Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[John Kasaian]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

[Scott Walker]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

So true

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

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.

I find Clearing Winter Storm, which was shot on 8X10 with a Cooke Convertible, to be far more compelling than Moon Over Halfdome. I have never seen a print of Moon Over Halfdome but the books, posters and web images I have seen are drab and dull by comparison.

[federico9001]

personally I found out that the 11x14" format is really something special: transportability + amazing spatiality and 3d look (even much more than the 8x10" format)

[sethlatimer]

I think moonrise hernandez what shot with 8x10.
http://www.anseladams.com/Articles.asp?ID=145
Seth

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Chick magnet for me is my 14x17! I love my 8x10. I shoot nothing but 8x10 and up so the 8x10 is like a point and shoot. An 8x10 contact print is beautiful. Nicely printed, framed and presented I think they look great. My most used format.

[Michael Kadillak]

Chick magnet for me is my 14x17! I love my 8x10. I shoot nothing but 8x10 and up so the 8x10 is like a point and shoot. An 8x10 contact print is beautiful. Nicely printed, framed and presented I think they look great. My most used format.

Absolutely well stated. My experience mirrors yours exactly. Many will find the description of 8x10 as a point and shoot camera as whacky but all you have to do is spend a week working with ULF and that is the conclusion you inherently arrive at.

Great format with excellent optics available along with sheet film.

[Richard Rau]

Well, E. von Hoegh, you caught me at the quick, had my heart racing when you punctuated my quote in extreme large fonts for all to see, (oh oh, I could be wrong, I'm only human after all, and I do make mistakes. so no problem really!) And yet, I think you missed the whole point of what I was trying to convey. If the subject matter is strong enough, and you capture the image with a camera and the print is well executed, and the result is compelling, and you recognize that at that moment, and at the time, you know you captured something fairly significant, does it matter what large format you used, as long as you executed it perfectly? I personally don't think it does, as long as you got THE shot! That is not to take away from the fact that as I think most of us agree, 8x10 is worth it.


Non the less, Michael Adams does explains how Ansel photographed "Moon over Half Dome" in this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vzIYQkE0_E

[dsphotog]

I just bought an 11x14 'cause 8x10 wasn't enough trouble.

[Darin Boville]

Consider stitching with a digital DSLR. Seriously. People here will pout but consider:

The resolution is very high, can easily exceed 8x10.

It is far less costly.

The slowness of the shooting is in a way akin to 4x5/8x10 and rewards thinking about a potential image rather than just pointing and shooting.

99% of what LF photographers shoot is static and is easily photographed via stitching.

Almost ever time I start to shoot a project with a 4x5/8x10 I end up switching to digital stitching.

--Darin