Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: 4x5 or 8x10?

  1. #11
    Moderator Ralph Barker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1998
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Posts
    5,034

    4x5 or 8x10?

    Lots of good advice here, although only you can decide which path is best for you, Wes.

    FWIW, I shoot both 4x5 and 8x10, along with 35mm and some 120. The bulk and weight of the 8x10, however, can be daunting for some. Personally, I have a back problem, so I have to be careful when hauling the 8x10 too far from the vehicle. I also agree that the experience between the two formats is somewhat different. The 4x5 format is (relatively) quick and easy compared to 8x10. BUT, seeing the 8x10 ground glass image is a "Wow!" sort of experience.

    I also have a 4x5 reducing back for the 8x10, but the added depth does limit which lenses I can use on that combination. I use a double-extension Tachihara (which I like for the price), and a homemade 4x5 reducing back. The added depth of the back, and the minimum bellows extension of the Tachi doesn't allow me to use a lens shorter than about 150mm without going to a recessed lens board.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4

    4x5 or 8x10?

    Wow, you guys are so quick to respond! Thanks so much for taking the time.

    From what you all have said, I think I am going to take the plunge and go right into 8x10. If I want to enlarge, I suppose I can get the negative scanned by a drum scanner professionally (like with West Coast Imaging?) and then printed digitally, like some of you have pointed out.

    I do currently have a darkroom, but I just can't see it housing a 4x5 enlarger. It's not impossible, but I'd definitely have to get rid of my current Beseler enlarger.

    I intend to shoot mostly landscapes with my LF rig. Well, perhaps I should just bite the bullet. I think the main reason I'm considering 4x5 is that I thought it would be easier to learn on a 4x5, since it's smaller, etc.

    Thanks for everyone's feedback. If anyone thinks of anything more to add, please don't hesitate.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    193

    4x5 or 8x10?

    Similar to Ralph B. I use 4x5, 35mm, 120 but not 8x10 yet... I'm looking forward for either 8x10 back for my 4x5 camera or a 8x10 field.... I think you best go for 8x10 first and get 4x5 reducing back later, because 4x5 reducing back is easier to find than the other way around.....
    ...and welcome the LF world....

  4. #14

    4x5 or 8x10?

    Unless you really want to enlarge, I would go with the bigger camera. I don't make enlargements any more, and I don't miss them.

    I also wouldn't worry about learning on an 8x10 vs a 4x5. I think you will make fewer mistakes with an 8x10 camera after you realise that those mistakes will cost you something like $2-5 apiece.

    I shoot 11x14 almost exclusively these days, so my mistakes are eight times more expensive than a 4x5 mistake. I took a trip recently and was photographing a mountain. There was a road between myself and the mountain which was not visible, but there was a spot where a passing car (of which there were very few) could be seen for about one second. Of course, when I exposed the negative, I got a car in the picture, so I reversed the holder and made another exposure and got ANOTHER car in the picture.

    Let me tell you, I was about ready to hike up that mountain just so I could throw my camera off of it after screwing up $10 in film, but then I calmed down and made damn sure I didn't have a car in my third exposure.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    4

    4x5 or 8x10?

    Sidney,

    Thanks for the anecdote. I'm glad you were at least successful by your third attempt!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    2,428

    4x5 or 8x10?

    There was a good article in View Camera a while back looking at 5x7 as an alternative to both 4x5 and 8x10. It is big enough to contact print, but the cameras and lenses are much smaller than 8x10. It also has good lens cross over with 4x5. It would also be easy to scan on a consumer scanner for prints up to a pretty good size. I am keeping my eyes out for a cheap 5x7 camera to try at some point. I have to fit my camera (and tripod) into whatever trips I take for other reasons, so size matters for me. If that is not a constraint, 8x10 sounds like fun, if you can afford to shoot the film. You have to shoot a lot of film to get good with any camera - you do not get 100 times the experience with each 8x10 shot just because it is 100 times bigger than 35mm.:-)

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 1997
    Location
    Baraboo, Wisconsin
    Posts
    7,697

    4x5 or 8x10?

    These days you don't need an enlarger, most people (though not necessarily in this group) scan their negatives and print digitally either on their own scanner/printer or by using a lab. I scan my 8x10 negatives (at first I contact printed, then when I learned to print digitally I did both for a while, now I don't bother with the contact prints any more). So the lack of an enlarger won't necessarily restrict you to making only 8x10 prints from your 8x10 negatives if you go that route.

    I use both 8x10 and 4x5. For things close to the car around town I use 8x10, if there's any hiking involved I use 4x5. The main difficulty with 8x10 is the size and weight of everything plus the range of lens focal lengths is a little limited. I use a 300mm lens on 4x5 with ease but to get the same angle of view on 8x10 I'd need a 600mm lens (i.e. big, heavy) and if I want to get much closer than infinity I'd need a camera with at least a 30 inch bellows. It's no fun trying to work with a camera that has the bellows extended even that far, especially in any kind of breeze, and forget about anything much longer. On the wide side many 8x10 cameras only compact to about 150-200mm and then movements are restricted. While these are generalizatons, they're pretty accurate in most cases. .

    But 8x10 is a great format, if you think that's what you'd like then I'd say go for it. If you buy your camera and maybe two lenses plus other accessories used on ebay or from a good dealer you likely will be able to sell everything for about what you paid for it if it turns out you don't like 8x10.
    Brian Ellis
    Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you do criticize them you'll be
    a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    San Joaquin Valley, California
    Posts
    9,599

    4x5 or 8x10?

    One more vote for 8x10!

    Thats because I really like 8x10 and the only real reason to shoot 8x10 is because you really like it. You can do just as well with a 4x5 or 5x7---really.

    If you want to enlarge 8x10 you can always hunt up an old Elwood enlarger for probably less $$ than a 4x5 Omega or Beseler.

    There is something about big honkin' negatives that makes up for the added bulk and wieght and logistics that goes with 8x10 that is hard to describe. I think there is an element of passion involved that I can't communicate. You can do just as well with 4x5 and 5x7---really you can---but if you really want to shoot 8x10 then you might as well go for it, just be aware it can end up a lifelong love affair and you'll forever be having to explain your actions to other photographers who'll tell you "You can do just as well with 4x5 and 5x7---really you can" and you'll know that they're absolutely correct except for the fact that, darn it, its not 8x10.

    As far as learning plateaus go, I think you'll find the 8x10 can be reached fairly quickly. The format dosen't suffer foolishness. Everything requires more effort than smaller large formats except composition and focusing which I find easier on the big screen. The cost of a dozen or so botched up sheets of 8x10 tri-x is motivation enough to slow down, take your time and avoid mistakes.

    Do what you want, but if you forsee 8x10 in your future why not start playing with it now?

    Cheers!
    "I would feel more optimistic about a bright future for man if he spent less time proving that he can outwit Nature and more time tasting her sweetness and respecting her seniority"---EB White

  9. #19
    All metric sizes to 24x30 Ole Tjugen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    3,383

    4x5 or 8x10?

    I have cameras in all sizes from 6.5x9cm (2 1/2 x 3 1/2") to 30x40cm (12x16"), but the 5x7" is what I use most.

    The negatives are large enough to contact print, yet they can be enlarged in enlargers which fit in a normal house. The 5x7" enlargers tend to be cheaper than 4x5" ones due to size, and less popularity with MF photographers.

    A 5x7" camera with a 4x5" reduction back is not significantly larger or heavier than a 4x5" camera. But an 8x10" camera is a lot bigger!

    Many 5x7" cameras work well with short lenses and a 4x5" back, but 8x10" cameras will begim to struggle with a 90mm lens.

  10. #20
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

    4x5 or 8x10?

    5x7 might be my favorite format too (with the disclaimer that I've never had or used a 5x7 camera ... i just like the idea of it).

    Why don't you get the 8x10, and just make contact prints for the time being. No need to get everything at once just on speculation that you might like it. If you stick with it and decide you want to enlarge, you can get the big-ass enlarger then.

Similar Threads

  1. Best 8x10 scanner and Labs for 8x10 Color Enlargements
    By Robert_4191 in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21-Jul-2004, 08:27
  2. Linhof 8x10 GTL or Horseman 8x10 LX-C or Arca 8x10 M-line?
    By Roger Urban in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14-Oct-2001, 14:42
  3. Linhof 8x10 GTL or Horseman 8x10 LX-C or Arca 8x10 M-line
    By Roger Urban in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 1-Sep-2000, 21:40

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •