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

[Ken Lee]

I agree - the difference is there - and my printer only goes to 13 x 19.

Even small prints show the difference. You can see it with many Edward Weston photos, even when they are reproduced in books, smaller than 8x10.

This thread has inspired me to keep my 5x7 and maybe go back to 8x10 !

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.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I rarely shoot 4x5 expecially since I'm mainly an alt printer. It's 8x10 all the way, and very soon, 14x17.

[Daniel_Buck]

Even small prints show the difference.

you can see a difference at a small print like 8x10? I cannot, from what I've seen of my own prints, comparing 8x10 and 4x5, when printing at 8x10 from digital scans. Drum scans maybe the grain is resolved a bit better, but when you are only printing at 300dpi, I cannot tell the difference between a 4x5 and an 8x10 once it's gone through the digitizing process. Wet prints, you probably have something there, but digital prints like I do, I cannot tell the difference. And I'm someone who looks at images all day long, not just at images, but pixels zoomed in that get blown up to big cinema and imax frames.

For me, the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 is the experience when shooting (if you are only printing small, digitally), for that, 8x10 is so much more enjoyable. But that's the only part I enjoy more with 8x10, the few minutes I spend actually shooting. hah :-) And that's where I am right now, hardly ever shooting 8x10 anymore because the only part I enjoy better with it is the few minutes I spend looking at the ground glass. The rest of the process I wish I would have brought my 4x5 instead, hah!

I rarely shoot 4x5 expecially since I'm mainly an alt printer. It's 8x10 all the way, and very soon, 14x17.

Indeed! Unfortunately, I do not have the time or space to do alternate printing things, and also because my skill set is in the digital realm, I scan my negatives and print digitally.

[Frank Petronio]

I think it probably has as much to do with the lenses as the size, the out of focus transition and separation. Maybe if I used the same lens for 4x5 and 8x10 then it would be a horse race?

[Daniel_Buck]

indeed, there are some lenses that I have for my 8x10 which give a look that I do not have the ability to reproduce in 4x5. at least not with the lenses that I own.

[Curt]

Maybe a point and shoot ulf is what's needed, 11x14 etc.? An older guys or gals get out there camera.

[cjbroadbent]

ogulf ?

[BetterSense]

The physics of the big camera are just different. An 8x10 negative isn't just like a 4x5 negative enlarged less. It's not surprising you can see a difference even outside of grain and sharpness.

[jp]

I can see how Buck would not have much use for an 8x10 without a darkroom.

I have an 8x10 (actually more than 1) in large part so that I can do contact prints. Alt process and silver. I'm jonesing for something 14x17 for xray film for contact printing, but don't have the time/money right now. 8x10 does scan real nice too on my epson, but it's serious overkill for medium res scans. I have some big lenses I am working on putting on the second 8x10 camera which would be the wrong perspective on 4x5, but I am awaiting a 4x5 back just to have more options.

4x5 is what I mostly shoot though for B&W. Speed graphic. It's relatively inexpensive to operate, and I can scan AND do optical enlargements. And I can process a bunch of sheets at a time in my combiplan tank or mod reel. It's a lightweight system I can take anywhere. Quality is all I could ask for.

[Ken Lee]

you can see a difference at a small print like 8x10?

Have a look at some Edward Weston books that are nicely printed. I've looked online for some of the same images, but they are sized too small to serve as examples.