Isn't 4x5' too small?

[Vincent Malaud]

This question keep coming back! and the worst is that I only started recently shooting 4x5!! Well I am not completely new to sheet film as I started by shooting 3,25x4,25, a format that I really appreciate.
When I was shooting 3,25x4,25, I was always dreaming of 4x5, thinking that it would be bigger, better, nicer etc... but now that I have it, I wonder if for all the effort it takes to make a shot why shouldn't it be done on an 8x10 and enjoy all the benefits of the bigger format?

I see several advantages (for me at least) :
- larger neg, more info recorded, possibility to print large if desired or contact print
- better rendering of volumes and tones in general, good for architecture photography (what I do)
- slower operating mode, make me think more (never hurts;)
- 2 film holders in the backpack, 4 photos per session - good enough for me

One disadvantage that is keeping me away: price!! for everything!! 8x10 kit for my Arca Swiss camera, lenses, film holders, films... Well I can still work on my 4x5', get better and better so the day I ll take the plunge I ll be ready...

My thoughts..

[CarstenW]

What about weight? 8x10", all else being equal, should weigh 8x as much (2^3). Personally I speculate about 5x7 or 5x8, but 8x10 could not replace 4x5 for me. The weight and bulk just kill that idea.

[Kevin Crisp]

If you shop the kit well, you can move up to 5X7 with one of the lighter cameras and the weight and hassle of carrying it around doesn't increase much. With 8X10...not so much. I'm not knocking 8X10 even though I've decided after three ventures into it to stick to 5X7 and 4X10.

[Vincent Malaud]

I don't see weight as an issue really for me, I am still fit and I always shoot in already visited locations

[Chris Strobel]

I don't see weight as an issue really for me, I am still fit and I always shoot in already visited locations

Just stitch 4 4x5 frames and you'll have your 8x10 :D

[mrladewig]

There are other reasons for 4X5. If you shoot color there is a much greater variety of material available for the 4X5 format. Its a lighter kit (generally). Gear is less expensive. Less trouble with exposure times and moving stuff. Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminshing returns.

[Walter Calahan]

When I look at the ground glass of my 4x5 Arca-Swiss I feel like I'm looking through a viewfinder.

When I look at the ground glass of my 8x10 KB Canham (which weighs about the same at my 4x5 Arca) I feel like I'm looking through a window.

[BrianShaw]

Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminshing returns.

What more can I say?

[Ron Marshall]

I shoot both 4x5 and 5x7 and still am tempted by 8x10, but I don't print large enough to justify the weight or expense. Though I may go to 8x10 someday, but only a studio portrait setup. I really appreciate the size of the GG with 5x7 compared to 4x5, and the tonality appears smoother.

[dsphotog]

8x10 & 5x7 enlargers are not as common as 4x5.
I found the 8x10 Durst enlarger first, then had a good reason to buy the camera!

[Bruce Watson]

Aside from contact printing, I think there is a definite case of diminishing returns.

+1. Absolutely.

Also, for the same angle of view, 10x8 takes a lens that's twice as long. Then, for the same DOF, you have to go down 2 more stops. Which puts you in reciprocity failure way more often than I'd want. And limits your resolution to the diffraction limit of that stop.

Of course, all that is meaningless is what you really want, is 10x8. In that case, you'll find a way to make it work for you, so go for it. It's about more than just the techie details after all.

[Jeffrey Sipress]

Vincent,

You neglected to state why you photograph, why you shoot LF, and what you want to do with your images. Without the info, I can't give you any advice or answers.

[Vincent Malaud]

When I look at the ground glass of my 4x5 Arca-Swiss I feel like I'm looking through a viewfinder.

When I look at the ground glass of my 8x10 KB Canham (which weighs about the same at my 4x5 Arca) I feel like I'm looking through a window.

Well this is exactly what I m looking for, making the act of photographing an act of solemn communication with your subject and by this letting you feel your subject.

I am shooting architecture mostly 70s concrete buildings in suburbs and I feel sometimes that the 4x5 is not an enough tribute to the massive scale of those sites and buildings.

I understand the "diminishing returns" theory but still I won't let it keep me away from doing it, shooting 8X10.

[Michael Graves]

4x5 isn't too small. My Crown Graphic is the perfect miniature camera.

[Struan Gray]

4x5 isn't too small - I am. If I were to take the same photos on 8x10 that I take on 4x5 I would need to extend my arms by 50% or so. Either that, or perfect the camera Hokey-cokey.

[evan clarke]

You could get reducing backs for the 8x10...Evan Clarke

[Steven Barall]

There are many practical considerations. 4x5 is a compromise from 8x10 but 8x10 is a compromise from 11x14 or whatever so I guess you just have to find something that you can work with and stick with it and make the best of it. You always want to use the right tool for the job but you don't always have a back hoe available so once in a while you just have to grab a shovel and start digging.

[BradS]

Yes! 4x5 is too small. Once you look at the ground glass on an 8x10 you will see.

[David de Gruyl]

But carrying an 8x10 and associated holders and tripod is much more ... grueling than a 4x5. Especially when the 4x5 is light and the 8x10 is heavy. My 8x10 tripod HEAD weighs more than my 4x5 camera.

All that being said, I own both and use both. Sometimes you just want big negatives.

[Brian Ellis]

I loved 8x10, it was a great format. But I found that I saw things differently and made very different photographs with it than I did with 4x5. With 4x5 a 210mm lens was my normal lens and I seldom used my 80mm lens. I just didn't see "wide angle" when using 4x5. With 8x10 it was the opposite - I tended to see things much wider. A 210mm G Claron lens became my normal lens with a 159mm Wollensak also used much more often than the longer lenses I bought because I thought I'd "see" 8x10 the same way I saw 4x5. My 8x10 cameras had plenty of bellows extension so it wasn't a matter of mechanics, for some reason - possible the size of the screen - I just saw things differently with 8x10.

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.

[David Hedley]

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.

I couldn't agree more. Only you can decide, Vincent, if 8x10 is just right, or whether a different format works better, but it sounds as if you should give it a go. Then you can reconcile dreams to reality. Perhaps you're able to rent an 8x10 and related equipment for a few days, or alternatively buy a less expensive model that you may be able to sell for pretty much what you paid if it's not right for you?

[RK_LFteacher]

The 8x10 format does have some other benefits not mentioned. Composing is easier on an 8x10 as you are looking at a possibly finished size.(print) The Canham and IMHO, especially the ARCA, have such great screens, that just looking at the image on the glass
is an experience, not quite matched by smaller formats. Obviously, there is the weight and bulk issue, but that doesn't dissuade me from having a different and exciting experience seeing the beauty of the image on the glass and then capturing it on film.
Contact prints also have the abillity to hold a wider contrast range as they do not have the issue of light scattering on the surface of the print which enlarging does. You may gain control of as much as a zone and a half more.
Rod

[Steve M Hostetter]

Hello,,

I have shot 8x10 since 91 and one thing I've found is the bigger you go the more preparation involved. Remember, you can fit 4-4x5 images in an 8x10 and the normal lens is a 305mm or 12"
The key to safty is to know your limits physiclly or suffer some pretty harsh consequences. But how you gonna know without doing it..?
I guess I just won't try something w/ an 8x10 I wouldn't do with a 4x5 ,, besides most ppl that shoot with larger formats still use the 4x5 ,, as someone mentioned.

Some ppl say that they can see the image better with an 8x10 image staring back at them on the GG. I see there point but also want to note a darker image at that.."most of the time"

You can shoot way more film with a 4x5 which can be a big + sometimes! Ever been walkin out of the woods and notice something and say,, "dang I wish I'd save at least one film"!

I'd say stay with the 4x5 no matter what you decide,,, keep the 4x5 and spend some time with it even if you only use in studio

steve

PS.. ever hear, " your eye's were to big for your belly "?:D

[Daniel_Buck]

I enjoy 4x5 and 8x10. But usually I grab my 4x5 first, because it's easier to carry, and I can more easilly carry more film with me. I enjoy using the 8x10 better once I'm actually shooting, but it's not always as practical as a 4x5 is. For me and my print size, 4x5 is plenty enough. 8x10 is wonderful, but for me I can't sell my 4x5 equipment and just stick with 8x10. I would be doing alot less shooting if I did that.

[Eric Leppanen]

I am shooting architecture mostly 70s concrete buildings in suburbs and I feel sometimes that the 4x5 is not an enough tribute to the massive scale of those sites and buildings.I'm assuming that you are primarily shooting architectural exteriors, primarily medium to large buildings.

I enjoy shooting architectural exteriors with 8x10, but unless you are contact printing it is not the most practical of endeavors:

- Even after judicious use of movements, you will frequently find yourself shooting at f/64 to get the required depth of field. Stopping down this much significantly reduces the resolution advantage of 8x10 versus smaller formats. Also, you will also have to be constantly vigilant of potential reciprocity issues due to slow shutter speeds.
- I find myself mostly using three focal lengths in 8x10: moderate wide (200-210mm), normal (300mm) and moderately long (450mm). Because exterior architecture requires lots of lens coverage (lots of front rise), coverage for all of these lenses must be generous, which severely limits lens choices. The Nikon 450M is relatively small and light and has excellent coverage, so I find it to be an excellent and practical 8x10 architecture lens. However, the wider focal lengths can prove more troublesome. If you don't need to focus in low light, then perhaps something like a 210mm f/9 Computar (very rare), 240mm f/9 G-Claron (common), 240mm f/9 Germinar W (somewhat rare), 300mm f/9 Fuji A (somewhat rare), and 305 and/or 355mm G-Claron (common) could do the trick. But if you like to do alpenglow or very early morning/early evening shots like I do, a lens with a wider maximum aperture is preferable (for brighter focusing). In 8x10, such lenses are huge, expensive, and typically require rectangular filters due to their large front elements. I currently use a 200mm f/6.8 Grandagon-N and 300mm f/5.6 Sironar S; these are excellent lenses, but the Grandagon is so big that I have to use a Cokin X-Pro filter on it (I have an orange filter that I use when shooting B&W). The Sironar S can get by with standard Lee filters.

In contrast, there are many, many 4x5 wide and normal lenses that are suitable for architecture, which are a fraction of the size and price of the 8x10 lenses mentioned above. And yes, 5x7 can be a good compromise if you like the aspect ratio and shoot B&W (5x7 color film is difficult to consistantly obtain outside of special orders).

Frankly, I shoot 8x10 for architecture because I enjoy composing on the large ground glass, not because I expect dramatically improved image quality versus 4x5.

[Rory_5244]

As regards weight considerations: I have an Arca 4x5 with an 8x10 conversion set and the 8x10 is about 2 pounds heavier than the 4x5. It is, however, more bulky. I really don't find much difference carrying the 8x10 vs 4x5. Nothing beats an 8x10 transparency on a light box, however.

http://i557.photobucket.com/albums/ss20/Snoflo/wreckc.jpg

[Vincent Malaud]

Thanks for commenting all of you, a lot of valuable advices. I appreciate it.

@Rory, the 8x10 conversion set for the Arca Swiss is exactly what I would like despite its price.
@Eric Leppanen, thanks for your advise on lenses, you are quite right, I use lots of front rise for my exterior shots.

[Robert Hughes]

Hey - if it's good enough for Jackie Kennedy, it's good enough for me...
http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/6489/slide_6489_86045_large.jpg?1272592923103

[Steve M Hostetter]

I loved 8x10, it was a great format. But I found that I saw things differently and made very different photographs with it than I did with 4x5. With 4x5 a 210mm lens was my normal lens and I seldom used my 80mm lens. I just didn't see "wide angle" when using 4x5. With 8x10 it was the opposite - I tended to see things much wider. A 210mm G Claron lens became my normal lens with a 159mm Wollensak also used much more often than the longer lenses I bought because I thought I'd "see" 8x10 the same way I saw 4x5. My 8x10 cameras had plenty of bellows extension so it wasn't a matter of mechanics, for some reason - possible the size of the screen - I just saw things differently with 8x10.

There's a lot more to using different film formats than just the size of the film, the weight of the gear, or its cost.

Hello Brian,,

I was wondering,,, how do you know that it's not the size,weight,and cost of 8x10 that makes you think differently..?

[Stephane]

Difference in weight between 4x5 and 8x10 isnt much, just bulkier back and bigger holders. Everything else is the same. I use sinar norma, and not I am going for small shutterless vintage optics. So yes, 4x5 is too small if you have a working system for carrying an 8x10 around.

[BradS]

Difference in weight between 4x5 and 8x10 isn't much....


HUH?!?!?!


My 4x5 camera weighs 1.7 Kg while my 8x10 weighs about 6Kg...more than three times as much as the 4x5. This weight difference can be seen again in the total system weight fo r the two...in fact my whole 4x5 kit with back pack weighs less then the 8x10 camera alone. So, I would say that the difference in weight between 4x5 and 8x10 is very significant.

[David de Gruyl]

My 4x5 kit weighs about 20-25% of my 8x10 kit. And that may be a high estimate for the 4x5 and a low estimate for the 8x10.

The 8x10 takes two bags and a tripod (one for the camera and another for the filmholders and sundries). The 4x5 fits in a messenger bag, with twice as much film, and the tripod (head removed, but it fits) and room for sweaters.

They are dramatically different sizes and weights. You can get a lighter 8x10 (much) but you still need the ridiculous tripod, and you still need to carry film.

[Stephane]

BradS, obviously we are not using the same camera. Sinar norma 8x10 is light but bulky, so 1 or 2 kg more wont make difference (to me). So what works for me may not necessarily work for you. Anyway, its pointless arguing weight between 4x5 and 8x10 users, as the difference will always be there. Same as arguing between field and monorail in the outdoors.
The weight cut-off limit obviously varies between individuals, which explain why some do not "grow up" in format and cannot help themselves saying about how heavy an 8x10 system is.
But Vincent, if your lusting for an 8x10 becomes an obsession, save up and get your kit. I think 8x10 works well if you have a bag that can carry it all, but most of all if shooting 8x10 makes you happy.

[Stephane]

Forgot to say: I am using a normal carbon tripod, definitly not designed to carry 8x10 cameras. I just dont extend the legs fully. So no need for the "ridiculous" tripod of David de Gruyl, just common sense

[dsphotog]

Call me a masochist, but I shoot 120, 45, 57, & 810. There is a lot of lens crossover between formats.
I carry them all in the car, & decide how "filmworthy" a scene is, them pick accordingly.
Size DOES matter!

[Rory_5244]

Ya, the weight thing is definitely camera dependent. I only carry 3 8x10 holders so that ain't so bad.

[Shadowtracker]

New to LF, Happy with what I have, 4x5. A 5x7 is on the way but I doubt I will go for an 8x10 just out of cost probably. I do have some 8x10 sheet film, so, a pinhole camera for it might be in order and then contact print... I just hope I can resist when I see the negs from it - but resistance is futile, I know. Still, I feel lucky just to have a 4x5 and will be reworking the 5x7. Between those two, I have galaxies to explore.

[dsphotog]

4x5 is like a gateway drug.

[Dirk Rösler]

I just sold my 4x5 stuff after realising that 5x7 fits in the same bag (I have Sinar so just the back changes, and of course the holders). Also I don't have an enlarger and for contact print 5x7 and up is better than 4x5. The work and weight is pretty much the same between 4x5 and 5x7.

[Vaughn]

The question is, "Isn't 8x10 too small?" ;) I like to use a modified darkslide and make 4x10 images (two on a piece of 8x10). Kinda of small. Now, a 11x14 would be nice -- then I could also do two 5.5x14 images on a sheet of film.

But then why not just get a 7x17 camera? :D After all I have 300 sheets of 14x17 x-ray film in the fridge and I need to use them! That's 600 sheets of 7x17. A 14x17 camera sounds too big for my old back (I rarely photograph from the car.)

Vaughn

[David de Gruyl]

New to LF, Happy with what I have, 4x5. A 5x7 is on the way but I doubt I will go for an 8x10 just out of cost probably. I do have some 8x10 sheet film, so, a pinhole camera for it might be in order and then contact print... I just hope I can resist when I see the negs from it - but resistance is futile, I know. Still, I feel lucky just to have a 4x5 and will be reworking the 5x7. Between those two, I have galaxies to explore.

One word of advice: get 8x10 lenses, don't bother with 5x7 lenses. That way, if an 8x10 magically lands on your doorstep, you already have some lenses and don't need to spend almost a grand a piece on used ones.

[David de Gruyl]

I just sold my 4x5 stuff after realising that 5x7 fits in the same bag (I have Sinar so just the back changes, and of course the holders). Also I don't have an enlarger and for contact print 5x7 and up is better than 4x5. The work and weight is pretty much the same between 4x5 and 5x7.

a 5x7 contact print on an 8x10 paper is a thing of beauty.

I normally do 8x10 on 11x14/11x15 paper.

The only problem with that size is that is an orphan size for film. I don't think there is any color film sold in 5x7, for example.

[Vincent Malaud]

But Vincent, if your lusting for an 8x10 becomes an obsession, save up and get your kit. I think 8x10 works well if you have a bag that can carry it all, but most of all if shooting 8x10 makes you happy.

Indeed, that's exactly what I plan to do. I will build up my lens kit accordingly (with enough coverage for 8x10)

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/aaa.jpg

[CarstenW]

I think we have all been arguing the wrong thing all along. Going back to the title and the original post, I think that 4x5 feet is plenty large enough.

[Vincent Malaud]

Oops did I say feet? or is that the ' that means feet? like in 4x5'?

[Brian Ellis]

Hello Brian,,

I was wondering,,, how do you know that it's not the size,weight,and cost of 8x10 that makes you think differently..?

Size certainly could have something to do with it. I mentioned the possibility that the large viewing screen could have been the cause. I don't think weight was a factor. Weight affected where I went so my options were reduced but within the area of use I could have made any type of photograph, I didn't seek out areas suited for wider angles. Cost wasn't a major consideration for me with 8x10. I bought used and relatively inexpensive gear, did only b&w, and processed and printed myself.

[CarstenW]

Oops did I say feet? or is that the ' that means feet? like in 4x5'?

Yep, ' = feet, and " = inches :)

[John Kasaian]

Get an 8x10. You know you want one. Follow your instincts. :)

[ImSoNegative]

I thought the same thing about 4x5 at first, so I bought an 8x10, the joy didnt last long, too much weight and bulk, enjoyed the contact prints but you can print an 8x10 with a 4x5 negative and there is hardly any difference between it and a contact print

[Donald Miller]

I've shot formats from 4X5 to 12X20 and there definitely is a difference in how I see with the different formats. I shot 8X10 and contact printed...nice, but to go to large prints means an 8X10 enlarger and I just couldn't fit that into my darkroom plans.

4X5 is limited to an 11X14 print for the quality that I want in a print. It is too small for contact prints in my opinion.

I finally sold everything and concentrated on 5X7 which gives me the option to either contact print or to enlarge since I already have a Durst. I rarely make a print above 16X20 and thus, for myself, see no advantage to 8X10.

[David de Gruyl]

I thought the same thing about 4x5 at first, so I bought an 8x10, the joy didnt last long, too much weight and bulk, enjoyed the contact prints but you can print an 8x10 with a 4x5 negative and there is hardly any difference between it and a contact print

Unless you do alternative printing...

(note, you can print "digital negatives" or use an enlarger to create bigger negatives if your goal is to contact print something from a 4x5).

[D. Bryant]

. You can get a lighter 8x10 (much) but you still need the ridiculous tripod,

Well not really.

Don Bryant

[csalem]

Here's how I would break it down:
Enlarging: go 4x5. less expensive, lighter, more film options. still plenty of info for enlargements
Contact printing: go 8x10 and then you can see all those volumes and that rich tonal scale you're talking about.
I hear you talking about the experience of making pictures: slowing down, looking carefully, seeing the image as it may appear in print form. And if you want to translate that experience to the final print, may be the contact is the way to go.

[Drew Wiley]

When it comes to backpacking, it's the weight and bulk of the filmholders more than
anything else which is a limitation, plus the extra tripod weight. Therefore I tend to
gravitate to 4x5 on multi-day backpacks or if airline carry-on is involved. But otherwise, I prefer 8x10 as my "normal" format. It just makes you look at things differently, and of course enlarges wonderfully. Color film is $$, but then one tends to
be more careful with the larger format and waste less.

[John Jarosz]

I agree about 8x10 being too small to contact print. That's why I went to 8x20. It's still only 8" high but the effect is completely different.

8x10 is good for portraits.

[Daniel_Buck]

just took the 8x10 backpacking again, I must remind myself to just stick with the 4x5 when backpacking, the 8x10 is just to much for me for a day-hike! I much rather shoot with the 8x10, but only if I'm shooting "from the car" so to speak.

[Robert Hughes]

You guys are a riot! I still shoot Super 8! :D

[BrianShaw]

You guys are a riot! I still shoot Super 8! :D



Really?

[argos33]

It seems like a lot of people use 4x5 and think 8x10 is simply a bigger camera. But as other members have pointed out "it's a whole different animal." The weight, lenses, much narrower depth of field, film costs, convenience, etc all play a big role in how useful it is compared to 4x5 and/or how much you get out and actually use the bigger camera.

Post processing is also very different and difficult from 4x5. You'll either need a nice big enlarger (which may be very difficult to find) or a nice fast computer and lots of storage space. 8x10 scans can get up to several gigabites PER IMAGE which can be frustrating to work with on slower machines. Scanning the 8x10 negative can be harder as well - most people end up wet mounting or coming up with their own holders, etc to get the best results. And if you don't get the best results - your scan might not necessarily be better than one at 4x5 with a nice dedicated holder, system, etc.

One advantage of shooting 8x10 I could see for you though, is you could get a 4x5 or 5x7 reducing back and use the generous movements of the 8x10 for your architecture shots. That way you wouldn't have to use the full 8x10 frame all the time but still have the option to use it for bigger prints, contact prints, etc.

Having used both now for a few years I think that 4x5 is a much more practical format for most uses. However, if your not backpacking with it and like contact printing and/or larger prints and can afford the larger format it's a lot of fun!

Evan

[Ben Syverson]

My 8x10 (Gowland) and 4x5 (Super Graphic) both weigh around 5 pounds, so weight is not a factor. I thought I would gradually use one more than the other, but they both get use. It's the MF gear that gathers dust.

The 4x5 still gets use because the film is so incredibly cheap (especially short dated), and the Graphic sets up more or less instantly. So I find myself setting it up for quick shots that might not warrant full-blown 8x10. And even though it weighs the same as the 8x10, it's smaller, so I'm more likely to shove it into my carry-on bag when flying. Of course, 4x5 is also 4X faster to dust-bust when scanning, and the smaller files are quicker to work with in general. But 8x10 isn't bad either -- who's afraid of a 2 GB file?

The 8x10 comes out any time I want to take a "real" photo. As the original poster says, if you're going to take the time to set up a shot, might as well put it on the biggest sheet possible! Now I'm spoiled, so 4x5 feels very cramped and "fiddly" to me in use--I keep hitting the edge of the GG with my loupe, and squinting at details. 8x10 is much easier and more forgiving to scan; a $500 flatbed can give you a great large print, whereas in my opinion with 4x5, you really need a drum scan to make big prints (30x40" or larger). However, the drastically reduced DOF can be challenging in 8x10... At my working distances, I have to decide between getting the iris or eyelashes in focus (eyelashes win). But I suppose if it was easy, nailing it wouldn't give me any satisfaction (cough... digital). :)

5x7 just seems needlessly masochistic. "I want heavier gear than 4x5, but please make the film hard to find and only marginally bigger." :)

[goamules]

Other than a few Polaroids I haven't shot 4x5, but started shooting 5x7. To me, it's a perfect compromise in size, cost of lenses and film, options for printing. A stack of 5x7 holders is quite small compared to 8x10, if you have them in a backpack. My 5x7 2D fits in a bookbag. I wish it were more popular so that more film was available, but what I do get in 5x7 is cheap. I do contact prints where 8x10 is nice too, but more trouble and expense. 5x7 contact prints are nice in the hand or framed.

[Michael Jones]

Yes.

Mike

[jp]

I happen to like the 5x7 shape. I don't shoot 5x7, but understand why people would like it. (I also like the 6x6 MF shape). It's a good step up from 4x5. Most people only shoot a limited variety of film so the meager film choice isn't so much a common practical concern as it is a turnoff in the first place.

[Dirk Rösler]

"I want heavier gear than 4x5, but please make the film hard to find and only marginally bigger." :)

I don't this statement is accurate. Just looking at weight vs. size, you put in 20% more weight and get double the neg size. I would not call double 'marginal'. "Hard to find" is subjective, especially since 8x10 is so easily cut down.

5x7 is (arguably) the best "compromise" out there in LF and has a much more pleasing aspect ratio than 4x5/8x10, perhaps only beatable by the odd-ball formats like banquet etc.

[Ed Richards]

I do not see the 20% - a 5x7 holder is at least double the weight and 80% larger than a 4x5 holder. That is pretty significant even if you are only carrying 20 holders.

[Ben Syverson]

When it comes to aspect ratio, it's a matter of taste. I much prefer 4x5 / 8x10 to wider formats.

With respect to negative area, 5x7 is not "double" 4x5. 4x5 = 20 sq in, 5x7 = 35, so it's 1.75X. That's nothing to sneeze at, but 8x10 is a full 4X the negative area...

A lot of 5x7 cameras I've looked into are not much lighter than 8x10 (only 1-2 lb / 0.5 - 1 kg lighter), but 8x10 has over twice the negative area of 5x7 (2.3X)...

So no, it doesn't sound like a great compromise to me personally, though everyone will come to their own conclusions, and I know many out there love 5x7.

[Ben Syverson]

That is pretty significant even if you are only carrying 20 holders.
ONLY 20 holders??? :eek: Does your view camera have a motor drive?

I can't imagine shooting 40 sheets without reloading. That's what changing bags are for! 4 holders max for me.

[Dirk Rösler]

I do not see the 20% - a 5x7 holder is at least double the weight and 80% larger than a 4x5 holder. That is pretty significant even if you are only carrying 20 holders.

I was mostly referring to the camera. A 4x5 holder weighs 180g and a 5x7 is 300g - not double, just a 66% increase. If you shoot larger formats, you should not be surprised that holders are getting bigger too :p Also, as format increases you will shoot less and thus carry less holders, so it should all even out.

[Dirk Rösler]

A lot of 5x7 cameras I've looked into are not much lighter than 8x10 (only 1-2 lb / 0.5 - 1 kg lighter), but 8x10 has over twice the negative area of 5x7 (2.3X)...

Not just weight, also bulk. My 5x7 setup fits in the same backpack as the 4x5 previously. But the 8x10 is easily double (or 1.75x) the baggage. Of course, that would depend also on the type of camera. It's difficult to generalise. All I am saying is that, arguably, 5x7 is a good mix of all things. But hey, I am not a 5x7 missionary, shoot what you like… as long it is LF :D

[Ed Richards]

> 4 holders max for me
> Also, as format increases you will shoot less and thus carry less holders, so it should all even out.

Ah, now we get to the heart of the matter. I certainly understand fishing without bait - get you out of the house and you get to drink beer.:-)

I think the core question when you are picking a format is whether you are interested in taking pictures or in the experience and the gear. I think there is a difference worth working for between 35mm/MF and 4x5, especially if you use movements a lot. In practical terms - what a viewer cares about in a print - there is much less difference between 4x5 and larger formats, except in very large print sizes. Now if your only notion of a the quality of a print is sharpness, you might find a difference in smaller prints, like 16x20 - but only under perfect conditions for shooting and the right subject.

There are exceptions of course. Contact printing is quaint, like other alt processes, and has its own rules. Large format portraits with old fast lenses is one, but certainly one where sharpness is not the issue. But if you are not doing those, at the very best you are trading a few excellent huge sharp prints for many more excellent smaller prints, or for large excellent prints that are not quite as sharp. I have never seen anyone but a gear head criticize AA prints about their lack of sharpness. While he did use 8x10 at times, it was with old film and had no more resolution and tonality than modern 4x5, probably less.

Shooting 2-3 sheets on an outing is also fine if you have a lot of time and can be traveling and shooting every day. If this was all I did, I would absolutely have an 8x10 in the car along with the 4x5 and I would use it on a subset of shoots. I might even switch to 5x7 for everyday shooting, as long as money was no object.

But for me, and I suspect a lot of folks, I do not get that many days a year to shoot. When I do have time to take a day or two, or when I am in a place that is hard to get back to, I work hard at shooting and I try to get as many good shots as possible. I may also shoot different variations of a shot, perhaps adding a filter, perhaps a different lens to change perspective. I shoot every shot very carefully, but I want to be open to happy accidents. If I shoot several setups and some variations for some of those setups, I see the site better and I am more likely to come away with a real keeper. It is not unusual that the keeper will not be what looked best on the GG at the time.

So what is the conclusion of this rant? Just depends on what you want to do and your time to do it. It also depends on where you are in your learning curve. I think that if you are starting in LF and start with something larger than 4x5, there is a high probability that you will never shoot many pictures and will never be very good at it.

To learn your basic chops you need to shoot a lot of film. Say at least a 1000 sheets. (Less if are an expert film photographer already.) The odds of doing that goes down with larger formats. If you just want an excuse to be out of the house and messing with cool gear, then it really does not matter what you are shooting. But if you want be a good photographer, you do have to shoot - a lot - at least until you really know the craft and develop your eye.

If you have good craft and a good eye, and bigger cameras advance your vision, go for it. You know better than anyone what works for you. (But then, you would not be asking if 4x5 is too small or whether 11x14 is too small.) But even then, if it is the images you want, it is easy to look back over the year and find you did not take very many pictures because it was such a pain. Look at all the ULF cameras that get sold on this site, with the caption, only used once or twice.:-)

[Robert Hughes]

Now if your only notion of a the quality of a print is sharpness, you might find a difference...
And here we get to the root of the issue. What is driving this obsession with detail? What is my goal in creating photographic images? Is a photographer's worth based on his lines per mm? I've been looking at some books of classic photographers lately, and realize that much of their works were not at all about sharpness.

Look at the Aperture Masters of Photography series: many of the most well-known photos by the biggest names in the business were done on rather common gear. Stieglitz made a point of mentioning that much of his work was done with equipment and processes available to any photographer of his day. His "Steerage" was done hand-held with a Graphlex. It's an all-time great photograph - but it was done on a 4x5 camera, so I guess it wasn't important enough. :p

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/eb/Stieglitz-Steerage291.jpg/350px-Stieglitz-Steerage291.jpg

[MIke Sherck]

When I look at the ground glass of my 4x5 Arca-Swiss I feel like I'm looking through a viewfinder.

When I look at the ground glass of my 8x10 KB Canham (which weighs about the same at my 4x5 Arca) I feel like I'm looking through a window.

Careful! When you look through an 11x14, it's like looking though a picture window. And one of the panoramic formats...

*Sigh* I blame Mom. She could have married the rich guy, but no, she went for love. Love! In this day and age... ;)

Mike

[jp]

Part of the reason many of us use LF is we like the detail, or the ability to have the detail. I went to an engineering school and could obsess about l/mm but I don't. I use it because I like making traditional B&W images (of the detailed type). I know LF makes image detail that I can't get with 35mm or 6x6 film and I like that.

Stieglitz was a painter turned excellent photographer. I'm agree he was not obsessed about photo detail, but he obsessed about plenty anyways. Most of his photos don't seem to require LF anymore, so someone inspired by him could do pictorialist stuff with any format they wanted, even consumer digital. Had he been living at a later time, I'm sure he'd have been using contemporary 35mm gear.

Pictorialism is something I don't yet have much hands of experience with, but it seems to easily handled with LF. I'm getting some pictorialism hands-on at a Tillman Crane workshop shortly, but I suspect I will continue to appreciate the detail and sharpness many of us straight-photographers like to use LF for.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, there are times max detail is important. A 30x40 optically printed from 8x10 can
make an inkjet print the same size look like smudge. Or there are numerous times I print
color from precisely masked dupes, and an 8x10 original if far better for this use than
a 4x5. But even if all this was not important to me, I just feel that looking through an
8x10 groundglass makes me compose things differently than 4x5. It's a whole different
feel. Of course, ULF shooters could make the same kind of relative comparison against
8x10, but since I backpack a lot, including steep places, 8x10 is really ideal for me
personally. I do love 4x5 photography, but nowhere near as much as 8X10!

[brianam]

I'll chime in with others that 5x7 is a great compromise format. Anything smaller (including 4x5) still feels to me like a 'viewfinder' as another here has said. What I wish there was more of on the market, are middle-sized cameras that can be both reduced and expanded in back size.

I know that the Tachihara 4x5 has a 5x7 expansion back (see QT's review on this site). That's an option.
and I know a lot of 8x10's have available reducing backs to 5x7 or 4x5. Which sorta makes sense when you're angling for the proportion of 5x7, or a particular emulsion you have in 4x5.

The result of my search was buying one of the early Toyo field cameras; the gray metal ones that were actually half-plate sized. I have 4x5, 5x7, half-plate, and whole-plate backs for it.

In practice I generally carry it as a 5x7, with those holders. Although the Toyo weighs a reasonable ~6lbs, so I'll pack it sometimes as a 4x5 only. Carrying both backs and a few holders of each size is still reasonable, and I've done that too.
Carrying the WP expansion back is a little more tricky. I usually leave that and a couple holders in the car. But when I do pop it on... I sure love the view. :-)

For composition, I'd choose whole-plate (or an 8x10) every time. For most manageable cost, 4x5. For a bit of both, with a pleasing proportion, it's 5x7.

[Chris Strobel]

And here we get to the root of the issue. What is driving this obsession with detail? What is my goal in creating photographic images? Is a photographer's worth based on his lines per mm? I've been looking at some books of classic photographers lately, and realize that much of their works were not at all about sharpness.



Good point.I had the pleasure last week of going through a whole box of Brett Weston 8x10 contact prints, and to my surprise they weren't the needle sharp prints I had envisioned, in fact several of them I looked at were ones I also have in my books, and the book repro's actually look sharper than Brett's hand made original!After I got over the 'grain peeping' I was able to enjoy what they were, very well seen and captured images with marvelous tonality.

[Drew Wiley]

Chris - most of the 8x10 shots by the older masters of the craft weren't sharp at all
by modern standards. That wasn't a big deal for contact prints. I get pretty amused when people think of Ansel Adams as the penultimate quality standard they aim at when printing. I'm not referring to his esthetics or subject matter. But anyone who's seen any of his 8x10 work enlarged past 20x24 knows how fuzzy it is relative to what is possible with current film and equipment; that's why he insisted on making big enlargements on matte paper. Edward Weston's negs would look horrible under a loupe. So I see the whole argument that someone nowadays doesn't actually "need" a camera bigger than 4x5 to be pretty vacuous. When you need it, you need it. Size matters. Square inches of film matter. Big prints do justice to 8x10, and so does
tonality and actual color saturation (vs Photoshop fakery). In the darkroom, I would far rather print 8x10 than 4x5, and rather print any LF film instead of flimsy 120 film (though I do this too). And when I get too old to carry the 8x10 comfortably, the 4x5 will be there. If you ever do punch and register work for Ciba or Dye Transfer printing, 8X10 is so much easier and more precise than either 4x5 or 5x7.

[mortensen]

... time to resurrect this excellent thread with a few comments and questions.

I've shot 4x5 for a year now and I, also, walk around with distant 8x10 dreams. My subjects are much like the OP, ie. high-rise housing projects needing all the front rise you can get, more or less. I was looking at a Sinar F2, but found out that the front standard had only sufficient rise to work with a 4x5 back for my needs... but that's probably not the issue with Arca's conversion kit???

Regarding max print size and DOF vs. diffraction in the different formats, I found this thread very informative: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=45186

But what about film flatness in the holder when shooting 8x10? Apart from the much more shallow DOF, I've been told, that bulging film can be a major problem... what does the experienced people say?

Because of portability- and cost issues, I'm thinking about getting a 4x5 with enough movements to stitch 5x8" or even 4x10" (a Misura for example). It will not give me the 8x10 gg and framing experience, nor will stitching apply to all subjects, but for silent, evil architecture it will work just fine and give me all the 4x5 advantages (including Imacon scanning capability) plus a doubled negative area. I made a little sketch the other day with some of the lenses I own, and some of those I desire :)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3617863/lens%20circles%20stitch.jpg

But, say I should deside to go 8x10, how important is with geared movements? I know this is a very delicate discussion, but let's give it a go. I currently use a Chamonix 4x5 and find it quite frustrating to adjust tilts with my 90, hence I want to switch to either a Tech2000 or Misure (when I get rich, that is...). But with 8x10 the focal lengths are doubled making tilts easier to control. On the other hand, DOF seems to be a major concern if one wants to exploit the sharpness potential of 8x10 and not shoot f64 all the time... Any thoughts?

Last, but not least, having the OP's subjects in mind, check these LF shooters (well, you probably know them already, but they are GREAT):

http://photomichaelwolf.com/intro/index.html
http://www.szetsungleong.com/
http://frankvandersalm.nl/
http://wouterstelwagen.com/

[MIke Sherck]

What about weight? 8x10", all else being equal, should weigh 8x as much (2^3). Personally I speculate about 5x7 or 5x8, but 8x10 could not replace 4x5 for me. The weight and bulk just kill that idea.

My 8x10 outfit is actually a couple of pounds (a kilo or so) lighter than my 4x5 outfit. The 8x10 camera is only about 2.5 lbs more than my 4x5 Zone VI, there's one less lens, I carry 4 film holders instead of 9 to twelve (and the 8x10 holders are wood rather than plastic, so they're a bit lighter,) etc. The outfits both fit into the same backpack, so as regards bulk they're pretty much the same.

My difficulty is in knowing ahead of time whether I'll want to enlarge the negative or not, as I can't enlarge 8x10 in my diminutive darkroom. On the other hand, 8x10 contact prints are da bomb!

Mike

[Bob McCarthy]

Being a 4x5 shooter since the mid 80's I recently took the plunge to 8x10 buying a Sinar P 8x10.

While it is bulky, weight is not an issue. I have adapted a roller cart with padding to carry the load. So no weight on my shoulders at all. In addition to the camera I carry my dark cloth, a second lens, meter, and other small parts in the roller case.

I carry a laptop satchel with 3 to 5 holders for film. Slings over my shoulder and in much easier (by far) to carry than my Lowe backpack. I also carry an iPad in the case, for mail and forum reading!!

I have a medium weight Gitzo Carbon, that is rock solid with the 8x10. Same tripod I use with 4x5. I eliminated the ballhead, use the Gitzo leveling base, and only use the 2 largest legs. I have used the smaller leg extensions but most of the length is tucked away for stability.

I don't find the 8x10 any more difficult to use than my 4x5 when in the field. Though its bulky, the weight is carried by wheels and my shoulder load is much lighter. As it is transported with the lens in place, its ready to go the moment I put it on the tripod.

The benefits of a large ground glass are just amazing. Any detriments can be overcome with a little ingenuity, except for the cost of film, of course.

As for weight, the camera and backpack combined are roughly the same as the 8x10 alone. Using a roller cooler lined with temperfoam can't weigh more than 2 to 3 lbs. So I'm pretty close. Same tripod, meter, etc. so no difference there. Film is probably a little more weight, but I'm sure shooting slower and more carefully so little difference.

I'm a happy guy.

bob

[evan clarke]

I carry view cameras from 6x9mm up to 11x14 with me all the time. My 4x5 Arca 141 kit is the heaviest pack, I have more lenses and some tools etc. but it's my go to setup and makes all the important exposures before any other cameras come out. All these formats are just different tools and like Brian said you see differently with them but sometimes another format is just the right thing...EC

[Gem Singer]

Secrets to success when using an 8x10 camera outfit:

1. Put wheels under it for transporting in the field.

2. Mount it on a sturdy tripod and head.

3. Don't wander too far from your vehicle.

4. Stay young and healthy.

5. Shoot B&W film and develop it yourself.

6. Carry only three, or four film holders.

(I recently sold my 8X10 outfit and now limit my LF shooting to 4X5 and 5X7.

Reason: was not able to comply with secret #4).

[evan clarke]

On the other hand, 8x10 contact prints are da bomb!
Mike

And they are so easy to focus!!:D ..Evan

[John Kasaian]

8X10 is four X funner than 4x5! :D

[Robert Hughes]

8X10 is four X funner than 4x5! :D
Well, it's four times more expensive, that's for sure. Whether it looks much different nowadays is tbd.

[Bob McCarthy]

Just film. This 8x10 addition to the stable has to be one of the best equipment deals I've ever made in photography,

$750 for a Sinar P. Yea its due for a bellows but sealant is holding off the expenditure. My current lens ownership included a 240mm which covers 8x10 just fine.

The only place where I've seen the cost/film size multiplier is with specifically film. And as film is more expensive I'm not as cavilier about popping of shots willy nilly.

bob

[Brian Ellis]

Hello Brian,,

I was wondering,,, how do you know that it's not the size,weight,and cost of 8x10 that makes you think differently..?

Hi Steve, sorry, I missed your question the first time around. I know that cost doesn't enter into it because the 8x10 equipment I owned was less expensive than the 4x5 equipment. But size and weight certainly are relevant and affect how we see. I didn't say they were irrelevant, just that there was more to changing formats than those things alone.

[Robert Hughes]

but 2 shots to get 4x10 or 5x7 format ratio is worthy of consideration.
In the old days they called those diptychs and triptychs. Digital stitching adds an unnecessary layer of fiddling that could be better addressed by other means.

[Bob McCarthy]

Let me offer an opinion. Its not about film size and enlargability anymore. 4x5 TMax or equivalent will scan/print to an enormous print size. Stitching sheet film is massive overkill in most circumstances.

8x10 is about overkill. Big ground glass, big negative. Easy to see whats happening on the screen, easy to adjust focus plane with the eyeballs. Makes up for eyes that no longer work as they once did.

Since we're always shooting ISO 400 film we're shooting at 2 stops greater than 4x5 using ISO 100 speed film. Makes up for shooting longer F.L. lenses.

Me, I just see better and am more engaged with the larger format.

bob

[mortensen]

Robert and Van Camper, it's exactly the diptych and triptychs thing I'm thinking about... looks great as a spread in a book and equally good as two frames next to each other. But since I scan, it would also give me the ability to actually 'stitch', if preferable.

Bob, as I primarily shoot static subjects, ISO400 will not give me more DOF or less diffraction...

What about my questions about film flatness issues with 8x10 holders and the need for (or lack thereof) of geared tilts? Would be great with experiences and opinions, now that you've started talking again :)

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, as I primarily shoot static subjects, ISO400 will not give me more DOF or less diffraction...

What about my questions about film flatness issues with 8x10 holders and the need for (or lack thereof) of geared tilts? Would be great with experiences and opinions, now that you've started talking again :)

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars

You're correct with static subjects the film speed is of less importance. But having the 2 extra stops "may" mean that reciprocity is not a calculation that could be misjudged or incorrectly applied. Having more choice of apertures can be beneficial.

Since I use a Sinar P I have geared movements and they are a joy to use(also asymetrical swing/tilt). As for film flatness, not an issue from my experience unless you tilt the film plane in a way gravity works against you. Not an issue for the way I use a camera.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars


About the limited rise using a Sinar 8x10.

Hmmm, just elevate the front 5 to 10 deg (tilt camera up modestly). Using the bubble levels move the front and rear to vertical. Use the base tilts to level the standards. Too many choices (whew)

Now you have an inch of rise built in to adjust from. I've never had an issue with inadequate movement with this camera. Image circle too small, yes, but movement not.

[mortensen]

Thanks, Bob - the thing about gravity certainly makes sense. I almost always have a straight vertical back, so it shouldn't be a problem, then.

Regarding front rise, the added, 'indirect' rise - by tilting the camera and aligning the standards - would not do for me... but hey, that's just a personal preference :)

[Bob McCarthy]

Regarding front rise, the added, 'indirect' rise - by tilting the camera and aligning the standards - would not do for me... but hey, that's just a personal preference :)

With a field camera, when you use the tilt-up method, you get rise/fall with focus.

With a Sinar, you do not -base tilts and monorail focus are not used once the basic adjustments are made.

It's why the camera is so bulky, but so capable!!

jFYI

bob

[Nathan Potter]

Historically I found that the more I shot with a particular format the smaller it seemed to get. So I kept moving up until even 8X10 seemed too small ... then 11 X 14 and finally even 20 X 24 seemed small. So I moved back down and noticed that the quality of my 4x5 and lo ... even 35 mm had greatly improved ... along with my back and my mobility. I was left to guess at the reasons but ended up with the 35 mm and 4 X 5 format.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Alan Davenport]

4x5 isn't too small. My Crown Graphic is the perfect miniature camera.


__________:D__________:D__________:D__________:D__________

[rknewcomb]

4x5 isn't too small if you've got a big heart and a good eye!

[iml]

I'm suppressing desires to move up to 10x8 at the moment. I think when I get an enlarger for 5x4 the desire for anything bigger will subside for a while. I certainly hope so...

[John Kasaian]

The only place where I've seen the cost/film size multiplier is with specifically film. And as film is more expensive I'm not as cavilier about popping of shots willy nilly.

bob

IMHO the neccessity for greater self discipline is a "value-added" benefit to 8x10!:D