optics question

[Pere Casals]

I once mentioned on one of the forums using a wide lens on 8x10 that didn't quite cover and cropping out the darkened corners. I got jumped on! "What, why shoot 8x10 if you are going to crop?".

Well, I see at least one reason, not walking 2h with a 8x10 in the back !! If a Nikon SW 150 frames to much mountain for the composition we want and a 210mm do not frames all we want... then we can crop or we can walk , or run... if light is changing !!

Brings up, why not simply go to a smaller format where lens choices are FAR greater and overall lower cost?

Bernice, one can make "the mistake to look throught a 8x10 GG..." (as Jim F. says), IMHO 8x10 is an overkill regarding IQ, being 4x5 (and 5x7!) way enough for most jobs.

But perhaps there are powerful aesthetical reasons and spritual drives to shot 8x10 and beyond. Of course a pro had to optimize costs, and he was using what he really needed. An artist is different, if Sally Mann wants 810 then she wants 810, and don't ask. Then an amateur like me... this is difficult to explain, beyond G.A.S.



Anyway we should remember that a lot of Pro portrait photographers using 6x6 Hassies always cropped by routine. One told me something like "look, the Hassy was not square format for me, simply I didn't need to rotate the camera, and just I could decide later if it was portrait or landscape orientation."

One can have skills like Cartier B. to nail all framings, but IMHO also a lot of Pros do prefer to shot slightly open to have choices later to refine composition.

Still nailing framing at shot time is a nice exercise, cinematographers are (or were) well trained in that.

[Jody_S]

not if zoom lenses were being used in the 20s!

lf?

[Bob Salomon]

lf?

OK, was used.

[Pere Casals]

Here there is interesting description about the Adon being sold since 1891 through the 1950s, I found...

http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_L36.html

[Alan Gales]

Proper wide lenses with plenty of coverage for 8x10 are expensive. They are also big and heavy. In my opinion, if someone only had an 8x10 camera with a normal focal length lens (300-360mm) and only wanted to shoot a wider lens on rare occasion there are alternatives. There are inexpensive wide lenses (on 8x10) that just cover or almost cover 8x10. You could always crop just a little with one that didn't quite cover.

I was surprised to read that Clyde Butcher owned a 121mm Super Angulon. I've got one for 4x5 but I could use it on 8x10 straight on with no movements if I ever shot that wide. I imagine Clyde used it because it doesn't weigh a ton and he didn't need any wiggle room.

[xkaes]

There are inexpensive wide lenses (on 8x10) that just cover or almost cover 8x10. You could always crop just a little with one that didn't quite cover.

There you go again, using that dreaded word, "CROP". Just because it's a new year does not mean "the purists" are any more open to the practice. It just means they are one year older -- and more set in their ways. BTW, I just received my 2018 Burpee seed catalog -- for my 2018 CROP. I always plant beets and carrots, but after they sprout, I always have to CROP the CROP. So CROPPING is pretty common in my life -- in and out of the darkroom.

[Pere Casals]

using that dreaded word, "CROP".

IMHO there is nothing wrong in cropping or in not cropping. It is very valuable having made a sound framing in the camera and later making a contact print or enlargement of the original framing. Also it is very valuable using the perfect aspect ratio for an scene and perfectioning composition in post. And of course it is very valuable knowing when is worth cropping or not.


It is true that commercial photographers have a certain tendence to shot slightly wider than necessary in order to have more choices in the post... but they need to make money every week from shots.

[Alan Gales]

There you go again, using that dreaded word, "CROP". Just because it's a new year does not mean "the purists" are any more open to the practice. It just means they are one year older -- and more set in their ways. BTW, I just received my 2018 Burpee seed catalog -- for my 2018 CROP. I always plant beets and carrots, but after they sprout, I always have to CROP the CROP. So CROPPING is pretty common in my life -- in and out of the darkroom.

But isn't a 4x5 camera just a cropped 8x10 camera?


I started out with 35mm. I ended up printing 8x10 Cibachrome prints of my Kodachrome slides. You had to crop that long 35mm slide to get proper 8x10 prints. It was a dilemma sometimes. Do I compose for projection or do I compose for the print. Many times I would take two shots. One for each.

[Bernice Loui]

It is much about learning, developing the discipline and skills to see-visualize the image in mind within the boarders of the sheet of film (in this case).

There are image makers that used the film holder borders as part of the image. There are other image makers that get a rough estimate of what the image might be then crop-adjust as needed post process.

Both methods produce results. IMO, learning to craft the image in mind, in camera, no crop with minimal adjustment for post process is ideal and an efficient use of resources by greatly reducing wasted film and wasted post process time spent trying to fix what should have been made proper on the in-camera film.

This mind set is not much different than what film and video produces expect in their finished work. It is also why director view finders are hung amount the neck of these producers or why still camera instructors suggest a sheet of board cut out with the film format window. It is much about learning to see before putting any of this on to film or digital imager or any image recording device.

As for 8x10, accept this is not a low cost film format, accept the cost associated with film, lenses, processing and etc. Accept this is the reality of going up in film size. It is all part of the trade-offs baked in to image making.



Bernice

Well, I see at least one reason, not walking 2h with a 8x10 in the back !! If a Nikon SW 150 frames to much mountain for the composition we want and a 210mm do not frames all we want... then we can crop or we can walk , or run... if light is changing !!

Bernice, one can make "the mistake to look throught a 8x10 GG..." (as Jim F. says), IMHO 8x10 is an overkill regarding IQ, being 4x5 (and 5x7!) way enough for most jobs.

But perhaps there are powerful aesthetical reasons and spritual drives to shot 8x10 and beyond. Of course a pro had to optimize costs, and he was using what he really needed. An artist is different, if Sally Mann wants 810 then she wants 810, and don't ask. Then an amateur like me... this is difficult to explain, beyond G.A.S.



Anyway we should remember that a lot of Pro portrait photographers using 6x6 Hassies always cropped by routine. One told me something like "look, the Hassy was not square format for me, simply I didn't need to rotate the camera, and just I could decide later if it was portrait or landscape orientation."

One can have skills like Cartier B. to nail all framings, but IMHO also a lot of Pros do prefer to shot slightly open to have choices later to refine composition.

Still nailing framing at shot time is a nice exercise, cinematographers are (or were) well trained in that.

[xkaes]

...it is very valuable using the perfect aspect ratio for an scene...

I'd love to hear your definition of that -- but asking for definitions and clarity sometimes seems to be another NO-NO, much like CROPPING.