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

[Alan Gales]

That's cool. As much as I dish it out I better be able to take it!

[E. von Hoegh]

A negative is the same size as a positive.

A negative multiplied by a negative equals a positive.

[Preston]

I always thought the inverse of a negative was a positive, or is it the other way around?

--P

[E. von Hoegh]

I always thought the inverse of a negative was a positive, or is it the other way around?

--P

Yes.

[Preston]

-p

[Drew Wiley]

You can save money on film and bulk in equipment quite easily, and still have 8x10 enlargement quality. Back in one of Fred Picker's old catalogs (or was it Calumet?) there
was a picture of a negative stretcher. You start with 4x5 and end up with 8x10. It's important to develop your negatives to a little higher contrast than normal, because the
grain density will be spread out a little too. As I recall, it was in the same section of the catalog as that special powder that turns lead toner into gold toner. But beware of the
counterfeit negative stretchers now being made in China and sold on EBay.

[Andrew O'Neill]

That's funny, Drew.

[welly]

You can save money on film and bulk in equipment quite easily, and still have 8x10 enlargement quality. Back in one of Fred Picker's old catalogs (or was it Calumet?) there
was a picture of a negative stretcher. You start with 4x5 and end up with 8x10. It's important to develop your negatives to a little higher contrast than normal, because the
grain density will be spread out a little too. As I recall, it was in the same section of the catalog as that special powder that turns lead toner into gold toner. But beware of the
counterfeit negative stretchers now being made in China and sold on EBay.

Negative stretchers, eh? Are they built by the same people who make skyhooks and long weights? I shall go and find one now! Back in a bit!

[Old-N-Feeble]

I tried a stretcher thingy once. It didn't work.

[polyglot]

I don't post this to be insulting to 5x4 because 5x4 is my chosen format. I have a 10x8 camera that "maybe" one day I will use but there are no real similarities between 5x4 and 10x8. Example -- I have a 12" Velostigmat that is truely wonderful on 5x4 wide open even enlarged to 16x12 and yet that same lens at the same aperture on 10x8 is a world away different. Something happens as the film gets bigger that cannot be replicated with print enlargement. DOF selective focus and tonality on a 10x8 contact challenge your perceptions that it is the same lens. I love soft focus but I will never acheive the 10x8 Jim Galli look with my enlarged 5x4. Please don't miss read this I'm completely satisfied with my 5x4 but it will never be a 10x8. Again not an insult, just an observation but 5x4 for the most part has a modern [ish] super high quality medium format look whereas 10x8 is "different". Very subjective I realise. In some instances both formats at a glance will be similar but not the same.

Then of course there is the weight, the cost, the bulk and the continual realisation film is available in even bigger sizes.

I think this point wrt the look of the lenses available for 8x10 is the only significant difference. Sure you can use a 12" f/4.5 Velostigmat on 4x5 but it won't look the same because the magnification is halved for a given subject size (e.g. headshot). You'd need a 6" f/2.2 lens to get the same field of view and DOF on 4x5, and I ain't heard of no such Velostigmat. It seems to me that people use 8x10 for the crazy old soft-focus lenses or for abusing petzvals by recording swirls way outside their designed image-circle and you can't do that sort of thing so easily on 4x5 because the really crazy lenses are either too long or the craziness occurs outside the 4x5 frame.

As for achieving ultimate sharpness, diffraction will usually be the practical limit for both formats at typical working apertures.