4x5 vs 5x7

[dazedgonebye]

I probably won't do either one for some time...but I'm thinking of going large format and I'm curious about the difference in logistical challenges and general convenience between 4x5 and 5x7.

I'm currently shooting 35mm and medium format. I don't generally enlarge enoug to justify going to large format, but I came across some contact prints in 5x7 not long ago that have me suddenly thinking there really is a reason for me to go large.
I haven't seen 4x5 contact prints, so I can't be certain...but even the 5x7s seemed on the edge of small to be effective as contact prints. So I'm assuming 4x5 may be too small.

Of course I know that the gear is proportionaly larger and more expensive...I'm just wondering how much more inconvenient it all is.

Thanks

[Ben Syverson]

To me, 5x7 has always seemed like a format that is neither here nor there... If you're going to carry a 5x7 camera, you may as well add another pound or two and shoot 8x10.

But that's just me...

[David A. Goldfarb]

Many 4x5" cameras are really 5x7" cameras with 4x5" backs, so they're not necessarily larger. 4x5" equipment, though, is much more widely available, and you have more film choices. 5x7" makes a nicer sized contact print, and would be a better choice if you want to scan with a flatbed scanner. If you're going to enlarge conventionally, 4x5" enlargers are much more ubiquitous and cheap.

[D. Bryant]

I probably won't do either one for some time...but I'm thinking of going large format and I'm curious about the difference in logistical challenges and general convenience between 4x5 and 5x7.

I'm currently shooting 35mm and medium format. I don't generally enlarge enoug to justify going to large format, but I came across some contact prints in 5x7 not long ago that have me suddenly thinking there really is a reason for me to go large.
I haven't seen 4x5 contact prints, so I can't be certain...but even the 5x7s seemed on the edge of small to be effective as contact prints. So I'm assuming 4x5 may be too small.

Of course I know that the gear is proportionaly larger and more expensive...I'm just wondering how much more inconvenient it all is.

Thanks
IMO, 5x7 is a great format and I find the aspect ratio very pleasing. It's not that much more difficult than 4x5 but is more bulky but nearly as much as hauling and feeding 8x10 gear. The image quality is noticebly better than 4x5, though 4x5 can produce great results too.

The Chamonix 5x8 is an interesting format as well.

Don Bryant

[Walter Calahan]

It just doesn't matter.

Use what matches your photographic vision.

[Robert Fisher]

dazed, I recently began shooting 5x7 having already been down the 45 and 810 route.

IMO, 57 is soooooooo much more appealing to the eye and mind after being conditioned from a lifetime of the 35mm aspect ratio

i totally disagree with the size/weight comparison with 810 - but that is my opinion

[john collins]

As has been pointed out in this thread, choose a format that has an aspect ratio that appeals to you. I recently got a Chamonix 5x8 for just that reason. The weight and bulk can be considerations, but the first step is establishing which aspect ratio best fits your vision and making other decisions (weight, bulk, cost...) according to your circumstances. You may well find that the inconvenience of a larger format is offset by the satisfaction of your experience.

[Bruce Barlow]

5x7 contact prints are delicious. 4x5 contact prints are jewels. If you have only one format to do, however, I'd go 5x7.

[Robert Fisher]

dazed, holders (lack of) have been a magor issue until recently - Calumet is now selling brand new ones - 57 holders are dramatically smaller than 810

[John Kasaian]

I like the more rectangular format for landscapes and portraits---IMHO 5x7 has the same feeling as 11x14 but is far more affordable to shoot. Many of the old 4x5 woodies like the Agfa Ansco, and B&J are actually dual format 4x5/5x7 so all you might need is a 5x7 back and holders! :)

[Brian Ellis]

I bought a 5x7 camera after a few years of using 4x5, thinking I'd be happy making 5x7 contact prints. I was wrong. While I like the aspect ratio, and 5x7 prints worked with a few subjects, for the most part I thought my photographs needed to be printed larger. So I sold the 5x7 stuff and haven't been tempted to go back. Just my own situation of course.

[dazedgonebye]

Allways so much passion on these topics.

I obviously have a great deal of reading/thinking to do. At this point, I'm not even sure I'd be going with a full view camera instead of something like a fotoman.

I will say that aspect ratio may be a challenge for me. I like 3x2 quite a bit, being happiest with 35mm film and 6x9 in medium format. On the other hand, that has often caused me problems when it comes to framing work.

[Ken Lee]

5x7 lets you make fairly large prints with nothing fancier than an affordable consumer-grade scanner, or via modest optical enlargement.

[timbo10ca]

I got into LF with 5x7 and I love it- good size to backpack, etc, good for contacts and gear/film is not much more or the same price as for 4x5. I also like the aspect, having known only 35mm until soon before going to LF. I definitely don't think 4x5 contacts are large enough (for me, anyway) so I started with 5x7. I always thought I'd get an 8x10 eventually, but maybe I'll just get a 5x7 enlarger instead..... That doesn't solve the desire to contact print 8x10 though, which will probably always be an itch I'll wanna scratch. Pricewise, the jump from 4x5 to 5x7 seems much less than 5x7 to 8x10 (from camera to glass to film to tripod to filmholders, etc etc). There are many solutions- it just depends on your goals. But believe me, GAS never stops.......

Tim

[Jim Noel]

I have both, along with a few other formats. My 4x5 and 8x10 rarely get used in comparison to the 5x7's which are in use frequently. The 57 format is truly vertical when vertical, and truly a horizontal when in that position, while the 4x5, 8x10 format is almost square.

[audioexcels]

I bought a 5x7 camera after a few years of using 4x5, thinking I'd be happy making 5x7 contact prints. I was wrong. While I like the aspect ratio, and 5x7 prints worked with a few subjects, for the most part I thought my photographs needed to be printed larger. So I sold the 5x7 stuff and haven't been tempted to go back. Just my own situation of course.

Brian,

You shoot 8X10 primarily?

[robert fallis]

I use half plate, which is just a fraction smaller than 5x7, between 10mm to 5mm, the resulting contact print has a nice black border without resorting to photoshop ( GIMP in my case)

bob

[Clay Turtle]

I started with a 4x5 & recently upgraded to the 5x7. I wanted to be able to use both as 4x5 film has greater film selection so I built an adapter to reduce to the 4x5 format. Eh, works ok but I still have the option to use a 4x5 back . . . the trouble being every time I shoot using the adapter I look at how much film area 5x7 that is not covered the 4x5. When you see about a 1/3 of the gg being blanked out by the adapter:( so using a separate back keeps me from :eek: freaking out.
Recently did some 4x5 (b&w) contact prints on 5x7 paper . . . I really need to get some more holders & b&w film in the 5x7 format!

[Frank Bagbey]

For landscape, no doubt in my mind 5x7 is the way to go. Maybe for portraits, too.
4x5 is wonderful so 5x7 (almost double in size) can only be twice as good. Many old time photographers used 5x7 for portraiture, doing retouching right on the negative before making great contact prints.

[burnesingman]

Many 4x5" cameras are really 5x7" cameras with 4x5" backs, so they're not necessarily larger. 4x5" equipment, though, is much more widely available, and you have more film choices. 5x7" makes a nicer sized contact print, and would be a better choice if you want to scan with a flatbed scanner. If you're going to enlarge conventionally, 4x5" enlargers are much more ubiquitous and cheap.

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

[djdister]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

Process 5x7 sheets in 8x10 trays. I can shuffle process 4 - 5 sheets at a time.

[Joseph Kashi]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

Look for one of the BW King inversion 5x7 tanks on the web. These are basically like a jumbo 120 reel and stainless steel tank, holding 6 sheets per reel/tank for each development cycle. They work well and in the traditional 35mm/120 stainless steel tank fashion. These were available new until very recently. They work very well and are light-tight, so you develop in room light once loaded, just like a 120 SS tank.

[John Kasaian]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

I've used 8x10 trays, Unicolor print tubes, and a stainless steel tank made for developing 120 film that accommodates multiple reels.

[Nitesail]

I use a Stearman. It’ll do two 5x7’s at once.

[John Layton]

I currently use two methods for 5x7 - one is to simply batch process six per run in trays (shuffle method), the other is to have six 5x7 trays, each with 10 oz developer, in two rows of three placed into a 20x24 tray for the developing step only...meaning that the films will go into the presoak as a batch, then get placed individually in those small trays for processing (rocking the 20x24 tray to agitate), then transferred to a single (8x10) tray once again for three water washes then into the fix...and finally six trays of clean water for batch washing at four minutes per wash tray...then photo-flo then hang to dry in a drying cabinet.

The technique of employing those small trays for the developer step allows more precise control of agitation, and emulates "single negative in a tray" processing - which Gordon Hutchings inspired, both in his "Book of Pyro," and in direct conversation with him many years ago. The irony here of course is that this "multi-single-tray" setup, while great for Pyrocat, is actually somewhat risky for PMK Pyro, as the time it takes me to distribute each negative (face up) into the single developing trays delays the start of the initial agitation cycle by about thirty seconds (but I'm getting faster!). PMK likes to start this (very important) initial agitation cycle as soon as possible - while Pyrocat allows for a bit more leniency here.

Of course what is needed here is an automatic tray rocker - a device which actually exists (and which I've seen up close in action) and is really quite elegant.

[Mark J]

This is what I use for 2 sheets of 5x7" . Based on a thread on FADU forum. These are plastic bolts epoxied into an 8x10 tray. I haven't felt the need yet to go to a bigger tray for 4 sheets, since I'm only so far shooting 2 to 4 sheets in a session. Probably will do in the future.
It's very convenient, and suitable for Pyro developers because you can operate it with kitchen gloves. I haven't seen flow marks from the pegs - probably because the film can move around a little bit on each side.

https://i.ibb.co/BZjMWHq/IMG-9013.jpg (https://ibb.co/vPmnyCZ)

[ic-racer]

It all depends on your intended print size. I make pretty big magnification enlargements of my Minox negatives and they come out to be about 4" x 5" in dimension and still have good quality.

So, in my hands, I can use just about any camera to make a good 4x5" print; carrying around a view camera to do that seems a little crazy to me.

In terms of making bigger prints, this is how I'd generalize it for many USA homes:

4x5" enlarger can sit on a bench
5x7" enlarger can stand on the floor
8x10" vertical enlarger won't fit many homes without either modifications to the enlarger or the ceiling or a compromise in maximum image size.

I have very high ceiling in my darkroom, but the 3" I lose in maximum enlarger height is about the difference between a 30" print and a 40" print with a 300mm lens. Of course there are ways around this.

I'd call 5x7" the ideal in between format. I know people that have converted 5x7 enlargers to 8x10, but I usually ask 'why?' 5x7 stands up very well on its own when enlarged. The film holders, camera and lenses are all smaller and easier to carry in the field. 210mm enlarging lenses can be hard to find, but 210mm taking lenses are a dime a dozen.

[Daniel Unkefer]

This is what I use for 2 sheets of 5x7" . Based on a thread on FADU forum. These are plastic bolts epoxied into an 8x10 tray. I haven't felt the need yet to go to a bigger tray for 4 sheets, since I'm only so far shooting 2 to 4 sheets in a session. Probably will do in the future.
It's very convenient, and suitable for Pyro developers because you can operate it with kitchen gloves. I haven't seen flow marks from the pegs - probably because the film can move around a little bit on each side.

https://i.ibb.co/BZjMWHq/IMG-9013.jpg (https://ibb.co/vPmnyCZ)

That's clever! I think I will make myself one of those :) I use Unicolor 8x10 Print Drums, which I would NOT recommend with PMK+. Does work good with D23. I think 5x7 and 13x18 contact prints can be jewel-like. 13x18 looks good with black border on 8x10 paper.

[Mark J]

Credit goes to Alan Clark in the UK. I have not tried the idea of the wooden cover for 'lights on' use, that's also clever.
http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1883

[MAubrey]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?
My 5x7 camera is DIY adapted from 4x5 Bender kit camera. It's great.

[Vaughn]

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?

I used a version of John's second method above, but for several years have been using Jobo Expert Drums (3006 and 3005) on a motor base. for my 5x7s (also 4x5 & 8x10). Quite nice. The drums have been worth the investment.

[campy]

This is what I use for 2 sheets of 5x7" . Based on a thread on FADU forum. These are plastic bolts epoxied into an 8x10 tray. I haven't felt the need yet to go to a bigger tray for 4 sheets, since I'm only so far shooting 2 to 4 sheets in a session. Probably will do in the future.
It's very convenient, and suitable for Pyro developers because you can operate it with kitchen gloves. I haven't seen flow marks from the pegs - probably because the film can move around a little bit on each side.

https://i.ibb.co/BZjMWHq/IMG-9013.jpg (https://ibb.co/vPmnyCZ)

This would be great for putting in a changing tent square type and using cinestill df96.

[Mark J]

Sounds like fun !
It works for my PMK-based system because the developer is one-shot ; then I use half-strength stop bath which is also discarded ; then the lights can go on when the fixer is in there, and this can be poured back into its bottle. So you just need to be next to the sink. Washing is also in the same dish.

[Kino]

I used a version of John's second method above, but for several years have been using Jobo Expert Drums (3006 and 3005) on a motor base. for my 5x7s (also 4x5 & 8x10). Quite nice. The drums have been worth the investment.

I have only processed a few batches of 5x7 in the Jobo 3006, but I can confirm it is a joy to use. Yes, they are breathtakingly expensive new, but look around enough and you'll find one used for a reasonable discount.

Just the piece of mind and ease of use have put my purchase anxiety to rest! With the price of sheet film today, it doesn't take long to appreciate the savings you eventually enjoy from spoiled sheets; at least for myself.

[Vaughan]

I use a JOBO 2552 tank (actually a Chinese copy made by Poilot) and a Poilot reel, which is similar to reels made by Catlabs and others. The reel holds six sheets, can be fiddly to load (they all are, the larger the sheets the harder they are to load) and have given good even results.

The shafts are interchangeable and the reels can be used for 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10. I shortened an 8x10 shaft to work with whole plate film. I imagine that a 4x5 shaft could be shortened to work with smaller cut sheets too.