Any benefit to 8x10 over 4x5 if not contact printing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welly

... but wondering if there's any real benefit of shooting 8x10 over 4x5 if I'm not contact printing?

---

Imagine doing this with a 4x5:
Attachment 75220
It would look even more ridiculous, wouldn't it?

It's easier doing macro work with an 8x10 and a 4x5 reducing back.
A lot of the "interesting" lenses were made for the larger formats.
X-ray film is sold in 8x10 as a minimum size.
Dust is only so big. When you have a larger negative, the dust's image is 1/4 the size as on a 4x5.

It just feels good!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

Imagine doing this with a 4x5:
Attachment 75220

---

Sorry, could you please explain: Is the cardboard being used as a darkcloth ? a bellows ?

You'd look way cooler standing next to a big ol 8x10 than a 4by

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by welly

Ok, I'm pretty much sold. It's lucky I don't have a wife I suppose.

---

You have an ideal situation. And, when you start printing 8x10 negatives at 16x20, really a large print size for display in a home, you'll be mesmerised.

8x10 photography does have one major disadvantage. It's highly addictive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken Lee

Sorry, could you please explain: Is the cardboard being used as a darkcloth ? a bellows ?

---

An extension. Remember the most recent Manarchy thread about him having a 21ft camera? And wanting to build one that fits on a semi trailer bed? (Kickstarter page)

That's what I did with an old box to get some idea of building a camera like that.

If you're talking about technical benefit in the sense of more detail or better tonal gradations with enlarged prints from 8x10 negatives vs 4x5s, no benefit that I noticed after doing both (b&w, no color) for several years unless you're making really large prints, like something bigger than 20x24. But 8x10 is a very enjoyable format to use, there's nothing like viewing the image on that big ground glass unless it's viewing the image on a bigger ground glass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

8x10 photography does have one major disadvantage. It's highly addictive.

---

I thought a key part of addiction was that it affect your life in a negative manner.

I don't like contact printing 4x5 negatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian C. Miller

Imagine doing this with a 4x5:
Attachment 75220
It would look even more ridiculous, wouldn't it?

It's easier doing macro work with an 8x10 and a 4x5 reducing back.
A lot of the "interesting" lenses were made for the larger formats.
X-ray film is sold in 8x10 as a minimum size.
Dust is only so big. When you have a larger negative, the dust's image is 1/4 the size as on a 4x5.

It just feels good!

---

Good points. If you have an 8x10 camera, all you need is an assortment of backs, you'll have 4x5, 5x7, wholeplate, etc. I've even used a 56x72mm Super Rollex back on a 4x5 back on my Deardorff V8. With the Deardorff, and some others, you can use splitter boards and get two 4x10 or 5x8 negatives on 8x10 film.