Any benefit to 8x10 over 4x5 if not contact printing?

[welly]

Recently saw the Cambo 8x10 posted up here for sale at an affordable price. I've resisted (for the best at the moment anyway!) but wondering if there's any real benefit of shooting 8x10 over 4x5 if I'm not contact printing? I'm not in a position to set up a darkroom of any significance - my bathroom isn't really big enough to set up, even temporarily, a bunch of trays etc. so I would really just be processing the sheets, scanning and digitally printing, as I'm currently doing with my 4x5. But I love the look of those huge sheets! Eventually I guess I'll be in more of position to set up a more permanent darkroom but right now it's not an option.

[vinny]

Yes.

[Mark Barendt]

Sure there are advantages.

The 8x10 ground glass is lovely to see and work with when shooting.

Just like switching from small or medium format up to 4x5 there is a change in the look too.

As to your space concern, it really shouldn't take much more space than a couple TV trays.

Find some vertical tanks and hangers, and use replenished chemicals like Xtol and LPD so you don't waste chemicals when you put things away, and you have a compact, stowable kit.

That said I've stayed with 4x5 myself simply because I have an enlarger and I don't always want 8x10s. If I didn't have the enlarger I'd seriously consider the contacting route.

[Larry Gebhardt]

For me 4x5 is better for enlarging because my biggest enlarger is a 5x7. I also have a decent drum scanner for scans. But I suspect with 8x10 film I could use a much less expensive Epson scanner as long as it covered 8x10 and get very similar results at the sizes I print. Drum scanned 8x10 would be fantastic. But, with the 8x10 camera packing it and all the film gets much heavier and bulkier. I plan on getting a Canham 5x7 as a good balance between 4x5 and 8x10. Plus it has a pleasing aspect ratio, and can take a 6x17 back.

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're flatbed or drum scanning, then definitely, 8x10" will give you a much bigger file to work with than 4x5". Also, I've contact printed in a tiny bathroom. It doesn't really take much space, if you're interested in trying.

[John Kasaian]

An 8x10 negative will record a mind boggling amount of detail. Enlargements from an 8x10 are most definately special in that regard.

[welly]

I was hoping you would put me off Oh well, there goes another pay cheque.

[Ken Lee]

Here's a sample 8x10 image with enlarged detail. It's hard to overstate just how smooth and detailed the images can be with 8x10.

It's subjective, but IMHO the difference can be discernible at all sizes. Even with a crummy vintage lens and humble consumer-grade scanner 8x10 is capable of making spectacular prints up to 16x20 or larger. To me, the real trade-offs are cost per sheet and limited depth-of-field.

[Jay DeFehr]

The differences between formats are mathematical, and how they weigh out is very personal. I like having the 8x10 option.

[welly]

Here's a sample 8x10 image with enlarged detail. It's hard to overstate just how smooth and detailed the images can be with 8x10.

It's subjective, but IMHO the difference can be discernible at all sizes. Even with a crummy vintage lens and humble consumer-grade scanner 8x10 is capable of making spectacular prints up to 16x20 or larger. To me, the real trade-offs are cost per sheet and limited depth-of-field.

Ok, I'm pretty much sold. It's lucky I don't have a wife I suppose.