Is bigger better?

[Brian Vuillemenot]

"If you need maximum depth of field but good image quality, the 4x5 delivers an optimal solution in allowing you to make up to 11x14-inch prints." ???

You can make a print FAR bigger than 11X14 from a 4X5 negative/transparency without any loss of resolution as compared to one from an 8X10- at least up to 24X30 or 30X40, with all else being equal. Although photographers in general, and most of the people who chime in on this forum, are caught up with the "sexiness" of using the bigger camera, I suggest who seriously consider your reasons for photographing and what types of prints you want to make. 8X10 really only gets an edge over 4X5 if you want to make contact prints or huge enlargements. I recently aquired an 8X10, and the few times I've used it, I wished I had my 4X5 instead (although I do shoot only color transparency film).
One big drawback that hasn't been emphasized yet in this thread is the lack of depth of field with larger and larger cameras. You have to stop down more to get the same depth of field with a lens that has the same angle of view (300 mm on 8X10 vs. 150 mm on 4X5), and then you lose out to diffraction. In addition, the camera is slower and more unwieldy to operate in the field, and you're more likely to get camera shake due to wind, etc. Also, there are no quickloads or readyloads in 8X10! For me, 4X5 is the "sweet spot" between usability, portability, affordability, availability of film and lenses, film/processing costs, and depth of field.
In summary, if you can live with these limitations and an 8X10 fits your needs, go for it. Just don't do it because it's cool, sexy, or you feel a need to keep up with the Joneses.

[Daniel Otranto]

I disagree, I think there is a very noticeable difference between an enlargement made with a 4x5 to 16x20 and one made with a 8x10 to 16x20, it is more apparent with black and white vs. color, but I think 8x10 enlarged to 16x20 stands up much better. Most of the people here do calculated work as well, something that is just as easy to do on a 8x10 than a 4x5. I have been working with an 8x10 for about 3 months now and feel very comfortable shooting not so calculated and un spontaneous...it took a couple boxes of film but its achievable...to see how far someone can take an unwieldy 8x10, check out nick nixons pictures, they almost look like hes using a hand held and still gets that wonderful quality of a large negative

[Gregory Gomez]

Sorry Brian but I agree with Daniel.

When shooting black and white, going more than three times the linear dimensions of the film plane causes the image to begin to break down in terms of sharpness, resolution, tonality, and sometimes critical focus.

In my company we have three 16x20 prints created by William Neill (URL:http://www.williamneill.com/homepage.html), who used 4x5 Velvia film. While these images are quite good, on close inspection grain is evident, and color saturation seems a little thin. Also the resolution of the three images is not as crisp as it would be in a smaller print size.

If one were shooting T-Max 100 or Delta 100, then 11x14 prints from a 4x5 negative are really nice and show no grain whatsoever. When shooting Tri-X, the grain can become evident even in 11x14 prints, depending upon how the negative was developed. And 16x20-inch prints from an 8x10 will always show finer grain, more detail, and higher resolution than those made from a 4x5, assuming, of course, the same film has been used and excellent camera and darkroom technique has been employed.

But, the 8x10 has limited depth of field compared to a 4x5. Correct me if I am wrong but as the focal length of the lens doubles, the depth of field is reduced by a factor of four, requiring two additional f-stops to obtain the same depth of sharp focus. Thus, if f22 were required to obtain sharp focus with a 150mm lens on a 4x5 camera, then f45 would be required for a 300mm lens on an 8x10. In this case, the additional f-stops may not be a big problem, but if f45 were used for the 150mm lens, then f90 would be required for the 300mm optic. In this situation, defraction could be a problem if a sizeable enlargement was being considered.

It's my guess that the 8x10 is really good for anyone wishing to make reasonably large contact prints or prints 16x20 or larger. If one is not compelled to make contact prints and the biggest enlargement will be about 11x14 inches, then the 4x5 should work very well indeed.

[John O'Connell]

You have a 4x5 outfit. I'd skip 8x10 because it doesn't offer a serious advantage over 4x5. If you really want to contact print, pick up a 7x17 or 11x14 and a lens that covers it.

I moved from 4x5 to 8x10 because I didn't feel like setting up a darkroom for 4x5 work. 8x10 is bigger, bulkier, and more expensive, but doesn't give you really big negatives. Prints look small, regardless of how wonderfully printed they are. If I had it to do over again, I'd have gone straight to 11x14.

[Gregory Gomez]

You know John, you're right about 8x10 contact prints appearing small, especially for big landscapes. I agree: the 11x14 is the way to go for many kinds of subjects. The only problem with the 11x14 is the size, weight, and bulk of the camera. Now if I were a former NFL lineman, it would be no problem at all.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 contacts do seem intimate to my eye. When I want huge I either enlarge on an elderly Elwood or call up the big gun---12x20 and blast away. 11x14 is a very attractive format. I had a B&J and it was a fine camera but the cost of film holders was a killer 10 used 8x10 holders for the price of 1 11x14---Aye Carumba!

One alternative might be to get an old 4x5 with a 5x7 back. 5x7 is a nice size for contact printing and proportionately is similar to 11x14. Its alot easier to waddle around with one than an 8x10 or 11x14

Nah! Get the 8x10! You know you want one---go for it! ;-)

Cheers!

[raucousimages]

Go for 8x10 but don't sell your 4x5. I started with a 45AII then added a toyo rail camera for the studio then found an elwood 8x10 enlarger at a price I could not pass up. I now have an 810G in the studio and an 810M I take to the field. I added a handel to the 810M to carry it. I only go a few hundred yards from the truck with it, if I am backpacking I go 4x5. The 8x10 in the field slows me down and makes me think about composition and exposure. No bracketing like with the 4x5. The 810G is great for fine art portraits in the studio, people feel like they are sitting for an oil painting not a fast photo shoot. When I work for 30 min. for only two exposures and then give them an fine art, old school image it is impressive to the point that they pay well and tell their friends to see me. If you stay with Toyo you can use an adaptor and your 110mm lens boards (with lenses) on the 810M. The 810 has reducing backs for 5x7 and 4x5. I love 8x10 but I out shoot it with 4x5 about 10 to 1. It is just so light and fast compaired to 8x10. I now have 2-8X10's a 5x7 back 7-4x5's (my wife and 3 children shoot also) but bigger is not always beter, their are days I only take the Leica and 50mm lens and just let the grain go.

[Emre Yildirim]

I don't think I can take anyone seriously, who say that the largest "decent" prints that one can obtain from 4x5 is 11x14. I've seen 24x30 inch prints made fom 4x5 that show NO GRAIN at all, even at close inspection. That's true for both color transparencies and B&W film. While contact prints are impressive, I don't think they are impressive enough for me to go from 4x5 to 16x20. You'd be amazed at how much information a modern drum scanner can extract from a negative. Coupled with a high-end printer like the Chromira (that can output 425ppi), you can get amazing results that come very close to a contact print. I doubt your eyes are good enough to see a difference between an 8x10 contact print and a 8x10 print from a drum scanned 4x5 negative, printed using a high-end printer. Maybe if you compare the two with a loupe or a microscope...but who has time for that anyway?

There are professional photographers out there who make 20x30 prints from a 16 megapixel SLR, and you guys are telling me that prints from 4x5 can only go up to 11x14? Come on.

[Frank Petronio]

It's not "you guys" as in multiples...

The way an 8x10 renders a scene compared to the equivilant view captured in 4x5 does show up, even if you are an Epson scanner to Epson printer guy like myself. It's not only the matter of grain and resolution. I'll argue that the choice to use anything larger than a 4x5 comes from a combination of gear lust, performance art, and sheer stubborn doggedness.

If we are going to do digital to film comparisions, it makes sense to use as many "real-world" techniques as useful. If running a Photoshop filter disqualifies a digital image from being considered, then maybe film users should take themselves out of the consideration when someone soups the film in something different than Kodak's official development times and chemistry.

[Gary Nylander]

I enjoy using both 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 cameras, although the 4 x 5 gets used more, because its more practicable to cart around. The 8 x 10 is fun to use, ( when I don' have to pack it too far ! ), When others have looked through my images which are printed with a Epson printer, 9 times out of 10 the viewers have correctly identified the 8 x 10 images because they look "sharper".