4x5, is it worth it?

[John O'Connell]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "complete" 4x5 system. The 4x5 system I have lying around the house is a broken camera and two $150 lenses, 6 holders and an old box of TMX. I haven't used it in a while, but I will most likely fix/replace the camera and go back to shooting 4x5, even though I don't have an enlarger.

It makes sense because you can contact print your 4x5s until you get an excellent sample print and then have a decent lab follow it for the enlargement.

[Ben Calwell]

What Eric said, plus, I think 4x5 contact prints can be quite nice when matted and framed.

[MIke Sherck]

So... you said that you acquired your 4x5 system "recently". Why did you buy it (i.e., what were you expecting?) How did you plan on printing when you bought it, and why didn't that work out?

[Jim Rhoades]

I think Eric is on the right track. It might be annoying spending even more money, but... Last year I traded a fine 4x5 field camera. For a half pound more weight and one more inch in height I have a fine 5x7 and a 4x5 back. My 8x10 stays home or in the car now. One camera fits all. You can contact the 5x7 and flat scan the 4x5.

Of course now I really want a 5x7 enlarger.

[Scott Knowles]

I don't know what you mean by a "complete" system. I still plan to go to 4x5 this year, when the Layton camera is finally produced, for reasons unrelated to the print process. I have one lens with plans for two more lenses and the typical field stuff. But I plan to let a lab do the film processing for now, maybe developing b&w film later, and for any printing and scanning I need. I'll keep my complete film 35mm system for additional and other photography.

I moving to 4x5 for the film, camera controls, and the field process. I set aside a the money and everything must fit inside the budget. I overindulged myself in my 35mm system and learned to avoid the equipment focused mentality by focusing on the minimal system I need to work in 4x5. I've talked with several longtime 4x5 photographers who have the equipment bug to see it's a never-ending road to avoid. All I have to do is look at a closet full of 35mm equipment.

In short set and stay within a budget. Good luck.

[Alan Davenport]

1) Currently I'm not able to print conventionally where I live even if I could afford a quality 4x5 enlarger and all that is needed.

That leaves you with several options. I see you've already though a little about scanning and printing digitally. The availability of reasonably-priced scanners for 4x5 film was the key that opened the large format door for me. I had a wet darkroom for many years, but I don't miss it.

2) I hear there are no affordable dedicated 4x5 film scanners on a par with the ones for roll film

Scanners for 4x5 don't necessarily need to be equal to rollfilm scanners. One of the advantages of large formats, is that you don't need as much enlargement. That translates to scanners; you don't really need a 4,000 DPI scanner to produce excellent prints from LF films. A lot of people are making stunning prints from 4x5's using inexpensive scanners.

3) If I go with a roll-film back in the toyo, I probably wouldn't get the same sharpness as from a medium format system. and 4) The angle of view from a typical collection of 4x5 lenses would wind up being telephoto lenses with a roll-film back unless I selected super-wide lenes and the toyo doesn't accept bag bellows.

If you want to shoot roll films, you should probably buy a medium format camera.

5) 4x5 negs are a bit small for contact printing.

Not really; it's the prints that are small. If contact prints are your thing, start at 8x10 and go larger from there.

Should I continue to print 8x10 contacts but be limited to shooting close to a car and bag the 4x5 idea?

You're already shooting 8x10? That neatly solves the 4x5 contact printing question. It'll also save you lots of money, since you'll already have some nice long lenses for the 4x5.

[Herb Cunningham]

read confessions of a magic bullet chaser-we all need to.

I had a scan of a b/w on my epson 3200 pro and printed on an epson 2200. Then took the neg
to a good pro shop to enlarge.

They could not duplicate my digital print after three tries. I made a 13x19, they tried a 16x20
and it was not as contrasty (that's cheating-photoshop can always pump the contrast), but not
as sharp either.

I am doing my own wet processing now, and can beat the lab any day, so if you want to contact
print and do digital for the larger work, it is a good solution.

You cannot be sure of what you like until you work with it at least one year, shoot hundreds of
pics, etc.

[Don Wallace]

Stephen Willard is dead on in his assessment of the costs of digital. If money is an issue, then do not consider it. If, on the other hand, the issue is that you think there are no scanners that do a good job with 4x5, the stop worrying. You will be able to find one. I use an Epson 4870 (precursor of the 4990) and I am happy with it. You are right about contact printing 4x5. It is just a wee bit small.

FWIW, here is what I do. I use an RB67 for vacations and family photos. My main camera is a 4x5 and I also use an 8x10, sometimes with a 5x7 back. I shoot b&w and colour in medium format and 4x5, and I scan and print the colour. If I want really superior prints, I get a pro lab with pro scanners and printers to do it. I shoot only b&w in 5x7 and 8x10, and I print all my own black and white (medium to large format) in a traditional darkroom.

I am happy with this setup although I find the digital VERY expensive (factoring in computer costs, ink, etc.) Since I use it only for colour, I likely will not replace it when it dies, and I will simply send out any colour I want printed.

If I were in your situation and could not use a traditional darkroom, I would get a very portable 8x10 with a 5x7 back and work 0nly in those formats, only in b&w, and only contact print. Rather than seeing this a limitation, it could be seen as an opportunity to really concentrate on a particular part of the craft. I have a friend who only shoots 8x10 for contact printing. He has no fancy equipment, has only one lens, and his work is beautiful. His life is also a lot simpler.

[Bruce Watson]

What makes you think you can't afford a drum scanner? Excellent used drum scanners seem to be easily available, many in the $2K USD ballpark. People pay more than that for LF lenses.

[Percy]

Robert...my issues some time ago were frighteningly similar to yours. Short answer: yes, 4x5 is worth it, especially if you have a 4x5 enlarger. Just enlarging to 8x10 yields an image quality that is...well...majestic is the term that comes to mind. Scanning is a bit of a let down, but very nice, until you see what silver halide can do in comparison. So, if you are going to scan, by all means avoid viewing well done enlargements on photo paper, especially in black and white. I worked my way down from 8x10 to 5x7 to 4x5; I now shoot all formats.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd shoot 8x10 and 4x5. 4x5 film is far easier to develop without major issues with dust and scratches, and enlargements can be exquisite. 8x10 is a completely different world...
I now shoot digitally for all color work. I save my real cameras, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 for black and white.