Isn't 4x5' too small?

[David de Gruyl]

New to LF, Happy with what I have, 4x5. A 5x7 is on the way but I doubt I will go for an 8x10 just out of cost probably. I do have some 8x10 sheet film, so, a pinhole camera for it might be in order and then contact print... I just hope I can resist when I see the negs from it - but resistance is futile, I know. Still, I feel lucky just to have a 4x5 and will be reworking the 5x7. Between those two, I have galaxies to explore.

One word of advice: get 8x10 lenses, don't bother with 5x7 lenses. That way, if an 8x10 magically lands on your doorstep, you already have some lenses and don't need to spend almost a grand a piece on used ones.

[David de Gruyl]

I just sold my 4x5 stuff after realising that 5x7 fits in the same bag (I have Sinar so just the back changes, and of course the holders). Also I don't have an enlarger and for contact print 5x7 and up is better than 4x5. The work and weight is pretty much the same between 4x5 and 5x7.

a 5x7 contact print on an 8x10 paper is a thing of beauty.

I normally do 8x10 on 11x14/11x15 paper.

The only problem with that size is that is an orphan size for film. I don't think there is any color film sold in 5x7, for example.

[Vincent Malaud]

But Vincent, if your lusting for an 8x10 becomes an obsession, save up and get your kit. I think 8x10 works well if you have a bag that can carry it all, but most of all if shooting 8x10 makes you happy.

Indeed, that's exactly what I plan to do. I will build up my lens kit accordingly (with enough coverage for 8x10)

[Ken Lee]

[CarstenW]

I think we have all been arguing the wrong thing all along. Going back to the title and the original post, I think that 4x5 feet is plenty large enough.

[Vincent Malaud]

Oops did I say feet? or is that the ' that means feet? like in 4x5'?

[Brian Ellis]

Hello Brian,,

I was wondering,,, how do you know that it's not the size,weight,and cost of 8x10 that makes you think differently..?

Size certainly could have something to do with it. I mentioned the possibility that the large viewing screen could have been the cause. I don't think weight was a factor. Weight affected where I went so my options were reduced but within the area of use I could have made any type of photograph, I didn't seek out areas suited for wider angles. Cost wasn't a major consideration for me with 8x10. I bought used and relatively inexpensive gear, did only b&w, and processed and printed myself.

[CarstenW]

Oops did I say feet? or is that the ' that means feet? like in 4x5'?

Yep, ' = feet, and " = inches

[John Kasaian]

Get an 8x10. You know you want one. Follow your instincts.

[ImSoNegative]

I thought the same thing about 4x5 at first, so I bought an 8x10, the joy didnt last long, too much weight and bulk, enjoyed the contact prints but you can print an 8x10 with a 4x5 negative and there is hardly any difference between it and a contact print