4x5 vs 5x7

[Brian Ellis]

I bought a 5x7 camera after a few years of using 4x5, thinking I'd be happy making 5x7 contact prints. I was wrong. While I like the aspect ratio, and 5x7 prints worked with a few subjects, for the most part I thought my photographs needed to be printed larger. So I sold the 5x7 stuff and haven't been tempted to go back. Just my own situation of course.

[dazedgonebye]

Allways so much passion on these topics.

I obviously have a great deal of reading/thinking to do. At this point, I'm not even sure I'd be going with a full view camera instead of something like a fotoman.

I will say that aspect ratio may be a challenge for me. I like 3x2 quite a bit, being happiest with 35mm film and 6x9 in medium format. On the other hand, that has often caused me problems when it comes to framing work.

[Ken Lee]

5x7 lets you make fairly large prints with nothing fancier than an affordable consumer-grade scanner, or via modest optical enlargement.

[timbo10ca]

I got into LF with 5x7 and I love it- good size to backpack, etc, good for contacts and gear/film is not much more or the same price as for 4x5. I also like the aspect, having known only 35mm until soon before going to LF. I definitely don't think 4x5 contacts are large enough (for me, anyway) so I started with 5x7. I always thought I'd get an 8x10 eventually, but maybe I'll just get a 5x7 enlarger instead..... That doesn't solve the desire to contact print 8x10 though, which will probably always be an itch I'll wanna scratch. Pricewise, the jump from 4x5 to 5x7 seems much less than 5x7 to 8x10 (from camera to glass to film to tripod to filmholders, etc etc). There are many solutions- it just depends on your goals. But believe me, GAS never stops.......

Tim

[Jim Noel]

I have both, along with a few other formats. My 4x5 and 8x10 rarely get used in comparison to the 5x7's which are in use frequently. The 57 format is truly vertical when vertical, and truly a horizontal when in that position, while the 4x5, 8x10 format is almost square.

[audioexcels]

I bought a 5x7 camera after a few years of using 4x5, thinking I'd be happy making 5x7 contact prints. I was wrong. While I like the aspect ratio, and 5x7 prints worked with a few subjects, for the most part I thought my photographs needed to be printed larger. So I sold the 5x7 stuff and haven't been tempted to go back. Just my own situation of course.

Brian,

You shoot 8X10 primarily?

[robert fallis]

I use half plate, which is just a fraction smaller than 5x7, between 10mm to 5mm, the resulting contact print has a nice black border without resorting to photoshop ( GIMP in my case)

bob

[Clay Turtle]

I started with a 4x5 & recently upgraded to the 5x7. I wanted to be able to use both as 4x5 film has greater film selection so I built an adapter to reduce to the 4x5 format. Eh, works ok but I still have the option to use a 4x5 back . . . the trouble being every time I shoot using the adapter I look at how much film area 5x7 that is not covered the 4x5. When you see about a 1/3 of the gg being blanked out by the adapter so using a separate back keeps me from freaking out.
Recently did some 4x5 (b&w) contact prints on 5x7 paper . . . I really need to get some more holders & b&w film in the 5x7 format!

[Frank Bagbey]

For landscape, no doubt in my mind 5x7 is the way to go. Maybe for portraits, too.
4x5 is wonderful so 5x7 (almost double in size) can only be twice as good. Many old time photographers used 5x7 for portraiture, doing retouching right on the negative before making great contact prints.

[burnesingman]

Many 4x5" cameras are really 5x7" cameras with 4x5" backs, so they're not necessarily larger. 4x5" equipment, though, is much more widely available, and you have more film choices. 5x7" makes a nicer sized contact print, and would be a better choice if you want to scan with a flatbed scanner. If you're going to enlarge conventionally, 4x5" enlargers are much more ubiquitous and cheap.

Interesting. But how do you develop it? Trays? or does Stearman make a 5x7 system? Other solutions?