Holy SH*T!!! Seen the price of 8X10 Fuji lately?

[vinny]

I see a difference (detail) in my darkroom enlargements at 11x14 and the same with lightjets. I don't know how you wouldn't see it. What I can say is that my enlargements from 8x10 film (both darkroom and drum scanned), blow my mind and I'm only 35 years old and have terrible vision w/o my glasses. I'm gonna drink a beer to that right now.

[ROL]

Its kinda hard to write in words, but to my eyes, the tiny details that were in the 8x10's were easily resolved, where as with the 4x5, they were not as sharp or well-defined. Just what MY eyes saw.

Your process. Right on.

[Greg Y]

Thanks ROL ..... You read my mind....

[Robert Jonathan]

I've been out of the large format world for a few months now, and I recently saw those new prices for the Fuji 8x10 film... Holy SH*T is right. Still cheaper than Kodak though.

But it made me laugh, because I had bought 3 boxes of 8x10 Provia (60 sheets) at the $169 per box price, which made me very happy. They're still sitting in the fridge.

Also, E100G in 4x5 and 8x10 at B&H is GONE, and Astia in 4x5 is GONE (there used to be some boxes in stock not too long ago).

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know what 8x10 color negative film costs these days but if it's a lot less than slide film you might switch to negative film. With 16x20 prints I never noticed any difference in the final print between enlarged 4x5 and 8x10 negative film.

[Brian C. Miller]

I recently did a test for myself with Ektar and E100VS. Never mind the price difference, what's truly important is how the films render the scene. I found the chrome to essentially highlight the subject by dropping off the shadows. (I was photographing flowering bushes in the shade) The rendering of the scene is really so different, that chrome and negatives really aren't interchangeable. Yeah, they're both color, but chrome material is effectively as unique as infrared.