Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[Michael Gaillard]

Just do it!! Many bits of sage advice above, folks. I was certainly leaning toward diving in, and the hesitation was the same hesitation I feel when I'm about to make any substantial purchase, regardless of the pleasure and enrichment that often follows... and this particular instance I am certain will result in much of that. I remember the first time I stood behind the ground glass in 4x5, and it is why I still stand there. I'm sure when I'm behind my very own 8x10 window, I will feel something akin to that initial thrill.

Love to hear more thoughts, but for now, I've decided to do it. Why not?

[Drew Bedo]

Is it worth the trouble? Only you can answer that question. If you have to ask—you won't understand.

Diving in—I am on my third 8x10 camera now. Bought an Empire in the ninties, Swapped/traded/bought an Ansco a few years later and now own a Kodak 2-D. Lense(s)? Have had a few; some with shutters, some without. I now have an adapter lensboard that allows me to swap some of the lenses I use on my 4x5 onto the 2-D. Film holders . . .pretty much the same story. Started out with a 4x5 reducing back till I got a couple of worn-out 8x10s. Now Ive got 5 prestine film holders, enought to empty a box of film. Currently, I'm on the lookout for glass plate holders so I can do some ambrotypes.

But DIVING in? do what you can—ungtill you can do what you want, then do that.

Best wishes in whatever you choose to do . . .let us know how it turns out.

[Michael Gaillard]

DIVING IN!!! thank you everyone. My hesitation was more a matter of my incapacity to make large purchases than any real anxiety of a disappointment to follow. You have all helped me to realize that.

[Mark Woods]

I have a 1967 Deardorff and a Besler 8x10 enlarger. I absolutely love them. I also have a Chaimoix 11x14 that I really really like. It doesn't go off the property. The Deardorff lives in a back pack with lenses and the stuff needed to make an exposure. I only shoot B&W. And only print photo chemically. Much easier and more satisfying to me. And cheaper than the digital stuff. I teach these workflows for motion pictures, but am not interested in doing this for stills. Lately I've been split toning and having my digital friends asking me, "What the heck are you doing?????"

[r.e.]

Well, I am in New York City, so I certainly can find some cameras to try, I'm sure. If anyone knows anyone who might have one lying around collecting dust in my vicinity, I would be infinitely grateful and willing to pay a fee, just not the 125/day fee that most rental outfits charge.

I am meticulous and careful with all my equipment, and would happily sign a waiver.

Given that you're in New York, if you want to try an Arca 8x10, no sweat, send me a personal message. It's an F-line Classic, happy to let you give it a whirl.

[Alan Gales]

Wow! Take r.e. up on his offer. The Arca Swiss F-line Classic is one of the greatest cameras ever made!!!

[urs0polar]

Sounds like you want to go digital with scanning. So, get an Epson V700/V750 and use that for scans, only send the important ones to be drum scanned.

I got into 8x10, and yeah, it's a whole new experience. And it is more expensive, no question.

I'm an amateur in every sense of the word with this stuff, so please take the following with a grain of salt, but it's been my experience.

As for practical resolution considerations, unless you are willing to spend big bucks, I think it can be difficult to realize the full advantage of 8x10, so in my opinion, it's best not to move to the format solely for that reason.

Personally, I have a Nikon 9000 and an Epson V700. I have my 4 "high-res" film cameras: Mamiya 7, Linhof Tech V 4x5, Linhof Kardan GT 4x5, and Sinar P2 8x10.

The Nikon 9000 can only handle the Mamiya 7 of this lineup and produces ~4000 ppi. The Epson V700, with a betterscanning holder, can handle the 4x5 and 8x10. With 4x5, I can use the better scan lens of the V700, so I can get the full ~2400 ppi that the scanner is capable of. For 8x10, it has to use the other scan lens of the V700, giving me 1600 ppi tops.

So, in practical terms with my setup, and it's obvious from the scans, the Mamiya 7 scans have more resolution than the 4x5. The 8x10 is still better, but not by as much as you'd think because the lenses I can afford for 8x10 don't have a ton of resolution to begin with, and even if they did, the scanner is the limit. It's really an eye-opener how much better of a scanner the Nikon 9000 is compared to anything that normal people can afford to scan 8x10 on. The V700 is very good, but it's not an Imacon. My friend JohnNYC gets incredibly nice scans with his V700/V750 setup, but I'm not sure if he would do 6 foot prints from them (though I haven't asked him this specifically).

In reality, if I were ready to throw all of my non-existent funds into this (instead of just *most* of them lol), I would be saving up for an IQSmart 3 as that's really the best bet without buying a drum scanner, which will not fit into my NYC apartment -- and to be honest, drum scanning takes a ton of time, smelly liquid, and steep learning curve. A working, reliable IQSmart 3, maybe a bulb replacement, etc etc, is starting to take a decent chunk out of the cost of that digital back. And whatever you use as a capture-to-digital process (scanning or digi back), the camera itself is the cheapest part of the chain in the long (and often short) run.

In my roundabout way, all I'm trying to say is that chasing the resolution fairy is going to be very expensive no matter which route you take: analog, scanning, digital capture, whatever. It's 4x the price per shot, but is probably more than 4x the cost to get 4x the performance you are seeing now with 4x5/Imacon. I will admit that resolution is why I was first interested in LF -- that thought of "Hey, I'm pretty smart: I can use LF film and a scanner and blow away all those DSLR weenies, and since this is a hobby, who cares if I have to scan first" (I convinced myself that resolution wasn't primarily what I was after, but let's be honest...). Then as I got into it, I realized that in reality, LF has the movements, the big ground glass, and the grainless look from film, and 8x10 definitely has that special look to it, and it's just cool to have this massive contraption with wheels and levers and stuff. I love it, but it's GAS. lol.

I realize you would like to print to 6 feet or whatever, so if that's really your goal, I would try to make a giant print like that with what you have now. Not just think about it and pixel peep on your monitor, but actually do it. If you already have, and you found that you absolutely need more than what you have now to do what you do, then by all means, you really have no choice if that's your desired result and you can't afford an IQ180.

If you in reality just want to try 8x10 and see if it's a cool way of working, then jump in as everyone is suggesting! I don't regret it at all even though it wasn't exactly as I thought initially -- and that's an understatement.

Another thing: I have one of the heaviest / most awkward 8x10 setups there is, but it's WAAY bigger than the 4x5 stuff. The camera is 20 pounds without a lens. It gets minimally disassembled and put in a large pelican case (I have the 1640). Overall, with everything (Metering back, 2 lenses (one a 360/4.5), dark cloth, 3 film holders, Sinar Probe, etc) , I just weighed it, it's 66.4 pounds. Yeah, I weighed it again, still the same. And that's without the tripod which I carry in a separate soft case. Obviously, a 8x10 field camera is much much lighter. But to get a good one (Wehman, for instance), it's more expensive, and approaching the cost of a used very nice scanner that can handle 4x5 (IQSmart, Imacon, etc).

To sum up, after this wild and magical journey, my advice is, if you want lots of resolution cheaply, get a Mamiya 7 But then again, you're never going to know about 8x10 unless you try it, so go for it!

Good luck!

[r.e.]

For me, the whole point of 8x10 is to do contact prints and thereby get away from enlargers and scanning/Photoshop except in cases where there is a compelling reason to make a larger print than 8x10.

I agree that the Mamiya 7 is a great camera, and I own one, but it leads directly back to the scanning/Photoshop business.

[Allen in Montreal]

......., I am starting to think it might not be worth it.

.

8x10 is a classic love hate relationship if ever there was one!

[urs0polar]

For me, the whole point of 8x10 is to do contact prints and thereby get away from enlargers and scanning/Photoshop except in cases where there is a compelling reason to make a larger print than 8x10.

I agree that the Mamiya 7 is a great camera, and I own one, but it leads directly back to the scanning/Photoshop business.

R.E.,

I think you are absolutely right. Scanning is awful -- time consuming and nitpicky. My Mamiya 7 suggestion is a little tongue-in-cheek, but if you are going the scanning route, it really is the price/performance king IMO, which is funny to me in a way.