Hi everyone, just looking for specific feedback from owners of the Tachi and Wehman cameras as I might finally start doing some 8x10. I currently use 4x5, and for a project I am doing that will end up exhibited at no larger than 40x50 prints I would also like your opinions on whether you see much difference between 8x10 and 4x5 at that size. Some that I have spoken to say it is very distinct, others not worth the extra cost and weight of 8x10. Thanks.
B&W or color? Color Neg or Trannies?
Wilhelm (Sarasota)
I use a Tachihara double-extension 8x10, and have generally been quite pleased with it - particularly considering the price. Note, however that the double extension model has only limited swing on the rear standard, and that is achieved via dual rear-standard knobs. If you are accustomed to doing rear-standard focusing, that can be a bit inconvenient.
I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, however, so all I use the Tachi for is contact prints. At 10x (with 4x5) versus 5x enlargement (with 8x10), one should be able to see a difference in the prints. Whether that difference is crucial is very subjective - rather like making 11x14s from 35mm negs. Getting lab-made prints from the 8x10 negs might also be more of an issue than with 4x5.
A search on "Wehman" will turn up some comments, including several of mine. If the bellows and movements are enough for you (they are plenty for landscape), it can't be beat, IMHO.
I was involved in another discussion here recently, SOT, about enlarging Widelux 35mm color negs. The consensus was that a good ballpark value for maximum enlargement was about 10x. For various reasons I ended up enlarging 13x, and yes, I can see more grain than I would really like to. I had tested with a 5x7 enlargement of some small complicated details, which were adequately sharp at 13x. The grain shows up in the simple blue sky.
With many 8x10 cameras you can also change backs to 5x7 and 4x5 formats. That is one advantage to purchasing an 8x10.
Bill, I will be shooting 160/400 NC color neg. Ralph and CXC, thanks for your feedback. I did do a search on the Wehman in the forums and read your previous posts, and they were helpful. Sometimes people have more to add after using the camera over a long period of time. Ralph, you were kind enough to reply to a question I asked a while back on the Tachihara. Since you have been using it a bit longer the info on rear swing is extremely helpful. The price is what I find attractive about these two cameras. A big issue for me though is fit and finish.
The fit and finish on the Tachi is quite nice, Roger, notwithstanding the affordable price. From what I recall of CXC's Wehman (we went shooting together a while back), it also appeared to be well-made.
When printed digitally (drum scan plus Lightjet/Chromira), color landscape subjects printed at 40x50 will look substantially better when shot in 8x10 versus 4x5. Grain is effectively eliminated; fine details and texture are much clearer; and overall tonality is improved. The result is a more real, three-dimensional look to the photograph. Of course, to pull this off, you'll need to ensure that your lenses are up to the task, and multi-coated wide-angle (or even normal) 8x10 lenses can get pricey if you need room for camera movements.
With less detail-sensitive (presumably non-landscape) subject matter, I agree that the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 can become more subjective.
I gave up on non-digital color printing of large format subjects several years ago. It has been said that color digital printing gains at least one format size in clarity versus conventional printing; I think you would be better off digitally printing 4x5 than conventionally printing 8x10.
I agree wtih Eric. You can see a difference between 4x5 and 8x10 in prints greater than 30x40. I have not done the comparison myself, but I have seen a friend's work (Velvia, drum scan, Lightjet print). When presented with 30x40 prints of similar subject material, you can pick out the ones shot with 8x10. Because he routinely prints 30x40 or larger, he now shoots 8x10 exclusively, despite the cost, weight, and inconvenience. With regards to the first part of your question, I have not used either camera.
Roger,
I have used the Wehman for several years and it is an outstanding piece of equipment; portable, rugged and easy to use. Nevertheless, I would say that the strength of an 8x10 negative is in contact prints and not enlargements, particularly in color. It will be easier to get a sharp negative that can stand the enlargement at 4x5; at least in my case, very few of my 8x10 negatives would be good for enlargements. You are likely to get stunning prints from 4x5 done well. I don't doubt that Tony's friend is a master and that with the right equipment, technique and dedication you could make terrific large prints from 8x10, but it may not be necessary. Good luck.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks