Why 8x10 instead of 4x5?

[Michael Heald]

Hello! I ask this question half in jest and half serioiusly. I've been using a Tachihara 4x5 and enjoy it qute a bit. I get out on the weekend and over two to three hours I expose and develop 4to 6 4x5s TMax400. I've played around with an 8x10 pinhole as well.
I've been curious to try my hand at some contact printing with silver, cyanotype, and/or POP and I recently purchased a Kodak #2 to give it a try. Weight and expense seem to go up exponentially with increase in size and longer lenses become more difficult to use.
As I try out the 8x10, I'll answer the question for myself, but I'm curious about those who decided to switch from 4x5 to 8x10 - why did you make the jump? What was there about 8x10 that attracted you? Did you ever regret switching to 8x10 or even decide that 8x10 wasn't for you and went back to 4x5?
Thnak you and best regards.

Mike

[Marcus Carlsson]

When I entered LF a couple of years ago, I didn't had the money to buy an enlarger for 4x5" and therefore I built an 8x10" which I could contact-print the negs.

Today I would have saved the extra money and bought an enlarger for 4x5", but that was my reason why I choosed 8x10".

/ Marcus

[Diane Maher]

I moved up because I was just starting contact printing via pt/pd and found that the 4x5 negative just looked too small as a contact print. An 8x10 color transparency is also pretty cool.

I do not regret making the jump from 4x5 to 8x10.

[Walter Calahan]

Looking at a ground glass of an 8x10 or larger is like looking through a window.

Looking at a 4x5 gournd glass, being 4 times smaller, is like any other camera viewfinder - small.

Don't get me wrong, I do shoot 4x5 and soon 5x7 (Graflex SLR for portraiture), but with 8x10, or larger, something magical happens.

[reellis67]

I used 4x5 first, and got an 8x10 camera primarily so that I could do contact printing with a larger negative, although you should keep in mind that 8x10 costs more, weighs more, and requires a much heavier tripod than smaller formats. For what it's worth, I find that the 4x5 is useful still, and I choose the camera based on what I want to accomplish. I use MF, 4x5, and 8x10 depending...

- Randy

[David A. Goldfarb]

My first LF camera was 8x10". It all felt more intuitive to me than 4x5". I liked the idea of working at 1:1, where the print would be the same size as the image on the groundglass, and the effects of movements were easier to see at first on the big screen. Contact prints from in-camera negs still look better to me than enlargements. 8x10" is about the size of a sheet of paper, so it seemed like the normal size for a photograph.

After shooting 8x10" for a few years, 4x5" and even 2x3" started to feel more natural to me than they did at first.

[Bill_1856]

Except for the ability to contact print, I think that it's some people like driving a staid old Bentley, some prefer a Corvette.

[Stephen Willard]

I looked into making such a move a number of years ago. My motivation was for greater clarity of image. I ended up shooting 4x10 and 5x7 as a result from that investigation. Consider this:

For 8x10

1. Image quality is much better for 8x10.
   
2. Equipment is a lot more expensive than 4x5 with bigger everything in the field as well as in the darkroom.
   
3. Supplies are a lot more expensive for operating a 8x10 camera.
   
4. 8x10 is not very portable because it is bigger and heavier
   
5. DOF with the bigger lenses needed for 8x10 was more restrictive.
   
6. Film can sag in the middle of the holders resulting in uneven focusing.

For 5x7

1. The improved clarity between 5x7 and 8x10 is not significant. The improved clarity between 4x5 and 5x7 is significant and very notable.
   
2. Cost of equipment was much less. All ten of my 4x5 lenses worked with my 5x7 camera except my 75mm lens.
   
3. Cost of supplies are much less for 5x7 than 8x10. I cut my own 5x7 film from 8x10 film and get two sheets from a single sheet of 8x10 film.
   
4. There is not a lot of 5x7 film available on the market. Most likely you will have to cut your own film.
   
5. My 5x7 camera is very portable. My 5x7 camera weighs less than my 4x5 camera and is smaller than than an 8x10 camera.
   
6. I love the aspect ratio of 5x7. 4x5 and 8x10 are more boxy in shape while 5x7 is more elongated like 35mm. 5x7 is a better fit for doing landscape photography.
   
7. I do have a 4x5 reducing back, and I still shoot 4x5 when doing macro photography, need more lens coverage, or need more telephoto range with my bigger lenses.

Currently, I have two separate camera bodies, 5x7 and 4x10, I port into the back country of Colorado with two llamas. This allows me to shoot 4x5, 5x7, and 4x10 which gives me the flexibility of fitting the format to the composition rather then compromising the composition to fit the format. I am investigating switching to a single 8x10 camera body with 4x5, 4x10, and 5x7 reducing backs. Ebony offers such a configuration. I believe that this approach will be lighter and require less space than carrying two camera bodies. This will also allow me to use 8x10 on occasions where the composition and lighting is extraordinary.

Hope this helps.

[Ken Lee]

I tried 5x7 and 8x10 for Platinum/Palladium printing, and went back to 4x5 (and kept the 5x7), because I found that Pt/Pd images did not always suit my subject matter.

I do intend to make Pt/Pd prints, but via digital negatives instead. This will allow me to size and crop according to the needs of each image, and make Pt/Pd prints from 4x5, medium format, digital, whatever.

Ironically, the increase in detail that we see in 8x10 and beyond, is often lost in the fibers of the paper that we coat by hand for alternative processes. That would not be the case, of course, when contact printing onto smooth commercial Silver-based papers.

[paulr]

I use a 4x5, but if I switched to 8x10 it would be to contact print, and also to find out how looking at the world through that big ground glass effects the way I see.

I'd also be curious to know what would come out of the different working habits that such a beast would force on me.