Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[Ben Syverson]

If you're never going to print an image, then shoot with a cellphone. Seriously, they're great now. I sell a pretty good app, and it costs 1/3 the price of one sheet of 8x10 Portra.

If you want to print, you face some real questions. I think it's sad that 8x10 is considered "out of the question" for many, when it's often exactly what is required.

Mamiya 7? I have some nice prints from it, but I wouldn't go way larger than 16x20 in color. Even then, it's at my personal limit.

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots. But in color, I wouldn't push it much past 20x24. In general, you can't enlarge 4x5 as much as Mamiya shots, because of the lenses.

If you want to go larger than 20x24 (on a large wall, 20x24 can look absolutely tiny), 8x10 starts to make a lot of sense... Given that you can pick up a workable 8x10 setup for under $500, you should just try it.

You don't need a drum scanner, you don't need the BEST camera. Get a beater 8x10, slap your negative on an Epson, scan at 1200 DPI, and you have a fantastically sharp 115 MP image with no grain. Seize the day, have some fun, and shoot a ton of color film while you still can.

[timparkin]

If you're never going to print an image, then shoot with a cellphone. Seriously, they're great now. I sell a pretty good app, and it costs 1/3 the price of one sheet of 8x10 Portra.

If you want to print, you face some real questions. I think it's sad that 8x10 is considered "out of the question" for many, when it's often exactly what is required.

Mamiya 7? I have some nice prints from it, but I wouldn't go way larger than 16x20 in color. Even then, it's at my personal limit.

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots. But in color, I wouldn't push it much past 20x24. In general, you can't enlarge 4x5 as much as Mamiya shots, because of the lenses.

If you want to go larger than 20x24 (on a large wall, 20x24 can look absolutely tiny), 8x10 starts to make a lot of sense... Given that you can pick up a workable 8x10 setup for under $500, you should just try it.

You don't need a drum scanner, you don't need the BEST camera. Get a beater 8x10, slap your negative on an Epson, scan at 1200 DPI, and you have a fantastically sharp 115 MP image with no grain. Seize the day, have some fun, and shoot a ton of color film while you still can.

Agreed - I've drum scanned neg on an epson v750 and can't tell the difference in resolution between that and my drum scanner. And using neg film, it's difficult to tell the difference in tonality too (although there is a difference). So shooting 8x10 will mean having a cheaper and quicker scanner.

4x5 on an Epson is fine although chromes won't be as nice to scan (halation, lack of dmax etc), negatives scan very well though.

I've recently run a big test comparing 8x10, 4x5, medium format, IQ180 digital etc and the interesting finding was that if you use the equivalent of f/32 on 4x5 and f/64 on 8x10 you get the same depth of field but because of diffraction the resolution increase for 8x10 is not much at all, maybe 10-15%. It is only when you shoot 10x8 at f/16 or thereabouts that the extra resolution really shows (which is the depth of field equivalent of f/2 on a 35mm camera).

All of that said, I own an 8x10 and a 4x5 and use both. The 4x5 is the workhorse though..

Tim

[mortensen]

There is also an in-between road called stitching - it won't give you the feel of handling an 8x10 (something I have yet to experience), but it will give you some of the resolution. Any monorail and even some of the Ebony's + lenses with large image circles (Rodenstock Grandagon/Sironar-S ranges and Schneider's XL-range) will let you do 5x8" or even 4x10" stitches. You get all the benefits of 4x5", but it of course requires a more or less all digital workflow. The drawback is you don't get the whole picture on your ground glass and thus have rely on a slightly crippled framing experience. I only use this method occasionally with my 4x5, but it is sure nice to have the ability.

I personally also have the desire to try 8x10, though (which is why its nice to read this thread)

[Riccis]

Dive in!!! I have only been shooting 8x10 for less than a year but I am in love with the negatives and I am getting ready to start printing big.

Yes, it is heavy but as already stated once you get your negs, you forget all about the weight. I have already taken mine on some of my international trips and will continue doing this.

Another benefit, IMHO, is the completely different approach to shooting 135 or 120. Everything slows down and I find the experience very enjoyable.

Expensive? I actually don't feel it is that much more $. Yes, I am paying $150 for a drum scan but I am only scanning the absolute best images I can make and my portrait sessions are usually less than 4 shots, but 4 or less very satisfying shots... Less is always more for me.

I can't wait to print all of these images... It's all about the print folks, it is our job to ensure the photographic print does not become a thing of the past and what better way to show this than through images shot on 8x10.









Cheers,

[Bill_1856]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

[Ben Syverson]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

That's complete nonsense, but believe what you like. Film is the ultimate origination medium, whether you're printing digitally or traditionally.

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

Why?

[willwilson]

I too have toiled over this question. I love 4x5 and like you was always tempted by 8x10. I was convinced that I needed to be shooting 8x10. I mean why shoot anything but the best right? Well after purchasing the gear and an enlarger. I am officially cold on 8x10. Contact prints are great, but 8x10 is a small print. Enlargements are also great but I must say not significantly better than 4x5. You really need a top flight setup to produce a negative that is superior to 4x5 in a way that justifies the added expense and trouble of 8x10.

That said, I still have my 8x10 gear and have been thinking cranking it back up. You can't beat the simplicity of contact printing. My suggestion would be to give it a go or it will always bother you, especially if you want to print big.

[Riccis]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

I will respectfully disagree with this statement, but of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Cheers!

[John NYC]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

It does for me. I want the pictures to have the smooth color tonality of 8x10, but to be able to use a digital post production workflow. And I want to be able to print much larger than I could with any digital camera than I can afford.