4x5 or 8x10

[Toyon]

There is a special quality to an 8x10 negative, but 8x10 can be inhibiting in terms of your movement in an area. Ask yourself how many times do you shift and reset your rig on a typical shoot? How far do you walk? How many lenses and holders do you want to carry? You might lose more than you gain with 8x10 on that basis alone.

[ic-racer]

Looks like you have already made up your mind for the 8x10. My own experience is that close scrutiny of side-by-side 16x20 enlargements of 4x5 and 8x10 negatives always favor the 8x10. If not I'd stop using 8x10

The difference in resolution in the enlargements is small, but there are other reasons I like 8x10. For example dust and imperfections are 2 times smaller. I find the 8x10 camera a joy to focus and the big negatives are fun and easy to work with.

[Ken Lee]

"My final prints will be apprx 85x105 inches..."

Just curious: What subjects to you intend to photograph ?

[vwizz]

Hi!
I'm currently asking myself the same question:
I am more than happy with my 4x5 Chamonix doing both B&W and color negatives.
Still i am tempted by both palladium print and collodion wet plate.

>> I fear 4x5 might be too small for these: what do you think?

Next week I'll be in Shanghai and there is the Shen Hao main store not so far from my hotel,.... I'm not likely to go back there any time soon, so i am really wondering if I should go for a Shen Hao 8x10.... ???

Best Regards,
V

[don mills]

i photography interiors and landscapes in color.

now that i've decided on 8x10, i need to figure out my workflow.

i'll probably settle on the nicest flatbed scanner i can find since i don't want to buy a drum scanner or outsource (for 40x50+ prints, the files are too expensive).

any input on top scanners for 8x10 that will yield great quality (small micron size) for color?

[Ben Syverson]

A really nice flatbed will cost more than a used drum scanner... My advice would be to go cheap and get an Epson V700 or something, since there doesn't really seem to be a world of difference between that and a "pro" flatbed.

One last thing -- for interiors/architecture, you might find yourself falling back on 4x5. In general, the wide-angle lenses for 4x5 have much more coverage than the wides for 8x10. You can't really go crazy like you can with a good 90mm on 4x5.

[Rafael Garcia]

i don't understand why you have to contact print. can't you develop and scan the neg to get a larger end print with better quality?

Been away...sorry for the late response. I don't own a negative scanner that scans beyond 35mm, so I have to print and scan the prints! I do own two enlargers that top out at 4x5 and at 5x7... so for 8x10 I contact print and scan the print.

[Brian Ellis]

I've used both 4x5 and 8x10. I enjoy 8x10 more, mostly because of the bigger screen but also it's just kind of fun handling all the bigger holders, lenses, etc. However, because of the weight involved I found that I was limited in what I'd photograph with the 8x10. I'd never take it on an all-day hike for example or on any mountain climbs. I tended to use it onlly in places I could easily get to. So I didn't like the fact that for me it was limiting what I photographed. But for what I did with it, it was a lot of fun, a good bit more plain old enjoyment than 4x5.

I don't know the answer to your question about 4x5 drum scan vs flatbed 8x10 scan. It strikes me that this is something you'd have to try in order to answer the question. I did a lot of scanning of my 8x10 negatives but never enlarged as big as you plan to. I've only had a few drum scans made, I stopped when I found that the minimal difference between a drum scan and what I could do on my Epson 4990/Silverfast Ai wasn't worth the trouble and cost of drum scans.

5x7 is a lovely format and I enjoyed using my 5x7 camera. However, at the time I wasn't into scanning and didn't have a 5x7 enlarger. I found that contact prints of 5x7 worked well for a few subjects but in general they were too small to be satisfying with most of the things I photograph.

[Ken Lee]

The original question might be rephrased, as: "What's the best way to make color interiors and landscape prints, sized 8x10 feet ?"

Then the next question becomes, best for what ? For example, at what distance will they be viewed, and by whom ?

Depending on the answer, a simple point-and-shoot digital camera may be good enough - or scanned 8x10 film may not be good enough.

[Lenny Eiger]

The original question might be rephrased, as: "What's the best way to make color interiors and landscape prints, sized 8x10 feet ?"

Then the next question becomes, best for what ? For example, at what distance will they be viewed, and by whom ?

I agree, and this frustrates the heck out of me. These questions get asked and people start answering like crazy, before the particulars of what someone is trying to do are clear. There are some technology issues here, basic physical limits, # of pixels, etc. There is also the issue of what style of print does someone want to make. Who is their printing hero? Do they want to make something close to an Ansel Adams print, or a Frederick Evans one? Or somewhere in between...

It is very helpful when someone points to a web page and says I want to make a print like this, and gives a sense of the size.

Back to the prep on these two 20 foot prints I am making this week...

Lenny