Am I crazy think of 8x10 for this...

[shadow images]

My 8x10 Shen Hao is only 3.4 Kg. The weight of the 240 G Claron is negligible. Tripod and tripod head are another 3.5 Kg. Three film holders, a lightmeter a black T-shirt, etc should bring everything to about 9 Kg maximum. That's not too bad really.

Wish mine was that light. My kit- Deardorff, two lenses, 5 holders , dark cloth, misc and tripod. I don't want to know the weight.

[j.e.simmons]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?
juan

[Former Member 8144]

You're talking about a 12x mag factor with 4x5 film enlarged to 5 feet on the long side. That's roughly the same as an 18 inch print on the long side from 35mm film. I didn't like 35mm beyond 10 inches on the long side and even that was pushing it by my standards (not necessarily by yours or others). So I wouldn't enlarge 4x5 film to 5 feet myself.

I'd go so far as to say that after going to the kind of trouble it sounds like you'll be going to for some of your photographs, you'd be crazy not to use 8x10. If money isn't a major consideration you can assemble an 8x10 outfit that doesn't weigh all that much more than some 4x5 outfits.

That is what it's all about in the end..if I'll see a higher iq that is worthwhile at my print sizes then I'll do it.
Money for this fine art kit is quite limited right now (any spare cash ploughed into the commercial right now) but luckily the shots with lots of hiking are not until mid next year...so I can look to pick up a 'cheap' monorail for now, if need be, and then change it for a lighter model (shen / chamonix, etc) later on.

Cheers,

Marc

[jnantz]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?
juan

maybe you are thinking of john kasaian ... he has a mule ...

[willwilson]

A monorail 8x10 will let you experience the format. It is very different than 4x5. 4x5 seems like a toy compared to 8x10.

I would shoot more 8x10 if I had the money for a nice vc head for my Elwood. But if you are scanning and printing digitally I see nothing to stop you.

You will either love it or hate it. Bottom line, if you are thinking about it this much you have to try it.

[csant]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?

Stephen Willard uses llamas.

[kev curry]

A ''baby jogger'' is cheaper than a llama and probably doesn't eat as much. Seriously though theres a few people here using ''baby joggers'' to cart there gear around, a search here brings up plenty on there use. Heres a start...

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...t=baby+joggers

[Eric Leppanen]

Particularly when shooting color, I shoot 8x10 whenever I can, 4x5 when I must. When shooting detail intensive landscape subjects suitable for 8x10, I start seeing differences between 4x5 and 8x10 at a 16x20 inch print size (with drum scanning and digital printing). I agree that most of the initial differences are those of tonality, but this contributes to the three dimensional appearance of the print. For the enlargement sizes you are talking about, there will be a substantial benefit of shooting 8x10 if your subjects are suitable for the format (see below).

The weight of the lens kit is not much greater than 4x5 if you don't mind shooting mostly f/9 lenses (an f/5.6 SS150XL plus f/9 210, 240, 300, 360, 450, etc. are popular 8x10 lenses that I see folks using in the field; the even lighter/cheaper Wolly 159mm can replace the SS150XL if you don't mind dimmer focusing, reduced coverage, some loss of resolution at the edges, etc.). Of course, when shooting in dim light (alpenglow, etc.), focusing at f/9 is extremely difficult and there is no substitute for an f/5.6 lens.

There are relatively lightweight cameras 8x10 cameras available, although some like the Phillips (which I think is either in its last production run or is no longer made) are quite expensive on the used market. Chamonix makes a Phillips inspired 8x10, and Richard Ritter makes a very light weight foldable 8x10.

Film holders are a limiting factor. Aside from rare Mido holders (no longer made, and idiosyncratic to use), there's not much you can do to reduce weight/bulk here. The Chamonix holders might be a little lighter than the commonly available Fidelity/Lisco holders (?), but they are expensive. Each one of my Fidelity/Lisco 8x10 holders weighs about 1.3 pounds, so weight can really pile up fast here. If you shoot subjects with difficult lighting where calculating exposure can be challenging, you may want to consider shooting color neg film for its additional latitude, as carrying enough holders for exposure bracketing is not viable.

IMHO the biggest challenge shooting 8x10 versus 4x5 is its reduced depth of field and slower shutter speeds. My understanding is that theoretically 8x10 requires stopping down four more stops for a given depth of field than 4x5, though in practice I find this difference not quite as severe (maybe 2-3 stops when movements can be applied). However, if you find yourself shooting 8x10 at f/64 all the time just to get the depth of field you need, then its incremental IQ is so much reduced (due to diffraction, subject motion due to slow shutter speed, etc.) that you're often better off shooting 4x5. If your typical subjects can be shot at f/32 or f/45, then 8x10 is worthwhile from an IQ perspective.

Of course, shooting fast film helps offset some of the shutter speed issues, and with the large 8x10 neg you don't have to worry about film grain. I got quickly introduced to Portra 400NC (and HP5+ and TMY) when I started shooting 8x10; I still use slower speed chrome films where feasible, but there are often occasions where the faster Portra is the only way to get the shot in color.

You can also significantly reduce weight by optimizing other elements of your kit. If you currently use traditional photo backpacks like the Lowepro, then you can save several pounds by going to the Photobackpacker system (www.photobackpacker.com). As already mentioned, a carbon fiber tripod is also a good weight reducing solution.

I strongly suggest renting or buying an inexpensive 8x10 system just to verify that the format works for you. You can always then trade up to a lighter system.

Good luck!

[Phil Hudson]

I was just in Zion NP and looked in on Michael Fatali's gallery nearby. Without getting into the aesthetics of the images themselves, I certainly thought I could see the difference in IQ that 8x10 transparency film makes with Ciba prints of even less than 150cm wide.

As others have pointed out there are measurable limitations in terms of depth of field, resolution, vibration, wind, etc - but these results were still quite impressive. Up close there are areas of less sharpness (Insufficient DOF for movements applied? Diffraction maybe?) but there was an overall smoothness and saturation that I have not seen from 4x5.

Perhaps not the best example but I think 8x10 might be worth exploring.

[Former Member 8144]

Thanks Eric, and hi Phil,

I'll be shooting with the slowest film I can at slowish shutter speeds (1/2 second to 15 or 30 seconds) but can use nd's where necessary so diffraction should not cause too much of a problem.
Although with these slower shutter speeds necessary I do worry about the wind effects on a 8x10 over a 4x5 taking away the extra IQ.

Choice of film is tricky for 8x10. I need colour film that can work with long exposures up to 30 seconds or so tranny (I believe) is better but over here 8x10 colour film is really neg based not tranny based. But that works for the more neutral film that is better for scanning and gives as you rightly say more exposure latitude...But the slower the better with the shutter speeds wanted to it may need to be velvia 50 anyway just to help there...I can always neutralise the colours a bit once scanned. I'm going to have to research what is available to me more..where i can buy from abroad without really expensive shipping).

it will be just the one lens and my tripod is already a nice gitzo cf one with a manfrotto 410 geared head so good there.

Currently use a dakine sequence backpack but not sure the 8x10 will fit into that so will have to look into backpacks again.

And yes I'll be going the cheap camera route to start with anyway.

Cheers,

Marc