Why was 8x10 the standard for portraits?

[r.e.]

Karsh, Newman, etc., etc.

OK, not Strand, only sometimes Avedon, but still, a lot of photographers keyed on 8x10 for portraits, by which I mean not just head and shoulders but up to environmental.

Why?

They weren't generally making huge prints (Avedon, when he used 8x10, being a notable exception).

The lenses, if they were working in the 360mm range, made it more difficult to manipulate apparent depth of field.

Was it a matter of the quality of emulsions?

A knee-jerk bigger is better?

Something to do with the printing process, whether as photographs or pre-press?

Something else?

[wfwhitaker]

8x10 negatives are easier to retouch.

[Frank Petronio]

Professional photographers shot a lot of stuff 8x10. Even in the early 80s when I was an assistant, some of the older guys would shoot 8x10 product shots and REDUCE size for reproduction.

I'm sure in Avedon's case it was a conscious decision to use 8x10. But for a lot of shooters earlier than Avedon, it was probably just "normal".

But in the late 70s-80s, as color became more reliable, there was a large trend amongst the MFA art crowd to use large format, first for landscapes and then people. Nicholas Nixon's 8x10 cityscapes came first, then his intimate family photos....

Also a lot of photographers used large cameras without even mentioning it -- we are more attune to that now but at the time it was unusual to just hand in a good print....

[Henry Ambrose]

Because that is what it took to get great quality.
And it was what they had.
And they were making real prints in real darkrooms.
The big negatives made better prints easier.
Retouching, also.

[Bruce Watson]

8x10 negatives are easier to retouch.

+1. Exactly. Hollywood glamor portraits were all about retouching. Prior to that they were generally making contact prints. At least in the years prior to, say, the late 1800s. And 10x8 makes an excellent size print.

As time went forward, lens design and in particular lens manufacturing improved. Emulsions improved. We went from coating our own plates in the field (e. g. wet plate collodion) to dry plates, to film. As the image quality got better, the captured image got smaller. Because that's what the people buying the equipment and film wanted. Photo journalists in particular.

Some times we think improvements aren't. Sometimes we think they are. But that's generally what happened.

[BetterSense]

I always figured it was just for that big, easy-to-see ground glass. Squinting at a 4x5 ground glass with a loupe is something I don't mind doing in the field, but if I was working in the studio it would get old fast.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

Because it works well.

Because 11X14 cost 4 times 8X10.

Because 4X5 is too small and 5X7 seemed amateur.

Because all the lens companies made really GREAT 8X10 lenses.

Ect, ect, ect.

[neil poulsen]

I know from a friend who was a Hollywood photographer during 40's, 50's and 60's that 8x10 was the standard, because they could knock off so many more contact versus enlarged prints in the same period of time.

In particular, this was true for photographs used to advertise movies all over the country.

[Mark Sawyer]

And because the standard head-shot was an "8x10 glossy".

[Jim Galli]

Because every back woods studio in America had one of these.


http://tonopahpictures.0catch.com/AnEquipmentTourDeForce.jpg

The bigger one, not so much, but the 8X10 with stand is common.

[W K Longcor]

The studio I worked in in the early 1960's used 5x7 as the standard format for head & shoulders portraits. 8x10 was used for full lengths and always for full bridal portaits ( max detail in "THE DRESS"). 4x5 was for ID and passport photos. (On passports - cost $3.00 -- we shot one sheet and our only promise was that your eyes were open and you were in focus).The reasons for the selection were all of the ones mentioned by everyone else. 98% of these photos were in b&w. Some color ( the very early - unmasked neg. - Agfa color) was shot on the 5x7. In color you had to buy at least a 16x20 print to get us to even bother with the very difficult process. By 1970, when serious color was done -- we had 120 roll film adaptors on ALL cameras ( including the 8x10.)

[Bill_1856]

Excellent question. Thanks for asking it.

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah I worked for a (loser) son of a early photographer and he just did crappy little jobs, half a dozen a day for peanuts undercutting everyone else in town. He never upgraded and just milked the business - the most recent gear was from the 50s and this was in 1984. He had a 120 Graflex back - knob wind of course - on a rickety old 8x10 Deardorff. At least Dad bought good gear, this guy was such a joke.

When he shot product shots on 8x10 he was so lazy he would only fill the frame maybe 25% with the object, it would only be 2-3 inches tall on the 8x10 film. But the clients were crappy too so they didn't know any better and nothing really mattered.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I blame Kodak for the reduction in format. If only they didn't keep making smaller, faster, finer and cheaper films!

[Brian Ellis]

One reason that I don't think has been mentioned (though Jim Galli alluded to it) is that they used 8x10 because that was what they had, left over from the days when contact printing was the norm and few serious photographers used those little miniature (i.e. 4x5) cameras.

[Bruce Watson]

One reason that I don't think has been mentioned (though Jim Galli alluded to it) is that they used 8x10 because that was what they had, left over from the days when contact printing was the norm and few serious photographers used those little miniature (i.e. 4x5) cameras.

Yup. That too: "We've always done it this way."

[Drew Wiley]

It's already been said, but retouching is SOOO much easier, especially with a traditional film which has a bit of "tooth" or retouching surface. Often all you need
is a soft ordinary pencil. Add a little red dye to your kit and you can throw away
your Photoshop.

[jnantz]

The studio I worked in in the early 1960's used 5x7 as the standard format for head & shoulders portraits. 8x10 was used for full lengths and always for full bridal portaits ( max detail in "THE DRESS"). 4x5 was for ID and passport photos. (On passports - cost $3.00 -- we shot one sheet and our only promise was that your eyes were open and you were in focus).The reasons for the selection were all of the ones mentioned by everyone else. 98% of these photos were in b&w. Some color ( the very early - unmasked neg. - Agfa color) was shot on the 5x7. In color you had to buy at least a 16x20 print to get us to even bother with the very difficult process. By 1970, when serious color was done -- we had 120 roll film adaptors on ALL cameras ( including the 8x10.)

me too but it was the 80s ...
she was trained in the 20s/30s ...
she used an 8x10 camera and a 5x7 reduction back
bread+butter was split 5x7 pr photos, and formals were whole sheets ...
she shot this way mainly so she could shoot a 14" lens and not be in her sitter's face.
the negs were retouched with lead ...
most things were 5x7s and 8x10s, and i printed 16x20 and larger from the full sheets ...

it is hard to believe there isn't 1 "formal" portrait photographer left where i live ( RI )
who shoots film, or even a sensor larger than a 35mm dslr ...
except for the random risd student and me ...

[Dirk Rösler]

it is hard to believe there isn't 1 "formal" portrait photographer left where i live ( RI )
who shoots film, or even a sensor larger than a 35mm dslr ...
except for the random risd student and me ...

Not only technology has changed, but also people's expectations towards photography. The standards for "good enough" are very low now. Most people are delighted with cheap prints that look pretty crappy. Home-made digital prints have lowered the bar even more. The stuff that comes out of people's consumer level printers, shiny, smeared, yellow skin, pixelated, fading it's pretty bad. A studio which excessively over-delivers would shoot itself in the foot. And it's not just in photography.

[cjbroadbent]

The 8x10 contact-print workflow was as easy as pie. As Will said, negative retouching was an essential part of the workflow.
8x10 prints were perfect for framing and even for process printing - in fact the photolithography process was standardised around the format.
A harder question to answer is 'why 8x10 colour transparencies?'. The simple answer is because it helped tell the men from the boys. But again, it was the photolith houses who just found it easier and cheaper (they could use apprentice labour) to make contrast masks and separations from 8x10. They put pressure on their clients (ad agency or editorial production managers) to insist on 8x10.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes indeed Christopher - and that is why I stronly prefer 8x10 for color even now -
because it is so very cooperative for masking and color separations, even compared to
4x5, plus the greater detail and enlargement capability. If I have to print a 4x5 to
30x40, I first make a precision enlarged 8x10 dupe.

[BetterSense]

Do you accomplish the dupe by direct reversal or by making 2 internegatives? What kind of film do you use?

[Drew Wiley]

A color dupe is positive to positive. I will contact print (or sometimes enlarge) an appropriately masked chrome to an E-6 duplicating sheet film. Both Kodak and Fuji make dupe films, although appropriately color-balanced, I find that Astia 100F is actually better for this than the official duplicating fims. Fuji dupe film is simply tungsten-balanced old-style Astia. This is obviously different from an interneg. Fuji still offers an interneg sheet film, but again, I prefer the result of simply contact printing ordinary Portra sheet film and balancing it for interneg use - seems to work
well except for Velvia originals, which can get a bit off for critical use. This might just
be a problem of being far more experienced with dupes than internegs, because when
I print RA4 papers, I almost always print direct from a Portra neg. The chrome dupes,
however, are intended for Cibachromes, and actually print better than a masked original. With dye transfer, b&w separation negs are made, though I am only a beginner
at that process, still working with contact prints.

[Mark Sawyer]

Out of curiousity, does Playboy still photograph all its centerfolds with an 8x10?

[cowanw]

I scanned through Professional Portrait Lighting and of the professional photographers in that book (1947), there were
11x14 - 2
8x10 - 20
5x7 - 51
4x5 - 7
Medium format - 4
35mm - 1
There was mention that WW2 caused film shortages that may have forced a move to 5x7 from 8x10 and many of the professionals just stayed with that. Cheaper, I expect.
Anyways, based of the professional photographers of the Photographers Assn of America, 8x10 was not the standard at that time.
And no, Playboy has gone digital about 4 years ago.
Regards
Bill

[Tin Can]

My last ever wife, RIP, occasionally retouched 8X10 Playboy films in early 90’s, by courier.



I scanned through Professional Portrait Lighting and of the professional photographers in that book (1947), there were
11x14 - 2
8x10 - 20
5x7 - 51
4x5 - 7
Medium format - 4
35mm - 1
There was mention that WW2 caused film shortages that may have forced a move to 5x7 from 8x10 and many of the professionals just stayed with that. Cheaper, I expect.
Anyways, based of the professional photographers of the Photographers Assn of America, 8x10 was not the standard at that time.
And no, Playboy has gone digital about 4 years ago.
Regards
Bill

[neil poulsen]

It was a standard for photos of movie stars displayed at theaters, because they didn't need to be enlarged. By making contact prints, they could print one right after another in rapid time.

A friend who had been a Hollywood photographer related this to me, and I recalled seeing 8x10, black and white photos in theaters back in the 50's.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 Hollywood famed folks prints were very common. There was a restaurant in LA that used these 8x10 prints as a eatery theme.

Making that 8x10 film negative was just the beginning, the retouching department would "work over" these negatives until they met specific needs and requirements for mass distribution. Then these negatives were contact printed en-mass for distribution. These 8x10 images have become collectable in recent times.

Kinda reminds of a time long ago when Ansel Adams had a studio in Yosemite, sold... 8x10 prints there for not a lot of $.



Bernice





It was a standard for photos of movie stars displayed at theaters, because they didn't need to be enlarged. By making contact prints, they could print one right after another in rapid time.

A friend who had been a Hollywood photographer related this to me, and I remembered seeing 8x10, black and white photos in theaters back in the 50's.

[Bernice Loui]

Did not note this previously, interesting to note 5x7 was more used than 8x10 back in the day. Do remember a photographer friend from decades ago who is no longer with us sharing stories of using a 8x10 century studio camera with a 5x7 "split back". Think this was a twin 5x7 slider back on that 8x10, not sure. They were common and often used.


Bernice





I scanned through Professional Portrait Lighting and of the professional photographers in that book (1947), there were

8x10 - 20

5x7 - 51

4x5 - 7


There was mention that WW2 caused film shortages that may have forced a move to 5x7 from 8x10 and many of the professionals just stayed with that. Cheaper, I expect.
Anyways, based of the professional photographers of the Photographers Assn of America, 8x10 was not the standard at that time.

Regards
Bill

[Tin Can]

AKA 8X10 B&W Printed Headshots which every actor, politician and other comedian needed for audition handout and bought their own by the 100's.

Then they all needed a better one, different hair, hat, costume, so they made more all on paper.

HS yearbooks too.

The film size got smaller over decades, the print size remained 8X10 until Digi Prints and camera phones.

Now few print anything, we even sign legal papers with Digi. No paper used at all.

I suggest we all shoot 5X7, 8X10, 11X14, 14X17, 16X20 and 20X24 of any film and contact print, mounted with huge mats, in frame. Don't forget Panorama!

Carry on regardless

We are the:

The Charge of the Light Brigade (https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45319/the-charge-of-the-light-brigade)

Meaning we use light!

in our battle