Advice needed. 4x5 vs 8x10. Should I upgrade

[Brian Ellis]

I wouldn't do it solely for the purpose of improved technical quality with 11x14 and 16x20 prints. I don't think you'll notice any difference at all between 4x5 and 8x10 at those print sizes. If you wanted to contact print, or make really big prints, or use an alt process or just thought you'd enjoy tusing 8x10 that might be different but for an improvement in print quality at the print sizes you mention, I don't think you'd see it.

I've owned three 8x10 cameras at different times in the last six years so clearly I've vacillated a lot about that format. The problem was that I really enjoyed using 8x10. I found it such a pleasure to compose with the 8x10 ground glass and I just liked handling the the bigger film, bigger negative holders, etc. But in the end (at least I hope the last 8x10 was the end) I decided that the ability to make contact prints (which was one of my main reasons for getting into 8x10 in the first place) plus the pleasure of use weren't worth the difficulty of carrying it around. Also, I think my range of subject matter was narrowed because I couldn't get it to difficult places and because of the shorter range of focal length lenses that I could use with 8x10. With 4x5 I often use a 300mm lens but that's a 600mm lens in 8x10 and dealing with a bellows extension of 24+ inches isn't easy. So with 8x10 I found myself photographing scenes that lent themselves to shorter lenses and my photographs seemed to have a certain sameness about them that isn't present with smaller formats.

But like they say, you only go around once, this isn't a dress rehearsal, etc. etc. If you think you might like it give it a try. If you buy good equipment used you should be able to sell it for what you paid for it.

[CXC]

Reasons to step up to 8x10:
1. Contact prints, or Polaroids.
2. Big ground glass.
3. Why not, just for fun.

Reasons not too:
A. A big expensive hassle.
B. Difference may be none-to-minor unless contacting or enlarging really big.
C. Big lenses mean really short DOF.
D. No ReadyLoads. If you are using them, buy a couple trad holders for your 4x5 and a little box of film, try it out, it's a drag.

[Capocheny]

Craig,

If you reside in a city where you can rent an 8x10... that's what I'd recommend you doing. Enjoy it for a weekend...

IMHO, shooting 8x10 is quite different from shooting 4x5.

The other format you might want to consider (if you're looking for a larger negative size) is 5x7. The aspect ratio is different from 4x5 or 8x10.

I shoot all 3 formats and every time I see that large 8x10 negative... it never fails to amaze me (especially when everything comes together in the way of composition, subject matter, and exposure. )

Cheers

[Ole Tjugen]

I'll second the 5x7" suggestion. Chances are that you can use all the lenses you already have, and a 90mm is seriously wide on 5x7"!

The negative is significantly larger than 4x5", large enough to make decent contact prints. It's also small enough that enlargers are possible to fit in a normal-size darkroom, and will still allow prints up to - I don't know actually, but there's plenty of space left when I print to 20x24"! I've had a slide scanned and printed at 40x56", and there's still more to go before grain dominates over detail with my nose pressed to the print.

[Gary Smith]

I went through this debate several months ago. For quite a while I was very happy with 4x5, still use it extensively. I fell into a very good deal on an 8x10 and couple of lenses. I find while the general motions are the same, I spend alot more time composing my shots and finding my results to be quite a bit better. 8x10 has really forced me to slow down and think about my shots more. The contact prints I have made so far, seem to have a presence that is lacking in my 4x5 enlargments. Not something I can really explain.

The other reason I wanted to try 8x10 was to do some alternative processes, 4x5 was just to small for my tastes.

Seriously I think you should give it a try, I think you will be very pleased.

Hope it helps.

Gary

[Rory_5244]

Hi Hi. Other than the fact that there are no QuickLoads in 8x10, I find shooting this format actually EASIER than 4x5. Isn't that weird? Focusing and evaluating a scene are a marvel compared to the 4x5 ground-glass viewing experience. Depth of field problems are not really that insurmountable. I can get most of the pictures I want with a lens that has precious little coverage for 8x10. I don't take many pictures, so costs are less than my outlay for 4x5 film and processing. Transparencies on a lightbox are 'da bomb'. And, best of all, as evidenced at a recent small exhibition here (in Trinidad), a big print will SHAME (did I say SHAME?) all them Canon 5D wannabe photo studs.

[CXC]

Allow me to repeat myself: 5x7 gives you all of the disadvantages of 8x10 with only half of the gain over 4x5.

Of course many disagree -- in fact reading their opinions here convinced me to give 5x7 a chance in the first place.

[John Kasaian]

Go ahead and shoot 'em all, then decide!

[Stephen Willard]

I went through the same investigation about 3 years ago and decided that 8x10 was just not that portable, and I went with a 5x7. The difference between 8x10 and 5x7 is not that much, but the difference between 4x5 and 5x7 is significant. Using an 10x grain focuser I can see the grain in Kodak Portra 160 VC when making an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative using my enlarger. I am not able see grain with a 5x7 negative until I am up to a 16x20 print size.

All of my existing lenses work with 5x7, and my 5x7 camera is lighter then my 4x5 camera. I also do a have 4x5 reducing back I use when need more movement, greater telephoto work, or macro photography.

The one draw back is there is not a lot of 5x7 film around unless you cut your from 8x10 which I do.

[Ken Lee]

Unless you intend to make direct contact prints, 8x10 has few advantages.

Nowadays, with a decent scanner and printer, you can make digital negatives of any size you like. You can make a fine 8x10 or 7x17 contact prints in Pt/Pd or Silver...from a color slide if you like... but don't tell those ULF guys

There is a "sweet-spot" where quality, portability, affordability, and availability reach their closest point of conjunction. For most people, it is around 4x5 and 5x7.

It's not too hard to cut film down to size, if you have a good trimmer. With an InfraRed viewing device, it's no different than working in daylight.