dumping 8x10 and sticking with 4x5. anyone regret?

[Steven Nestler]

I gave up 8X10 years ago, in favor of 4X5. For me, it was more a matter of my vision, my way of seeing. A friend pointed out to me that with the 8X10, due to weight, difficulty, and expense, I was taking fewer visual risks, and looking for what I knew would be a good contact print. I switched back to 4X5, and I have, indeed, seen the growth in my vision.
Steven

[Brian Ellis]

I've had a love-hate relationship with 8x10 cameras. I love using them, I don't like the limitations their size and weight and limited number of film holders I could carry imposed on the kind of photographs I made with them.

So I'd buy one, use it while love was ascendant, then when hate took over I'd sell it. Then I'd regret the sale and a year or so later buy another one and repeat the process. I did that 4 different times in about a 10 year period (2 Deardorffs, 2 Kodak 2Ds). I presently am still in the hate stage from my last one which I sold several years ago so I don't own an 8x10 camera at the moment.

I also owned a 5x7 (Agfa-Ansco) and sold it fairly quickly. For the kind of thing I do the contact prints were too small and I didn't own a 5x7 enlarger (this was before I got out of the fume room and switched to printing digitally).

[Noah B]

I've shot both 4x5 and 8x10 and found the GG on the 4x5 too small for me. 8x10 is large enough to really get involved in the decision you make for a negative. I enjoy the process of the equipment a lot more than 4x5. I always despised enlarging so making 8x10 contact prints is perfect for me. Just really depends on whether a camera gets use, when I have one that doesn't get used I just sell it off. Cheers

[Cor]

Interesting and worthwhile thread!

Some 8 years ago I thought I wanted a 8*10 both for contact prints and alt. processes. I bought a nice Toyo Field 810M but for the reasons mentioned above it was used much less then anticipated.

That is until 2 years ago I jumped into the wet plate world and I now use the Toyo frequently, but still mostly in the house, despite being a field camera, the total system weights a lot I transport either by car or by bakfiets.

For outdoor wet plate work I recently switched to an old folding whole plate camera, giving the same size as my modified 8*10 standard holder I use in the Toyo..it's amazing how much smaller and lighter the whole plate set up is (no option for those huge Petzvals, but outside I use those small rapid recliners, no problem.)

I still enjoy the rigid and precise Toyo, it's a nice camera, and I am not planning to sell it, for outdoor work I use mainly my 4*5 Tech III from 1954, and enlarge in my darkroom. I did have the privilege to print one of my 8*10 negatives in the darkroom of a friend, and there is a certain edge above a print from 4*5 (this one was 50*60cm), but a 8*10 enlarger is beyond the space of my tiny darkroom

Best,

Cor

[Jim Galli]

Probly not gonna happen at our house on my watch. The old 2D seems easier to me than the Cham 4X5

[Ken Lee]

Here is a landscape image I made on 8x10.

The JPG file might not reveal the advantage of 8x10 when shooting landscape images - because of JPG artifacts - but the 12x15 print does.

[Bob McCarthy]

I use both the 8x10 and 4x5 for my work.

I would suggest subject matter and workflow have a impact of the decision to dump 8x10 for 4x5.

I would also add: if you have a hybrid workflow (film/scan/inkjet print) then a 4x5 shot on very fine grain film (ie TMax 100), scanned on a high end scanner (ie my Cezanne) printed on Byrata paper with a RIP is the complete equal of 8x10 film processed and printed up to a large print (24 x 36).

To ME: Shooting 8x10 is purely for the joy of that large groundglass. Personally speaking, I just see better on the larger GG.

bob

[Frank Petronio]

I think there was a scuttlebutt a few years ago when Edward Burtynsky went from 8x10 to 4x5 for his highly detailed large format environmental pictures... bottom line was that a rigid 4x5 like a Technika, used with the best modern lenses and film, scanned high-end, produced very detailed giant prints that suited him.

It certainly makes sense from a logistics standpoint, going to China with 8x10 would be a lot harder.

I wonder how much of a difference really maxing out your gear to be optimal would make? A rigid Linhof (not some wooden thing), a sturdy CF tripod, the latest Schneider lenses, 100-ISO film....?

[Daniel_Buck]

I think there was a scuttlebutt a few years ago when Edward Burtynsky went from 8x10 to 4x5 for his highly detailed large format environmental pictures... bottom line was that a rigid 4x5 like a Technika, used with the best modern lenses and film, scanned high-end, produced very detailed giant prints that suited him.

It certainly makes sense from a logistics standpoint, going to China with 8x10 would be a lot harder.

I wonder how much of a difference really maxing out your gear to be optimal would make? A rigid Linhof (not some wooden thing), a sturdy CF tripod, the latest Schneider lenses, 100-ISO film....?

Well for one thing, I don't think I hold the same standards for my images that some big photographers might. I'm perfectly happy with the quality images I get from my 4x5. Which is why my 8x10 usually stays home

[mdd99]

Whatever your choice, regret it not. It's the image that counts, and life is short.