Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

"Even scanning, an 8x10 negative scanned looks creamier than a 4x5 negative scanned."

Definitely. Even though my scanner can only scan 8x10 at 1250 ppi, and 4x5 at 2500ppi, and even though I print at 12x15, the difference is there. The 8x10 shots are just... creamier.

But not creamier enough for me, to merit the loss in depth of field or 4x longer exposures that accompany the lenses of 2x the focal length.

We all have to determine our own "sweet-spot": the convergence of image quality, portability, availability of equipment, and affordability.

3 Cents worth -
Personal Pros for 8x10 -
1. For moderately sized digital prints, a flatbed scanner is pretty darned good.
2. Alt-process negs! AZO contacts!
3. Plenty of extra if a tad of cropping is desired - one picture can be 3 versions of it.
4. Faster film with a contact print is not grainy.
5. Slides, when drum scanned and printed, are amazing, as are slides just to look at.
6. Easier to see the effects of movements, and well, easy to load film too.
7. Enough film to capture more detail on distant objects in a landscape or architectural scene.
8. With reducing back, a fairly long lens is a usable really long lens for 4x5 format. Plus, can use 5x7 if desired too, again with reducing back.
9. Group shots work out very well, with plenty of detail for a large print.
10. If the print is small, or a contact, the DOF issue doesn't seem to matter as much for me, especially with portraits which look really nice.

Cons for 8x10
Bulky, expensive film, slower to set up, harder to find long lenses.
Much more worry about the expense and time to replace it if stolen, which tends to keep me more "car bound", or strain my back lugging all the junk in and out every night while in the field. It's not just the money...it takes time to assemble a full, tested, working kit from lenses to holders to boards, backs and all that. Generally, there is a tendency to shoot stuff that stands still - while shots with moving things are quite okay, it's just a tendency, which can affect the subjects of a shot. It takes a bit of mental effort to make things dynamic.

I still use both 4x5 and 8x10. Lately, when things are not just right, I don't take the 8x10 out of the case - I do a lot of "air photography"/"wish shooting" - if it isn't just right, I tend not to take the shot. With 4x5, the cost is enough less that I take more shots in marginal conditions, less pain for the chances.

I do love the feeling of using the 8x10, and the new friends I meet in the field when I do use it. And, when it works, it's pretty darned glorious. For some things, it seems to be the only way, for other things, it's just bigger, but not always better. The modest 8x10 contact print has a certain honesty about it that is just very hard to beat, even more so for a "one of a kind" Polaroid - it represents that very moment, unaltered by Photoshop or darkroom tricks.

I agree that 5x7 provides most of the 8x10 benefit with lower weight and bulk, but the camera stuff costs nearly as much and the film choices are at least less convenient. 5x7 is a really wonderful size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Vuillemenot

the 8X10 is even more of a chick magnet than the 4X5. ;)

---

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If any camera can be considred a chick-magnet, I guess this is the best reason I've heard to keep my 8x10!

I have all formats but the 5x7 is the most portable per image size. 8x10 is heavy, 4x5 is cost effective. The 5x7 can be enlarged or contact printed, great combination. A contact print from a 4x5 is too small in most cases. The 8x10 contact print is great but the cost is higher so wouldn't an 11x14 contact print look better or a 12x20?

5x7 is just right, a nice portrait size contact print is exquisite, an enlarged landscape at only 2x is brilliant.

Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

Because it gives me the negative I want, and the print that I want.

It seems right working in the field or working at home, and it seems right in the darkroom.

When I hold an 8x10 negative in my hand, it seems just right for an 8x10 print, the same way an 11x14 negative seems just right for an 11x14 print, or a 5x7 negative for a 5x7 print...

But more often than not, 8x10 seems juuuuust right...

Why not 8x10, if it seems just right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark Sawyer

But more often than not, 8x10 seems juuuuust right...

Why not 8x10, if it seems just right?

---

And it's creamier.

And its a chick magnet.

Wha'? It's a chick magnet??! Oh no. That means it's me repellen' the chicks all this time? :(

I figured it would be harder to steal an 8x10 rig in the field ;)

I started with 4x5, about 3 years ago I "graduated" to an 8x10. I really like the larger ground glass. It's like looking at a 50" tv screen vs a 19" tv screen. I also like the 8x10 Azo contact prints. I still use 4x5 on occasion, but I must shoot 8 times more 8x10 than 4x5. I now see the 4x5 as a compromise.