Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[jp]

If you want to use 8x10 just for better image quality over 4x5, it's probably an tough call based on diminishing returns. Good technique, film, and lenses on 4x5 could do a equal or better to compared to casually executed 8x10 shots.

I don't do 8x10 for image detail. I develop it at home and scan it on an epson v700 or contact print onto silver or alt-process materials (where it wouldn't matter if I was using 100 speed film or 3200 speed film.) I chose to have 8x10 gear along with 4x5 in order to use big old lenses that don't fit 4x5 cameras, and also to use big old cameras in a manner close to how they'd originally have been used.

It also fun to have some big negatives for contact printing. I suppose eventually, I'll make big digital negatives from 4x5, but for now, it's easier to spend the extra 15 minutes setting up a bigger camera than to deal with my inkjet printer, two computers, and scanner.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup... and it's no trouble.

[Roger Cole]

With very few exceptions, nothing is really worth the trouble. Do it anyway. If we didn't, we wouldn't get out of bed.

I've mulled over the same question, actually. For me, it isn't an imminent decision because I don't have my 4x5 and MF (or even 35mm but that's not so expensive to complete) gear to where I want it to be. Once I round out those kits...maybe.

Since my main interest would be black and white, and I'd probably NEVER spend the money to shoot 8x10 color even supposing it's an alternative by then, I'm not too concerned about film costs. It's expensive, but given the speed of shooting a few sheets not prohibitively so for me. In my case the problem is optically enlarging the negatives. As awesome as 8x10 contact prints undeniably can be, they are still just 8x10s. I can make exquisite 16x20s from my 4x5 negs and if I wanted to go bigger all I need is a larger easel and some trays or pans big enough for the paper (and the paper.) I'm not really interested in scanning and outputting digitally, or maybe I should say I'm not very interested. It's handy, but this is a hobby for me and it's not really something that interests me enough to be doing it a lot for fun, though I will probably get a V700 or V750. That's fine for the sizes I'd want to print, but not for your 6' prints.

If I stumble on a Beseler or Zone VI enlarger with the 8x10 heads at the right price, that would be more likely to drive me to jump to 8x10 than deciding to go 8x10 then making contact prints while looking for those. Things like Elmwood enlargers are give away items, but are just too big to move and install - and I expect to sell the house and move in maybe 4-5 years and don't want to move a beast like that nor leave it for someone, even supposing I found one locally and could get it here.

It just seems that it's a huge jump in complications and hassle factor and not much jump in quality for my "up to 16x20" printing. But it sure is appealing just the same!

[John Kasaian]

just do it.

[John Conway]

Just do it. If you enjoy 4x5 then I think you will like 8x10 as well. The attraction for me was the look of 8x10, mainly black and white portraiture. To me there is nothing like it,even 4x5, no matter how good the equipment, has a different look. My first 8x10 images were portrait shots of my son. When I picked up the contacts from the lab, I was blown away. And of course that big ground glass is such a pleasure compared to 4x5. Go for it.

[Drew Wiley]

Think of 8x10 as a marriage rather than a fling. If you are committed to it, it can be
tremendously rewarding. View cameras are view cameras, and transferring 4x5 technique to 8x10 is technically easy. But you will look at things differently, and that
is where the magic is. Film and scanning expense will obviously go way up - just comes
with the territory. Certain films will cease to exist, but it is probable that some high
quality chrome as well as color neg offering will be around for awhile. Black and white film, no problem. No risk, no gain. If you can't dive all the way in, I'd recommend 4X5.

[Scott Walker]

8x10 means big and heavy, and expensive, and difficult and expensive to travel with, and requires a bigger heavier tripod, and it sucks so much to pack one up the side of a mountain, and the film is more difficult to handle, and the film holders are big and heavy and take up way too much room, and once you set the camera up and have a look through the ground glass, none of that matters.

Your costs in time, effort, and money in capturing an image are substantial and developing the film is more difficult, costly, and in turn, more stressful than with smaller formats, but once you hold that developed negative in your hands, none of that matters.

Weather you get your negatives scanned or you equip a darkroom for enlarging 8x10 negatives it is more expensive than for smaller formats. If you never plan on printing anything larger than 11x14 it might be difficult to outweigh the cons, but if you are.....

[John Kasaian]

8x10 means big and heavy, and expensive, and difficult and expensive to travel with, and requires a bigger heavier tripod, and it sucks so much to pack one up the side of a mountain, and the film is more difficult to handle, and the film holders are big and heavy and take up way too much room, and once you set the camera up and have a look through the ground glass, none of that matters.

Your costs in time, effort, and money in capturing an image are substantial and developing the film is more difficult, costly, and in turn, more stressful than with smaller formats, but once you hold that developed negative in your hands, none of that matters.

Weather you get your negatives scanned or you equip a darkroom for enlarging 8x10 negatives it is more expensive than for smaller formats. If you never plan on printing anything larger than 11x14 it might be difficult to outweigh the cons, but if you are.....

There are pretty light 8x10s out there (considering they are 8x10s) Film holders are bigger and heavier but a changing bag is not (and you'll get very good at not wasting film if you shoot 8x10, so the numbers of film holders you'll need will diminish) An 8x10 field camera isn't all that much slower than a 4x5 to set up and if you really want speed, what would you be doing messing with a field camera anyway? True, the tripod needs to be heavier to support an 8x10, I'll give you that, and film is more expensive as well as the chemicals, but Arista .eduUltra is about $2/sheet the last time I looked, x-ray film around .60 cents (?) Process your film in a prcessor and you chemical useage goes way down even if you do a "one shot" method. Print chemicals are little different in volume than 4x5---you're filling 11x14 trays instead of 8x10 or 5x7 trays---big deal.
You can even find old Elwood enlargers for not much loot or... built one! Ansel Adams could do it, then so can you. Thats part of the fun of 8x10!
Look, you've already establshed that you are interested enough to give the jump up in size serious thought. Just do it.

[jeroldharter]

Just do it. I think if you are the sort of person wondering about making prints that large, and thinking about maximizing detail, then you are exactly the kind of person who should try 8x10.

I don't agree complately that it is so expensive. For 8x10, i have a narrower array of lenses than 4x5 so the cost for lenses is about the same. My camera (Wehman) costs less than half of my 4x5 (Arca Swiss). Add ~$250 for a larger tripod and head. Film holders are expensive but i use half as many. Film costs 4x as much as 4x5 but i shoot about 1/3 as much film so that tends to even out also. For me, the costs are roughly the same as 4x5.

Also, if you are spending $400 just to scan a negative, the cost of the kit and film will round off to zero eventually.

[Drew Wiley]

It's a relative. Someone shooting a 16x20 or 20X24 camera would probably consider
8x10 inexpensive and highly portable. And relative to 4x5, 8x10 is expensive, esp in
color. Once you start printing yourself, an 8x10 color enlarger is a lot more expensive
proposition than something suited just for b&w. And 8x10 drum scans can cost a lot
more. But just how many shots does one need to print??