I've been thinking a lot on the recent revival of film-photography in the hands of enthusiasts. Film seems to be making a small comeback. We have phenomenon like LOMOgraphy. We have the impossible project making instant film. Blogs are popping up where people are writing about rediscovering a love for photography and ditching digital.
Yet I feel the large format film hasn't seen an increase in use and popularity in proportion to this phenomenon. Why aren't people jumping to large format. It would seem to me that enthusiasts should love the quality and the benefits of a slower approach to shooting. I've been thinking about this a lot. Why haven't all of these people grabbing medium format TLRs and Hasselblads and Dianas and everything else under the sun... Why aren't they jumping to large format?
I'm one of these new film-fanatics who got sick of the way digital cameras render things. Annoyed by the clipping of highlights in the sun because of the lack of dynamic range. So I picked up a cheap 35mm film camera and a dedicated 35mm scanner. And I loved it. And I wanted something even better. So came the medium format cameras. And better lenses. And then I wanted even more. I wanted large format. But I haven't jumped to your glorious large negatives. I have been planning it for a year, but I keep putting it off. What is stopping me? What is stopping all of these newcomers to film?
I think it is the lack of a good format - a size that could be suitable for both contact printing and scanning, and still be small and light enough to be portable. As I looked at my options I kept thinking that 4x5 was too small for contact prints. "that's smaller than a common 4x6 print from a 35mm camera! Do I want to make all this investment for such small an image? That would be a waste", I thought to myself. if I went to 4x5 I wouldn't bother contact printing at all - I would buy a flatbed and just scan!) But do I really want to invest all that effort and time and money to jump to 4x5 if I wasn't going to see contact prints? If I was only going to see my images as flatbed scans, would it be worth it?
8x10 on the other hand felt like a massive thing. Huge, heavy cameras. Expensive film. Would I use those? I could get contact prints and see the magic of large format - but how often would I drag it out? Hmm... What to do?
Then it hit me. 5x8 would be perfect! Just large enough to contact print, but no larger! Not too heavy - people dragged those 5x7's around when they were still popular, didn't they? How much heavier could it be than 4x5? And the aspect ratio! 5x8 is the same as 10x16, and that's 1:1.6! So close to the golden ratio! And it could be made by just cutting 8x10 in half - expensive, but possible.
Now that I've come across this elusive 5x8 idea - an idea so elusive that I can only find one company that even makes such cameras - I can't seem to let it go.
So, I'm here to ask you wiser and more experienced folks: am I being silly? Should I just get that 4x5 or 8x10 and forget this dream of a perfect format that continues to haunt me? Could it be sensible to have a 5x8 camera built instead? And perhaps could Ilford or Fuji or Kodak be convinced to make it a real format?
Bookmarks