Sanity check, is 8x10 too small? Advanced GAS syndrom?

[Tim k]

Oh no,no,no! 5x7 enlargements look significantly different. 35 sq. inches vs 20. Almost 100% larger!

Don Bryant

I have to admit, that I'm a little surprised to hear that. On a print say 16x20, you could see the difference with the naked eye?

[Robert Fisher]

Tim have you considered a 5x8 Chamonix? Will accept 57 or 58 holders - great aspect ratio - smaller & lighter than an 810 - greater choice of film than a standard 5x7

Good luck!

[Tim k]

Robert, no, I was actually thinking in final contact print size.

8x10 on the small end,
11x14 the end of reasonable size range,
up to "have I lost my mind size"

[Tim k]

Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

[John Jarosz]

8x10 is great for portraits.

If you are thinking about alt process then you either use in-camera negs or you make enlarged negs for the alt process contact printing.

ULF fundamentally changes the way you practice photography. No exceptions. It's not like 8x10 but bigger.

Wind.

Depth of field

heavy tripods.

Big heavy lenses. No shutters (unless you opt for the pricey new stuff that covers)

Big film costs (but you expose far fewer sheets)

Wind

You'll get a baby stroller or stay close to the truck. (notice I said truck)

But the prints are beautiful. With fine detail. A big contact print is unique.

I've stopped using my 4x5. It is a miniature camera.

John

[Ken Lee]

Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

The standard normal lens for 4x5 is 150mm. We might shoot it at f/16 or f/22 - perhaps f/32 - but after that we are "diffraction limited".

On 8x10 the standard normal lens is 300mm. To get the same depth of field, we need 2 smaller f/stops. So instead of f/16, we use f/32. (Oops, we're diffraction limited). Instead of f/22, we use f/45, and where we might have shot at f/32, we now need f/64.

Given that we enlarge less, who cares that we are diffraction limited ?

With longer lenses, the f/numbers continue to shrink. In terms of magnification, a 450mm lens on an 8x10 camera is similar to a 75mm lens on 35mm, or a 225 on 4x5: a fine length for portraits and many natural subjects. It doesn't really get us much reach for distant scenes, but depth of field starts to get very shallow once we start shooting closer than infinity. We need another f/stop over the 300mm.

When we move up to 11x14, 450mm becomes our standard normal lens. Now we need 600mm to get the same modest reach, and depth of field at that length, continues to demand even smaller apertures and thus even longer exposures.

If our subject is stationary, and the lighting is sufficient, there's no problem with tiny f/stops.

We are not limited to only one format. As Ansel Adams said "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'." With all due respect, we might amend that as follows: The biggest one appropriate for the subject.

[Scott Davis]

I don't know that the View Camera Store has a regular showroom, but look them up (I think they're in Fountain Hills, which is near Phoenix, IIRC). If they don't have a regular retail showroom, just call and make an appointment and they'll be happy to show you what they've got in stock. Fred will talk your ear off, but it's worth it as he has TONS of useful information.

[Brian Ellis]

Brian,
I had not given a thought to enlarging 8x10. But your right, sooner or later I might shoot something worthwhile, and want it big. I was however thinking mainly for use in the alt. processes, where I would just choose a size equal to my largest print size. But perhaps my thinking is flawed. This is getting more complicated. Thanks.

Hows the weather in Bend. Is it still winter. I laughed when I read your descriptions of the four seasons. I grew up over the hill in the valley, and we usually vacationed down by the lakes south of you. Its always been one of my favorite places. Your lucky to live there.

Hi Tim - The weather's been very nice since the last week of June. It stayed kind of chilly before that, a little longer than usual this year. Central Oregon is a great area but I like the Valley too. We always enjoy the contrast between the desert landscape of Central Oregon and the lush green of the Valley.

[Brian Ellis]

Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

I didn't find depth of field to be that big a practical problem with 8x10. Tilt and swing help a lot in situations where they're useful. And you can stop down to f64 with 8x10 and not worry about diffraction if you're contact printing or enlarging to reasonable sizes.

[Jim Rhoades]

I have an 8x10 that I made Azo prints from. Then Kodak screwed that. While waiting for Lodima I started printing Pt/Pd. Now I only use the 8x10 for Pt/Pd and with the cost of film and chemicals not so much anymore.

I had been quite happy with my 16x20 prints from 4x5. Until... I got a 5x7 to reduce the cost of Pt/Pd somewhat. How's that for convoluted thinking. Now I'm looking at the 5x7 negs and thinking, wow, this would make some enlargement. For $600 bucks I find a 5x7 Durst with everything, condensers, lenses even a cold light head.

Yes, you can tell the 5x7 from a 4x5 enlargement. The 5x7 is sweet, only a bit bigger than 4x5. It's perfect for silver or Pt/Pd contacts, has a nicer shape and makes really big ass enlargements. Before you drink the Michael Smith Kool-Aide check out a good 5x7 enlargement.