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

[CG]

The discussion of aspect ratio gets interesting, but keeps assuming the camera should dictate the aesthetic. Shouldn't the photographer and the subject and the photographer's treatment of the subject dictate, among other things, the format and cropping? I like the idea of a camera big enough to have image area to sacrifice so cropping doesn't materially weaken the result.

That criterion pushes one toward 5x7 and bigger just on the basis of having plenty of square inches of film surface.

C

[Jiri Vasina]

I'm only using 13x18cm format for some months, but it's almost perfect - as previously noted, you can easily look at the ground glass with both eyes, it's just right to judge composition (not too large that you can not see it all without stepping back), the holders and film are of manageable size (loading one-handed). I can either contact print, or enlarge, or scan very conveniently with a cheapish flatbed scanner. For me, I think that I have found my perfect format. Only sometimes I want to compose for a panorama and think a 5x12" would be just right

[Scott Davis]

5x12 is another reason to work in 5x7. The two print sizes compliment each other very nicely. 4x10 might be somewhat more convenient, but it just looks too small, like 4x5 does. 5x12 is a very nice size panoramic - big enough to look at from a distance, as well as held in ones hands. And in the case of my camera, my 5x7 and 5x12 backs are interchangeable on the same chassis (canham woodfield). I do alt-process printing, and the 5x7 and 5x12 formats make beautiful prints, and are easy to manage.

5x7 is also a terrific portrait format - long enough to show a whole face, or true head-and-shoulders proportion. It is also good for full-length shots, as it doesn't lead to excess dead space on either side of the subject, so you end up with a proportionately larger, more frame-filling shot of the subject, printed to the same size.

[Amund BLix Aaeng]

5x7 wasn`t for me, I found the weight and bulk too close to my 8x10 setup...

[Ron Bose]

Now that I have Nelson's 5x7 adapter for my Phillips Compact-II my 'new' 5x7 camera IS the same size as an 8x10 :-)

[nelson_chan]

I'm glad you got the adapter Ron. I for one, am not a fan of the 5x7 aspect ratio. I like the more square ratio of a 4x5 and 8x10. I shot 35mm for a long time and started to hate the elongated frame. I have nothing against cropping either. I just like cropping in camera. If I don't like what I shot, I would crop accordingly or return to re-shoot if it permits. Unfortunately, some of my portraits are done on the fly and I can't return for those. I'll crop if it comes down to that. You guys should check out the work of photographer, An My Le. Her book, Small Wars was all shot with a 5x7 in Vietnam. Great work and inspirational maybe for all you 5x7 guys.

[Nick_3536]

I shot 35mm for a long time and started to hate the elongated frame.

I wonder how many of like 5x7 because of years with 35mm?

[John Bowen]

My current 5x7 is actually a reducing back Richard Ritter made for my Zone VI 8x10.

My next 5x7 will be one of Richard Ritter's lightweight (carbon fiber tubing) cameras. Richard is currently developing a camera that will be readily convertable from 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10.

5x7 is a great format. As someone mentioned above, 5x7 contact prints can be absolute jewels.

[audioexcels]

Hi AE,

With 32 minutes left to go... they're at $920!

LOL - I also have a few that are in pretty much "like-new condition"... maybe, retirement will become a reality after all!

Cheers

That's absurd. I'd rather have a whole plate camera with bookform holders for $300 than pay that price. Sure, the whole plate would be less versatile, but that contact print, $600's worth of them, surely would look nice with all that money leftover

[audioexcels]

You're missing the point. Whole plate is just wrong for some of us. It's basically 8x10 in shape. So whats the point?

5x8 could be shot in an 8x10 camera with a slider I guess and is interesting but 6x8 starts getting squarish again.

The main reason for shooting 5x7 is the look. Why shoot a bigger format and then crop it? I'm happier with a 645 or 6x9 camera then a 6x6. I end up cropping the 6x6 image most of the time.

6.5X8.5 looks a lot different than the squarish 8X10 IMHO. It's more like a 5X7, but on steroids. I personally love the 6X6 look. I don't think anything in the land of MF can touch a Rollei with Schneider or PQS glass on it, and why chop it down when it takes on such a nice expression in that square format. Surely not for all, but I'm a huge fan of the 6cmX6cm, but much more of a fan of 6.5X8.5...really wish the 5X7 had a larger size for contacts. 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.

I guess I just like a larger contact print, though there are a ton of things going for 5X7 as I have mentioned and if I got into alt processing, that's one more thing though I'd love to alt process larger contacts...

All my opinion of course.