The original question came three years ago.
The original question came three years ago.
http://www.photocritique.net/digest/1999-12.html
The link above helped me. After making contact with the photographer and then Steve Simmons at View Camera magazine I bought a 5x7 and love it. The fact this started years ago has little to do with the question. A lot of photographers are still asking about it.
I like 5x7 a lot. But if people are answering the original poster, he got his answer 3 years ago, and has not come back to the forum. That's the point.
Garrett
flickr galleries
Even fewer posters read the original post in threads than understand that this is an archive of information, not a chat room. Reviving an old thread to keep the archive clean and more readily searchable rather than starting a new, redundant one is good practice. It should be commended, not denigrated. That's the important point.
I actually did not appreciate the 'important point' that reviving a years old thread that had already wandered a fair distance from the point of the inquiry was a way to keep the archive "clean" and more efficient. The years-late answers to the old question, obviously, were not in lieu of starting a new redundant thread. So there would have been no redundant thread. I did not 'denigrate' anybody for doing anything. ("The original question came three years ago." That was it.) I just pointed out the age of the question. My point, which I thought obvious, was that the question was years old, so if anybody though they were helping the poster make up his pros and cons list this should be considered as possibly a waste of time.
Sometimes (well, many times here) I've seen generous and well-intentioned people spend much time and effort writing marvelously responsive and very informational posts trying to help somebody who long ago got answers, or moved on, or both. If people want to add commentary so that someday somebody seeing the original question might make it to page 9 for additional, possibly related insights, fine. And if doing so seems commendable to somebody, that's fine too.
"Re: 4x5" to 5x7"... is it worth changing?"
That's at the top of every post in this thread. It incorporates the thread title and communicates the question everyone is responding to, regardless of whether the OP is still around or not. Anyone who finds this thread when searching the archive can read all responses, no matter when they were posted.
By the way, this post, #77, is on page 2 for me, not page 9. I've taken the time to click on "Settings" at the top of the page, then "General Settings," where, under "Thread Display Options," I selected "Show 50 Posts Per Page" and, finally, clicked "Save Changes." Makes things a lot easier to follow.
I bought my 5x7 Deardorff just out of high school in 1945. I wanted to get out of medium format,which is how 4x5 was classified at that time and couldn't afford the $200+ to get into 8x10. I still have it along with 4x5 which i rarely use, 8x10 and 7x17 which I use on a regular basis. BUT - the handy old 5x7 is the one which is always packed and ready to go if a friend drops by and wants to go out in search of photographs.
It is a great size for alternative prints, a horizontal is truly horizontal not just barely not square and the format fits my vision.
Don't get one just to have it - decide if any of its advantages are what you really want.
I recently went through a similar mental exercise. I finallty decided to stick with 4x5 but that's only due to physical limitations. If not for that I would also have an 8x10. My thought process follows...
1. 4x5 to 5x7 quality difference... not enough for me so 5x7 isn't even considered
2. 4x5, 5x7, 5x8, 8x10 film availability... few available for 5x7 and I don't want to make (2) cuts from 8x10
3. 4x5 to 5x8 quality difference... barely enough for me and I wouldn't mind (too much) making one cut from 8x10
4. 5x8 ratio... I really like it but 4x5 and 8x10 can be cropped
5. 5x8 cost savings vs. 8x10... I will shoot too little for this to matter to me
6. 5x8 lens choices... nearly identical to 8x10, IMO
7. 5x8 vs. 8x10 weight savings... not enough given the lens kit and other sundries
8. 8x10... is the next logical step for me (if I could still carry it)
9. 8x10 kit... I can't carry it anymore so...
10. 4x5 is my best choice... but I'd definitely opt for 8x10 also if not for ambulatory issues... anything in between isn't for me... also 8x10 enlargers are rare and pricey
Bookmarks