PDA

View Full Version : beginner 8x10 advice



sgelb
3-Nov-2008, 08:36
Im planning on getting into shooting 8x10

plan to buy:

a Deardorff
360mm schneider symmar -s (people/portraits)
1 landscape lens (please open to all suggestions) (assume a 210mm is enough? if the image circle covers the 8x10?)


plan to shoot B+W and chromes.

can anyone reccomend a scanner for edits and web that does 8x10 properly (as much as a sub 1000$ scanner can).



Heard a lot of great things about this forum, so here I am ....

Ralph Barker
3-Nov-2008, 09:20
I use a 240mm f/9 Schneider G-Claron frequently as a slightly-wide lens for landscapes. For quite-wide, a Schneider 150mm Super Symmar XL. The 240mm G-Claron is small and light weight, the 150mm SSXL is large and heavy.

Tastes for portraiture vary widely. Some use a normal (300mm) lens for upper-body portraits, or even a wider lens for standing, full-body portraits. Having an f/5.6 lens for interior work is helpful for a brighter GG, but outdoors, an f/9 lens works OK on 8x10. My personal preference for portraiture more toward the head and shoulders composition is a longer lens - a 450mm Nikkor-M or a 16.5" Red Dot Artar. You might also consider a tele design for this purpose, to reduce the bellows draw at closer distances.

For general-purpose scanning, I use an Epson V-750. For "special" negatives, you might also consider having drum scans done by an outside service.

sgelb
3-Nov-2008, 09:25
thanks v much for your POV.. what about the deardorff? am I pointing in the right direction in terms of body? or should I be looking for something newer / lighter in terms of a body?

What about tripods? can I get away with a normal tripod or does it need to be more heavy duty?

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2008, 09:30
What Ralph said. One expense you will want to budget for is enough film holders -- I like to have at least ten -- so boxes of film can be loaded in their entirety. A changing tent, like the medium sized Harrision, is pretty nice when traveling or without a darkroom. And save enough for a good case, CLA of used lenses, lenshades, a loupe and darkcloth, and of course a heavy duty tripod and head.

If that adds up and you decide you only can afford one lens, a 300/5.6 will do almost everything.

Deardorffs are fine cameras, with any of these it more likely depends on the condition of the individual camera. In the same price range, the Kodak Master View 8x10 is an excellent camera as well, and maybe the Toyo metal field. You might get lucky and find a reasonably-priced used Canham or Chamonix for about the same money as a good Deardorff.

You can also save about 33-50% by getting a slightly more unwieldily studio monorail camera, like a Toyo G or a Sinar, which maybe offset because they are more straight forward to operate, have larger movements, and are system-wide expandable... once you get them on location. The nicest 8x10 monorail in your price range would be a used, older version of the Arca-Swiss -- light and compact yet capable of expansion and wide movements -- but those are very rare and their price is rising because they are so desirable.

I don't know what tripod you are thinking of, but in general you need a robust tripod, a Gitzo #3 is the lightest you might get away with unless you are a mad ultralight backpacker and go with an ultralight camera as well.

Walter Calahan
3-Nov-2008, 10:00
Epson V700 or V750.

I too prefer a 240 mm over a 210.

sgelb
3-Nov-2008, 10:04
thanks again..

yeah I guess a gitzo 3 will work.. what about a head?

frank.. are all those portraits on your site done with the 8x10 camera or the 4x5?

Jim Noel
3-Nov-2008, 10:04
I prefer a Microtek i900 scanner because of it capability of scanning negatives in a drawer below the flat bed. The negatives are scanned with transmitted rather than reflected light and thus a better scan, especially of highlight areas.

John Kasaian
3-Nov-2008, 10:10
Welcome! :)

I like Deardorffs, but there certainly are other excellent clamshell 8x10 cameras out there. As Frank mentioned, condition has a lot to do with whichever camera you choose. I think a 'dorff in good condition is an excellent tool.

The Symmar (I'm assuming your considering the "convertable" version) would be a fine lens. They are relatively big, heavy and in "converted" form benefits from a yellow filter. 360mm is also a perfectly acceptable landscape lens for 8x10 IMHO. A good lens. If you have the urge to go wider, then for the sake of economy I'd suggest a Wollensak 1a triple convertible which will give you 3 focal lengths in one lens. They are way undervalued and if you find a later model "wollcoated" version it should give good color rendition as well (I'm guessing here---I don't shoot color 8x10--perhaps someone who has used a Wollcoated lens with color film can chime in)

The 240 G Claron Ralph mentioned is also an excellent lens (well any G Claron save the WA's IMHO!) Tiny (for an 8x10 lens) and deadly sharp with plenty of wiggle room. It is one of my most used lenses. I've noticed the prices of these critters seems to be shooting up lately and while I won't recommend buying lenses "just because" if you find one for a good price you'll find that it is a true multi-tasker, even for portraits (if your sitter has smooth skin! These babies record a lot of detail!) As an added treat the filters from your Nikon slrs will likely fit.

Other impediments:
Tripod---Ries. Film holders---Kodak black woodies or Lisco plastics. All my opinions of course!

Bill_1856
3-Nov-2008, 10:13
I don't know what your previous photographic experience has been, but in addition to the equipment involved it is a different state of mind.
Large Format is expensive and demanding. Don't jump into 8x10 until you've tried it. Rent, beg, borrow, (or, even better, workshop) first.

sgelb
3-Nov-2008, 10:21
Symmar - gonna get the fixed version.

Will look into the 240G

what do I give up if I just keep it in 4x5 ?

Frank Petronio
3-Nov-2008, 10:36
8x10 and 4x5 are pretty "different" other than sharing the same basic operations... 8x10 is more forgiving because you probably won't be enlarging it as much as the same 4x5 shot. However gremlins happen more easily with 8x10 -- bigger cameras catch the wind, or the tripod moves, or the size/mass of the camera gets in the way somehow -- a heavy lens might pull the lensboard out of position unless you carefully tighten it, focus can creep, etc. So it requires better shooting technique to avoid problems.

All of the current gallery on my website is 4x5. The last two months of blog posts have been mostly digital with a few 8x10 shots, and some of my older work from 2005 was done with 8x10. I have yet to handhold 8x10 but given enough liquor anything is possible.

I find it hard to shoot both 4x5 and 8x10, better to go one way or the other. If you don't mind the extra weight and bulk, a bigger tripod is always better. When you watch the pro set-up for more elaborate 8x10 shots (like car shots in Death Valley from 10 years ago...) they almost always used big Gitzo #5s with sandbags for good measure. So just get the biggest you can manage ;-) Like a Gitzo 504 and their #5 low profile head -- rock solid.

Gitzo made a #3 low profile 3-way head that is a very nice match with a wooden flatbed camera and #3 tripod. Ries are also good matches for Deardorffs....

John O'Connell
3-Nov-2008, 10:48
Search the archives on 210mm lenses for 8x10---sounds like a great focal length but lensmakers have for the most part not agreed.

Lots of landscape photographers have used the 240-250mm length successfully; I heard of one famous guy with the initials A.A. who used a 10" Wide Field Ektar.

If you use 8x10 you give up easy optical enlargment; if you use 4x5 you give up standard-size contact prints.

MIke Sherck
3-Nov-2008, 12:22
Save money for film -- more money than you think. 8x10 B&W isn't cheap ($2 per sheet for eastern European film to over $4 per sheet for Kodak,) and chromes are more. Lots more. Do you have a good meter?

Mike

John Kasaian
3-Nov-2008, 12:48
The only concrete reason I see for shooting 8x10 is because I want to shoot
8x10!
Yes, bigger negatives, really nice contact prints & enlargements that demand to be called 'blow-ups' 'cause they are visually explosive :)
But practically speaking 4x5 gives impressive results too.

Joseph O'Neil
3-Nov-2008, 14:00
thanks again..

yeah I guess a gitzo 3 will work.. what about a head?


I find my Gitzo #3, which came with an old Gitzo #3 head works fine for 8x10 in my case, For new heads, cannot say, all my heads I use for 4x5 otherwise look waaaay to small & light to work

joe

erie patsellis
3-Nov-2008, 14:42
Save money for film -- more money than you think. 8x10 B&W isn't cheap ($2 per sheet for eastern European film to over $4 per sheet for Kodak,) and chromes are more. Lots more. Do you have a good meter?

Mike

Until you go through the 50 or so common mistakes, you may want to shoot lith film, it's cheap and readily available (and you may develop a preference for it as well). Jim Galli has a developer on his website that gives him good results.

John Kasaian
3-Nov-2008, 15:59
Symmar - gonna get the fixed version.

Will look into the 240G

what do I give up if I just keep it in 4x5 ?

A 360mm and a 240mm makes for a nice "spread" :)

Ralph Barker
3-Nov-2008, 16:26
Another couple of thoughts: regarding Deardorffs, watch the model number, in addition to condition. Not all models have all of the movements one would expect. Also, you're paying a premium for the name. When I bought my double-extension Tachihara for $1300 new, 'Dorffs in mediocre condition were going for $2K. If you look at the Tachi or other alternative brands, consider triple-extension bellows, if weight isn't an issue. That will give you more flexibility with longer lenses, but the trade-off may be bellows compression limitations with shorter lenses.

In practical terms, a 4x5 will actually handle most needs, other than 8x10 contact prints. ;) But, even with moderate enlargements, say 16x20, the enlargement factor from 8x10 is much smaller, meaning that the detail remains much richer. Plus, there's the joy of looking at that "big screen" under the darkcloth.

Brian Ellis
4-Nov-2008, 08:23
I've owned two Deardorffs, they're very nice cameras. With respect to Ralph's statement about model number, as you may already know the difference he's talking about is that some of the real old Deardorffs don't have front swing. Otherwise all 8x10 Deardorffs are basically identical in terms of design (except for the "military" version which takes square-cornered lens holders rather than the more common rounded corners). If you don't need front swing (all versions have back swing) you can save maybe $300 - $400 by buying the version without it. But most Deardorffs you'll see for sale will be the front swing version.

I respectfully disagree with a couple of statements made above. In my experience you will notice no difference all between enlarging a 4x5 negative 4x and an 8x10 negative 2x. When your enlargement factors are that small any difference in tonal gradation, "sharpness," etc. is just not big enough to be noticeable (at least not to me). I have several 16x20 prints made from the two formats and I'd defy anyone to tell which was made with which size negative.

Before I bought my first Deardorff I played around with a Tachihara double extension. It was a very nice camera but for me the bellows extension was too short on the double extension and the triple extension model was too heavy. $2000 for a "mediocre" Deardorff would be excessive unless prices have gone up recently. I paid $1800 for one in mint condition and $1500 for one in excellent but not mint condition.

Unless you often photograph in strong winds I don't think you need to use the heaviest tripod you can find. I don't agree that heavier is always better, even if you don't mind the weight. I've always gone in the other direction - use the lightest tripod that doesn't feel flimsy and that doesn't collapse under the weight of the camera. There's nothing worse than a tripod that's so heavy you leave it in the closet. And that's especially true IMHO with 8x10, where you're already carrying around a lot of weight even before you carry the tripod.

I fully agree with John's statement that the only reason to shoot 8x10 is because you want to. Unless you get into enlargements of maybe 30x40 or something like that I don't believe you'll see any significant technical difference between a well-made enlargement from the two formats. But 8x10 is a real joy to use, once you've gotten used to viewing and composing on that big ground glass 4x5 screens seem like miniatures.

Nobody has mentioned the G Claron 210 as a wide angle lens. I've used a couple of them and they are great little lenses, much lighter, xmaller, and less expensive than most 8x10 wide angles and as long as you stop down to f16 or smaller you'll have room for movements.

Good luck, every time I see an 8x10 field camera FS here I'm tempted to get back into the format.

ic-racer
4-Nov-2008, 08:39
I can tell my 4x5 enlargements from the 8x10 enlargements pretty easily. That's why I do 8x10. If I couldn't tell them apart, why bother with the larger format? 6x9cm and 4x5in are closer together, and harder to tell apart in my experience (aside from the different aspect ratio).

jon.oman
4-Nov-2008, 15:47
Until you go through the 50 or so common mistakes, you may want to shoot lith film, it's cheap and readily available (and you may develop a preference for it as well). Jim Galli has a developer on his website that gives him good results.

This sounds interesting. Question, what is the normal ISO for this type of film? Am I correct in assuming that it is less that 100 ISO?

Jon

John Kasaian
4-Nov-2008, 17:34
This sounds interesting. Question, what is the normal ISO for this type of film? Am I correct in assuming that it is less that 100 ISO?

Jon


Usually around iso 3 or 4. The expensive ortho stuff is a bit faster.

John Jarosz
4-Nov-2008, 18:02
Grain, sharpness and imagery aside, there is a huge difference between 4x5 & 8x10 in terms of your thought processes and outlook with respect to actually taking pictures. (of course, my opinion). 8x10 is much more contemplative than 4x5. (The argument could also be made that 4x5 requires more thought than 6x9 and so on down the smaller formats, but the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 is pretty significant)

I feel that because 8x10 is more physical work to execute, you will learn to visualize your images much quicker than with smaller formats. You'll become more efficient faster. 4x5 is very easy to expose 10-25 sheets an outing. It's cheaper, easier to process the negative, camerawork is easier to do in the field. You'll throw away more 4x5 negs than you ever will with 8x10.

I don't think there's an answer to the question "which is better?". The right question is more like: "How do you like to work?" or "What format helps you better to accomplish your goals?". So you really should try to experience both before you make a giant commitment.

I tried 8x10 in the 80's, but at that time I wasn't ready for it. Now it (and 8x20) are exactly what I need to accomplish my goals in non-silver printing.

Getting off the soapbox now.....

John

jon.oman
5-Nov-2008, 10:08
Usually around iso 3 or 4. The expensive ortho stuff is a bit faster.

Wow! What type of reciprocity would you have to compensate for? Or, is it an issue with this type of film? Are the exposure times used based on minutes, rather than seconds?

Jon

sgelb
5-Nov-2008, 12:07
Im going to stick to 4x5.. sniffle sniffle.. (and look for an 8x10 on the mega cheap)

John Kasaian
5-Nov-2008, 20:18
Awww c'mon...you know you want to... :cool:

Jim Ewins
5-Nov-2008, 22:24
I took a class from Paula Chamlee, who demonstrated how to use my 8x10 without a head on a Berlbach wood tripod. One just manipulates the legs to establish your horizon line.

G Benaim
6-Nov-2008, 11:47
The only drawbacks of 8x10 over other formats are weight of equipment and cost of film. Once you accept that, everything else is better about it, especially the results.

Joseph O'Neil
6-Nov-2008, 12:16
The only drawbacks of 8x10 over other formats are weight of equipment and cost of film. Once you accept that, everything else is better about it, especially the results.


On that topic, a question. I noticed that after 12 years of loading 4x5 film, I find that after loading 8x10 for the first time ever, that it is actually easier than loading a 4x5 film holder.

Or is it just me? :confused:

Don7x17
7-Nov-2008, 00:27
Sgleb...

Several things to think about
1) you don't mention whether you've been doing 4x5 or other "small" viewcamera work. There is a substantial learning curve from 4x5 to 8x10. Even steeper if you are going directly from 35mm or medicum format to 8x10. And although you don't say it, it would be a huge leap if you were moving from a digital point and shoot to 8x10!

Lenses are larger for 8x10 than 4x5, and that 150mm normal lens on 4x5 is now 300mm on 8x10. Depth of field didn't get any better from the 300mm you may have used on 35mm - its narrow, and the only partially redeeming factor is that the circle of confusion is larger for enlargements.
check out http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html -- try seeing what depth of field is for a 150mm on 4x5 at f22 (about the worst you can tolerate due to diffraction) vs 300mm on 8x10 at f22 (now raise it to f32 or f45 on 8x10 to get the equivelent depth of field.). So you're going to have to know your swings/tilts, and put up with a little slower exposure times (think wind in landscape..).

larger lenses means more weight, and also larger filters (glass) which is also more weight. Larger holders also, which is more weight.

Your tripod will have to be more substantial. Toss the center column and replace with a flat plate on top. Add a ballhead. If you keep a center column, never extend it to gain height.

2) Film cost and availability between 4x5 and 8x10 is substantially different. No one (not even the now discontinued Kodak ) makes readiloads for 8x10.

3) Loading 8x10 film is somewhat more difficult than the easy-to-load 4x5. Avoid the thought of imprinting your thumb print in 8x10 emulsion while loading - 4x5 is so easy to hold by the edges

4) developing and enlarging also got more difficult and expensive.

but on the other hand, 8x10 is a lot easier to view on ground glass. Not quite as large as ULF, but a heck of a lot more interesting on ground glass than 4x5.

Most of us went through 4x5 before going to 5x7 or 8x10. It was an easier learning process.

I salute you for thinking about going directly to 8x10. I'd like to encourage you to skip the 8x10 and move up to 12x20 or 20x24 instead ;-)

Anyway, 8x10 will be a fun experience! Just don't get discouraged while learning camera movements with a narrow depth of focus lens (longer).

Don