4x5 vs 8x10 camera

[Shailendra]

I've recently posted some threads on here asking for advice on different camera styles (6x24 to 8x10) and I am came to some dilemma's that I'm hoping you all can help with.

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?

Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.

I have used a 4x5 camera before (Toyo 45AX), but am considering an 8x10, only if it is worth the quality upgrade. I realize that cost and development increase, as well.

Any help is appreciated.

[CP Goerz]

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.


To get to the print size you mention the bigger the neg the better. I always fell into the old fishwife tale that said 8x10 negs aren't as sharp as 4x5 and can't be enlarged that much...BS! A sharp neg from an 8x10 is 80Sq inches while a 4x5 is 20Sq inches. If you can see the difference between a 35mm neg and a 645 then you'll have a slight idea of how fantastic an enlarged 8x10 neg can look. I have way more trouble trying to take a 4x5 neg up in size than I ever do with an 8x10.


Given the price of enlargers nowadays I spend more on a 35mm Leitz enlarger than I did on an 8x10 with cold light/timer/and the whole kit including lens so money isn't as big an issue as it used to be...maybe space though depending on what model of enlarger you get.





Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?



Buy an 8x10 Deardorff and use the 4x10 splitter. Why shoot a full sheet of 8x10 film to crop in for a 4x10 proportion? Its a waste of film and processing $$$. You can make two 4x10 exposures on one sheet so its a 'bracket'. In addition the Dorff has horizontal splits too so you can go 5x8 twice on a single sheet of 8x10 and when used in conjunction with the 4x10 splitter you can expose four 4x5 sized images on one sheet of 8x10.


If you want to go really panoramic you can take two 4x10 splitters and cut one in half, you can then make four 2x10 exposures..a full 360mm panoramic with the right lens when you scan them in.








Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.


Not a chance, maybe fewer emulsions but ask yourself how many you use now..most folk I know just have two in the fridge. As long as they make 4x5 film there will be 8x10 as its the same base used in both.




Just my very biased 2 cents ;-)


CP Goerz

[Rory_5244]

^^ I echo CP.

[Eric Leppanen]

I have no experience with 4x10, so I can only reply to your first and third questions.

When digitally enlarging B&W or color negs (drum scan plus Lightjet/Chromira/Lambda/Epson/etc. printer), a noticeable resolution/tonality difference between 4x5 and 8x10 starts to appear at a 16x20" print size, although if the print is framed and mounted behind glass many observers will see little difference between the two formats. For large prints such as 30x40" or 40x50" the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 will be substantial, although subject matter plays a role in how noticeable this difference will be to the average viewer.

When using traditional enlargement methods, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10-based prints is much greater; for subject matter with lots of fine detail, the difference is like night and day even at a 16x20" print size.

When visiting photography shows and exhibitions, I sometimes enjoy testing myself by guessing the source format of a given print, then asking the artist about the actual camera used. For prints larger than 16x20", I have virtually a 100% success rate in differentiating prints made with 8x10 versus smaller formats, regardless of enlargement method (digital or traditional). That being said, you will be able to photograph fewer subjects with 8x10 due to logistical issues (less depth-of-field; more weight and bulk, particularly among the film holders), so there clearly is a trade-off between increased print quality versus missing out on some shots. I ultimately invested in multiple formats so that I can pick the one best suited for a particular application.

I agree that 8x10 B&W film will be around as long as 4x5 B&W film; lots of folks still use traditional or alternative printing processes, for which the benefits of the larger format are especially pronounced. Long-term availability of 8x10 color film (which these days is almost exclusively enlarged digitally) is less clear. Right now, things are looking relatively good (Fuji elected to support 8x10 with their latest Velvia 50 emulsion), but as film industry contraction continues 8x10 color film is vulnerable due to its low sales volume, even by LF standards. Based on recent experience with other formats (e.g., 5x7), over the next several years 8x10 color film availability will shrink to just a few emulsions, then go to strictly special order status (with a $10K minimum order size). Hopefully it will be several years at least before this happens.

That being said, 8x10 will be a viable B&W format for many many years, so if it fits your needs then I say go for it! And enjoy 8x10 color shooting as long as it is available, as good 8x10 chromes or negs can produce breathtaking prints totally unlike any other capture method, either traditional or digital.

[Ed Richards]

You have to start with what you want to take pictures of. That will drive what is the optimal camera for you. As CP indicates, 8x10 only translates into increased sharpness with the right subject matter. It also depends on your skill and wallet - the % of keepers is small for most of us, so you have to shoot a lot of pictures. If 8x10 keeps you from doing that, you will not have as good pictures. You also have to face the truth - while you and some members of this forum care about ultimate sharpness, no one else does because it is only one part of what makes an image work.

[Shailendra]

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.


To get to the print size you mention the bigger the neg the better. I always fell into the old fishwife tale that said 8x10 negs aren't as sharp as 4x5 and can't be enlarged that much...BS! A sharp neg from an 8x10 is 80Sq inches while a 4x5 is 20Sq inches. If you can see the difference between a 35mm neg and a 645 then you'll have a slight idea of how fantastic an enlarged 8x10 neg can look. I have way more trouble trying to take a 4x5 neg up in size than I ever do with an 8x10.


Given the price of enlargers nowadays I spend more on a 35mm Leitz enlarger than I did on an 8x10 with cold light/timer/and the whole kit including lens so money isn't as big an issue as it used to be...maybe space though depending on what model of enlarger you get.





Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?



Buy an 8x10 Deardorff and use the 4x10 splitter. Why shoot a full sheet of 8x10 film to crop in for a 4x10 proportion? Its a waste of film and processing $$$. You can make two 4x10 exposures on one sheet so its a 'bracket'. In addition the Dorff has horizontal splits too so you can go 5x8 twice on a single sheet of 8x10 and when used in conjunction with the 4x10 splitter you can expose four 4x5 sized images on one sheet of 8x10.


If you want to go really panoramic you can take two 4x10 splitters and cut one in half, you can then make four 2x10 exposures..a full 360mm panoramic with the right lens when you scan them in.








Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.


Not a chance, maybe fewer emulsions but ask yourself how many you use now..most folk I know just have two in the fridge. As long as they make 4x5 film there will be 8x10 as its the same base used in both.




Just my very biased 2 cents ;-)


CP Goerz

Is it possible to get these splitters on other cameras than Deardroffs? say Tachihara or Wehman?

[jetcode]

Issue #1 - Is there much of a quality difference in prints if you are using a 4x5 camera vs. an 8x10 camera? I would like to print sizes up to 20x30 or 40x50, but is there really a noticeable difference in the quality of the print whether one uses a 4x5 camera vs an 8x10? I am very picky about sharpness and tonality but if there really is no discernable difference between the two, then why not stick with 4x5. I prefer to have my slides scanned then digitally printed.

yes - a 2x 4x5 is different then a 1x 8x10, the detail present in an 8x10 is superior.

Issue #2 - considering I would like a 617 or 624 format. Wouldn't it be easier to just get an 8x10 camera and crop out the size and area I need instead of having to get special camera adapters on the back of the camera or even a panorama camera? Same goes for a 4x10 crop, why not just set up your 8x10 image so that it "fits" into a 4x10 size, then crop (whether digitally or physically)?

Whatever works for you, my LF rig is a 4x10 camera with a 5x7 back. I can get pretty much any format I want with plenty of resolution. For what it's worth 6x17 can be challenging to fill, 6x24 even more difficult, 6x17 looks natural while 6x24 is long and narrow.

Issue #3 - I am noticing 8x10 film being tougher to find, will 8x10 film phase out before 4x5 film? I don't want to buy an 8x10 camera only to find out in 6 months to film for it is unavailable.

I suspect it's going to be quite a while before film disappears in large format.

[Nick_3536]

My 6x17 and my 4x10 is my 8x10 camera. I take the 8x10 back off and put the 5x7 back on with the 6x17 roll film holder. Or I put the 4x10 back on.

There are issues with cropping. While 4x10 might not be too bad cropped out of 8x10 6x17 is going to be a pain. Not to mention one of the advantage of the 6x formats is roll film. Check the threads on 4x10 you'll see discussions on cropping.

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi , I have just started using 8x10 & still have a 5x4 ,the big drawback of 8x10 is size
not just camera size but those film holders are 4 x bigger!! lenses for this format tend to be bigger & bulkier, the tripod needs to be bigger & heavier for sturdiness.
8x10 is slower to work with has less DOF than 5x4 & if you want to use wide angle lenses that require centre spot filters the filter front for additional filters is the size of a small dinner plate.
Add to this that roll film holders are readily available for 5x4 & not 8x10.
Having said all this i am going a small trek tomorrow morning & am only taking the 8x10 & 4 sheets of film.
Then later in the week i have a project in mind where i wish to shoot panorama & the roll film back will be the order of the day so i will use the 5x4.
For ultimate quality prints at the sizes you are suggesting the 8x10 will be in front at 40x50 size,so you will need to determine how often you want to print at the larger size.
P.S I have had excellent prints made from 5x4 at 50x60inches.
cheers Gary