Viability of 5x7?

[Darin Boville]

I haven't been following this much in many years--what is the viability of 5x7 now and looking forward?

I see Ilford still has two and a half films listed on B&H (the half being Delta 100 that needs to be ordered 16 boxes at a time). So that's o.k. Any films available on a special order based (like TMax 400.....??)

Does anyone reputable still develop 5x7 B&W?

My plan is to use it in a hybrid workflow, having the neg processed commercially but scanning it myself and printing on inkjet. Perhaps contact sheets using a very primitive set-up at some point.

The attraction is that it seems you are gaining a lot of negative for not too much more in weight/size.

Sort of kicking the idea around only because someone mentioned they might have a 5x7 Norma available.

--Darin

[mdm]

Go for it. Its a super format, even at 5x6 as Ken uses it sometimes. The biggest format scannable on a betterscanning holder and v700 is whole plate with a slight crop on the long dimensions which makes the scannable area 6x8.5. Any film available in 8x10 can be cut to 5x7 or whole plate with not much trouble. I even do it in a harrison tent these days.

[gregmo]

I agree, 5x7 is not much different then 4x5, but a nice bump in film size. Most 4x5 lens will cover 5x7 as we'll. I'm lucky to have a local lab that processes up to 8x10. You might have to mail it or try developing your B&W at home like many others do.
I haven't had any trouble getting film. I shoot Ilford fp4 for b&w and have over a box of Portra 160 in the freezer remaining.
If you are interested in color or any Kodak film for that matter not sold thru retailers, Keith Canham organizes group buys. I'm waiting for 5x7 Ektar to hit the minimum required limit for an order with Kodak.

[Roger Thoms]

My girl friend shoots 5x7, mainly FP4, very nice format. No problem getting film so far. Here in San Francisco Gamma Black & White (http://www.gammasf.com) processes 5x7 and offers a wide varity of developers. I've used Gamma for 4x5 on occasion with great results.

Roger

[austin granger]

I can't speak to the future of 5x7 film, but I can tell you that I've been been sending my 5x7 negatives to Edgar Praus for some time (link below) and he's never done me wrong. I love shooting 5x7. For me, composing on the larger ground glass is a joy, and the more rectangular proportions are a nice change as well. When I bought my Deardorff Special it had both backs (5x7 and 4x5) so I thought I'd give 5x7 a try and now I'm hooked. And I figure, if worse come to worst, and the film goes away, I'll just slap on the 4x5 back and carry on. I like the format so much though that I sometimes yearn for a dedicated (i.e. lighter) 5x7. Chamonix makes a lovely horizontal only model...

A whole bunch of photos from 5x7 negs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/sets/72157633483261275/

And Edgar Praus:
http://www.4photolab.com/index.html

[Bernice Loui]

Been using 5x7 & 13x18cm for nearly 25 years now.

Initially it all began with a Sinar 4x5 which was a very significant change from roll film. That evolved into a Linhof Technika for portability with Graphmatic holders. This was a nice systems system to use except using camera movements was less than pleasant and in many ways limiting. This gave way to a 8x10 Sinar F which was nice for camera movements and etc.. but was REALLY heavy, bulky and more.. This then became a Toyo 810M with a Sinar front standard.. nice camera in many ways until trying to use long focal length or very short focal length lenses.

Post process, the 8x10 made nice contact prints, trying to get a proper enlarger (Durst 184) was equal to owning a large machine tool..

While the image quality improvement of 8x10 over 4x5 was very significant, the choices for optics is limited, the bulk, post process and .... became a limitation I was simply not willing to live with.

This evolved into Sinar C/P 5x7 - 13x18cm which was just right in every way and my terminal camera. There other 5x7 cameras in the pile, but the Sinar has become my all time fave for many,many reasons. Choices for optics and etc is extensive, a Durst 138 is manageable and etc... The overall image quality compared to 8x10 is very, very similar and in some conditions much better due to the availability of an optic that meets a specific requirement.

Been using a Jobo & Jobo drm to process film for a very long time, they work well once one is up on the learning curve. Alternatively hangers work fine and tray processing works too if one is careful. Highly recommend gaining the ability to process your own film for a host of reasons.

As for film, it is not difficult to cut down 8x10 film into 5x7. Hassle yes, but the of the shelf availability of 5x7 film should not be an obstacle to what IMO is the ideal sheet film format in many ways.


Bernice





I haven't been following this much in many years--what is the viability of 5x7 now and looking forward?

I see Ilford still has two and a half films listed on B&H (the half being Delta 100 that needs to be ordered 16 boxes at a time). So that's o.k. Any films available on a special order based (like TMax 400.....??)

Does anyone reputable still develop 5x7 B&W?

My plan is to use it in a hybrid workflow, having the neg processed commercially but scanning it myself and printing on inkjet. Perhaps contact sheets using a very primitive set-up at some point.

The attraction is that it seems you are gaining a lot of negative for not too much more in weight/size.

Sort of kicking the idea around only because someone mentioned they might have a 5x7 Norma available.

--Darin

[Bill Burk]

Hey Darin,

If you need, I can develop your 5x7 until you find someone reputable. I tray develop 4x5 - it can't be any harder.

You might get a couple scratches, and you might get a little dust... But you can call your CI and I'll hit it within a few percent.

[Ed Bray]

I use and process my own 5x7, I have found a few ways of doing it. 2x sheets in a Paterson Orbital Processor, 4x sheets in a five reel Jobo Tank (works just as well with a Paterson Version) Taco Style and the latest (and best) is a Jobo 3006 Expert Tank.

[John Kasaian]

5x7 B&W sheet film is easy to develop, much easier than 8x10 IMHO.
5x7 B&W is available from Ilford and Foma and maybe elsewhere.
You can also cut down ortho film under a red light. It's also a great size for contact printing,
Dimensionally it is very pleasing to the eye in both portrait and landscape orientation

[goamules]

I mostly shoot 5x7, and have since I started LF. I hope it's viable, because it's my favorite.

[p martinez]

My plan is to use it in a hybrid workflow, having the neg processed commercially but scanning it myself and printing on inkjet. Perhaps contact sheets using a very primitive set-up at some point.

Compared to 4x5 I think the only real "pros" are the 75% increase in negative size and the different aspect ratio. On the "con" side, you've got fewer films to pick from, that are more expensive an a little more niche (in an already niche corner of photography).
Personally, I really like the 5x7 ratio and size for alt-process contact prints. If I were scanning, I would stick to 4x5.

[Michael Kadillak]

Over 10 years ago the demise of 5x7 as a film supported format was considered imminent and its attributes mentioned above by current (and previous) photographers that are very fond of this format have continued to keep it alive and kicking. Manufacturers respond to sales figures and of the six people participating in our Denver B&W large format group, half of us shoot 5x7. Go for it as it is a Fabulous format!

[andreios]

5x7 groundglass is wonderful to look at..

[Roger Thoms]

I might add that as a WP shooter 5x7 looks pretty darn viable to me.:)

Roger

[Bernice Loui]

There is much talk and discussion over the limited variety of films for 5x7 or 13x18cm, consider this for a moment, how many varieties of film is really needed or required?

My basic 5x7 film for nearly 25 years is Ilford FP-4 and eventually switch over to FP-4+ and at times HP-5. After spending much time using and developing these two Ilford films one does learn it's behavior pretty well. It is far better to learn the complete personality of what a specific film/developer/enlarger/paper and etc best then focus on image making rather than never ending experimenting with what might be new.

IMO the, "Oh so little choices for film in 5x7 or 13x18." is a perceived problem for serious expressive image making.

Again, it is just not that difficult to cut down 8x10 color film if needed.


Bernice

[StoneNYC]

There is much talk and discussion over the limited variety of films for 5x7 or 13x18cm, consider this for a moment, how many varieties of film is really needed or required?

My basic 5x7 film for nearly 25 years is Ilford FP-4 and eventually switch over to FP-4+ and at times HP-5. After spending much time using and developing these two Ilford films one does learn it's behavior pretty well. It is far better to learn the complete personality of what a specific film/developer/enlarger/paper and etc best then focus on image making rather than never ending experimenting with what might be new.

IMO the, "Oh so little choices for film in 5x7 or 13x18." is a perceived problem for serious expressive image making.

Again, it is just not that difficult to cut down 8x10 color film if needed.


Bernice

It probably is pretty difficult if you only have a changing bag...

I do agree that the films still available for 5x7 are grand, but I would say that if someone were accustomed to something else, that having to start over and learn a new film may have a steep penalty.

That and the color options are basically non-existent, which is unfortunate.

[Bernice Loui]

Trolling, but OK...

Not a problem at all if one does not make color images.. and again if color film is wanted, cut down 8x10 color film.

Consider for a moment what the today's choices for color sheet film, where and how it can be processed and printed other than scanned, digitized and printed in this work flow?
The image making choices using color film are already limited regardless of film format size.

What I do believe after many years of using 5x7 and 13x18cm is there is a un-justified bias against this film format size.


Bernice


[QUOTE=StoneNYC;1093786


That and the color options are basically non-existent, which is unfortunate.

[/QUOTE]

[StoneNYC]

Trolling, but OK...

Not a problem at all if one does not make color images.. and again if color film is wanted, cut down 8x10 color film.

Consider for a moment what the today's choices for color sheet film, where and how it can be processed and printed other than scanned, digitized and printed in this work flow?
The image making choices using color film are already limited regardless of film format size.

What I do believe after many years of using 5x7 and 13x18cm is there is a un-justified bias against this film format size.


Bernice

Framers can't make enough money off of it because there aren't enough sizes in that ratio, where 4x5 is 8x10 is 11x14 is 20x24...

35mm is 4x6 is 8x12 (not super common but not unheard of) is 11x17, is 20x30....

5x7 is.... 5x7... (To my knowledge there isn't much more... Possibly 22x30? But my ratio on that one might be off...)

So making a print that doesn't involve cropping that isn't a contact print means a lot of specialty sizes. That's probably part of the bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, personally, visually I really like 5x7 and have considered more than once picking up a Chamonix 57 field camera brand new, but it's just too much extra work and cost to make it "work" for selling prints.

[Bernice Loui]

Use a standard mat size like 16x20, 11x14 or ... and mount the sized print on to this mat. This allows any size print to fit the industry standard frames.
There is an added plus of print placement on the mat adding to the visual effect.

The mat borders server to better frame the image. I'm not a fan of running the image out to the frame which IMO results in a abrupt transition from frame to image. Not a fan of fancy frames either, simple black is good.

Matting and framing should support the image not be a distraction to the image.


Bernice.



Framers can't make enough money off of it because there aren't enough sizes in that ratio, where 4x5 is 8x10 is 11x14 is 20x24...

35mm is 4x6 is 8x12 (not super common but not unheard of) is 11x17, is 20x30....

5x7 is.... 5x7... (To my knowledge there isn't much more... Possibly 22x30? But my ratio on that one might be off...)

So making a print that doesn't involve cropping that isn't a contact print means a lot of specialty sizes. That's probably part of the bias.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, personally, visually I really like 5x7 and have considered more than once picking up a Chamonix 57 field camera brand new, but it's just too much extra work and cost to make it "work" for selling prints.

[StoneNYC]

Use a standard mat size like 16x20, 11x14 or ... and mount the sized print on to this mat. This allows any size print to fit the industry standard frames.
There is an added plus of print placement on the mat adding to the visual effect.

The mat borders server to better frame the image. I'm not a fan of running the image out to the frame which IMO results in a abrupt transition from frame to image. Not a fan of fancy frames either, simple black is good.

Matting and framing should support the image not be a distraction to the image.


Bernice.

(Confused)

11x14 would leave (in a horizontal picture) the sides too close to the edge of frame and the top and bottom too tall? Or you have to crop it... Both of which doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not trolling, as I said I like 5x7, just that the OP wanted viability, which includes these kinds of concerns too.

Anyway it doesn't matter, just go out and shoot!

[koh303]

5X7 is easy to process on your own with the readily available Jobo 3006 (with or with out a processor).
You can then scan your 5X7 negs on any Imacon from PII to 848, the first being often offered for less then 2000$ on ebay (easily pays for itself after 50 scans...).

Keith Canham from KB Canham often sells 5X7 Kodak films of pretty much ALL the emulsions they make, BW and color. And in most cases you can buy some off the (his) shelve, and not have to order a complete run for yourself, that makes the availability of films in 5X7 pretty much the same as that in 4X5. So there is no need to cut down film (which seems to be a real waste...).


Great format, which for some reason has suffered historically but nontheless is pretty much ideal in terms of ration, and well its just grand.

If one spends cash on a new chamonix, he then might also consider investing in a nice changing tent as well, where you can comfortably load film, tanks etc....

[StoneNYC]

5X7 is easy to process on your own with the readily available Jobo 3006 (with or with out a processor).
You can then scan your 5X7 negs on any Imacon from PII to 848, the first being often offered for less then 2000$ on ebay (easily pays for itself after 50 scans...).

Keith Canham from KB Canham often sells 5X7 Kodak films of pretty much ALL the emulsions they make, BW and color. And in most cases you can buy some off the (his) shelve, and not have to order a complete run for yourself, that makes the availability of films in 5X7 pretty much the same as that in 4X5. So there is no need to cut down film (which seems to be a real waste...).


Great format, which for some reason has suffered historically but nontheless is pretty much ideal in terms of ration, and well its just grand.

If one spends cash on a new chamonix, he then might also consider investing in a nice changing tent as well, where you can comfortably load film, tanks etc....

Haha yea I said considering... Haha

I did finally get a cheap used changing tent. I'm pretty bad about being just as cheap with my small priced times as big ones. I don't think I own anything brand new, it's all used (except for a 35mm digital 5DmkII and 70-200mm 2.8 mkII I got in 2007/2008 everything I own is used).

[Doug Howk]

Ilford Delta 100 in 5X7 has been available during Ilfords yearly ULF ordering period.
I also use FP4, HP5 and Tri-X.
If I had a 5X7 enlarger, I'd drop 4X5. But contact prints with it are appreciated during gallery showings. I mount them in 10X12 frames.
Easy to process in 8X10 drums.

[zelph]

5x7 is a perfect move up for those weaned on 35mm film.
How many films do you need? Most I know who shoot fine images have one or two films they use. Get to know them well so the technical is second nature and all their concentration can be on the images rather than the gear.
5x7 makes fine contact prints. Large enough to view easily and small enough to work in the darkroom with tray development easily.

[koh303]

...so the technical is second nature and all their concentration can be on the images rather than the gear.

Wow, thats almost blasphemous talk around here...

[VictoriaPerelet]

Several years ago inspired by internet artcles I ventured on to 5x7. It depends on what camera system you are using and what work you do and also your work style. There's another thread and many people are happy with single camera/lens combo. So maybe none of cons that I found are problem for you:

1. No grafmatics film holders
2. No instant film, no polaroid no fuji, even expired.
3. No reflex viewers
4. No film plane metering
5. No digital back adapters
6. No digital scan backs
7. Extremely hard to find enlargers
8. Practically no wide angle lenses with movements, 72mm XL is where it ends.
9. Hard find fresnels.
10. Bag and regular belows are very rare.
11. No bulk development equipment - aka Jobo multi tanks/rails, only pro tanks.

Victoria.

[goamules]

Certainly none of your "cons" are a concern to me! I shoot 5x7 fine, without digital backs, polaroid film, film plane metering (I don't even know what that is). From 1900 to about 1960, 5x7 was a logical next step up from 4x5, and was used by Press, portrait studios, and amateurs. There's a reason most 8x10 studio cameras you find have been "upgraded" to 5x7 backs. It made since for them....and does for me. Cheaper than 8x10, big enough to see compared to 4x5.

[StoneNYC]

Certainly none of your "cons" are a concern to me! I shoot 5x7 fine, without digital backs, polaroid film, film plane metering (I don't even know what that is). From 1900 to about 1960, 5x7 was a logical next step up from 4x5, and was used by Press, portrait studios, and amateurs. There's a reason most 8x10 studio cameras you find have been "upgraded" to 5x7 backs. It made since for them....and does for me. Cheaper than 8x10, big enough to see compared to 4x5.

Yea what is "film plane metering"?

I do enjoy my grafmatics :)

I don't even understand the point of a reflex viewer, it's bulky and you can't fine focus with it...

Finding wide lenses might be an issue, but it's the PERFECT size for 6x17 panoramics!!

Doesn't my 75mm f/4.5 Rodenstock Grandagon fit 5x7?

[koh303]

Several years ago inspired by internet artcles I ventured on to 5x7. It depends on what camera system you are using and what work you do and also your work style. There's another thread and many people are happy with single camera/lens combo. So maybe none of cons that I found are problem for you:

1. No grafmatics film holders
2. No instant film, no polaroid no fuji, even expired.
3. No reflex viewers
4. No film plane metering
5. No digital back adapters
6. No digital scan backs
7. Extremely hard to find enlargers
8. Practically no wide angle lenses with movements, 72mm XL is where it ends.
9. Hard find fresnels.
10. Bag and regular belows are very rare.
11. No bulk development equipment - aka Jobo multi tanks/rails, only pro tanks.

Victoria.

Just for kicks, you have some erroneous points:

4. Not true. Sinar has a 5X7 back which utilizes the sinar metering probe.
5. reducing backs solve that problem
6. same as 5
7. well, i will admit they are not as easy to find as, say, 4X5 enlargers, but they are not hard to find either...
8. you are forgetting the venerable 120 F8's 110XL and others. Ultra wide, perhaps might have a lesser selection but still what more would you want if you could have other then the 72xl?
9. just ask chamonix for one (or KB canham, or anyone else for that matter)
10. same as 9...
11. 3006 will process 6 sheets per run...

[VictoriaPerelet]

Koh, go ahead and post full spec camera, including Sinar 5x7 metering back that takes reducing 4x5 backs.

Next to it add links to online stores (including ebay) that list parts needed. If you are lucky finding all pieces, take a min and add up total $$$:p

Also, please use your math to compare 110 XL on 5x7 with 47XL on 4x5 btw.

And then, after you done, go ahead and post some of your LF pics in picture threads - photos is what speaks for photographer, not words......

[Leonard Robertson]

The cheapskate's way of daylight developing 5X7 film is here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/unicolor/ only using an 11X14 Unicolor drum rather than the 8X10 size used for 4X5. Only 4 sheets can be done at a time, which is a drawback. However, four sheets at home may be a lot more convenient than sending film out somewhere and waiting for it. A drum and motor base can be fairly inexpensive on eBay. The plastic "gasket" on Unicolor drums may leak with age. A thin film of silicone aquarium sealant under the gasket works wonders to solve that problem.

Len

[koh303]

Koh, go ahead and post full spec camera, including Sinar 5x7 metering back that takes reducing 4x5 backs.

Next to it add links to online stores (including ebay) that list parts needed. If you are lucky finding all pieces, take a min and add up total $$$:p

Also, please use your math to compare 110 XL on 5x7 with 47XL on 4x5 btw.

And then, after you done, go ahead and post some of your LF pics in picture threads - photos is what speaks for photographer, not words......

Alll F and P cameras will do all that stuff... i think 5X7 sinar standards are cheaper then 4X5 nowa days
and because you taunted me so:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/5X7-SINAR-WIDE-ANGLE-BAG-BELLOWS-FITS-P-P2-F-F2-MINT-/161184758699?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25875c3bab
http://www.ebay.com/itm/EXCEPTIONAL-5X7-SINAR-P-VIEW-CAMERA-MINT-/161184755218?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item25875c2e12 this is less then many "nice" 4X5 monorails....
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sinar-Standarte-mit-Adapterbalgen-5x7-auf-4x5-/171201298601?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_77&hash=item27dc6480a9
(both of these can take the probe, though i have no clue why anyone would ever use it... whats wrong with a spot meter?)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sinar-Norma-5x7-Rear-Standard-/360813705052?pt=UK_Film_Cameras&hash=item54022c375c

This was without really looking.... but whatever.

I guess for the same reason i dont get why the meter probe is a useful tool, i will not get why such a wide lens is ever really needed (and how much movement you can actually get at 47mm or even 65mm focal length for it to matter really) other then a tight fit architecture photo, or other cuiriosity style interest like fisheye and other esoteric stuff, but thats totally a subjective thing...

You can use the interweb to see my work, or ask google, but here is a link, enjoy:):
http://omerhecht.blogspot.com/

[Bill Burk]

I very nearly bought a 5x7 Graflex, there's your reflex viewer. I think I would enjoy it greatly. And I daydreamed about it for a while. Gets to the point where you nearly don't need an enlarger.

[VictoriaPerelet]

Koh, if you have reason to fanatically advocate for 5x7 - fine, every artist uses appropriate tools, I have nothing against that.

Links that you sent - none has metering back, just plain 5x7 cameras with no accessories, yes they exist. As far as old silver sinar P standards - they all are worn, check price to rebuild one. Link for $500 4x5 reducing frame is on front f standard:).


There's really no reason to go religuous, other people read this and sometimes take as practical advise. As I said, I also read long time ago, I think it was on photo.net where somebody was defending $ that he just spent on bargain 5x7. I tried it and found that format not very practically useful, it was about 10 years ago.

I used Sinar for past 2 decades and have pretty much every single part and accessory of the system, including 5x7 standards. I use them to hold semi transparent mirrors and grads in front of wide lenses.

welcome to forum btw. Nice to see new faces.

BTW good selection of jobo goodies on your signature link.

[djdister]

And a couple more data points: a 120/121mm lens is plenty wide angle for 5x7, and there are quite a few 120mm and 121mm Super Angulon lenses available right now on the bay. I picked up a 120mm Super Angulon for about $350 this past year.

Regarding the 5x7 Graflex - I have had a Graflex Series B 5x7 for over 30 years and it still works. It is a thing of beauty, and with a focal plane shutter that really lets you know when you've taken a picture...

[koh303]

Koh, if you have reason to fanatically advocate for 5x7 - fine, every artist uses appropriate tools, I have nothing against that.
Actually, it seems like you have something against 5X7, which i guess is fine in it of its own, but i am not sure why you are so upset at other folks discussing the merits and possibility of using 5X7?


welcome to forum btw. Nice to see new faces. thanks, though i have been posting here for years ;).

Who cares about a metering back, reflex viewer or scanning backs? If you want to use a digital back with movements you are by far better off with an arcbody or M679...

[koh303]

And a couple more data points: a 120/121mm lens is plenty wide angle for 5x7, and there are quite a few 120mm and 121mm Super Angulon lenses available right now on the bay. I picked up a 120mm Super Angulon for about $350 this past year.

Regarding the 5x7 Graflex - I have had a Graflex Series B 5x7 for over 30 years and it still works. It is a thing of beauty, and with a focal plane shutter that really lets you know when you've taken a picture...

+1

[Bernice Loui]

Full frame about 2X enlargement from 5x7 nets a finished image size about 10x14. This usually mounts on a 16x20 (10" on the 16" side, 14" on the 20" edge) mat board, add outer mat frame with border margin around the print and the whole thing ends up in a 16x20 frame.

Been there done this, many, many times.

Cropping 5x7 to 5x6 nets the 4x5 or 16x20 image ratio. That one inch difference in the films does not appear to be much, except the difference is quite significant.


Bernice



(Confused)

11x14 would leave (in a horizontal picture) the sides too close to the edge of frame and the top and bottom too tall? Or you have to crop it... Both of which doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not trolling, as I said I like 5x7, just that the OP wanted viability, which includes these kinds of concerns too.

Anyway it doesn't matter, just go out and shoot!

[Bernice Loui]

Reply in *

What is this really about?
These views and beliefs appear to be based more on Internet hear-say and myth than real world facts.

Bernice


Several years ago inspired by internet artcles I ventured on to 5x7. It depends on what camera system you are using and what work you do and also your work style. There's another thread and many people are happy with single camera/lens combo. So maybe none of cons that I found are problem for you:

1. No grafmatics film holders

*No Graphmatic holders for 8x10, why does this even matter? The Graphmatic was invented for presswork or rapid fire 4x5. The need for rapid film change is dependent on the type of images the artist/image maker is producing.

2. No instant film, no polaroid no fuji, even expired.

*Does this matter? Again, it comes down to the type of finished image to be produced.

3. No reflex viewers

*Where are the reflex viewers for 8x10? There were a few reflex viewers and cameras made in 5x7.
*I'll add, having used a Sinar reflex viewer on 4x5 when I was first learning to use a view camera, I gave up on it in short time and learned how to see properly on the ground glass direct and using a magnifier is far better at evaluating the ground glass image than any reflex viewer.

4. No film plane metering

*Sinar 5x7 / 13x 18 meter back, I have one... and despise the film plane metering as it does not work well at all for 4x5, 5x7 or 8x10. Been there done this.

5. No digital back adapters

*This makes little if any logical / rational sense.. How many digital backs are available for 8x10 cameras ?

6. No digital scan backs

*If you're going to do digital, get a proper digital view camera, lenses and associated bits.

7. Extremely hard to find enlargers

*Have you really looked.. at all ? Omega, Devere, Durst, Zone VI and others..
*They are out there and often very low cost to free due to their size. Most do not have the darkroom space for them.

8. Practically no wide angle lenses with movements, 72mm XL is where it ends.

*90mm Super Angulon/Grandagon/ Fujiono/ Nikkor and others. 110mm Symmar XL, 115mm Grandagon, 120mm Nikkor/Super Angulon/ 125mm Fujiono, 135 Wide Field Ektar.. others.
*150mm Symmar XL, 155mm Grandagon, 150mm Nikkor, 165mm Angulon, Super Angulon and the list goes one. If anything at all, 5x7 offers the greatest range of wide angle lenses and overall lens choices of any film format.

9. Hard find fresnels.

*Not at all, I'll send you a Sinar 5x7 fresnel free. There is one on the Horseman 5x7, Linhof and many others.. This is simply not difficult.
*As for Fresnels, I simply do not like them at all. They distort the ground glass image and does not really make the GG image brighter, just brighter on the Fresnel optical axis, off axis the image quality is poor.

10. Bag and regular belows are very rare.

*Simply not an issue, Bag bellows are readily available for Sinar (have two) and others. There are bellow makers that can and will make most anything to spec. This is simply not difficult or a problem.

11. No bulk development equipment - aka Jobo multi tanks/rails, only pro tanks.

*There are a number of Jobo pro tanks that work well. Been using them since the 1990's. This same issue applies to 8x10 as the difficulties are much the same.

Victoria.

[Bernice Loui]

This your Silver Sinar P... all of them wore out ?
http://victoriasphoto.com/studio/big/IMG_1477.jpg

-I have a silver Sinar P and a black Sinar P2, they are both working fine.

5x7 / 13x18 is not for everyone. Any film format depends on the needs of the artist / image maker. For the same reasons why 5x7 did not work for you can be the same reasons why 4x5 or 8x10 does not work for me.


Bernice






As far as old silver sinar P standards - they all are worn, check price to rebuild one. Link for $500 4x5 reducing frame is on front f standard:).


I tried it and found that format not very practically useful, it was about 10 years ago.

[StoneNYC]

This your Silver Sinar P... all of them wore out ?
http://victoriasphoto.com/studio/big/IMG_1477.jpg

-I have a silver Sinar P and a black Sinar P2, they are both working fine.

5x7 / 13x18 is not for everyone. Any film format depends on the needs of the artist / image maker. For the same reasons why 5x7 did not work for you can be the same reasons why 4x5 or 8x10 does not work for me.


Bernice

WOW what a setup!!

But.. No Profoto?... Lol

[dasBlute]

I think 5x7 is still quite viable. I'm still using Kodak TXP, making prints, and loving it.
Not for everyone, but it can fill a need in some folks that other formats cannot.

my 5x7 work: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stormiticus/tags/5x7/

-Tim

[Bruce Barlow]

A Richard Ritter 5x7 - about 6 pounds - with a 4x5 reducing back if I want it, and an interchangeable 8x10 back, too.

24 holders, several fine lenses.

A UV box for PT/PD printing, that skill uploaded into my brain by Tillman Crane.

TXP, HP5, Some remaining TMAX 400.

A wonderful contact print size, I use 11x14 mats cut by Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee and think they're elegant.

All of Maine to photograph.

5x7 might be my favorite format. Long may it live!

[jnantz]

5x7 B&W sheet film is easy to develop, much easier than 8x10 IMHO.
5x7 B&W is available from Ilford and Foma and maybe elsewhere.
You can also cut down ortho film under a red light. It's also a great size for contact printing,
Dimensionally it is very pleasing to the eye in both portrait and landscape orientation

+ 1

as goldielocks would say " this one is juuuust right "

[chris_4622]

Consider using 13 x 15" mats for 5x7 prints. I use that size I get from Michael and Paula and it draws your eye into the photo.

[Leigh]

A whole bunch of photos from 5x7 negs:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/sets/72157633483261275/

Hi Austin,

I see pix in the first four rows. After that there are just light gray rectangles with no images.

Any idea what's going on?

- Leigh

[Jody_S]

Personally, I'm loving the format, after getting into it rather by accident (picked up hundreds of shts essentially for free, bought a camera so I could use them). There is a huge difference between 5x7 and 4x5, area-wise, but very little difference between size and weight of cameras, or focal lengths needed. I intend to continue with the format when I run out of film, it's no big deal to cut down 8x10 to fit. I've switched to Agfa X-ray film (fewer scratches, better tonality than Fuji), I will buy several boxes this year so I can continue.

[Leonard Robertson]

Hi Austin,

I see pix in the first four rows. After that there are just light gray rectangles with no images.

Any idea what's going on?

- Leigh

I think if you reload the page, scroll down to the blank images, and wait a bit, the pictures will appear. Flickr images are sometimes slow in loading. I really don't care for the new Flickr format, but maybe it works well for those with a faster internet speed.

Len

[John Kasaian]

FWIW, I haven't even touched my 4x5 Speed and Crown Graphics since acquiring a 5x7 Speed Graphic awhile back.

[austin granger]

Hi Austin,

I see pix in the first four rows. After that there are just light gray rectangles with no images.

Any idea what's going on?

- Leigh

Leigh, Hi. As Leonard mentioned, they just take awhile to load. On my humble computer, it's about thirty seconds of nothing and then they'll start to pop up. -Austin

Sorry everybody-I didn't mean to use this thread to plug my own stuff. Please continue. 5x7 rules! Happy New Year! :)

5x7's: http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/sets/72157633483261275/

[Tin Can]

They pop up instantly at 1:30 AM Chicago, until they shut me off for 'servicing'.

Nice images! And I loved your Point Reyes essay.


Leigh, Hi. As Leonard mentioned, they just take awhile to load. On my humble computer, it's about thirty seconds of nothing and then they'll start to pop up. -Austin

Sorry everybody-I didn't mean to use this thread to plug my own stuff. Please continue. 5x7 rules! Happy New Year! :)

5x7's: http://www.flickr.com/photos/austingranger/sets/72157633483261275/

[Leigh]

I think if you reload the page, scroll down to the blank images, and wait a bit, the pictures will appear. Flickr images are sometimes slow in loading. I really don't care for the new Flickr format, but maybe it works well for those with a faster internet speed.
Hi Len,

Thanks for the suggestion, but no joy.

I'm on a fiber optic system with a measured download speed exceeding 80 Megabits/sec.

I brought up the Flickr page and let it sit for 40 minutes. Still no images beyond the first couple of rows.

If I mouse over a blank image, its caption box appears, but the image remains blank.

- Leigh

[koh303]

Leigh,

you might want to clear cookies/cash and refresh and not use internet explorer.

[Doug Howk]

The one downside to 5X7 for me is the paucity of papers pre-cut to that size (at least from US merchants). Ilford does a good job, but contact printing papers are non-existent or not available. Lodima smallest size is 8X10 and Fomalux 111 is approximately the same. So I'm forced to cut 8X10 to 5X7 with some wastage.

[Leigh]

you might want to clear cookies/cash and refresh and not use internet explorer.
I haven't used IE in probably 30 years.

Firefox and Chrome on a Mac here. Same problem on both browsers.

- Leigh

[koh303]

The one downside to 5X7 for me is the paucity of papers pre-cut to that size (at least from US merchants). Ilford does a good job, but contact printing papers are non-existent or not available. Lodima smallest size is 8X10 and Fomalux 111 is approximately the same. So I'm forced to cut 8X10 to 5X7 with some wastage.

a half inch margin on either side can hardly be seen as wastage....

[andreios]

I believe there IS fomalux in 13x18! At least I have and use it. If you can't get it in your part of the world send me a message and I'lk see what could be done.

[Greg Y]

When I'm feeling cheap I cut Azo in half and contact print each neg on a half sheet...so I'm not sure I get the waste issue...?
5x7 is my LF size of choice....the 4x5, 4x18 & 8x10 went away. The '38 Deardorff & the Durst 138 & the dwindling stack of Azo keep me happy.

[andreios]

I believe there IS fomalux in 13x18! At least I have and use it. If you can't get it in your part of the world send me a message and I'lk see what could be done.

I have checked it and it really is available from Foma factory - 25sheets for about 10 US dollars.