beginner 8x10 advice

[jon.oman]

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.

This sounds interesting. Question, what is the normal ISO for this type of film? Am I correct in assuming that it is less that 100 ISO?

Jon

[John Kasaian]

This sounds interesting. Question, what is the normal ISO for this type of film? Am I correct in assuming that it is less that 100 ISO?

Jon

Usually around iso 3 or 4. The expensive ortho stuff is a bit faster.

[John Jarosz]

Grain, sharpness and imagery aside, there is a huge difference between 4x5 & 8x10 in terms of your thought processes and outlook with respect to actually taking pictures. (of course, my opinion). 8x10 is much more contemplative than 4x5. (The argument could also be made that 4x5 requires more thought than 6x9 and so on down the smaller formats, but the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 is pretty significant)

I feel that because 8x10 is more physical work to execute, you will learn to visualize your images much quicker than with smaller formats. You'll become more efficient faster. 4x5 is very easy to expose 10-25 sheets an outing. It's cheaper, easier to process the negative, camerawork is easier to do in the field. You'll throw away more 4x5 negs than you ever will with 8x10.

I don't think there's an answer to the question "which is better?". The right question is more like: "How do you like to work?" or "What format helps you better to accomplish your goals?". So you really should try to experience both before you make a giant commitment.

I tried 8x10 in the 80's, but at that time I wasn't ready for it. Now it (and 8x20) are exactly what I need to accomplish my goals in non-silver printing.

Getting off the soapbox now.....

John

[jon.oman]

Usually around iso 3 or 4. The expensive ortho stuff is a bit faster.

Wow! What type of reciprocity would you have to compensate for? Or, is it an issue with this type of film? Are the exposure times used based on minutes, rather than seconds?

Jon

[sgelb]

Im going to stick to 4x5.. sniffle sniffle.. (and look for an 8x10 on the mega cheap)

[John Kasaian]

Awww c'mon...you know you want to...

[Jim Ewins]

I took a class from Paula Chamlee, who demonstrated how to use my 8x10 without a head on a Berlbach wood tripod. One just manipulates the legs to establish your horizon line.

[G Benaim]

The only drawbacks of 8x10 over other formats are weight of equipment and cost of film. Once you accept that, everything else is better about it, especially the results.

[Joseph O'Neil]

The only drawbacks of 8x10 over other formats are weight of equipment and cost of film. Once you accept that, everything else is better about it, especially the results.

On that topic, a question. I noticed that after 12 years of loading 4x5 film, I find that after loading 8x10 for the first time ever, that it is actually easier than loading a 4x5 film holder.

Or is it just me?

[Don7x17]

Sgleb...

Several things to think about
1) you don't mention whether you've been doing 4x5 or other "small" viewcamera work. There is a substantial learning curve from 4x5 to 8x10. Even steeper if you are going directly from 35mm or medicum format to 8x10. And although you don't say it, it would be a huge leap if you were moving from a digital point and shoot to 8x10!

Lenses are larger for 8x10 than 4x5, and that 150mm normal lens on 4x5 is now 300mm on 8x10. Depth of field didn't get any better from the 300mm you may have used on 35mm - its narrow, and the only partially redeeming factor is that the circle of confusion is larger for enlargements.
check out http://www.dofmaster.com/custom.html -- try seeing what depth of field is for a 150mm on 4x5 at f22 (about the worst you can tolerate due to diffraction) vs 300mm on 8x10 at f22 (now raise it to f32 or f45 on 8x10 to get the equivelent depth of field.). So you're going to have to know your swings/tilts, and put up with a little slower exposure times (think wind in landscape..).

larger lenses means more weight, and also larger filters (glass) which is also more weight. Larger holders also, which is more weight.

Your tripod will have to be more substantial. Toss the center column and replace with a flat plate on top. Add a ballhead. If you keep a center column, never extend it to gain height.

2) Film cost and availability between 4x5 and 8x10 is substantially different. No one (not even the now discontinued Kodak ) makes readiloads for 8x10.

3) Loading 8x10 film is somewhat more difficult than the easy-to-load 4x5. Avoid the thought of imprinting your thumb print in 8x10 emulsion while loading - 4x5 is so easy to hold by the edges

4) developing and enlarging also got more difficult and expensive.

but on the other hand, 8x10 is a lot easier to view on ground glass. Not quite as large as ULF, but a heck of a lot more interesting on ground glass than 4x5.

Most of us went through 4x5 before going to 5x7 or 8x10. It was an easier learning process.

I salute you for thinking about going directly to 8x10. I'd like to encourage you to skip the 8x10 and move up to 12x20 or 20x24 instead ;-)

Anyway, 8x10 will be a fun experience! Just don't get discouraged while learning camera movements with a narrow depth of focus lens (longer).

Don