Use of 4X5 Back on 8X10

[Brian Vuillemenot]

I've just aquired a 4X5 reducing back for my 8X10 camera, and am excitied about the possibilities this represents. I want to ask others who have used a reducing back about the experience they have had, and how it has affected their working habits in the field. Specifically, to what extent has the back eliminated your need for a 4X5 camera? Do you photograph multiple formats during the same outing in this way? I have in mind that I will shoot 4X5s much of the time, and save the 8X10s for spectacular lighting conditions or I when I find a subject that I really like, and want to make a very large print from. I am also planning on using the setup to shoot 4X10s using the half darkslide method. Since I don't often use any very wide lenses, the longer minimum belows of the 8X10 won't be as much of a problem. Is using a multiformat setup like this a good way to get more out of a photographic session, or is it just adding complication to the photographic process?

[Nick_3536]

I have a reducing back for my 5x7. The 5x7 isn't much bigger or heavier then a 4x5. It handles fairly short lenses. At least shorter then anything I'd likely buy. So in that sense it makes great sense. I can use the 4x5 back for roll film holders. Or 4x5 film. All without giving anything up.

OTOH I can't see using a 4x5 reducing back in the field on an 8x10. You've got all the bulk of the 8x10 to haul around. My 8x10 doesn't go wide in 4x5 terms. I need a recessed board to mount anything shorter then about 135mm. That's just to focus. Maybe if you wanted the 4x5 back to handle a roll film holder but to haul 8x10 holders and an 8x10 camera to shoot mostly 4x5 doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

[Ernest Purdum]

This is a very personal matter and I think you have partially answered it by and for yourself. Aparently you don't find hauling around an 8" X 10" an excessive burden for the type of photography you enjoy. Further, you don't use lenses too short for the bellows of your 8" X 10". After considering these factors, other considerations are mostly positive. You probably have enough bellows to use very long lenses and the 4" X 10" format you mention is open to you. Lenses are expensive pieces of glass and using them on more than one format is a way of getting more use from them.

[Brian Ellis]

I thought the principal reason for having a 4x5 back with an 8x10 camera was to allow the use of Polaroids for proofing (i.e. I didn't think most people bought them as a substitute for a 4x5 camera).

[Ralph Barker]

Although it depends on circumstances, I'll often shoot both 4x5 and 8x10 of the same scenes, so I can enlarge from the 4x5. Depending on the design of the reducing back, it may add a centimeter or two to the distance from the front standard to the film plane. That, in turn, will affect lens choices at the wide end of the spectrum for the 4x5. But, it's still handy for Polaroid tests.

[Martin Reekie]

The main reason I have the reducing back is the same as Ralphs, I can enlarge from 4x5. I can only contact 8x10. I sold my 4x5 when I bought my 8x10. The lenses for the 8x10 wouldn't fit the 4x5 and the thought of having another camera system (I use 6x6 as well) was too much. So it is a comprimise. The disadantages of this over a second camera is the focal lengths are "doubled", the widest lens I can use is now 120mm because the camera won't go any smaller - I'm limited by the minimum distance between the lens and back (I used to use a 75mm on the 4x5).

The advantages are bigger, I can use lenses up to 1200mm (very long for 4x5), the reducing back is no more difficult to carry than a film holder. But I do tend to use the 8x10 as a main camera and only occasionally think that a particular picture would suit enlargement. As I get older and have to lug the 8x10 this may not seem such a great idea - but then I'll revert to the Rollei SL66!

I'm not sure about the Polaroid comment as I use 8x10 Polaroid, I guess cost is an issue but for proofing the 8x10 shows almost all the negative area.

Regards,
Martin

[Capocheny]

You've got all the bulk of the 8x10 to haul around. My 8x10 doesn't go wide in 4x5 terms. I need a recessed board to mount anything shorter then about 135mm. That's just to focus. Maybe if you wanted the 4x5 back to handle a roll film holder but to haul 8x10 holders and an 8x10 camera to shoot mostly 4x5 doesn't make a great deal of sense to me.

Brian,

I have to agree with Nick about using a 4x5 back on an 8x10. To qualify my situation I've just picked up an 8x10 Dorff. At one point, I was adamant about picking up both a 4x5 and 5x7 reducing back for it. I followed this line of thought until I opened up the box to see the actual size of the 8x10. It was a bit of a surprise even though I was expecting it to be quite big. To shoot 4x5 with an 8x10 and deal with the additional weight and volume of gear... well, it seems like a funny way to go! If you're going to shoot 4x5... take a 4x5! But, my thoughts keep vascillating between these two strategies.

At the same time, I also have a 5x7/4x5 Dorff with a 4x5 reducing back. So, for me, it becomes a matter of "choosing" to either shoot 8x10 OR 5x7/4x5. Never the twain shall meet! Or, so I'm thinking.

At the same time... Ralph's strategy also makes sense because there will be those times where you want to shoot both formats in order to work with the output in different fashions. Hmmmm.... decisions, decisions, decisions! :>O

One thing that got me to re-thinking my decision though... was that I'd read/heard a comment that the contrast is much better if you're shooting with reducing backs (either 5x7 or 4x5) on an 8x10. Is this due to better light dissipation inside the bellows? Or, something along those lines? :>|

Or, is there ANY truth in this at all?

Thanks for any info!

Cheers

[Dave Moeller]

Personal prefernces vary, but the only reason I use a 4x5 reducing back on my 8x10 is when I want to use an extremely long lens for a 4x5 negative. My Calumet C1 won't allow movements with anything shorter than a 150mm lens, and a recessed lens board that was deep enough to allow the use of short lenses would be very bulky to carry and a pain to use.

Given the number of 4x5 reducing backs for 8x10 cameras that show up on eBay, I assume that they were very popular at one time. But personally, if I want to shoot 4x5 with normal lenses, I'll just take a 4x5 camera. Some day I might move up to a 5x7 with a 4x5 reducing back for the flexibility it would give me in image sizes (and aspect ratios), but for now the 4x5 and the 8x10 with the reducing back cover all of my needs.

[John Kasaian]

Two useful things you can do with a 4x5 back on an 8x10:
1) Use your really long (for a 4x5) lens
2) Use cheaper 4x5 film to produce negatives on which to learn expensive alternative processes like palladium printing. A 4x5 platinum print is less costly to make mistake on than an 8x10 platinum print.
3) Use a polaroid back to play with type 55
4) Use polaroids for color proofs as 4x5 polaroids are cheaper than 8x10 polaroids.

Wait, did I say "two?"

Sorry!

I have 4x5 reducing back for my 8x10 which I got thinking it would be cheaper to learn LF using 4x5 film than 8x10(which I really wanted to shoot. Really)

In my experience, it wasn't. I've never used it in scenarios 1-4 mentioned above. In fact I haven't even looked at it for the past two years. Why do I keep it? It'll increase the value of my 'dorff should my survivors sell off my estate I suppose ;-)

[Michael Daily]

The only times I use the 4x5 back on my 8x10 DD is to photograph violins, where shift is significant for viewing the instrument correctly, or for when I want an exterme enlargement of a small object. The extended bellows is very handy, but moving the stuff to a location is a major undertaking. for enlarging, I now have an ancient Durst 138 for 5x7.
Michael