Thinking about going to 8x10

[BarryS]

I was making 8x10 contact prints last night and was thinking to myself--it doesn't get any better than this. I prefer composing on the larger 8x10 ground glass compared to 4x5--it's more ergonomic. For portraiture, sitters will always take a big camera seriously and treat you differently--don't underestimate that power. Deardorff and a 14" Commercial Ektar--classic combination.

[kgm]

For me, the biggest consideration is how you print. I started out with a Deardorff 4x5 special, and added a Speed Graphic, and had a great time for over 10 years with them, shooting primarily color transparencies but some B&W, too. I wasn't doing much printing then, as I was concentrating on selling usage rights to publishers. As I started to devote more time to B&W, I decided to move up to 8x10 because I thought I would prefer making contact prints. Well, I did that at exactly the time some flatbed scanners became available that could do a good job with film at a reasonable (in comparison to a drum scanner) price. I ended up making most of my prints from 8x10 by scanning instead of contact prints. I used my 8x10 as my primary large format camera for 15 years, but finally decided to move back to 4x5 due to the relative ease of scanning and the essentially equal quality for prints I make (nothing larger than 16x20). I like having a wider range of lenses for use on my 4x5 (80mm to 400mm), but I didn't really feel limited with the 8x10 with a 240mm and 450mm in the beginning (I later sold the 450mm and bought a Cooke Series XVa triple convertible, which was great). But the 240mm offered very little coverage on the 8x10, while my 110mm Schneider (roughly equivalent in angle of coverage to the 240mm on 8x10) has all the coverage I could ever want. That's very important to me, and you'd have to pay a lot more to get equal coverage from a 210mm or 240mm lens for 8x10. So I have a little better range of lenses with the 4x5, and much more coverage at the wide angle end with the 110mm Schneider (the 80mm Schneider has only slightly better range of movements than I had with the 240mm on the 8x10, but that's a much bigger angle of view). So I'm glad that I moved back to 4x5. But if you're mainly interested in contact printing or using the Impossible 8x10 instant film, the 8x10 may work better for you. I like having some choices in print size, and so I prefer scanning.

I should add that I really like loading and unloading 4x5 holders compared to 8x10. I think that they're a lot easier to load and clean. I'm glad I kept all my old holders from my Deardorff days. And the darkroom work is a little easier, too, although not a whole lot.

[John Kasaian]

Go for it!
A 'dorff, a 14" Commercial Ektar and a stack of holders loaded with HP-5+ is good medicine!

[Brian Ellis]

8x10 became my favorite format after using 4x5 and 5x7. Viewing things on that big ground glass and seeing the composition of the exact print you're going to be making (assuming you contact print or scan and print on 8x10 paper) is sheer pleasure. I found that I photographed differently with 8x10 than the smaller formats, generally I used wider angle lenses. I don't know whether that was just because of how far out the bellows extends with 8x10 and a long lens or a difference in the way I was seeing. Like others, I'd suggest going for it. I loved my two Deardorffs. Liked but didn't love my two Kodak 2Ds.

[John O'Connell]

8x10 is definitely easier to learn on, because it's more forgiving to focus (contact printing can hide sins) and much easier to compose with on the bigger GG.

But you've already learned 4x5. If you're going to scan and print, you may as well stick with 4x5. I also think you'll see little advantage from contact printing 8x10 on silver gelatin paper over pro T's from 4x5. (Yes, I've tried Lodima. It's quite different from Azo, and I ended up abandoning gelatin contact printing for alt process. Azo was worth changing formats to work with.)

Alt process is a different kettle of fish now that you can make digital negatives. My in-camera negs are still better than my inkjet negatives, but probably not for much longer.

You're also talking about shooting color and instant in 8x10. I think color in 8x10 is just not worth the effort. I'm not sure what to tell you about Impossible 8x10, having never shot it.

All that said, since you really want a new camera, Deardorffs are very pretty.

[Wayne]

I dunno..I find my 8x10 much harder to compose with than 4x5. Its a beast. I don't think anything about it is easier except printing and viewing the negatives. But ts certainly worth the trouble.