Is bigger always better?

[Ted Harris]

Aside from all the responses that readily come to mind, a legitimate question when you cnosdier factors that go beyond negative/transparancy size. Simply put at 62 and nearly 63 years old I realized the other day that I have not shot any 8x10 in many many months, maybe 6 months and maybe more. Haven't had any commercial assignments that required it and haven't done any of my usualy landscape work that cried out for 8x10. Or is it me?



Is the real problem that I am just not willing to lug around the larger and heavier camera, lenses, film holders and go through the additional hassle of processing the film, etc? Of course I see and absolutely appreciate the value of the larger format but I am really wondering if, now that (yeah I am willing to admit it reluctantly) I am no longer a kid, there is a part of my brain that just says "it ain't worth it." I know that for the past two weeks, when I have been stomping up and down hill sand mountains and putting many many miles on the car capturing as much of the spectacular Fall Foliage as I can, I haven't even thought about putting the Compact II in the car along with my 4x5 and panoramic gear. I do know that it is a very different state of mind for me ... who knows maybe it will pass.



On the other hand, am I the only one? Any of my fellow 'codgers' going through or gone through the same thought process? What outcome if you have?



By the way, I put this in the esthetics and philosophy category as opposed to the 8x10 category because it is as much a question of change in approach at various times in your life sa it is a simple question of how many pounds you are willing to carry.

[Jim Galli]

You've got 10 years on me and I feel like I'm in my stride. So how much for that big old nasty clunker. (A Phillips would be one of few that I would actually replace the 'dorff with.) Yesterday I had the 8X10 with me and fully expected to do some lens tests when a piece of firewood rolled wrong and broke my nose. That was pretty much the end of shooting yesterday.

[John Cook]

Let me give you “The History of Photography, by John Cook”.

In 1900, the quality of film and lenses was so poor, good enlargements were not possible. If the photographer required an 8" by 10" print for a magazine cover, he had to shoot an 8" by 10" piece of film and contact print it. Thus, many large cameras were commonly in use.

As each decade passed, Kodak (and other) scientists made astounding improvements in equipment and materials. Every few years, photographers had to choose between making better images at the same large format or reducing to a more convenient format and offering images of the same quality.

For the most part, they chose the former. Thus, as the decades rolled by, commercial photographic quality became much better than necessary. No point in submitting an 8" by 10" contact print for an ad which would appear in a single column of a newspaper.

Then came the Hippies with their “tell it like it is” philosophy of realism and candor. Large format photographs were undeniably posey and phoney. Especially fashion. Very difficult to achieve that intimate fireside romantic hand-holding mood when ten thousand watts of light were required to expose LF film.

So in response, the pendulum swung way too far in the other direction as everyone switched to a slightly out-of-focused, motor-driven Nikon F, impossibly-pushed Tri-X and available (crummy) light. Candid, alright, but technically indefensible.

We have now regained our senses and returned to high-quality LF whenever the subject doesn’t involve movement. But it may not be absolutely necessary to return to the overkill of the 40's and 50's. I, for one, must confess that I can not easily differentiate between an 8" by 10" contact print and one projected from a proper 4" by 5" negative.

And I earned my living for several decades exclusively with 8" by 10" sheet film. (Back when my knees worked!)

[Andre Noble]

Choosing formats goes in phases. Right now, I'm in the Medium format phase. Just came off a 35mm phase, which was preceeded by the 4x5 stage.

[Don Wallace]

4x5 is big enough for me. Having said that, I also shoot 8x10, not because it is better than 4x5 but because I use those negs for contact printing. 5x7 contacts are nice but 4x5 is too small, imho, for contact printing.

[Louie Powell]

Interesting question. John is, of course, correct that there have been technical advances that make the use of 8x10 less critical. But at the same time I believe that it is also true that there are more people using mammoth cameras than at any time in history.

I find myself going through cycles. There are periods when I just want to do LF, and then there are times when I want to wander around the side streets in Lower Manhattan with a 35mm rangefinder. And the ability to switch between these two modes (and all of the variations in between) is what makes photography continuously exciting.

Of course, advancing age means that you can't remember what you did yesterday, so that makes everyday a new adventure.

[John Kasaian]

Jim---I've got plenty of left over vicodin if you need some for your schnozz!

Quimby,

I have no problems with my 8x10 'dorff. In fact I enjoyed prepping some of my film holders for loading tonight(one of the few things I'm up to while waiting for my hernia op to heal;-))

The 'dorff and the ULF never travel very far from the truck and I like the bigger viewing area of that giant gg as I find it much easier on my eyes. I even got one of those coolers that comes with a hand truck like affair and find it quite useful on flat ground while a lowe pro trekker comes in handy when on a "forced march"---its a little easier on the equipment than the large ALICE pack I used before.

FWIW, the most awkward piece of gear I find to cart around is the tripod. Holders are by neccesity bigger but I limit myself to 3 or 4 at the max at a time unless I'm working from my truck.

While I like using the big ektars and artars in #4 and #5 shutters, if I have to lug my kit any great distance my little 240 G Claron and 159 WA Wollensak will invariably get pressed into service. With the exception of the 6x6 lensboard, these are the same size lenses you'd find in a typical 4x5 kit.

A self casing camera like the 'dorff, Kodak Master View or Century Universal is really not too heavy(for me---YMMV) but there is also the option of the Gowland monorail which is probably lighter in wieght than most 35mm SLR kits if weight is that big of a problem for you.

Now my handheld 60+# K-17 aerial camera that takes 9-1/2"x9-1/2" roll film is too much for me. Unless I can find someone with a A-26 to be my tripod it will be soon finding a home in an air museum:-( I had to step down to a more lightwieght (25#) Keystone F8 that takes little 7" wide roll film so I'm down-sized but still in the game. For terra firma("more firma---less terra" I think Groucho Marx said that) 8x10 and ULF still rocks!

[ronald moravec]

Been doing some side by side comparisons of same subject, same color film. 4x5 portra 160 new Schneider glass vs Leica. Very very close in a 8x10. At 11x14 vs 9.5 x14 it shows a little.

Now with black and white, Bergger 4x5 at 8x10 vs the Leica with Delta 100 both developed in in D76 full strength. Same subject. I absolutely can`t see the difference.

You would be amased how full strength developer hides grain. I never used it in 45 yrs of photography because it was said the solvents will soften the image. Well maybe it does, but I don`t see it up to 11x14.

Anyway my answer is 8x10 and smaller, Leica`s got it no contest. 11x14 the bigger neg pulls away. Then again I can go miles and miles with a small camera.

[John D Gerndt]

Quimby,

“Ain’t worth it” is a personal decision that one makes at every stage, at every age. I am with you about pain and taking pictures. Satisfy yourself. NO need to get hurt or even feel put out by the process, so long as you are at peace with the results. I have shot up to 12x20 and find myself coming back to 5x7 (b&w) and 120 size roll film (color) more than feeling the need to get out the really big stuff…ain’t worth it (most of the time).

Cheers,

[Bruce Watson]

Quimby,

You've got a few years on me (not that many though), but I've been around long enough that I understand your question I think.

I moved from 35mm to LF a few years ago when I finally came back to photography. It wasn't a migration, I studied it for a while to learn the state of the art, what it costs, what it takes to put it all on your back and take it with you... I came to the conclusion, much as my heart was telling me to go 8x10, that my head was telling me to go 4x5.

I went 4x5, making it all as light as possible (Toho, carbon fiber tripod, etc.) because I wanted to do it as long as my body could take it. And I don't regret that decision. I haven't yet felt any restriction on what I'm doing that would require a bigger negative to fix.

Is the real problem that I am just not willing... I doubt it. I suspect that the real problem is that you've discovered that 4x5 and smaller formats will do what you need, and you just don't need the 8x10 anymore. We live in good times - 4x5 is really that good these days.