An 8x10 Headache.

[Tim Stahl]

Here is the situation. I have been shooting 4x5 for say a decade now. Last summer I wanted to try out an 8x10. I got an 18lb Calumet C1. I shot 30 images with it. I was unimpressed with the quality over 4x5 vs. the extra effort required with this pain in the back camera (& associated heavy tripod, lens, film holders). I had all but given up on the format; the Calumet is in a closet, as is that huge tripod... just waiting for me to get a chance to list them on Ebay. Today, I was cleaning out the Jeep, and found one negative, and contact print I had picked up from the local lab a while back. I had been having problems with the lab getting the print correct & had been in there a number of times, and was frustrated to the point that when I did pick it up, I did not look at it because I just did not care if they got it right anymore (like I said, I was done with the format at that point). So I look at it on the way into the house, and WOW! It blew me away. I sat at the kitchen table for twenty minutes just looking at it in amazement. I was stunned. So... here is where the problem comes into play. Do I pretend that I never saw that image, sell the 8x10 and associated equipment? -OR- Do I start getting more serious about the 8x10, find a lighter camera, and tripod, and start thinking about ULF for contact printing in the future?

Thanks in advance for all comments.

[wfwhitaker]

I don't understand what the problem was in the first place which left you less than impressed. But whatever the case, if you think you're ready to dive in again, spend your money on film and paper. Don't go chasing after ghosts and buy another camera until you're sure the format is for you. There's no cheaper camera than the one you already own.

[Jim Galli]

Don't do anything until you've built a darkroom and can do your own contact prints and film development.

[Pete Watkins]

If you have produced one stunning picture the fault must have been yours. Perhaps the lens is not that good or not the type of lens that suits your style of photography. Is it a process lens, if so did you stop down enough? I can't see how you can blame the camera it's only a light tight (hopefully) box. Do what Jim said, build a darkroom of your own.

[Michael S. Briggs]

You need very little to do 8x10 contact prints: a contact print frame, a lightbulb, a few trays, one safelight. You could put aluminum foil over a bathroom window, perhaps work at night, and put the trays on the counter, or in the bathtub (hard on your knees). A print washer is convenient, but the prints can be washed in a tray by "leafing" through the prints and periodically changing the water.

[tor kviljo]

Hmmmm - do you really have an option? - You have seen that contact-print, and you will probably think of it every time you use your 4"x5", but not managing to come all the way to finish & tones of that contact print... By the way, is there any reason to throw out the 4"x5"?/making a fuss because you want to try the 8"x10" or ULF once more? I find the terrific large GG image - possibilities to frame, adjust perspective & lay out sharpness very precise - to be one of the main "wow's!" using the 8"x10" over the smaller format, being reason good enough to sometimes use this camera, but I use the 4"x5"/5"x7" Sinar much more often - the 8"x10" being put into service when I know I have ample time & good means to bring all the gear. Heavy camera gear is a pest - espesially if You have to let the thermos behind you to carry that hideously heavy Apo-Ronar that you just had to buy on e.... Being able to carry the gear in a good backpack without being reminded of the weight all the time is a must for me, so until now, I have not been keen to go very far with my 8"x10", but I have made some steps to make it less of an exercise to bring the 8x10 out. I had formely the super-stable but quite heavy Norma 8"x10", but this is now sold & being (nearly finished...) replaced by a home made & very much lighter combo consisting of a wooden back (teak w/steel fittings) to be fitted as new rear standard on a Plaubel Profia Z monorail picked up cheap). This set-up will weight slightly less than the 5x7 Norma, about 5 .5 kilos. Back is mounted (on swing-point) to rail with extra tripod rail-clamp upside-down, have only sving & base tilt (as in the Norma 8"x10"). To save veight, I use a modern, very lighweight (3 kilos when home shortened...)) & inexpensive ($$ 120 in Norway) surveyors tripod of alu tubing, alu-alloys & plastic handles/cushions + a LUMPP 3-way low profile head. Tripod tested with my 200 pounds, more stable than a 6 kilo Tele-Studex I have had, making 8"x10" less a burden. Probably work for ULF also, but I have never seen any of those beasts...By the way: I have used (very thin base) 9 1/2" aerial roll-film cut to 8x9 1/2" for use in 8"x10" camera. Since this film is very flimsy, I used strips of "post-it" glue-paper fastened with glue-side out (fastened with strips of tape) inside film holder to keep sheets in place & in contact with base-plate of film holder. This worked nice, need a little practise when fitting film into & out of holders (curving the film - entering it through aperture instead of sliding it in), but you get better film-flatness this way. May help you get the most out of ordinary 8"x10" sheet film as well, I know You contact-print-people is very picky....

[james mickelson]

Remember........it's never the equipment. It's us. It seldom will be right if you rely on someone else to do the work. If you want the results you expect, then you've got to do it yourself. Even Brenda Corbin can't satisfy all of her customers the first time. It takes lots of teamwork to produce what the customer wants. Learn to do it yourself, and the satisfaction quotient will increse imeasurably. Of course I think 4x5 to 8x10 isn't much of a leap and I think you can get just as good or even better results by staying at 4x5 unless you are doing alt processes. But that's just me. I use my 8x10 but find most images I do are better from 4x5 enlarged. Yes I use azo and amidol so don't throw that this way.

[robert_4927]

If 8x10 is so much a pain why even mention ULF. As the old saying goes " if you can't run with the big dogs then stay on the porch" Conners carried a 7x17 all over China. My 110lb girlfriend carries a full 30lb pack with my 8x10 gear at elevations of over 8000 ft without so much as a wimper. There is a simple cure. By a point and shoot camera and quit crying because it don't get any lighter in the ULF world

[Ben Calwell]

Tim,

I used to have a Calumet C-1 and its weight, to me, was a real desire killer. Plus, I had a junker lens on it, which gave lousy results (I like to blame the lens). I was never blown away by my contact prints, but if I had a lighter 8x10 and a decent lens to go with it, I would love to try that format again. I switched to 5x7, which I like for contact prints, and although my Linhof 5x7 isn't exactly a light weight, it's not nearly as heavy as that old Calumet.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

There is a simple cure. By a point and shoot camera and quit crying because it don't get any lighter in the ULF world



Yeah, or try to find out if Robert's girlfriend has a sister..