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

[Jim Galli]

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

Interesting thought and certainly it's not line pairs per mm that keeps the 8X10 at my house. The quality that I am unwilling to lose is the brute force aspect. Tonality and depth of focus choices. 16 inch f4 is impossible to duplicate with 4X5. Anybody got an 8 inch f2 lens for me to try? I'll grant you that some of the best of the projection lenses like f2.4 165mm get close on 4X5.

[Daniel_Buck]

16" f4 is impossible for me to duplicate on 8x10 too, since I don't own a lens like that

I've been enjoying my smaller petzvals on the speedgraphic, like the projection lens I got from you (it's an f2.0 I believe, at 150mm?) What I really like about it, is that I can shoot it broad daylight wide open on the speedgraphic, with 1/1000th shutterspeed Enjoying it so much so that I dropped the persuit of a big petzval for my 8x10

Understand your point though, there's alot of neat lenses that don't have counterparts on 4x5. I've got some neat lenses for 4x5 to though, enough to keep me happy I think :-) I still haven't had a chance to try my 8" f2.9 Pentac, just been so busy!

[Brian Ellis]

FWIW, I make ~11x14 inkjets for print portfolios from Epson scans and I can tell which were 8x10 and which were 4x5s, maybe it isn't even the grain or resolution but it's really the depth and presence that are different.

Since you made the photographs that isn't surprising. But can anyone else do that? Try putting say 20 prints, some from each size negative, in front of a few people and see if they can beat the statistical average. I once did something like that with 11x14 prints from 6x7 and 4x5 cameras, nobody could consistently spot which came from which size negatives. I'm not of course arguing with you or suggesting that nobody else could see the difference, just suggesting that a better test would be with people who didn't already know which was which.

[Curt]

I've given it some thought since this thread was originally posted and I'm keeping the 8x10s. I'll use the bulky, heavy Calumet at home and use the Kodak 2D and Seneca outside. I'm actually keeping it all, what the hey they're all good.

[Findingmyway4ever]

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.

And people complaining about the weight and/or not getting any difference in quality.

How do you think the 5X7 stacks up to the 8X10?

[Findingmyway4ever]

If you can get back decent cash for the 810 outfit and you still want to use LF for some reason=only thing I can think of over roll film is having movements, I'd do this:

1) Get a 6X9 bellows based cam like the Arca Swiss where you can use different types of roll film. If you don't need movements, get a light fotoman/other type cam that can accept a roll film back. This way, you can shoot quite large roll film in some camera dependent cases, but have a super light rig. You can also learn to acheive that effect 8X10 provides by finding the fast lenses out there that will get you close enough. It won't be easy, but I'm sure there is a way.

2) Make enough cash back from the sale of your 810 setup AND Epson scanner so you can have enough or maybe put in a tad bit more for the smaller format setup. With this smaller setup, you can buy a much nicer dedicated film scanner and best what you can do with 4X5 and probably even 8X10. I'm sure many would argue there's no way a 6X7-6X9 can look as good as 810, but for the print sizes you are after, there should be absolutely zero grain and all the rest including detail/sharpness/etc. should all be there, but even nicer since the digitization process of the film will be handled far superior to what the Epson scanners can do.


If you didn't have much of anything worth of value in your 810 setup, I'd say keep it and get a cheap $100-$200 4X5 cam and use both, even if it's only once a year with the 810. But I'm pretty sure you have an 810 setup worth quite a lot of re-sale value and to me, this means go smaller and get a proper scanner to get a far cleaner image through to photoshop and onto the 8X10/11X14 sized printing paper.

Only my .02 since I know you will tell the difference in a better scanner with even much smaller film much the same as you will tell the difference between an Epson scanned 8X10 neg and a well done contact 8X10 print.

P.S. Forgot, you aren't super focused on the print quality and analytical jargon of it all so the Epson may well suit you fine since again, you are so used to it. As they say, why break it if it worky worky just fine

[Noah A]

I dumped my 8x10 kit a few years ago and have never regretted it.

I actually went to digital and then 6x7 and now back to 4x5, but I don't see myself shooting 8x10 again. I may pick up (or build) a handheld 4x5 for aerial work.

I travel a lot and while it's certainly possible to travel with 8x10 and larger formats, it doesn't suit the kind of travel and documentary work I do. I can shoot more with the 4x5 (I actually like LF because it limits my shooting volume and makes me think more, but if I'm spending months researching a project and going halfway around the world I like to overshoot a bit for insurance).

The smaller 4x5 format makes it easier to deal with shooting in marginal light, high wind, etc. I like a lot of depth of field so that's easier to obtain with 4x5. My main 150mm lens folds right up into my Wista VX and the entire package is small, tough and easy to set up.

There is certainly something magical about an 8x10 color negative printed large. But 4x5 strikes a good balance in terms of quality and versatility.

I have a Howtek 8000 drum scanner, and the 4x5 negs allow me to be more productive since I can mount four at a time. And the drum-scanned 4x5's print beautifully to very, very large sizes.

[Ken Lee]

And people complaining about the weight and/or not getting any difference in quality.

How do you think the 5X7 stacks up to the 8X10?

Here's a fun look at a 5x7 negative with enlarged detail shown in the corner.

Here's one made from an 8x10 negative. You can see the difference.

I think there's a difference between all formats. Some photos reveal the difference better than others. It's... subjective.

In the end I stick with Ansel who said "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'".

[Bill Kumpf]

Ken,

Can you add a 4x5 negative with enlarged detail also? It provides a good comparison.

Thanks

[Ken Lee]

Can you add a 4x5 negative with enlarged detail also? It provides a good comparison.

Here's one I made a while back.

The scanner is different: my old Microtek 2500 got closer to the claimed resolution than the Epsons do. So you're just starting to see the grain in this one.