Is 4x5 big enough?

[David Lobato]

I have a derelict 12x20 wooden camera I'd like to restore. When that happens shall I christen her with a lady name and champaign?

[Alan Gales]

That's fine, David, however I wouldn't try to smash a bottle over her bow.

[neil poulsen]

I'm on a fence, and I think what would tip me one way or another is the feasibility of building an equipped, versus a spartan darkroom. If you can install a good darkroom with a 4x5 enlarger, etc., etc., I would go 4x5. Otherwise, I would consider 8x10.

As many have observed, it's relatively easy to gather 4x5 equipment for a reasonable price. But as others have also noted, while a challenge, bringing together and 8x10 outfit isn't all that bad.

Later, you might decide to switch one way or another. But, either system can provide a good start into large format.

[LabRat]

Larger than the size that your enlarger can hold puts it in the contact print category... Then the neg has to be big enough to be able to contact print the size you like...

If you plan to enlarge most of your images, smaller formats are OK if you get all of the other "ducks in the row" in the total process...

For alt processes that need a big neg to contact print, that's it's "killer app"...

The headaches/needs/costs increase the bigger you get, so keep the format in the "shooting for joy" range... ;-)

Steve K

[Alan Gales]

I'm on a fence, and I think what would tip me one way or another is the feasibility of building an equipped, versus a spartan darkroom. If you can install a good darkroom with a 4x5 enlarger, etc., etc., I would go 4x5. Otherwise, I would consider 8x10.

As many have observed, it's relatively easy to gather 4x5 equipment for a reasonable price. But as others have also noted, while a challenge, bringing together and 8x10 outfit isn't all that bad.

Later, you might decide to switch one way or another. But, either system can provide a good start into large format.

Another thing about 8x10 is that it's the largest negative that you can fit onto an Epson flatbed scanner. Of course this doesn't matter to everyone.

[Drew Bedo]

Poor eyesight and age-related dwindling patience keeps me from residing most of this thread, but here are my thoughts:

Is 4x5 "big enough"? Well no it isn't , but it is as small as I am willing to go. I do prefer working in 8x10. However issues of bulk, weight and the growing cost of film and processing keep me working with my little Zolne VI (by Wista). The whole 4x5 kit fits into a shoulder bag that can go into the under-seat space in coach class.

I would tell the OP to get the "best" 4x5 kit he can get together and work in that sdmaller LF format, then slide into a larger camera if he finds that LF suits him.

In my case I got into LF first with a Speed Graphic, then got a 5x7 Burk and James with a reducing back. Eventually I picked up a Kodak 2D in 8x10, and traded/sold off gear to get the Zone VI. The 2D has an adapter lensboard that takes some of the lenses used on the 4x5 (210mm and 150mm without movement).

The important thing is to get into it and see what works for you. TYhis first camera will not be yolur last or only camera.

[Steve Goldstein]

While re-reading this entire thread I remembered a comment made by (I think) Kirk Gittings at the View Camera Magazine forum held some years ago in Springfield, MA. Someone asked him why he "only" used 4x5 and not some larger format. His reply was along the lines of "4x5 allows me to do everything I want to do, so I don't need anything larger". I still think that's a great response.

[Laurent L]

To me 4x5 is the best starting option to enter large format photography's world, afterwards it can still be the best solution to enjoy large format photography especially for the people who can't afford professional scanners like drumscanners or huge enlargers or if they do, can't afford housing them.
The bigger the sheet is the more difficult it becomes to take the best out of it.
8x10 for instance is much more complicated from loading the holders to take the photo and it costs so much more.
But on the other hand composing a photo on a 8x10 ground glass is such an great feeling...
This is why I decided to stop with 5x7 cause a friend of mine has a drumscanner and because the ground glass is big enough to help me compose better photos.

[Alan Gales]

While re-reading this entire thread I remembered a comment made by (I think) Kirk Gittings at the View Camera Magazine forum held some years ago in Springfield, MA. Someone asked him why he "only" used 4x5 and not some larger format. His reply was along the lines of "4x5 allows me to do everything I want to do, so I don't need anything larger". I still think that's a great response.

That would make perfect sense. Kirk is an architectural photographer by trade and 4x5 is more wide angle lens friendly. Of course he now shoots digital for work and 4x5 for his beautiful landscapes. A 4x5 is a lot more "packable" for hiking into the wilderness for landscape work.

I prefer my 8x10 but to each their own. It's all good. Even the tiny formats.

[Bruce Watson]

If I could make my ideal format, it would be 161.8 x 100 mm (hint, golden ratio). I can get that of course by cropping 7x5 down. But when you run the numbers, 5x4 looks a lot like the sweet spot. Lighter to carry, better DOF (or shorter shutter speeds, or bigger apertures, depending on how you want to interpret it). At this size you can make a 10x enlargement without even thinking about graininess, it's just not a factor. So you don't gain much (some, not much) going to 7x5. At 10x8 you are actually loosing a little (you have to go two stops more to maintain the same DOF that you'd get at 5x4, etc.).

Unless.. Unless you like contact printing. Then, 5x4 is just too small. And 7x5 is just marginal. For contact printing, most people want 10x8 at least, or bigger.

So like most things, it depends on what you're trying to accomplish. But since this thread is more than two years old now, I'm sure the OP figured that out long ago.