 that looks nicer to you?

Maybe one other last thing dealing with "resolution"...say we take a 5X7 and whole plate or 8X10 image and we make a 30X40 from each. Is there a difference between one or the other?

sanking

22-Dec-2007, 11:10

Sandy and others:

Are you strictly using 5X7 or do you shoot with a 4X5 reduction back? Also, if you are shooting exclusively with 5X7, is it b/w or a mix of both b/w and color? Last thing...When you are viewing a contact print of a 5X7 vs. Whole Plate vs. 8X10 and larger sizes, what is it about the 5X7 that looks nicer to you?

Maybe one other last thing dealing with "resolution"...say we take a 5X7 and whole plate or 8X10 image and we make a 30X40 from each. Is there a difference between one or the other?

I have 4X5 reducing backs for my 5X7 cameras but never use them except to test film. Basically I prefer the slightly wider aspect ratio of the 5X7 compared to 4X5. Of course,you can crop to whatever aspect you like but it is best not to if you can avoid it.

If the issue is image quality in terms of resolution, if all other things are equal a 32X40" print from a 4X5 negative should have the same image quality as a 40X56" print from a 5X7" negative (or a 16X20" from 4X5 should have the same quality as as 20X28" from 5X7).

However, my preference for the 5X7 is similar to what others have said.

1. Nice and light for travel by air.
2. Image large enough to contact print.
3. Wide variety of lenses available.
4. Quite a number of emulsions in B&W and color available without special order or cutting down from larger size.
5. Nice large image on the ground glass.

However, if reducing weight and size to a minimum is a major consideration a good case could be made for a light weight 4X5 with ready load film as the best overall travel camera.

Sandy King

Nick_3536

22-Dec-2007, 11:14

audioexcels

22-Dec-2007, 11:35

I've got an idea. Wonder how well it would work but it's cheap.

Take three pieces of matt board. Cut a 5x7 window in the first. A WP in the second and an 8x10 in the third. Walk around with each. How often do you see a full frame photo with each?

I think you could the same thing using a large print. Would need to be at least 11x14. Move the windows around over the print and "see"

I'm going to do this today. One thing that concerns me just a tad is how a 5X7 stands up to a whole plate or 8X10 when scanning on a cheap flatbed (i.e. Epson)? In other words, would one see the differences in say a 13X19 print from an Epson based scan of the 5X7 vs. the Whole plate or 8X10.

Lightwieght wise, I think my Arca F-Line Classic rail and function carriers totally kill that concept. I planned to take them over to a postal scale and see what it all weighs. I'd "really" like this outfit on my Arca which is why I have been going back and forth too many times about the format of choice.

One thing I have seen is the Chamonix 5X8. I wonder if I can get a spring back and holders from them, though I would have to cut film just to have that extra 1"...I'd still likely cut 5X7 film just because I have found it much cheaper to find good deals on 8X10 sheet film which would be a pain to cut, but save sometimes even 3X what I would have spent on 5X7 film.

I've got a cheap WP I can use so I could just shoot with it as a fun camera and do my more critical work with 5X7 and a proper digital flow, focusing mostly on finding a high end flatbed at a cheap price. Jobo does my developing (thanks Jobo!)

I'm not sure why I wouldn't want to have 4X5 in the equation as well, though, since having a reduction back out in the field wouldn't be that much more weight consumption and allow me to fire off more film since it is much cheaper with 4X5.

I suppose it's a little bit of an excuse to use up all this film I have around!:)

Thanks everyone!

audioexcels

22-Dec-2007, 11:37

I forgot to say that having 5X7 or larger along with a 4X5 reducer is useful due to the longer bellows extension on the 5X7=less flare=can shoot with the cheaper single coated glass.

sanking

22-Dec-2007, 12:04

I've got a cheap WP I can use so I could just shoot with it as a fun camera and do my more critical work with 5X7 and a proper digital flow, focusing mostly on finding a high end flatbed at a cheap price. Jobo does my developing (thanks Jobo!)

Unless you plan to make prints larger than 20X28" from 5X7 negatives I believe you can get more than enough quality from an Epson V700 or V750, possibly even with an older 4990.

Sandy

audioexcels

22-Dec-2007, 12:52

Unless you plan to make prints larger than 20X28" from 5X7 negatives I believe you can get more than enough quality from an Epson V700 or V750, possibly even with an older 4990.

Sandy

I'm thinking most of my prints will be maximum 13X19" that the con/prosumer market printers such as the Epson/HP/Canon can do. IF there's potential candidates that I want to hang on the wall, I'll have the slide sent to you;), or likely Ted. I think with the minor differences in price with the 4990-V700/750, I should just pick up a V700/V750. I may consider the Microtek if it proves better than the Epsons, though I always have my eyes out for a scanner like yours or similar/better that comes with a warranty of some sort and all necessary items.

Thanks Sandy for the input. Just so you know, I'm extremely discerning when it comes to image quality which is why I was figuring the max size of the printer for doing most of my prints, with something like 10X14 or thereabouts being a more typical size.

Now to piece together this Arca and get things on the ball!

jnantz

22-Dec-2007, 13:21

became a fan of 5x7 mainly because i worked for a portrait photographer
and that was all she shot - 5x7 and split 5x7. i would process all of her film
and print it after it was retouched --- portraits looked so nice in that rectangle.
later i bought a 4x5 camera until i found a 5x7 camera
and while i don't use it all the time, it is my favorite format.

everything (not just portraits ) looks nice in 5x7 ...

Kuzano

23-Dec-2007, 05:07

Just to belong to the "Mine is bigger than Yours gang!" We just have to pick our colors now.

prado333

24-Dec-2007, 10:06

audioexcels

27-Dec-2007, 03:29

i used a walker xl 5x7 and after 200 sheets never feel comfortable with this format , i prefer 8x10 a lot .the big trouble with 8x10 is not the weight , is the money, you know there is a phillips explorer that is lighter than a technika , you have two arca swiss that are the same weight than a canham 8x10 . the big trouble with 8x10 is the price 10 sheets cost 74-84usd + develop + contact sheet. if you want to proccess yourself you need the top or jobo line and the top of enlarger and the color print proccess machine . you need much more space(more money) lab. now i´m thinking seriously to go down to 4x5 for this reasons. I think the 5x7 qualities are the backdraws quasi a 8x10 film in the quasi space and cost of 4x5, but is not lighter and cheap as 4x5 and is not as quality , pleasure view of an 8x10 sheet.

Have you considered using expired film to reduce the cost to $1-$2 a sheet? I've purchased Astia/Velvia/etc. from 2006, 8X10 film, at $2ish a sheet.

What about the 5X7 format has left you feeling uncomfortable or feeling more for the 8X10 format? Curious because maybe something in between like 6X8 or 6.5X8.5 would suit you better?

Thanks to Sandy and everyone else including you Prado for your great wealth of information. That 72XL still sits in my room waiting for maybe a 5X8 back;).