How expensive is 8x10?

[AutumnJazz]

I'm currently shooting 4x5 for school. I'm pretty broke, but I just started a new job. I like 4x5, but I'm borrowing a camera from school and when the semester's over, I have to give it back. I was looking at 4x5 cameras but then thought… why not just go all out, and do 8x10? But in following the For Sale forum here, they don't seem to come up for sale much. And when they do, they're expensive.

Can I get a good 8x10 camera with a decent normal lens for under $1,000 and 8 lbs.? With rise and shift and not terrible movements? That is stable (we're using Wistas right now and they're good cameras but the movements always feel a bit loose, though this might also just be because they're school cameras)?

Or should I just stick with 4x5 for now?

[Drew Wiley]

Never mind the camera (and probably some new lenses, too) ... it's the cost of the film that will get to you. But back to the camera itself... the lighter and more
portable they are, the more they tend to cost, cause that's the kind of gear that is highly in demand. Big heavy clunky stuff isn't, so sell for less. The same rule
seems to apply to lenses. You'll probably also need a much more stable, heavier tripod. It's a nice way to stay in shape, and stay broke.

[Paul Cunningham]

As 8x10 has four times the surface area of 4x5, it will definitely be more expensive for film and development costs.

[Alan Gales]

I paid $1,500.00 for my used 8.7 pound 8x10 Wehman with a few extras. I paid $600.00 for my 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar, $300.00 for my Fujinon 250mm f/6.7 and about $350.00 for my 19" Red Dot Artar. I probably paid too much for the 14" Commercial Ektar and I practically stole the 19" Artar. These prices include shipping costs.

New film holders cost $200.00 for one film holder. Expect to pay $40.00 to $50.00 or more plus shipping on Ebay for used ones.

Like Drew says, film is the killer. I only shoot black and white and save color for 4x5.

For under $1,000.00 you will need to forget about a light 8x10. Of course even the light cameras are no longer light after you load a few lenses and film holders in your pack plus adding a heavier tripod.

I'm not trying to discourage you. I love 8x10. I just want to give you a sense of what your expense will be.

[Vaughn]

What do you visualize as the end-product? print, print size, printing process and all that.

8x10 is very worth it if using alt. processes. Personally I prefer making prints directly from camera negatives...just a personal bias. Your budget and desires will be difficult to match up.

4x5 is a nice size for learning alt processes, but one ends up wanting to go bigger. Scanning the 4x5 negative to make inkjet prints -- or enlarged inkjet negatives for alt processes -- is very doable...less so for 8x10...and not a lot gained unless you want to print BIG! So 4x5 would give you flexibility, lower film cost and greater mobility.

[Doremus Scudder]

Another thing to consider is if you want to enlarge optically or not. If you do, then the cost of an 8x10 enlarger plus lens and accessories has to be figured in. 8x10 enlargers are usually considerably more than 4x5 enlargers.

I stick with 4x5 mostly for portability; with a 4x5 field camera and 4 lenses plus filmholders, etc. I can still hike and backpack in rough terrain. I don't think that an 8x10 would allow me to do as much.

Best,

Doremus

[Bernice Loui]

Rough estimate about four times most every thing including cost, size of gear, weight and ...

Beyond the cost of film, camera, significantly more limited choices for optics and all that. There is post processing. Will these images be enlarged or contact printed? Good 8x10 enlargers and related dark room is large and require significant real estate. Even processing film can be a significant chore just to produce film to scan. The alternative would be to pay some one to process film which adds even more expense.

Know bigger is not better, it depends much more on the type of images that you would like to produce. 8x10 alone does not assure higher image quality or getter images over 4x5 or any other film format size as there are specific advantages to each.


Bernice



I'm currently shooting 4x5 for school. I'm pretty broke, but I just started a new job. I like 4x5, but I'm borrowing a camera from school and when the semester's over, I have to give it back. I was looking at 4x5 cameras but then thought… why not just go all out, and do 8x10? But in following the For Sale forum here, they don't seem to come up for sale much. And when they do, they're expensive.

Can I get a good 8x10 camera with a decent normal lens for under $1,000 and 8 lbs.? With rise and shift and not terrible movements? That is stable (we're using Wistas right now and they're good cameras but the movements always feel a bit loose, though this might also just be because they're school cameras)?

Or should I just stick with 4x5 for now?

[Brian C. Miller]

Cost of camera: Monorail, from $600 to $1000, and they weigh 15-20lbs. Field, usually $1000 and up, but they are lighter.
Enlarger: I have a Photar 8x10 enlarger in storage, because it's over 9ft tall, and I live in an apartment with ceilings that, at best, are under 7ft high.

What will give you a shock, though, is the price of film. Think about how much film you'd like to shoot, and then look at how much film costs. 8x10 film is of course about 4x the price of 4x5 film. Yes, you can do it cheaply with x-ray or Freestyle Arista at $2.64/sheet. But Ilford is $4.92/sheet, and Kodak is $7.65/sheet. Kodak Portra is $16.50/sheet.

I recommend that you should get a cheap 4x5, a decent lens, and shoot lots of film. If you aren't going for alternate processes right off the bat, that camera will produce excellent pictures. The other day I was showing my coworkers what my Graflex, with its original Wollensak Optar lens, produced. Tack sharp pictures, with a 22x loupe, and lots of amazed people. 4x5 is easier to enlarge and scan than 8x10. A 4x5 enlarger isn't all that big, and they're all over the place. You can easily pick one up for free, or very cheaply.

Go with what you can afford, and make sure that you can afford lots of film.

[bob carnie]

From a handling point of view, I love 8x10 over 4x5 - I get to use this ancient 8x10 studio camera with a wonderful old lens, use the lens cap for shutter and it is a joy to work with. Basically only practical in house studio set up , but thats what I do.. I have a 11 x14 enlarger so putting the 8x10 film into the neg holder and making prints is a piece of cake and just handling the film is a joy.

Many reasons $$ not to do it but for pure joy worth the time and expense for me at least.

[mdm]

But inbetween 4x5 and 8x10 are the 2 most fabulous and less expensive formats, 5x7 and 6.5x8.5 or whole plate. both are not so expensive to buy, though whole plate film holders can be hard to find and they are'nt standard and film may have to be cut down from 8x10. Kodak drop bed cameras and holders in both formats can be had well within your budget, and almost any 210mm or 300mm lens will do. Both formats are ideal for contact printing and scanning/digital workflow using a flatbed film scanner. Colour too, if thats what you want and can pay, provided you are prepared to cut it down from 8x10.

[Alan Gales]

If you do decide to buy an 8x10 camera get a 4x5 back for it. It's nice to have the choice of shooting both sizes.

[Lenny Eiger]

Vaughn's right. It depends on what you want to print.

Alt process is great and an 8x10 makes a nice contact print. It also depends on your aesthetic.. There are many different styles, some folks that love the quality of a print, the delicious midtones, and others for whom the "impact" of the image is more important (and everything in between). If you love textures, fine print quality and all, the larger cameras offers more.

I'm drum scanning and getting 99% out of a 4x5 than what I can get out of an 8x10. It's taken a while to tun that, but its working, and I am longer longer as young as I was when I carried an 8x10 all over the place. For me to do alt process this way I have to make an enlarged neg. It's not so hard but it is an extra step...

There are many here who are selling things, including great deals on 4x5's and 8x10's. I'll bet you might even find someone who would let you pay it off over some time. Not everyone who sells an 8x10 needs the money right away to go buy something else.... Always worth a try.

I shoot outside, and much prefer wood and or carbon fiber over metal and/or rail.

Good luck,

Lenny

[imagedowser]

It's interesting that no one has mentioned 5x7. Cameras cost roughly the same as 4x5, unless buying high end gear, or new. My omega E 5x7 enlarger cost me $300. with ALL the bells and whistles, both condenser and florescent light sources, lenses (all Wolly) and neg holders(35mm, 2x3, 3x4, 4x5 & 5x7). I picked up 2 Kodak 5x7 2D cameras with one sliding back for split 5x7, two 5x7 backs and two 4x5 backs, 2 Kodak lenses in shutters one anastigmat fair, one tessar good condition, 2 extension frames and one tripod block. One needs a bellow and front rise knob/gear repair...$435. Twice the format area of 4x5 and half the trouble in the field due to size and weight as 8x10. The only inconvenience is lack of film choice. Total cost $745. I might add the cost of 8x10 film causes a certain lack of film choice....(both sizes work with x-ray film and paper)

[jp]

Looking at $400-500 for a B&J which will be over your weight limit
$400ish for a 300 mm plasmat of some sort in shutter
$300-1000 for a tripod unless you use a surveying tripod and adaptor like I do.
$50 a piece for film holders
$4-9/sheet for film.
You'd be better getting real good at 4x5, and if you value portability, 4x5 or 5x7 is much more portable.

[Jac@stafford.net]

To me, the greatest hinder for 8x10 is printing using an enlarger so that I can apply print manipulation outcomes.

To put my angst into perspective, my 'would be' is a giant Saltzeman which requires 15 foot roof clearance which I do not have.

I invite the purist contact printers to chime in here. They are the blessed purists I admire.

[jp]

I only contact print 8x10 as I don't have an enlarger for that size either, but I'm no blessed purist.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I only contact print 8x10 as I don't have an enlarger for that size either, but I'm no blessed purist.

Yes you are, for better or less.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm recently out of 4x5 film, so that automatically dictates shooting 8x10 tomorrow. And my problem is how to squeeze another 8x10 enlarger into the dkroom.
Got a very high ceiling and adequate space for that, but gotta move a lot of other heavy stuff just to get it in there. Life would be simpler if I was a contact printer,
but I rarely am.

[NancyP]

Practically speaking, 4 x 5 is a better deal for the moment. Use your own DSLR-capable large tripod. An orphaned Cambo/Calumet N/NX/SC monorail is often seen for $200.00 to $400.00 on fleabay, complete with an older 210mm lens. Heavy, and that's why they are out of fashion. What sort of work do you anticipate doing? Product, architectural, landscape, portrait? As you have used the school cameras, you might know what features you want. Leslie Strobel's book, 1999 edition, has a listing of cameras and features that could help you sort out what you need.
If you want to try alternate processes, direct positive paper, etc, you should look at the DIY forum section for cost estimates of build-your-own. Cheapest option would be a pinhole!

[Shootar401]

I fell into a complete 8x10 outfit for $150, with lens and a dozen film holders last year. If you can wait and look around locally you can probably find a deal like this at a yard sale or an old camera shop.

[William Whitaker]

I'm currently shooting 4x5 for school. I'm pretty broke...

"Pretty broke" + 8x10 = Very broke

In real terms "broke" is independent of format, but still...
A Calumet CC-400 can be had for about $100 these days, give or take. Not the slickest rig, but it worked for the mighty Ansel. What do you ultimately want? Many fine images have been made using humble 4x5 equipment.
The first platinum photographs I ever saw were 4x5, made by Paul Strand. It doesn't get much better.

But I understand the seduction of 8x10. Oh boy, do I!

[NancyP]

There's an example of a potential 4 x 5 monorail student bargain on fleaBay now (did not link, it's against the rules). Calumet (by Cambo) N series I think, plus two Caltar II Ns, a 90mm and a 210mm, plus some odds and ends. Currently at ~$220.00. I am sure there are plenty more listings out there for the thrifty student.

[Oren Grad]

Under 8 lbs? Not a chance for camera and lens.

Sure. A Philips Explorer, or an Argentum 8x10, plus a 305 G-Claron or a 300 Geronar, would do it easily, though obviously not at the OP's budget. Harder to find, but potentially within budget, would be one of the early versions of Peter Gowland's Pocket View in 8x10 size, plus the G-Claron or Geronar.

[Jon Shiu]

The Bender 8x10 is 6.5 lbs and pretty cheap if you can find one.

Jon

[Daniel Stone]

"Pretty broke" + 8x10 = Very broke


True, but as a former 8x10 shooter(who converted down to 5x7 and 4x5(nothing like doubling your already purchased film supply :P!), I'd say this:

"Pretty broke" + 8x10 = DESTITUTE SOON

If I was broke(thankfully not), I'd be shooting digital and MF film for the more important shots, or an occasional 4x5.
Save your shekels OP, keep shooting 4x5 and get a good drum scan made on your best negatives/chromes. A good scan will knock your socks off!

just MY £.02

-Dan

[Ari]

I'm pretty broke...

Hmm, maybe it's not for you right now, then.
It's expensive, even if you're a world-class cheapskate.

But if you really want to get into it, it's best not to think about it too much; just dive right in, damn the torpedoes. :)

[Fred L]

or you could shoot paper negs and save huge $$ that way. but yeah, after you get the gear, film will be the big money sucking hole.

[Jody_S]

My total outlay for 8x10, including 5 reasonable film holders and a couple of lenses, plus 300 sheets X-ray film, is currently under $500. And yes, the camera is well under 8 lbs.

Of course the camera came in a box with every glued joint coming undone, the bellows had to be fixed, and it won't take modern film-holders without an adapter. Took me a couple of weeks to put all that together.

[stormpetrel]

I would go with a 5x7 camera. It is a significant increase in size compared to 4x5. Many good and cheap lenses will cover this format. Film is half price compared to 8x10.
You can contact print or print with an enlarger. 5x7 enlargers are smaller than 8x10 enlargers and less expensive too. 5x7 is easy to scan. You could easily get 5x7 xray films.
The only inconvenient is the availability of color film but you can still cut 8x10 sheets film if necessary. Color film is very expensive anyway.

[John Kasaian]

Go for it!

[dsphotog]

If you can be patient buying the gear, a piece at a time, (like I did) there are plenty of bargain cameras, holders, & lenses.
If you process film yourself, 8X10 xray film less than 50 cents per sheet...Is less than shooting 120, or paper negs.

[AutumnJazz]

Wow. A lot of replies.

I have tons of free lab time in NYC at ICP, and my school has 8x10 enlargers. I'd probably contact print and do 20x24 or something. Probably color, actually. 8x10 would be for shots that really benefit from it, otherwise I'd just shoot medium format, so I'm not too concerned with the cost of film because I wouldn't shoot all that much of it. (I'm shooting a project on migrant workers this summer, and it'll probably be mostly on a Mamiya 6 or 7.)

I guess I'll just go 4x5 and shoot more color.

[AutumnJazz]

Hmm, maybe it's not for you right now, then.
It's expensive, even if you're a world-class cheapskate.

But if you really want to get into it, it's best not to think about it too much; just dive right in, damn the torpedoes. :)

I just quit smoking, so all I spend my money on right now is film, food, and gas. Everything seems affordable.

Edit: And paper. Ugh. This analog stuff is so expensive. I don't even use tilts and swings (I just cannot see them on 4x5, which is honestly a lot of the reason I want 8x10.)

[jnantz]

ortho-esque wont put ypu un the poor house
plenty of paper to make paper negatives, even xray film
its just like anything
you need the camera a lens and a few film holders ...
paper negatives print ok, they scan ez too ...

[gubaguba]

I just quit smoking, so all I spend my money on right now is film, food, and gas. Everything seems affordable.

Edit: And paper. Ugh. This analog stuff is so expensive. I don't even use tilts and swings (I just cannot see them on 4x5, which is honestly a lot of the reason I want 8x10.)

Hmm not sure how you expect to see more tilts a swings then 4x5. Was never my experience that the process was any different or the outcome. Limits are you lens coverage and perhaps your angle of view (focal length). However it is a wonderful format.

[toolbox]

X2 on the X-Ray film...I think I paid $30 for 100 sheets a couple years ago. You can get a camera cheap if you haunt ebay...the trick is just being persistent. You have to search...and search...and search. I think I paid about $250 for my Kodak 2D with a lens and three film holders a few years ago. I mix my own divided D-72, so the cost of development is almost nothing.
It can be done on the cheap, you just have to be patient :).

[grzybu]

I've build my 18x24cm (bit smaller than 8x10) camera for about $100 and got two Zeiss Tessar's: 210/4.5 and 300/4.50 for about $50 each.
I use only x-ray film: about $30 for 100 sheets. I made my own D-23 developer and simple fixer. Cost of 100 sheets of x-ray film and chemistry to develop and fix it should be about $50.
But I'm quite happy with 18x24cm contact prints (carbon and kallitype) and I don't really need anything bigger.
For me it seems to be quite cheaper than digital camera and modern lenses.
Well, that's until I want to try panchromatic film ;)

[jamesaz]

Sometimes, people start school at Brooks in Santa Barbara and it doesn't work out and they sell or pawn LF gear. A guy I used to work with bought his 4x5 like that. As someone said earlier, patience. Good luck.

[Luis-F-S]

[QUOTE I don't even use tilts and swings (I just cannot see them on 4x5, which is honestly a lot of the reason I want 8x10.)[/QUOTE]

Get a pair of the strongest reading glasses you can find. I had 5x reading glasses custom made years ago. It will make it much easier to see the 4x5 screen and focus! I seldom use a loupe with my glasses. If you've only used medium format, 4x5 will be a much easier and cheaper transition, rather than trying to go to 8x10. 20 x 24 is a 5x mag from 4x5 which should print just fine. L

[Jim Rice]

I had shot 4x5 for decades and had always deeply lusted for 8x10. Eventually, I gave into the urge and acquired a Calumet C-1 (the lighter magnesium version for which one pays a premium and is only ~twice your weight budget without lenses and holders.) In my limited experience with it, the best thing about 8x10 is the truly fantastic view on the ground glass. From there, for me, the rest was disappointing. To get the depth of field that I was used to with 4x5 and get the coverage I wanted from the 240 G-Claron that I was using for a wide (real wide angles for 8x10 are insanely heavy and expensive,) I was almost always deep within diffraction territory so image quality suffered. Also, one can reasonably print any size one wants to as long as it is 8x10. Not being able to afford film for weeks at a time was not any fun at all either. Admittedly, my foray was half-assed but the learning curve was not shallow.

[Drew Wiley]

People who move up from 4x5 to 8x10 often have a longer adjustment time than they first anticipated. Not only the greater bulkiness of the gear, but more important, relearning how to navigate depth of field and composition issues. But for many of us, the effort was time well spent. I don't find 8x10 any more expensive,
really, because the greater cost of the film inherently makes me far more cautious how often I actually expose a sheet.

[Francisco J. Fernández]

I'm currently shooting 4x5 for school. I'm pretty broke, but I just started a new job. I like 4x5, but I'm borrowing a camera from school and when the semester's over, I have to give it back. I was looking at 4x5 cameras but then thought… why not just go all out, and do 8x10? But in following the For Sale forum here, they don't seem to come up for sale much. And when they do, they're expensive.

Can I get a good 8x10 camera with a decent normal lens for under $1,000 and 8 lbs.? With rise and shift and not terrible movements? That is stable (we're using Wistas right now and they're good cameras but the movements always feel a bit loose, though this might also just be because they're school cameras)?

Or should I just stick with 4x5 for now?




Hi, this link besides pineholes can find for very little money in England two chambers of wooden and very special design one is 4x5 and the other is 8x10.

I have both and weigh very little as I use a lot when I take pictures outside.

I am very happy with them. The 4x5 camera uses Linhof technika lens board and copies.

The 8x10 camera uses lens boards for SINAR / HORSEMAN.



I have redesigned both cameras are 4x5 and I have changed the original springback by another Linhof Tehcnika which is rotatable and use with a reflex viewfinder.
The front pillar I also changed one of Linhof Technika.



The 8x10 camera I placed him behind one of springback SINAR P and so can I place a bellows with a binocular magnifying glass to focus more easily.


http://www.pinholesolutions.co.uk/camera_kits.html


Here the BULLDOG CAMERA…

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/bulldog-5x4-self-assembly-camera-large-format-review-7560

[Jim Rice]

Point well taken, Drew. There are still times when I regret not having stuck with 8x10 long enough to have gotten comfortable with it and there are still a few shots I would love to spend eighty square inches on. Alas, life is finite.

[Jac@stafford.net]

....

[StoneNYC]

8x10 is a minimum of $200 investment.

That is my answer... :)

[Drew Wiley]

Your girlfriend's shoes probably cost more than that, Stone.... Are you confusing this with 8X10 mm film?

[Alan Gales]

Your girlfriend's shoes probably cost more than that, Stone.... Are you confusing this with 8X10 mm film?

He must be talking about a used pinhole camera and one used film holder. ;)

[Alan Gales]

Just buy an old black C-1 or wooden tailboard camera, a 240, 250 or 300 lens and one or two film holders and try it out. Give it a little time like Drew wisely suggests and see what you think. If you don't like it then sell everything for close to what you originally paid. You may lose a couple bucks but at least you will know if it's for you.

[StoneNYC]

Your girlfriend's shoes probably cost more than that, Stone.... Are you confusing this with 8X10 mm film?

One box of film and one cardboard box for pinhole yes...

The question was how expensive and how cheap could it be...

[John Kasaian]

I don't find 8x10 any more expensive,
really, because the greater cost of the film inherently makes me far more cautious how often I actually expose a sheet.
This

[Leigh]

As with most endeavors, it can be as cheap or as expensive as you wish.

- Leigh

[ROL]

Your girlfriend's shoes probably cost more than that, Stone….

Hmmm... having a hard time imagining that.

[StoneNYC]

Hmmm... having a hard time imagining that.

I don't have he type of GF's that spends a lot on shoes, though she does have a fancy leather boots that almost costs as much... But they are high quality... Like my pair of leather hiking boots that costs more than $200... But I think you meant high heel shoes, and that's just not part of her agenda, not that type of girl...

[Drew Bedo]

How Expensive?

The cost of Large Format Photography goes up exponentially in a complex relationship with the square of the area of the format. For formats larger than 8x10 the cost goes up by the cube of the area. For panoramic formats it seems to be a higher power.

Anyone have the formula for this?

[Brian C. Miller]

By square inch, it's cheap.

Ilford HP5+
11x14, 25 sheets, $224, $8.96/sheet, 154sq.in., 6 cents/sq.in
8x10, 25 sheets, $121, $4.84/sheet, 80sq.in., 6 cents/sq.in
4x5, 25 sheets, $36.49, $1.46/sheet, 20sq.in., 7 cents/sq.in.
35mm, 1 roll, $7.49, .20/shot, 80sq.in., 9 cents/sq.in.

If you want to spend the least for each shot, then buy a half-frame camera or a Minox.

[djdister]

Sounds like a job for a requirements analysis. How many shots do you expect to take per year? What do you envision for printing - enlarging or contact printing? What is your current shots to "keepers" ratio? Will you be processing the film yourself? Is weight and transportability (car/plane/backpack) a factor?

[Luis-F-S]

How Expensive?

The cost of Large Format Photography goes up exponentially in a complex relationship with the square of the area of the format.

If you're comfortable with 4x5 I'd stick with it. Much cheaper and easier and you can reasonably enlarge it. 8x10 enlargers are beasts, had a Chromega F years ago and got rid of it. 4x5 cameras and lenses are also going much easier to find and much cheaper than 8x10, particularly if you're "broke".

[StoneNYC]

By square inch, it's cheap.

Ilford HP5+
11x14, 25 sheets, $224, $8.96/sheet, 154sq.in., 6 cents/sq.in
8x10, 25 sheets, $121, $4.84/sheet, 80sq.in., 6 cents/sq.in
4x5, 25 sheets, $36.49, $1.46/sheet, 20sq.in., 7 cents/sq.in.
35mm, 1 roll, $7.49, .20/shot, 80sq.in., 9 cents/sq.in.

If you want to spend the least for each shot, then buy a half-frame camera or a Minox.

On 35mm did you take care to actually eliminate the perforated area from the total square inch calculation? The wasted area on 35mm is much higher ;)

And forget about 16mm surface area waste...!

[ROL]

I don't have he type of GF's that spends a lot on shoes, though she does have a fancy leather boots that almost costs as much... But they are high quality... Like my pair of leather hiking boots that costs more than $200... But I think you meant high heel shoes, and that's just not part of her agenda, not that type of girl...

Damn! I hoped you were ignoring me. FTR, none of that is what I meant.

[Drew Wiley]

How do you wrote a cost equation where is quantitatively states, I shoot 8x10 because I want to ... I like it. Rationale enough.

[djdister]

How do you wrote a cost equation where is quantitatively states, I shoot 8x10 because I want to ... I like it. Rationale enough.

I shoot, therefore I am.

[William Whitaker]

Consider your goals. If you just have an itch to use an 8x10 camera, then go ahead and try it. But minimize your investment. Rent one or use a friend's camera.

If your goal is to make photographs, then there are about two reasons to use 8x10. (1) to make an in-camera negative large enough to produce a contact print in a size you'd like to hang on a wall. In fact, just about the only reason to use a camera 8x10 or larger is to create a negative suitable for contact printing in that size and often using alternative processes.(2) because there are a lot of interesting lenses for that format that weren't produced for 4x5.

Beyond that, stick with 4x5 if you want to use a view camera.

Personally, I still like 8x10 and will continue to use it. For what I want to do photographically, I think it's both quite viable and appropriate. But if I were start into it at this point in time, I'd maybe choose another option.

Think about whose photography you like and what you want to accomplish yourself. I think the answer will be clear.

[jbenedict]

5x7 is also a nice size for contact printing. I have put a series of about ten related photos in an album and displayed them that way. The viewing distance of holding the album in one's lap is almost perfect for a 5x7 print.

It's always possible to put a 5x7 back on an 8x10 camera and have a "two in one" camera. 4x5 backs can be attached, too, but a 4x5/5x7 camera is a lot smaller.

[Drew Wiley]

Will - I shoot 8x10 specifically to enlarge it. Even if you're only making a 2X enlargement to 16x20, the extra richness of the big neg is worth it; and if you go significantly bigger, no contest. But enlarging 8x10 does radically up the ante in terms of gear and space investment, in a way that contact printing does not.

[Brian C. Miller]

On 35mm did you take care to actually eliminate the perforated area from the total square inch calculation? The wasted area on 35mm is much higher ;)

I've been told that's what the Photoshop smart healing tool is for. That and the emulsion gaps on Efke film.

A couple of times I've loaded an 8x10 holder with 35mm. It's a PITA to develop all of those strips!


How do you wrote a cost equation where is quantitatively states, I shoot 8x10 because I want to ... I like it. Rationale enough.


In fact, just about the only reason to use a camera 8x10 or larger is to create a negative suitable for contact printing in that size and often using alternative processes.(2) because there are a lot of interesting lenses for that format that weren't produced for 4x5.

I totally agree with Drew that enjoyment of the format is the best reason. 8x10 is large enough that it doesn't feel small, and it's not big enough to feel completely unwieldy or absurdly large. Sure it costs more per shot. So does 11x14, 16x20, and 20x24! And how much does Dennis Manarchy spend per shot with his camera? Those negatives are in feet! Everybody budgets for photography, one way or another. And you've also got to budget for what feels right with your soul. You don't know the right tool until you try it, but you do know the wrong tool when what's in your hands doesn't do what you want.

[William Whitaker]

I'm pretty broke...

Again.

[dodphotography]

Consider your goals. If you just have an itch to use an 8x10 camera, then go ahead and try it. But minimize your investment. Rent one or use a friend's camera.

If your goal is to make photographs, then there are about two reasons to use 8x10. (1) to make an in-camera negative large enough to produce a contact print in a size you'd like to hang on a wall. In fact, just about the only reason to use a camera 8x10 or larger is to create a negative suitable for contact printing in that size and often using alternative processes.(2) because there are a lot of interesting lenses for that format that weren't produced for 4x5.

Beyond that, stick with 4x5 if you want to use a view camera.

Personally, I still like 8x10 and will continue to use it. For what I want to do photographically, I think it's both quite viable and appropriate. But if I were start into it at this point in time, I'd maybe choose another option.

Think about whose photography you like and what you want to accomplish yourself. I think the answer will be clear.

this is what is driving me to 8x10... just the ability to make alternative prints that are presentable.

I'd rather spend money on traditional goods, then have to fork out cash for acetate sheets and a printer, that will break in 2 years and force me to spend a sh*t ton of cash on over-priced ink packs. I just hate sitting in front of a computer and poof, out comes something ready.

This may sound stupid, but I'd rather have a flawed final product knowing my hands were involved in every process rather than a computer producing something near perfect and doing all the work for me. Does that make any sense.

[Drew Wiley]

Why would you have a flawed product?????????? Ever look at a decently-made 8x10 contact print?

[dodphotography]

Why would you have a flawed product?????????? Ever look at a decently-made 8x10 contact print?

Flawed from my own hand... I'm no Ansel Adams in the dark room!