Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[Robert Jonathan]

I personally don't flatbed scan anything, and don't own a flatbed. I just save the good ones for pro drum scanning, and I know that 4x5 chromes made with good lenses at "sharp" apertures, drum scanned, can make bigger, better prints than a Mamiya 7.

But other than that, Ben is right.

If you want to do it all at home, from neg to digital, and you want pretty freakin' awesome digital files from your flatbed, you're going to enjoy shooting 8x10.

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.

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.

[James Morris]

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.

Mike Stacey's are pretty amazing.

[georgl]

Yes, 8x10 is several times more expensive than 4x5
Yes, 8x10 is heavier and more difficult to push to it's limits (stability, diffraction...)

Nevertheless, I decided for 8x10!

Why? Because there are systems which are far more convenient, cheaper, faster and versatile than 4x5 or even medium format. 8x10 is unique - that's the point for me. I take 99% of my images digital or with 35mm - when I want to deal with the problems of sheet film I want to get really big slides and negatives in reward!

I wonder why there are so few 100% crops on the net? Recently I made my first 8x10 slides and tested my scanner:
Sinar F + Schneider 150XL @ f22 and 4s with Provia 100F scanned dry with an Eversmart ProII @ 2000ppi (that's over 300MP - after that, OXYgen and my Mac collapses...) The tiny red box on the left-hand-side shows the position of the right 100% crop.

I had a hard time focusing (the screen is extremely dim), it was windy and the Sinar isn't a very rigid camera (cheap plastic front) - nevertheless, IMHO I don't think it's difficult getting sharp results from a 300MP-scan - grain, film flatness or diffraction? No serious issue at this level of enlargement (but an Eversmart even below 2000ppi is in fact much cleaner, contrastier and sharper than any Epson at any resolution, though).

[federico9001]

It does worth for sure

[Leigh]

I think it is, otherwise I wouldn't shoot it.

I have a full range of systems at my disposal from Nikon 35mm through 4x5 and 8x10 (studio and field).

The 8x10 format is my go-to when I want absolutely best quality, no excuses, no fudging.

- Leigh

[Richard Rau]

I shoot multiple formats and usually take them all when I go out for a couple of weeks at a time: 2 1/4, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. A photographer friend once asked me, "how do you know what format to choose for what subject?" Since I shoot mostly B&W landscapes, I thought that was a pretty darn good question and kind of left me stumped for a logical answer. I suppose 90% of the time I like to shoot 5x7. It's almost twice as large as 4x5, a wee bit less than half the size of 8x10, and anything blown up to 20x24 looks awesome. Plus it is about half the cost or more than 8x10 film. If there is a scene with a lot of weather, atmosphere, awesome light, something that is just screaming for a big neg, I'll grab the 8x10 ... if it just feels "right!" Those moments are very rare indeed for me. Yet, if things (the weather, clouds, and light) are happening really fast and I can't react fast enough, I'll grab the Hasse and get it on 2 1/4, rather than let something get away. Ansel's "Moon over Halfdome" was captured on 2 1/4 with a Hasse, and it's one of his most compelling images. For detail studies of rocks, trees and water, general landscape scenes, I suppose the larger you can shoot with, the less compromises you have with quality, no mater whether you just contact print, or make really big prints. It's a very subjective question, and for me, in those very rare instances, 8x10 is definitely worth it.

[John Kasaian]

Sure is.

[dsphotog]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

[E. von Hoegh]

I shoot multiple formats and usually take them all when I go out for a couple of weeks at a time: 2 1/4, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. A photographer friend once asked me, "how do you know what format to choose for what subject?" Since I shoot mostly B&W landscapes, I thought that was a pretty darn good question and kind of left me stumped for a logical answer. I suppose 90% of the time I like to shoot 5x7. It's almost twice as large as 4x5, a wee bit less than half the size of 8x10, and anything blown up to 20x24 looks awesome. Plus it is about half the cost or more than 8x10 film. If there is a scene with a lot of weather, atmosphere, awesome light, something that is just screaming for a big neg, I'll grab the 8x10 ... if it just feels "right!" Those moments are very rare indeed for me. Yet, if things (the weather, clouds, and light) are happening really fast and I can't react fast enough, I'll grab the Hasse and get it on 2 1/4, rather than let something get away. Ansel's "Moon over Halfdome" was captured on 2 1/4 with a Hasse, and it's one of his most compelling images. For detail studies of rocks, trees and water, general landscape scenes, I suppose the larger you can shoot with, the less compromises you have with quality, no mater whether you just contact print, or make really big prints. It's a very subjective question, and for me, in those very rare instances, 8x10 is definitely worth it.

Really?

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.

Thanks, Robert! Somehow I missed this in January. I'm not doing anything unusual in my scanning, so I'm sure my scans are merely some of the biggest, not the best. You should check out John NYC's Flickr stream for some truly epic 8x10 scans.

One of the best things about 8x10 is how easy it is to scan. With MF or 35mm, you need a very well controlled workflow, because any mistakes are magnified so much. 4x5 is much easier, and 8x10 is four times easier than 4x5!