4x5 versus 8x10 portriats

[Jody_S]

There's a learning curve for LF photography, same as any other. Some would say it's a steeper curve, I don't know about that though because most people getting into it already have considerable photography experience and some idea of what they want to accomplish with LF. But I digress.

Fact is, you'll need to shoot hundreds of shots to get comfortable with it, be it 4x5 or 8x10. You'll need to experiment with films, lenses, cameras, tripods, backpacks or studio gear, the works. If you want to start out with 8x10 and can afford the projected cost of hundreds of shots in your first couple of years (plus the gear, which is much more expensive), then have at it. I'm glad I started with 4x5, and honesty I didn't really learn it until I got a couple boxes of expired B&W film and started doing my own processing, which brought my costs down to about $0.25 a shot. That meant the gas I spent driving to my shoots cost more than the shots I took. In other words, I didn't care anymore about 'wasting' a shot if I just wanted to try something, thought I should bracket exposures, got a 'new' old lens, whatever. But that's me, and honestly it's mostly because I only have the time to spend on it when I'm between jobs (and short of cash).

[John Kasaian]

Ugly people look a whole lot uglier on 8x10..... just sayin'

[Ben Syverson]

Ugly people look a whole lot uglier on 8x10..... just sayin'

Or less, since there's less DOF

[Thebes]

I'm shooting both 4x5 and 8x10.
I prefer the look of 8x10, but the larger camera is not always practical.

As for cost- I shoot fewer 4x5 exposures than I shot 6x7 exposures. I shoot fewer sheets a day of 8x10 than I do 4x5, which has become more like mf to me since working with the bigger camera. Its hard to say that the film is as much more expensive as a sheet to sheet comparison would suggest. More importantly, when I add up my costs including gas and such, my film is normally third on my list of expenses.

Regarding the cost of gear, minimize it while learning. Don't buy junk, but its silly to spend $5 grand on equipment and worry about saving $500 on the film for it. I think if the average LF shooter spent as much a year on film as gear we wouldn't be having all the sheet film discontinuations that we've seen.

[Corran]

I just got into 8x10. My complete camera system, a camera over 100 years old and a 300mm f/4.5 lens with a few film holders and some free film, cost about $500. I got some of that x-ray film - $25 for 100 sheets. It works really, really well (after I did tests). I also discovered my 210mm Symmar-S covers 8x10 for a free wide angle.

Per sheet, 4x5 costs me more (I shoot T-Max 100 mostly). But I value the two systems - 4x5 for enlargements (T-Max 4x5 has more real resolution than x-ray 8x10, according to my scans), and 8x10 for contact prints.

If you are simply leaning towards 8x10, get an old wooden camera and x-ray film and you should be well under $1k.

[scathontiphat]

Jim, thanks for a great answer.

300mm f4.5 lenses litter ebay for very little money. The equivalent in look in 4X5 is a 150mm f2.4 or so. Easy math. There aren't any.

and good point. the picture i posted was taken with a 360mm @ f11. So that means finding a 180/5.6, of which there seems a good selection, but I imagine one that's sharp wide open would cost me a pretty penny. Maybe brings down the cost difference of 10x8 v. 5x4 gear. (BTW, it's MR. scathontiphat)

expired B&W film and started doing my own processing, which brought my costs down to about $0.25 a shot.

I think this may be a key point for me. since i've only shot 2 sheets so far, i paid for processing as i wasn't sure yet if i would end up buying a LF camera: £5/sheet + £7/sheet contact. So each snap so far has cost me about £16/$25! Old film and processing myself looks like a key point!

thanks again guys, very helpful!

[jcoldslabs]

If the average LF shooter spent as much a year on film as gear we wouldn't be having all the sheet film discontinuations that we've seen.

Amen to that!

J.

[Zaitz]

I don't think the price of a lot of the cameras differs that much. At least, comparing the cheap 8x10s to 4x5 cameras. Within the same brand they get more expensive as you move up. My C1 was the same price as my Crown Graphic 4x5. What I'm trying to say is I would recommend getting a cheap 8x10 camera with a 4x5 back. Win win! When you want or can...you can shoot 8x10. For the rest of the time you can use the 4x5 back. You also have room for a ton of movements and a jumbo lens board for the awesome lenses that are generally large. Kodak 2d, C1, any 8x10 you can find! That would be my suggestion.

[Alan Gales]

I shot 35mm for years. When digital killed medium format I started shooting medium format because I finally could afford it. I always dreamed of shooting 8x10 so I bought a 4x5 because it was cheaper and I thought it was a good idea for trying out large format. Just recently I bought an 8x10.

If you want to shoot 8x10 then just do it!

[Robert Jonathan]

B+W is "cheap" in 8x10 if you really like the format, and don't care to shoot color.

25 sheets of Ilford Delta 100 for $90? That's 100 sheets for $360.

Meanwhile, I spend close to $900 for 100 sheets of 8x10 Provia...

And then there's Kodak... $1300 for 10 boxes of E100G... bastards.