5X7 Format...what reasons for shooting 5X7??

[Jim Rhoades]

I was using 8x10 and learning to make Pt/Pd prints. It was like feeding a campfire $10 bills. I had wanted to upgrade my 4x5 to a 5x7/4x5 Deardorff anyway so I did, telling myself that 5x7 Pt/Pd printing would save some money.

Now I was looking at these wonderful 5x7 negatives and thinking, Wow this would make some enlargement. What do you know, a 5x7 Durst enlarger follows me home.

Now I use 8x10 only for Pt/Pd because of the death of AZO. 5x7 I use mostly for enlargements with some Pt/Pd depending on the subject. 4X5 is used anytime I have to work a distance away from the Jeep.

Because of the size, shape and choice between silver and Pt/Pd contacts 5x7 is my favorite.

[Turner Reich]

It's the largest size that I like to carry on the plane, works great and has a nice large negative size that makes using an adjustable camera worth taking. The only thing that goes in the check in is the tripod.

[kjsphotography]

I like the ratio and it is perfect for contact printing. That is why I love the format.

[Mike Castles]

I think 7X10 would look great too. Even 6X10...cutting it off so you have a 4X10 and 6X10 from one sheet of film. With whole plate, not many options when it comes to cutting down the film, though one could do 5.5X8.5 or 6X8.5, etc.

Not 7x10, but I (and a few others) do use 7x11, which is very near the same perspective as 5x7 (and 12x20). If you were to crop/mask 8x10 to get to the same ratio, you would want 6.125x10 (the golden mean). Would agree that a 6x6 print does look rather nice (or 7x7, etc).

[audioexcels]

Not 7x10, but I (and a few others) do use 7x11, which is very near the same perspective as 5x7 (and 12x20). If you were to crop/mask 8x10 to get to the same ratio, you would want 6.125x10 (the golden mean). Would agree that a 6x6 print does look rather nice (or 7x7, etc).

Ahhhh...7X11...wish I could get into that one, and it is refreshing hearing other's opinions on the 5X7 format.

I am guessing many have not had the opportunity to use strictly whole plate/6.5X8.5 format for a comparison to using 5X7 as it sounds like the nice ratio of 5X7 is better for most than 8X10, though 6.5X8.5 is greatly preferred to 8X10...

Any whole platers around that can make their opinions here about their use of it vs. 5X7?

Thanks everyone for your responses. Excellent stuff!!!

[sanking]

Ahhhh...7X11...wish I could get into that one, and it is refreshing hearing other's opinions on the 5X7 format.

I am guessing many have not had the opportunity to use strictly whole plate/6.5X8.5 format for a comparison to using 5X7 as it sounds like the nice ratio of 5X7 is better for most than 8X10, though 6.5X8.5 is greatly preferred to 8X10...

Any whole platers around that can make their opinions here about their use of it vs. 5X7?

Thanks everyone for your responses. Excellent stuff!!!

I have used 5X7, 6.5X 8.5 and 8X10. To my eye 6.5X8.5 is more similar to 8X10 than to 5X7, and the mathematics of the aspect ratio agrees.

Eight inches is 80% of ten inches.

Six and one-half inches is 76% of eight and one-half inches.

Five inches is 71% of seven inches.


Sandy King

[rfesk]

And if you crop a little on the edges, as is usual, the proportion of width to length decreases slightly more. 4.75/6.75 = .704

[aduncanson]

I use 4x5, 5x7 & 8x10 cameras but 5x7 is my favorite pretty much for the reasons given above; good size for contact prints, pleasing aspect ratio, easier composing on the larger ground glass, compatibility with lenses acquired for 4x5 and (much) lighter than my (Calumet C1) 8x10. Within reason, I suspect that bigger simply is better. If I had a more transportable 8x10, it might be my favorite but I often find it awfully square. Not to say that there are not some subjects that work perfectly in a square, I just find that they are not very frequent.

Years ago a friend advocated a 6x6 camera, while I was contemplating buying a 6x7. He finally influenced me when he pointed out from his experience that there is no way to contact print a roll of 10 6x7 negs on an 8x10 sheet of paper. (Why don't we hear that very practical consideration more often?) So I perversely decided to buy the Fuji GW690 6x9 range finder camera instead. I have loved it and the results are great, but I decided to acquire an old Rollei TLR just so that I could experience composing on the ground glass in medium format as I do in large format.

I have not been as happy as I expected. It may be the limitations of the old Rollei's focusing screen & finder, but I think that some of it is that the square format does not help me to "see" the composition. Instead I find myself just trying to get the subject mapped onto the film and leave the final composition for later. 6x6 shooters often say exactly this as an argument in favor of their format, but while of course I crop in printing, I prefer to study the composition in the making of the negative.

I also wonder if years spent using the 35mm format did not form my preferences.

[audioexcels]

I have used 5X7, 6.5X 8.5 and 8X10. To my eye 6.5X8.5 is more similar to 8X10 than to 5X7, and the mathematics of the aspect ratio agrees.

Eight inches is 80% of ten inches.

Six and one-half inches is 76% of eight and one-half inches.

Five inches is 71% of seven inches.


Sandy King

Sandy and others:

Are you strictly using 5X7 or do you shoot with a 4X5 reduction back? Also, if you are shooting exclusively with 5X7, is it b/w or a mix of both b/w and color? Last thing...When you are viewing a contact print of a 5X7 vs. Whole Plate vs. 8X10 and larger sizes, what is it about the 5X7 that looks nicer to you?

Maybe one other last thing dealing with "resolution"...say we take a 5X7 and whole plate or 8X10 image and we make a 30X40 from each. Is there a difference between one or the other?

[sanking]

Sandy and others:

Are you strictly using 5X7 or do you shoot with a 4X5 reduction back? Also, if you are shooting exclusively with 5X7, is it b/w or a mix of both b/w and color? Last thing...When you are viewing a contact print of a 5X7 vs. Whole Plate vs. 8X10 and larger sizes, what is it about the 5X7 that looks nicer to you?

Maybe one other last thing dealing with "resolution"...say we take a 5X7 and whole plate or 8X10 image and we make a 30X40 from each. Is there a difference between one or the other?

I have 4X5 reducing backs for my 5X7 cameras but never use them except to test film. Basically I prefer the slightly wider aspect ratio of the 5X7 compared to 4X5. Of course,you can crop to whatever aspect you like but it is best not to if you can avoid it.

If the issue is image quality in terms of resolution, if all other things are equal a 32X40" print from a 4X5 negative should have the same image quality as a 40X56" print from a 5X7" negative (or a 16X20" from 4X5 should have the same quality as as 20X28" from 5X7).

However, my preference for the 5X7 is similar to what others have said.

1. Nice and light for travel by air.
2. Image large enough to contact print.
3. Wide variety of lenses available.
4. Quite a number of emulsions in B&W and color available without special order or cutting down from larger size.
5. Nice large image on the ground glass.

However, if reducing weight and size to a minimum is a major consideration a good case could be made for a light weight 4X5 with ready load film as the best overall travel camera.

Sandy King