11x14 or 8x10 Field Camera

[Nicolasllasera]

I have a pretty big dilema with what camera to buy next.

I have been shooting 4x5 for a few years and love it. I mainly like arquitecture and some nature pictures. As I like having the most solutions possible I have a Sinar P2 and a Ebony RW45 in 4x5 format. As for 8x10 I have been using a Cambo Legend for a few years and now after I bought the Sinar I got a 8x10 conversion with the idea of selling the Cambo. As I would like to have a field camera in a bigger format Im looking at Chamonix and Canham 8X10. But I cant enlarge these negatives unless I send them to a lab. My idea was to contact print or cabon transfer these negatives. Should I buy a 11x14 field for this and leave my Sinar for shooting close to the car? Is 11x14 a good idea as for film holders and so on. I already have 3 lenses that will cover this format and a Jobo which can develope it. I know that I can shoot xray and Ilford ULF. My main concern is the price of film holders and their availability. I know I could get a 11x14 to 8x10 reducing back but I would like to keep each camera simple.

Thank you in advance.

[John Kasaian]

For about one quarter of the cost of one 11x14 holder you can buy an old school 8x10 Elwood enlarger, and there's a good chance you'll find an Elwood for sale before any reasonably priced 11x14 holders show up on the market.

[Nicolasllasera]

I could imagine John. But I live in Spain and that limits the market terribly.

[jb7]

For about one quarter of the cost of one 11x14 holder you can buy an old school 8x10 Elwood enlarger, and there's a good chance you'll find an Elwood for sale before any reasonably priced 11x14 holders show up on the market.

What price might be reasonable for an 11x14 holder?

I'm about to start shooting that format, and one of the reasons is to contact print-
The real estate that is required to accommodate an 8x10 enlarger might also be quantifiable as a significant cost, for some-

[Scott Davis]

Get a Canham 11x14. Order film holders from Alan Brubaker (http://www.filmholders.com/) or S&S (http://ssfilmholders.com/). I'd suggest Lotus as you live in the EU, but even within the EU their prices are astronomical for everything.

[Peter Gomena]

For less than the price of a camera couple of 11x14 film holders you could buy an Epson 750 and a good inkjet printer and make your 8x10 images as big as you want with the digital negative process. I know it's not the same, but it's darned close. There come a point where technology offers a tool that can help you do things you otherwise could not do. I once dreamed of owning an 11x14 view camera, but it's gone beyond my means, and the price of film has driven it even further away. I want to do some of the traditional darkroom processes and make larger prints than in-camera negatives will allow. I'm going to take a different route is all.

[Nicolasllasera]

I already have a Epson V750 Pro. But I like doing things the traditional way. I guess it probably is harder and more expensive but to me it adds a lot of value to my work. But I am giving it a lot of thought.

[Rob Vinnedge]

I am a convert to Chamonix after having purchased a 4x5 and 8x10 from them. They are well-engineered and finely assembled, very rigid, lightweight, and quite beautiful to the eye and the hand. They offer all of the ULF sizes in cameras and film holders, and Hugo Zhang, their US rep, is very attentive and responsive. The products are also shipped quickly and safely to their destinations. I am planning to buy their 16x20 camera with a 14x17 reducing back as soon as I have the funds. The cameras are quite light for their sizes, so you could probably order an 11x14 camera with an 8x10 reducing back and have two-for-one, thereby allowing you to sell your other 8x10.

[Lachlan 717]

Why not shoot on 8x10 and get digital negs done. This way, you'll be able to get the size that you want AND print wet.

Given you have the V750 already, this would be a cheap option.

[mdm]

For carbon transfer 8x10 is more practical than the ulf sizes. As print size increases the amount of work involved increases exponentially, and probability of a failed print increases too. Its my experience that 11x14 is a whole different ball game to smaller formats. It is not an accident that Brett Weston or example, only produced a single portfolio of 10 prints from using an 11x14 camera, and good prints they are, only not many.

[evan clarke]

Buy a Chamonix..

[John Powers]

The Italian company Durst makes some of the best enlargers in the world. They should be easier to find in the EU than here. I have a model 138, a 5x7 enlarger that was converted to 8x10 with a cold light head. Durst also makes standard 8x10 enlargers. As mentioned before they take a lot of space and a high ceiling. I believe full extension is about 9.5 feet. You need to check that figure if interested.

Another route I have chosen and mention for your thought, is field cameras in 8x10 and 7x17. They present two very interesting ways of looking at things. I regularly shoot landscape in 7x17 with a friend who has an 8x10. We are interested in the same subjects but arrive at very different images. One is not better than the other. They are both very interesting. Occasionally my friend will shoot 4x10 and enlarge to 8x20. They just don’t look as good to me. Shooting 4x10 on an 8x10 camera drastically limits your movement possibilities.

The Chamonix is based on the RH Phillips cameras, which I use. I am very much in favor of that design. The design is light, very ridged and strong. Chamonix sells film holders for their cameras in all formats.

Enjoy what ever you chose to do. Everything mentioned so far is good. It is just a matter of what will give you the most benefit.

John

[Vaughn]

...Shooting 4x10 on an 8x10 camera drastically limits your movement possibilities...
John

Interesting. I put two 4x10 images of a single sheet of 8x10 film and rarely experience any limitations in the use of camera movements. I raise or lower the front standard to center the lens on the 4x10 image and I am good to go with all movements. Excellent and easy to use for verticals, too.

The exception is when I use a 159mm lens. My Zone VI has 26" of bellows and asking them to squish up to 6 inches is a bit much when it comes to movements.

I still need to get off my butt and modify an 11x14 darkslide to make two 5x14 images on a single sheet of 11x14. Not as big as the 7x17, but pretty close...and just a touch skinnier rectangle.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Get an 8x10. More film is available for that format, as well as film holders. If you want to make bigger carbon transfer prints, and since you already have the V750, you can go with digital negatives... if you have a decent inkjet printer. That's what I do. I've made 14x17 carbon prints from x-ray negatives and from digital negatives of the same size. I wouldn't go bigger than that, as I do not have the space. As mdm points out it is more work and the failure rate can be high, but if you work hard it and pay attention to details, you'll be fine.

[Kodachrome25]

I am planning to buy their 16x20 camera with a 14x17 reducing back as soon as I have the funds.

If I were to ever go larger than 4x5 and it is highly doubtful that I would considering where I like to take a camera, I too would get their 16x20 and contact print. I did the math one day and figured about 10K-12K would get me started with the camera, a lens or two, a few holders and some ULF film to start with and a slick contact printer. Surprisingly, the cost to go full bore to 20x24 is not that much more at least in terms of the camera and holders.....man, those would be incredible contact prints! I have 12 of their 4x5 holders and they are truly light and very nicely made.

Maybe one day.

[BILL3075]

I agree with 'Chrome: 16x20. And his math is about right.

A mounted B&W print 14x17 and larger can be something to behold!

Bill

[Former Member 27732]

Interesting. I put two 4x10 images of a single sheet of 8x10 film and rarely experience any limitations in the use of camera movements. I raise or lower the front standard to center the lens on the 4x10 image and I am good to go with all movements. Excellent and easy to use for verticals, too.

The exception is when I use a 159mm lens. My Zone VI has 26" of bellows and asking them to squish up to 6 inches is a bit much when it comes to movements.

I still need to get off my butt and modify an 11x14 darkslide to make two 5x14 images on a single sheet of 11x14. Not as big as the 7x17, but pretty close...and just a touch skinnier rectangle.

I do the same with a Ritter, bag bellows and reversed rails to get the front standard closer to the back. No movement restrictions and the camera can still fold up in this configuration....

/Frank

[John Kasaian]

6 used 11x14 film holders at $200 each cost as much as a used 8x10 Deardorff ($1200)
6 used 8x10 film holders at $30 each cost less than one used 11x14 film holder.
Shooting 8x10 just makes more sense for me, (as if anything in LF actually makes sense:rolleyes:) but if you've got the means to shoot 11x14, go for it! The contacts should be outstanding!

[Drew Wiley]

How mobile do you need to be? There's quite a difference between toting around a lightwt field 8x10 and the typical ULF
system. How far do you like to get from the car or a paved street?

[John Powers]

....Shooting 8x10 just makes more sense for me, (as if anything in LF actually makes sense:rolleyes:) ....

Perhaps an explanation for the name of "Midwest Large Format Asylum."
There are only 580 nutcase members including many of us on the LF Forum.

John

[Scott Davis]

John- where are you finding 11x14 film holders for $200/ea?

[John Kasaian]

Thats what I remember them going for when I had an 11x14 B&J. Have they dropped in price?

[Scott Davis]

No - they're more than that now from what I've seen. Closer to $300 each. And new ones? $400-$600 a pop.

[Joe Smigiel]

I don't really care for the 4x5, 8x10, 16x20 formats. Maybe it is some subtle aspect ratio thing that makes me feel that way. My preference has always been 11x14 but I also have grown to like the other formats of 5x7, whole-plate, and 14x17. Anything but that 4:5.

I would suggest you base your purchase on which format you prefer rather than cost. You already have a reason for doing something other than 8x10. And regardless of initial cost, you will probably be able to sell the equipment at a later date for close to what you paid for it (or more).

[Dan Dozer]

I assume you have a darkroom. Consider making your Cambo into a horizontal 8 x 10 enlarger. I did that with my old Kodak 2D and it works great. It sits on a table type of track that sits on top of the darkroom counter and projects onto the wall. If you can find a cold light head, the rest is pretty easy if you have a basic work shop. If you're interested, I can try to find some photos I took of the whole assembly.