Isn't 4x5' too small?

[mortensen]

Robert and Van Camper, it's exactly the diptych and triptychs thing I'm thinking about... looks great as a spread in a book and equally good as two frames next to each other. But since I scan, it would also give me the ability to actually 'stitch', if preferable.

Bob, as I primarily shoot static subjects, ISO400 will not give me more DOF or less diffraction...

What about my questions about film flatness issues with 8x10 holders and the need for (or lack thereof) of geared tilts? Would be great with experiences and opinions, now that you've started talking again

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars

[Bob McCarthy]

Bob, as I primarily shoot static subjects, ISO400 will not give me more DOF or less diffraction...

What about my questions about film flatness issues with 8x10 holders and the need for (or lack thereof) of geared tilts? Would be great with experiences and opinions, now that you've started talking again

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars

You're correct with static subjects the film speed is of less importance. But having the 2 extra stops "may" mean that reciprocity is not a calculation that could be misjudged or incorrectly applied. Having more choice of apertures can be beneficial.

Since I use a Sinar P I have geared movements and they are a joy to use(also asymetrical swing/tilt). As for film flatness, not an issue from my experience unless you tilt the film plane in a way gravity works against you. Not an issue for the way I use a camera.

bob

[Bob McCarthy]

(see last post page 8)

cheers,
lars

About the limited rise using a Sinar 8x10.

Hmmm, just elevate the front 5 to 10 deg (tilt camera up modestly). Using the bubble levels move the front and rear to vertical. Use the base tilts to level the standards. Too many choices (whew)

Now you have an inch of rise built in to adjust from. I've never had an issue with inadequate movement with this camera. Image circle too small, yes, but movement not.

[mortensen]

Thanks, Bob - the thing about gravity certainly makes sense. I almost always have a straight vertical back, so it shouldn't be a problem, then.

Regarding front rise, the added, 'indirect' rise - by tilting the camera and aligning the standards - would not do for me... but hey, that's just a personal preference

[Bob McCarthy]

Regarding front rise, the added, 'indirect' rise - by tilting the camera and aligning the standards - would not do for me... but hey, that's just a personal preference

With a field camera, when you use the tilt-up method, you get rise/fall with focus.

With a Sinar, you do not -base tilts and monorail focus are not used once the basic adjustments are made.

It's why the camera is so bulky, but so capable!!

jFYI

bob

[Nathan Potter]

Historically I found that the more I shot with a particular format the smaller it seemed to get. So I kept moving up until even 8X10 seemed too small ... then 11 X 14 and finally even 20 X 24 seemed small. So I moved back down and noticed that the quality of my 4x5 and lo ... even 35 mm had greatly improved ... along with my back and my mobility. I was left to guess at the reasons but ended up with the 35 mm and 4 X 5 format.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Alan Davenport]

4x5 isn't too small. My Crown Graphic is the perfect miniature camera.

__________________________________________________

[rknewcomb]

4x5 isn't too small if you've got a big heart and a good eye!

[iml]

I'm suppressing desires to move up to 10x8 at the moment. I think when I get an enlarger for 5x4 the desire for anything bigger will subside for a while. I certainly hope so...

[John Kasaian]

The only place where I've seen the cost/film size multiplier is with specifically film. And as film is more expensive I'm not as cavilier about popping of shots willy nilly.

bob

IMHO the neccessity for greater self discipline is a "value-added" benefit to 8x10!