8x10 cameras with 4x10 & 5x8 options?

[R William Rowley]

Thinking of selling my Toyo 8x10, & getting an 8x10 camera with 4x10 & 5x8 capability. I did not own but once had access to an 8x10 Deardorff with "slider" inserts for the back that made 4x10 & 5x8 exposures possible. Is the Deardorff the only 8x10 camera with that feature?

[vinny]

you can make inserts for most 8x10 cameras. I made splitter boards out of mdf for my Wehman quite easily. You can also have 5x8 and 4x10 backs modified for most cameras as well.

[Daniel Stone]

with "splitter boards", I believe the Wehman 8x10 also had that, although I'm not sure if it was a "factory" option, or a DIY job by owners of the cameras.

If you're solely referring to FIELD(as in portable, no bi-post stand) cameras, then YES, I'm pretty sure the DD and Wehman was the only camera to implement this easily. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

Vinny Walsh(aka "Vinny") has posted a few panoramic shots using his (former) Wehman and a splitter board:


I use a splitter board on my wehman. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7004/6638293047_2c3b95a5ed.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62218065@N00/6638293047/)
merced, I think (http://www.flickr.com/photos/62218065@N00/6638293047/) by vinnywalsh.com (http://www.flickr.com/people/62218065@N00/), on Flickr

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97106-4x10-Photography/page2


The EASIEST "solution" to the panoramic shooter with a 4x5, 5x7 8x10(or whatever size) camera is this; a split darkslide:
Generally they are cut from a standard, spare 8x10(or whatever size holder you're using) darkslide. Cut the "opening" side about 5-8mm from center, so you will have a clear separation(aka "dead space") between the two exposed frames on the same sheet.

http://www.stevedanielsphoto.com/images/darkslide-split.gif

-Dan

[Oren Grad]

You might check whether the Eastman 2/2D backs have a slot for splitters. If you'd like a brand-new camera and can spend lots of money, you can probably get Chamonix to make 4x10 and 5x8 reducing backs for their 8x10 camera. But between the reducing backs and a few holders for each of the extra formats, you'd likely be adding ~$2K to the cost of the camera.

[Vaughn]

I use the solution Dan suggested -- a modified darkslide...a minimum of extra weight, space and fuss. I think splitters require more 'work', but have the advantage of masking the GG to just your image area. I might modify darkslides to make 8x8 and 11x11 images.

Splitters require removing the back every time one changes 'format', adding a little more risk of accidents, but we usually have to remove the back to switch between vert and horizontal orientations anyway.

Taken with a modified darkslide -- two 4x10 images on a single sheet.

[RichardRitter]

I found the easiest thing to do is shoot full frame make notes about the image and crop to size with the trimmer this gives more option after printing the image.
When using splitter one has to keep track of how the first image was exposed on the film so the second one is not exposed on top of the first.All one needs is to have the note that is taped to the holder come off.
Plus I like to keep thing simple in the field and carry as little as possible.

[ROL]

I found the easiest thing to do is shoot full frame make notes about the image and crop to size with the trimmer this gives more option after printing the image.

+1 (Cropping A Negative (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/pages/cropping-a-negative)), but I have a sense that the OP is more about pairing down size and cost of film while maintaining a familiar camera format.

[RichardRitter]

I don't crop the negative I crop the finial print. There are times I was glad I had the full negative to work with.
Cost for film is a little more. But if you take the cost of a second or third back in and holders and add that to the picture. It become allot of film. Plus then you have to carrier all these different backs and holders into the field you are becoming a pack mull. I sometimes work up to a few miles form the car extras backs and holders is not in the cards for me. Just getting myself and one camera and one lens and a few holders in and out of some of the areas I work in is a work out, 30 pounds of extra stuff to carrier no way.

[jcoldslabs]

For the record the Kodak 2D 8x10 back has spring-loaded slots for both 5x8 and 4x10 splitter panels. I haven't made any yet, but it looks pretty easy to do.

Jonathan

[Bill_4606]

The Deardorff backs have grooves in the them with springs inside that allow one to insert one of two different masks for making two exposures on one sheet of film.

The 8x10 back has one each - 4x10 & 5x8; the 5x7 back has 2.5x7 & 3.5x5; and the 4x5 back has 2x5 & 2.5x4.

The masks are made of wood and have finger indents in them that permit enough purchase to slide the mask to either side while installed in the back.

While I've seen several different mechanisms to permit easy multiple exposures on a single sheet or plate, I've only seen this particular masking design on the Deardorff backs.
Bill

[brucep]

My Agfa Ansco 10x8 also has the grooves for splitter boards, which I hope to start making next weekend.

Bruce

[Former Member 27732]

I think the cut-down darkslide method is the best option, especially when you're after a light weight solution and being economic with film. So far, I've only lost one 4x10 frame to mismanagement. Each shot is recorded in a note book with the film holder number, side A/B, and an upper (U) or lower (L) marker. The cut-down dark slide is also marked on the handle to indicate the position of the cut-out (open/shut). The only drawback I've noticed is the inconsistency with frame borders - some overlap by a couple of mm, some don't.
Also, never felt the need to mask the GG when it already has etched grid lines.

[vinny]

The Wehman doesn't have any special springs or anything like that. I just made splitters that were friction fit. I like the splitter board best because it aids in framing by blocking out the unused half of the ground glass. Both sides of my holders get a strip of 1" artist's tape which I write exposure notes on. I move that to whichever side has been exposed to rule out mistakes (yeah, they still happen).

with "splitter boards", I believe the Wehman 8x10 also had that, although I'm not sure if it was a "factory" option, or a DIY job by owners of the cameras.

If you're solely referring to FIELD(as in portable, no bi-post stand) cameras, then YES, I'm pretty sure the DD and Wehman was the only camera to implement this easily. I might be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.

Vinny Walsh(aka "Vinny") has posted a few panoramic shots using his (former) Wehman and a splitter board:



http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?97106-4x10-Photography/page2


The EASIEST "solution" to the panoramic shooter with a 4x5, 5x7 8x10(or whatever size) camera is this; a split darkslide:
Generally they are cut from a standard, spare 8x10(or whatever size holder you're using) darkslide. Cut the "opening" side about 5-8mm from center, so you will have a clear separation(aka "dead space") between the two exposed frames on the same sheet.

http://www.stevedanielsphoto.com/images/darkslide-split.gif

-Dan

[Jim Noel]

You might check whether the Eastman 2/2D backs have a slot for splitters. If you'd like a brand-new camera and can spend lots of money, you can probably get Chamonix to make 4x10 and 5x8 reducing backs for their 8x10 camera. But between the reducing backs and a few holders for each of the extra formats, you'd likely be adding ~$2K to the cost of the camera.

The 2d and most other cameras of tha era had slots for splitter boards.