7x17 vs 8x20 - all things considered

[David R Munson]

So now that I figured out that my plans to build a tool chest for my hand tools this winter won't be as involved or take nearly as long as I thought it was going to, I'm again making plans (literally, drawing up plans) for something bigger than my 8x10. The design will based on my Deardorff - in fact almost identical to my Deardorff only with a bigger rear assembly and slightly beefed-up construction. I had originally just assumed that 8x20 was the format I wanted, but then I remembered 7x17 and thought maybe that it might also be worth considering.

So basically, what I want to know is this - given everything from esthetic considerations to film cost to camera weight to contact prints to anything else you can think of - is there really any big reason to go with one instead of the other? Do you shoot with one or the other? If so, what was your determining factor? Your thoughts appreciated.

[clay harmon]

Just want to repeat a Carl Weese comment about the two formats that I wholly agree with: you can comfortably hold a 7x17 print in your hand and view it normally at arm's length. An 8x20, on the other hand, is literally more than a handful and is best appreciated 'on the wall' from a little more distance.

As far as practical matters go, I think 7x17 film will be easier to find, plus doing 7x17 prints is a breeze in 16x20 inch trays. If you go to 8x20's, chances are your tray size will need go up a size to 20x24 to give you that comfortable amount of room for agitation of your prints. I also found moving from an 8x10 to a 7x17 camera to be less of a jump than it was moving from a 7x17 to a 12x20. You can actually consider carrying a 7x17 camera in a pack, whereas an 8x20 would demand some serious burliness. All that said, I am now shooting a lot of 12x20, and I just chop the negative when I want a skinnier format.

[Jim Galli]

This is strictly FWIW. just me. I progressed (?) in this order 8X10, 11X14, 7X17, 8X20. The 11X14 seems huge compared to the 8X10. The 7X17 seems dainty in comparison. It doesn't feel bigger than the 8X10 even though there is 50% more Sq. in. than the 810. I guess it seems quite manageable. The 8X20 definitely seems as big as the 1114 and sq. in.'s is about the same. It's big. So are the negs. Silver is sold by sq in. and prices of film reflect that almost perfectly. I've got a bunch of 5 in. aerial film in the freezer and am waiting for a 5X12 to come along.

[Michael A.Smith]

16x20 trays are just fine for 8x20s.

I use an 8x20--an 8x20 back on a 12x20 camera. 35 pounds. A straight 8x20 is not that heavy.

7x17s are tiny things.

Bottom line. Look at some 7x17 prints. Look at some 8x20 prints. Decide which size you like best. And then build the camera to that size.

[sanking]

I would take the 7X17 over an 8X20. Visually I don't find a lot of difference in perceived size between 7X17 and 8X20 prints, though the 7X17 may be a tad more intimate. However, when it comes to the practicalities of carrying around a 7X17 or 8X20 system there is really a huge advantage in favor of the 7X17. Packing and carrying a 7X17 is hardly more trouble than working with an 8X20, but the 8X20 is more like a 12X20.

And, should you want to scan your negatives, say for making those really big Pictorico negatives up to 35"X 95", or just for correcting imperfections or dodging and burning on the computer, you can make the scan of 7X17 negatives with one pass on an A3 size scanner, whereas with the 8X20 you will have to scan in two passes and stitch the images together. Some of you probably suspect that I am kidding about this, or just crazy, but I am not. I have really found that I can make better prints from many of my ULF negatives by scanning them, doing corrections and dodging and burning on the computer and printing negatives on Pictorico, than by printing from the original negatives.

[CP Goerz]

Before I settled on 8x20 I cut out sheets of paper in 7x17, 8x20 and 12x20. I knew I wanted a panoramic camera but wasn't sure which one. When I placed the sheets on the floor my eyes went for the 8x20. I look at prints at that distance, I don't normally hold them, for portfolio purposes that may work though.

The 8x20 seems to have a bit more room for the image to breath than the 7x17, the proportions are about the same really so you kinda split hairs, just go with the gut.

CP Goerz

[jerry brodkey]

Following up on Michael Smith's recommendation, look at Lois Conner's books on China and the Far East. She uses a 7X17 format. Also I was amazed to realize that 7X17 is actually slightly less panoramic than 8X20, 0.411 vs. 0.4

[David A. Goldfarb]

Lois Conner also was carting her 7x17" around on a bicycle. The Koronas seem quite portable.

[Michael Jones]

Having used both formats, I agree with the Carl Weese comment about the two formats: you can comfortably hold a 7x17 print in your hand and view it normally at arm's length. An 8x20, on the other hand, is literally more than a handful and is best appreciated 'on the wall' from a little more distance. The 8x20's seem "bigger" and more panoramic.

Physically, the difference the equipment is as great. I had Sandy King's experiences. Both my cameras were Korona's and, frankly, after a few season's with each, the 7x17 seemed quite portable and easy to use. Everything from lenses through processing "felt" easier to do.

As Michael Smith said, look at photos in each size and see what appeals to you.

Mike

PS: Do the exercise cutting blank paper to size for each study it. Its beneficial.

[Christopher Condit]

Other things being equal, bigger is better. Assume you are going with the 8x20, then try to build a case as to why 7x17 would be better. If there are conclusive reason(s), go small, else go large.

CXC

P.S. The cut-out paper test sounds like a very good idea.