Have 4x5...BUT want to go larger

[77seriesiii]

Ok so here goes. I have a 4x5 toyo field camera (well ok 2 but different story) and I have discovered this urge to go larger and I am trying to figure out how large should I go. One thought is If you are going to go big go BIG. Having never shot anything larger than 4x5 how different are the large formats? Weight right now is a partial issue but I am young(ish) and can still cart around 50+ pounds on the back (dont like and will grump but doable). There is a 14x17 still available w/in the forum (may have sold by now) there is film costs, what size lens, etc that I am starting to recognize as not knowing the answers. so what are some considerations about ULF that as a 4x5 shooter I am not aware of but really need to be.

Thanks for the help and if there are links on this in the forum let me know. I did look but I am not sure if I know what I am asking yet.

Erick

[venchka]

Welcome to the Asylum. Visiting hours are from ....

I can only speak for myself. I had an opportunity to spend a few minutes behind Clay Harmon's 7x17 camera. Habit forming for sure.

Price the film. Price the holders. Holders can cost more than lenses. Price a good contact frame. If you have the resources, go for it.

Make sure you have the room to process the film as well.

[Ken Lee]

What Wayne said, plus:

Try to hook up with someone who has a really big camera. Compensate them for their time, and go shooting with them, process the film together, and make a print together. As they say about cars... Take one for a test-drive. Otherwise, how will you know ?

In addition, try see some prints made with big cameras, and compare them to those made with smaller cameras.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 is a good step up in size. Film holders and film is considerably less that 11x14 or ULF sizes plus the gear is more manageable (heh-heh-heh!) Plenty of good cameras & lenses are available (a few 4x5 lenses cover 8x10 quite nicely so you just might have a head start after a fashion)

[Paul Metcalf]

Other than an "urge" you haven't said why you're thinking of larger. At 4x5, you're already into very high quality imagery, so other reasons might be....? Contact printing (4x5 is fun for contact printing but prints are, of course, small) maybe? Format change (which would mean you would avoid 8x10 since it's the same format)? Too much excess cash?

I stopped at 8x10 because I wanted to contact print, and after matting and framing the picture is at 16x20 which is the largest (so far) final product I'm looking for. (I've also enlarged to 11x14 with 16x20 framing, so 11x14 "might" be in my future. Might. Maybe).

[Vaughn]

8x10 is a good size, but not ULF...it is sort of a compromise between size and affordability/availability of film and equipment. 8x10 prints do not have a huge presences on a large wall, but are large enough for upfront and personal. 8x10 negs do have the possibilty of being enlarged.

My 8x10 camera pack is ~45 pounds (several lenses and 6 holders), plus another 17 lbs for the tripod. Add more weight for food and water. One could get a lightweight system and knock 10 to 15 pounds off of that without too much trouble (just $) -- and a lightweight 7x17 system, such as Ritter's might weigh no more than my present 8x10 system (assuming carrying 6 holders).

The larger the camera format, the longer the "normal" lens is. The longer the lens, the less depth of field one has (everything else being equal). Shorter lenses that cover ULF are there, but usually heavy and expensive. This is not a limitation, but just something that might affect the type of images one takes.

Just some quick thoughts...

Vaughn

[Ron Marshall]

As others have said, 8x10 is a reasonable step up. The gear is not much more than 4x5, it is possible to contact print and if it is not big enough you should then have a better idea of how much bigger you want to go.

[Donald Miller]

I have owned and used everything up to 12X20 at one time or another. Today I use 5X7 and enlarge the negatives. I am pleased with the print quality. I found that shooting big cameras and contact printing was in many ways a lot more work than using smaller cameras. A lot depends on what you want. In my experience bigger is not necessarily better.

Schlepping a 12X20 around at my age is a real pain in the ass (both figuratively and literally)...that can get in the way of making good images.

[77seriesiii]

wow, walk away for a few minutes and...

Paul the primary reason for going larger than 4x5 is print size. I do not have an enlarger but I do have room for one but getting one while living in Germany is proving a bit more difficult than I thought. I want to print from the negative and to get contact prints from a large negative will be user and display better than a 4x5. I wont be getting rid of my 4x5 as I do like shooting with it. Is this the sign of needing to check into the asylum? I had thought about the 8x10 but why only double the 4x5 go BIG!! is there a name for this affliction? I start shaking around cameras and desiring more. Is that bad?

I will have to re-read the responses to see what else I have missed.

Erick

[Donald Miller]

wow, walk away for a few minutes and...

Paul the primary reason for going larger than 4x5 is print size. I do not have an enlarger but I do have room for one but getting one while living in Germany is proving a bit more difficult than I thought. I want to print from the negative and to get contact prints from a large negative will be user and display better than a 4x5. I wont be getting rid of my 4x5 as I do like shooting with it. Is this the sign of needing to check into the asylum? I had thought about the 8x10 but why only double the 4x5 go BIG!! is there a name for this affliction? I start shaking around cameras and desiring more. Is that bad?

I will have to re-read the responses to see what else I have missed.

Erick

Erick, Qn 8X10 (80 sq inches) negative is four times as large as 4X5 (20 sq inches).