differences betwen 4x5 5x7 and 8x10 when you shoot

[jonsmith]

I think depth of field would be your main difference when shooting, with 8x10 it's a little hard sometimes to get everything you want in focus.

Another thing that happens to me a lot is getting a weed or stalk of grass that you can't see in the gg when wide open, popping up in the final which was shot stopped way down.

You just have to be a little more careful with 8x10 than with "shapshot" cameras like 4x5 or 5x7.

I like the long, low proportion of 5x7 or 35mm, my 8x10's are cropped in mounting to a slightly more rectangular format measuring 180mm by 240mm, or 3:4.

[Scott Davis]

I have become a die-hard fan of the 5x7 format. I got a Canham 5x7 Woodfield to take with me to Argentina this past fall, which worked out wonderfully. It was very easy to tote around with me in a single backpack along with five lenses, light meter, darkcloth and ten or so film holders in the saddlebag pockets on my Pelican backpack/bag. It takes up no more room in the end than my 4x5 kit did, and it weighs the same too (Thank you, Keith Canham!). Most of my 4x5 lenses also provide enough coverage that they are useable on 5x7 - some barely (my Fuji 300T f8 telephoto lens), some with enough to allow movements, like my Goerz Am.Opt. Dagor 4 3/8" f8. Stopped down, that lens provides significant movement on 5x7, in a very compact, light package. The one pickle of shooting 5x7 is the availability of color film. If you want color neg, now you're basically going to have to get 8x10 color neg and cut it down.

I'm so enamored of the format though, that I'm seriously tempted to sell off my 4x5 and just use the reducing back I have for it when I need to use that format (color work, for example).

I process all my own in a Jobo ( I have "only" a CPA2, but I have the 3005 and 3010 expert drums for doing 8x10 and 4x5/5x7 film). As has been mentioned before, the Jobos provide extremely even, consistent development.

Now if I only had a 5x7 enlarger (and room to use it!)... I do mostly alt-process contact printing with my big camera negatives, and 5x7 is the first size at which a contact print looks good. 8x10 contact prints are great, especially when grouped (I do multi-frame panoramas at times), but they do eat a lot of film, chemistry, and cash.

Thinking of alt-process, that's another thing that the big negs will let you do, if you're so inclined. There's little out there quite like a well-made Palladium print from a big negative.

[Jack Flesher]

I'm sorry, but I feel the need to offer my .02 on something that gets said here every so often that bothers me: It is regarding the "there is a big difference between 4x5 and 5x7, but not much between 5x7 and 8x10" comment.

IMHO, folks that claim marginal gains going to 8x10 from 5x7 either had an older 8x10 camera with marginal rigidity, marginal alignment or 8x10 lenses of marginal performance, or a combination of these factors. Ask anybody who has used a solid, properly aligned 8x10 with a good lens and good loupe and the answer will be nearly unanimous as to it's superior image quality. Moreover, I actually heard one disappointed 8x10 user admit they had not even bothered using a loupe to focus when they compared since they could "see the image pop in and out of focus very easily" !

I will however admit an advantage to 5x7 (and by inference 4x5) over 8x10 is it is easier (or at least cheaper) to find good lenses that cover -- as most contemporary plasmats will -- and rigidity is less of a concern in 5x7 than it is in 8x10. I'll also admit the more rectangular aspect raitio of the 5x7 can be more pleasant to work with, though it is easy to crop 8x10 to similar proportions and you lose virtually nothing.

Finally, portability gains with 5x7 are debatable IMO. Most of my 8x10 colleagues and I feel that if we're going to go to the trouble of carrying something as large as a 5x7 -- notably larger in the pack than a comparable 4x5 -- we might as well "go all the way" and carry the 8x10. For ultimate portability, a 4x5 with readyloads is pretty tough to beat.

My .02 only,

[Eric Leppanen]

My own personal opinion is that format selection is largely a function of the print size desired, and the enlargement factor that will be tolerated.

For color landscape work printed digitally, I find that a 4x enlargement is ideal, 5x is OK, and enlargements larger than 5x are undesirable (distant vegetation starts looking like puffballs, texture and tonality starts being lost, etc.). A really sharp lens like a Fuji 240A shot at f/22 might make an excellent 5x enlargement, but most of my 4x5 landscape images tend to be shot at f/32 or so, and wide angle and long lenses generally do not resolve as well as relatively normal focal length lenses such as the 240A or, say, a 150mm APO Sironar S.

Thus, if I consistently want superb (not just OK) prints larger than 20x24", I need to look at a larger format. 5x7 would get me superb 20x28" and "OK" 25x35" prints, but if I want superb 30x40" prints (my current large print benchmark) then 5x7 won't cut it and I'll need the 8x10.

As for B&W, I still prefer traditional silver prints to inkjet in most cases, and the 8x10 camera enables superb traditional 16x20" silver prints (the 2x enlargement factor is difficult to distinguish from contact prints). I don't like going any higher than 2x, though, preferring inkjet at that point. Since 16x20" is my preferred B&W print size, a 5x7 camera wouldn't buy me anything.

In my mind, any format requiring film holders (as opposed to quickloads/readyloads) will be significantly bulkier and less convenient than 4x5 (reloading film holders every night during a multi-day trip is a real drag). Film holder bulk and weight is a killer with 8x10, admittedly less so with 5x7. But with regards to the camera and lenses, if one uses best-in-class technology the difference between 5x7 and 8x10 is not that pronounced. A Canham 5x7 Traditional weights 6.0 pounds, for example, while a Wehman Light Weight 8x10 weighs 7.5 pounds. An 8x10 lens set consisting of, say, an SS150XL, 240mm Germinar W, and Cooke XVa (311, 476, and 646mm convertible) is not drastically heavier than a corresponding 5x7 lens set.

Of course, folks who like the 5x7 aspect ratio and prefer smaller print sizes (or who are not as manically sensitive to enlargement factors as I am ) will come to very different conclusions. I've been shooting 8x10 for several years now, and admittedly I'm nearing a point where I'll have enough 8x10-based images to satisfy my large print cravings, after which I'll probably go back to 4x5 and not look back. But I'm not quite there yet.

[John Kasaian]

luis,

Will you be contact printing? Hey, there is such a thing as color contact printing---I was just curious if that was in your plans. As far as any advantages in 8x10, Christpher Burkett obviouslly thinks there is and his prints indicate to me that he's on to something. As for Me? I can't afford to go there!

Cheers!

[cjbroadbent]

Ed K. wrapped up the answer pretty well. I dare to add that the extra space (air) that one tends to leave around the subject when shooting 8x10 is never wasted.
Anything that expands the viewer's peripheral vision adds to the sensation of presence.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

I`m with Jack here, I find 8x10 a pretty good step up from 5x7 in "IQ" and I didn`t find the 5x7 setup that much less to carry than my Wehman. So for me the best solution was keeping the 8x10 and buying a 4x5 Chamonix as a "point&shoot"