beginner 8x10 advice

[Frank Petronio]

8x10 and 4x5 are pretty "different" other than sharing the same basic operations... 8x10 is more forgiving because you probably won't be enlarging it as much as the same 4x5 shot. However gremlins happen more easily with 8x10 -- bigger cameras catch the wind, or the tripod moves, or the size/mass of the camera gets in the way somehow -- a heavy lens might pull the lensboard out of position unless you carefully tighten it, focus can creep, etc. So it requires better shooting technique to avoid problems.

All of the current gallery on my website is 4x5. The last two months of blog posts have been mostly digital with a few 8x10 shots, and some of my older work from 2005 was done with 8x10. I have yet to handhold 8x10 but given enough liquor anything is possible.

I find it hard to shoot both 4x5 and 8x10, better to go one way or the other. If you don't mind the extra weight and bulk, a bigger tripod is always better. When you watch the pro set-up for more elaborate 8x10 shots (like car shots in Death Valley from 10 years ago...) they almost always used big Gitzo #5s with sandbags for good measure. So just get the biggest you can manage ;-) Like a Gitzo 504 and their #5 low profile head -- rock solid.

Gitzo made a #3 low profile 3-way head that is a very nice match with a wooden flatbed camera and #3 tripod. Ries are also good matches for Deardorffs....

[John O'Connell]

Search the archives on 210mm lenses for 8x10---sounds like a great focal length but lensmakers have for the most part not agreed.

Lots of landscape photographers have used the 240-250mm length successfully; I heard of one famous guy with the initials A.A. who used a 10" Wide Field Ektar.

If you use 8x10 you give up easy optical enlargment; if you use 4x5 you give up standard-size contact prints.

[MIke Sherck]

Save money for film -- more money than you think. 8x10 B&W isn't cheap ($2 per sheet for eastern European film to over $4 per sheet for Kodak,) and chromes are more. Lots more. Do you have a good meter?

Mike

[John Kasaian]

The only concrete reason I see for shooting 8x10 is because I want to shoot
8x10!
Yes, bigger negatives, really nice contact prints & enlargements that demand to be called 'blow-ups' 'cause they are visually explosive
But practically speaking 4x5 gives impressive results too.

[Joseph O'Neil]

thanks again..

yeah I guess a gitzo 3 will work.. what about a head?

I find my Gitzo #3, which came with an old Gitzo #3 head works fine for 8x10 in my case, For new heads, cannot say, all my heads I use for 4x5 otherwise look waaaay to small & light to work

joe

[erie patsellis]

Save money for film -- more money than you think. 8x10 B&W isn't cheap ($2 per sheet for eastern European film to over $4 per sheet for Kodak,) and chromes are more. Lots more. Do you have a good meter?

Mike

Until you go through the 50 or so common mistakes, you may want to shoot lith film, it's cheap and readily available (and you may develop a preference for it as well). Jim Galli has a developer on his website that gives him good results.

[John Kasaian]

Symmar - gonna get the fixed version.

Will look into the 240G

what do I give up if I just keep it in 4x5 ?

A 360mm and a 240mm makes for a nice "spread"

[Ralph Barker]

Another couple of thoughts: regarding Deardorffs, watch the model number, in addition to condition. Not all models have all of the movements one would expect. Also, you're paying a premium for the name. When I bought my double-extension Tachihara for $1300 new, 'Dorffs in mediocre condition were going for $2K. If you look at the Tachi or other alternative brands, consider triple-extension bellows, if weight isn't an issue. That will give you more flexibility with longer lenses, but the trade-off may be bellows compression limitations with shorter lenses.

In practical terms, a 4x5 will actually handle most needs, other than 8x10 contact prints. But, even with moderate enlargements, say 16x20, the enlargement factor from 8x10 is much smaller, meaning that the detail remains much richer. Plus, there's the joy of looking at that "big screen" under the darkcloth.

[Brian Ellis]

I've owned two Deardorffs, they're very nice cameras. With respect to Ralph's statement about model number, as you may already know the difference he's talking about is that some of the real old Deardorffs don't have front swing. Otherwise all 8x10 Deardorffs are basically identical in terms of design (except for the "military" version which takes square-cornered lens holders rather than the more common rounded corners). If you don't need front swing (all versions have back swing) you can save maybe $300 - $400 by buying the version without it. But most Deardorffs you'll see for sale will be the front swing version.

I respectfully disagree with a couple of statements made above. In my experience you will notice no difference all between enlarging a 4x5 negative 4x and an 8x10 negative 2x. When your enlargement factors are that small any difference in tonal gradation, "sharpness," etc. is just not big enough to be noticeable (at least not to me). I have several 16x20 prints made from the two formats and I'd defy anyone to tell which was made with which size negative.

Before I bought my first Deardorff I played around with a Tachihara double extension. It was a very nice camera but for me the bellows extension was too short on the double extension and the triple extension model was too heavy. $2000 for a "mediocre" Deardorff would be excessive unless prices have gone up recently. I paid $1800 for one in mint condition and $1500 for one in excellent but not mint condition.

Unless you often photograph in strong winds I don't think you need to use the heaviest tripod you can find. I don't agree that heavier is always better, even if you don't mind the weight. I've always gone in the other direction - use the lightest tripod that doesn't feel flimsy and that doesn't collapse under the weight of the camera. There's nothing worse than a tripod that's so heavy you leave it in the closet. And that's especially true IMHO with 8x10, where you're already carrying around a lot of weight even before you carry the tripod.

I fully agree with John's statement that the only reason to shoot 8x10 is because you want to. Unless you get into enlargements of maybe 30x40 or something like that I don't believe you'll see any significant technical difference between a well-made enlargement from the two formats. But 8x10 is a real joy to use, once you've gotten used to viewing and composing on that big ground glass 4x5 screens seem like miniatures.

Nobody has mentioned the G Claron 210 as a wide angle lens. I've used a couple of them and they are great little lenses, much lighter, xmaller, and less expensive than most 8x10 wide angles and as long as you stop down to f16 or smaller you'll have room for movements.

Good luck, every time I see an 8x10 field camera FS here I'm tempted to get back into the format.

[ic-racer]

I can tell my 4x5 enlargements from the 8x10 enlargements pretty easily. That's why I do 8x10. If I couldn't tell them apart, why bother with the larger format? 6x9cm and 4x5in are closer together, and harder to tell apart in my experience (aside from the different aspect ratio).