PDA

View Full Version : 5x7 a significant jump over 4x5?



dimento
14-Apr-2014, 01:13
I've put together an 8x10 kit between the forum and evilbay, and have managed, fingers crossed, to set up a number of portrait projects where my costs will be covered. However, this means I can only afford to shoot 8x10 if/when these projects go ahead.

I've been looking at and considering a 5x7 camera as an improvement on 4x5 (in terms of enlargement size) and the film costs roughly half what an equivalent amount of 8x10 would cost.

I've done some googling and forum searches as I figure it's a topic that has been raised before. I'll be shooting almost exclusively portraits, maybe occasionally still life and I'd like to be able to do decent size enlargements (maybe up to 4-5 feet in length)

I do my own developing and scan on an epson v700 and figure on scanning myself when working on personal projects and going for drum scans if/when there are exhibition funds.

So my questions are, at 4-5 feet is there a significant difference in IQ between 4x5/5x7
How big have you enlarged from this format?
Any thoughts on scanning ? Have you enlarged flatbed scans and how do they look?
Anyone tried the "betterscanning.com" holder/glass for this format

Thanks

D

Lachlan 717
14-Apr-2014, 02:13
Why not make a 5x7 back for the 8x10?

dimento
14-Apr-2014, 02:21
Why not make a 5x7 back for the 8x10?

thanks, I had thought about getting a 5x7 back but there's the portability issue too. I'm often on location with lights and a backdrop and no assistant, and it looks like I can get a 5x7 camera reasonably cheaply.

I'm curious to hear about image quality as per the original post, thanks

Ken Lee
14-Apr-2014, 04:51
These sorts of discussions are subjective. You'll have to determine the sweet spot for your projects: the convergence of affordability, image quality, portability etc.

If you shoot 5x7 instead of 4x5 (and keep the longer ratio), then you have an image which is 6.5 inches long instead of 4.5 inches long. That's an increase of 2.0/4.5 inches or 45%. There are other ways to measure the increase however, like the increase in area of the image, or the longer diagonal. How those translate into image quality is not as objective.

Will you see an increase in image quality and decrease in grain in a 5-foot enlargement ? Of course but you'll have to judge whether it's adequate. From how far away will your audience inspect the prints ? What film/developer/printing/scanning method do you use ?

Bigger film has less grain and better tonality, but longer lenses give less depth of field, are generally less sharp and can therefore tolerate less enlargement.

Here's a sample page (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/holderAdjustment.html) with comparison shots using the holder from Betterscanning.com. I use mine all the time.

For the record, I shoot 5x7 but crop it to the 4:5 ratio because I don't care for the 5:7 ratio :)

dimento
14-Apr-2014, 04:57
These sorts of discussions are subjective.

If you shoot 5x7 instead of 4x5 (and keep the longer ratio), then you have an image which is 6.5 inches long instead of 4.5 inches long. That's an increase of 2.0/4.5 inches or 45%.

Will you see an increase in image quality and decrease in grain in a 5-foot enlargement ? Of course but you'll have to judge whether it's adequate. From how far away will your audience inspect the prints ?

Bigger film has less grain and better tonality, but longer lenses give less depth of field, are generally less sharp and can therefore tolerate less enlargement.

You'll have to determine the sweet spot for your projects.

Here's a sample page (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/holderAdjustment.html) with comparison shots using the holder from Betterscanning.com. I use mine all the time.

that's very useful Ken, thanks. I guess what I was getting at, in a subjective way was to try to find something with a lot of the image quality of 8x10 without the expense. Those enlargement sizes would be at the very limit of what I'd hope to do. Thanks again, Damian

dimento
14-Apr-2014, 05:38
http://www.photocritique.net/digest/1999-12.html

5x7 is large enough to work well for contact prints. There are also 5x7 enlargers available.

It is a format that does a good job for many of us.

Many a fine lens is available and if you have 8x10 lenses you are already set. Tray processing works just fine. Film holders are easy to find.

Film is available tho in more limited emulsions than with 4x5. Most of us don't film hop anyway. A few solid performers and we are out shooting.

thanks for that, I'm pretty much sold. Will a fujinon 180mm W f 5.6 (outside lettering/white) cover 5x7? I'm guessing it would be moderately wideangle?

Ken Lee
14-Apr-2014, 05:44
A 180mm lens on 5x7 will be roughly like a 120mm lens on 4x5.

Here's one sample (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.html) of what we can get from 5x7 using a modest scanner and a bit of sharpening.

dimento
14-Apr-2014, 06:25
A 180mm lens on 5x7 will be roughly like a 120mm lens on 4x5.

Here's one sample (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.html) of what we can get from 5x7 using a modest scanner and a bit of sharpening.

many thanks Ken, that's pretty impressive detail. My plan was to use my existing 300mm lens on 5x7 format, I think I'd find the 180mm too short, I seldom shoot anything other than portraits

thanks, Damian

djdister
14-Apr-2014, 06:28
many thanks Ken, that's pretty impressive detail. My plan was to use my existing 300mm lens on 5x7 format, I think I'd find the 180mm too short, I seldom shoot anything other than portraits

thanks, Damian

A 300mm should be a great portrait lens on 5x7.

pasiasty
14-Apr-2014, 06:39
I've been looking at and considering a 5x7 camera as an improvement on 4x5 (in terms of enlargement size) and the film costs roughly half what an equivalent amount of 8x10 would cost.
I wouldn't expect any significant improvement in sharpness or definition. Much more gain for money you may get from better lenses (unless you've already got a set top-notch ones). Practical reasons for going to larger formats are usually:
* contact prints
* wet plates and other ancient techniques
* better view on ground glass
* picture plasticity or extremely small (apparent) DOF
* use of old or ancient lenses for their imperfections
* (rather in case of ULF) need for something exceptionally expensive to justify enormous prices of pictures

There is also one, strongly subjective but important reason - urge for having something big.

Jim Jones
14-Apr-2014, 07:01
If you improvise a 5x7 film holder for the Epson 700 and scan at 2400 bits, you'll be editing nearly 200mb files. If you resize to a printer's native resolution of perhaps 300 dpi, you'll have a file twice that size for 5 foot prints. Technology isn't the only consideration here; the expectations of the customers is important. Most clients should be happy with these prints. Most should also accept prints from 4x5 capture. For practical considerations, I limit print size to what looks good enough from 4x5 film.

djdister
14-Apr-2014, 07:22
I do my own developing and scan on an epson v700 and figure on scanning myself when working on personal projects and going for drum scans if/when there are exhibition funds.

Any thoughts on scanning ? Have you enlarged flatbed scans and how do they look?
Anyone tried the "betterscanning.com" holder/glass for this format

Thanks
D

I was too cheap to buy the betterscanning glass for 5x7 - instead I improvised a 5x7 negative holder out of two pieces of mat board and just sit that directly on the V750 glass. I use the Epson scan software setting for "film area guide" and get very nice scans.

Bernice Loui
14-Apr-2014, 09:31
In one word, YES, and the differences in image quality is much greater than most believe if 5x7 is done using the very best optics available with equally good technical technique.

Some years ago during the 1990's when I was still doing 8x10 after beginning with 4x5 the reality of what it takes to produce images using 8x10 film became glaringly apparent that this format is an equipment heavy weight, choices for optics limited and expensive for the very best optics available, can be difficult to deal with DOF at times and ... After using and comparing 5x7 - 8x10 since the mid 1980's it became apparent that 5x7 was the better format for me. The difference in image quality between 4x5 vs 5x7 is not small, there is a belief that 5x7 is only slightly bigger than 4x5 and the difference cannot be that much while 8x10 is twice the size and must be better. More often than not, this is not true.

Consider for a moment what extreme quality optics are available for 8x10 and what they cost. As the demands for high definition and large image circle grows, so does the difficult to make a optic to produce excellent image quality out to the limits of a large image circle. Basically, the best choices and best variety for optics works for 5x7.

Consider for a moment what f stop might be required to achieve the desired Depth Of Focus. If that number is f16 for 4x5, it can be f22 for 5x7, then f32 or smaller for 8x10 to achieve the same DOF which is not ideal for lens performance. During those 8x10 days, using f32 was very common and f64 was not at all out of the question. With this realization, why carry such a large and heavy modern optic that is f5.6 when it is more or less only used to focus? Exception to this would be portraits which is often done at f8 or there a-bouts.

Then we have soft focus lenses, which I'm of the belief that anything smaller than 5x7 does not get the best from these speciality optics.

If the subjects are near infinity focus, 8x10 or lager works pretty good as there is little reason to stop down much beyond the ideal aperture for a specific lens, once the distances become closer than infinity, 8x10's film size advantage begins to diminish quite fast. Consider for a moment the DOF problems of creating images at life size or 1:1 using 8x10 film format size beyond lighting problems and optical problems. More stuff to consider.

It is not just resolution, the overall tonality of 5x7 or 8x10 or larger is simply better than smaller film format sizes. While most may obsess over image resolution, more often than not, tonality is not considered much yet it is one of the most important aspects of producing sheet film images.

Film is simply not an issue as it is available in 8x10, it can be easily cut down to 5x7 as needed. This has been true for color 5x7 film for quite some time now. For B&W film, 5x7 does not appear to be an issue.

Then we have film flatness in the film holder problem. The larger the un-supported film in the film holder, the greater the difficult to hold sharp well defined focus across the entire film area. This is why process cameras have vacuum systems to hold the film flat and often the copy equally flat. The 5x7 film holder does a slight better job at supporting the film due to this format being slight longer on one edge due to it's slightly longer edge.

If one does traditional darkroom using the photo chemical process and enlarger, a high quality 5x7 enlarger is reasonable, any high quality 8x10 enlarger is huge in every way imaginable.

As for scanning, IMO the only way to produce high quality scans would be to have then done by a highly experienced individual using the very best drum scanner and related hardware. After tinkering with my Epson 4990, I'm not convinced it can produce extreme quality scans. This will limit the quality of print results regardless of film format size.

This topic has been discussed a length over they years and it pretty much comes down to what works for you.


Bernice



I've put together an 8x10 kit between the forum and evilbay, and have managed, fingers crossed, to set up a number of portrait projects where my costs will be covered. However, this means I can only afford to shoot 8x10 if/when these projects go ahead.

I've been looking at and considering a 5x7 camera as an improvement on 4x5 (in terms of enlargement size) and the film costs roughly half what an equivalent amount of 8x10 would cost.

I've done some googling and forum searches as I figure it's a topic that has been raised before. I'll be shooting almost exclusively portraits, maybe occasionally still life and I'd like to be able to do decent size enlargements (maybe up to 4-5 feet in length)

I do my own developing and scan on an epson v700 and figure on scanning myself when working on personal projects and going for drum scans if/when there are exhibition funds.

So my questions are, at 4-5 feet is there a significant difference in IQ between 4x5/5x7
How big have you enlarged from this format?
Any thoughts on scanning ? Have you enlarged flatbed scans and how do they look?
Anyone tried the "betterscanning.com" holder/glass for this format

Thanks

D

Carsten Wolff
15-Apr-2014, 03:29
I have a 5x7 and a 4x5 reducing back, as well as a 4x5, but these days I find it really rare that I want to work with 4x5 for some reason:
The camera isn't significantly larger, the GG image is fantastic, most of my 4x5 lenses work well; I can run a 6x17 roll-film back; I often prefer the 1:1.4 ratio that 5x7 offers over the 1:1.25 of 4x5; movements are a little bit easier, too. The punishment comes to some extend in the darkroom; dusting/spotting a 5x7 neg requires more effort (one of the many reasons I'm not interested in 8x10 or larger). I am thus one of the few idiots persisting in this format. (Yes, I shoot color as well; e.g. my frozen Astia is still good and I'll cut down 8x10 stock if needed.)
Quality-wise there is not much difference to 4x5. - But that is not why I'm using 5x7. Anyone who thinks scanning anything larger than medium format is producing important nuances in final print resolution should probably re-evaluate their workflow. To me that is rather irrelevant pixel-peeping.

dimento
15-Apr-2014, 03:40
If you improvise a 5x7 film holder for the Epson 700 and scan at 2400 bits, you'll be editing nearly 200mb files. If you resize to a printer's native resolution of perhaps 300 dpi, you'll have a file twice that size for 5 foot prints. Technology isn't the only consideration here; the expectations of the customers is important. Most clients should be happy with these prints. Most should also accept prints from 4x5 capture. For practical considerations, I limit print size to what looks good enough from 4x5 film.

very interesting points, thanks

dimento
15-Apr-2014, 03:44
In one word, YES, and the differences in image quality is much greater than most believe if 5x7 is done using the very best optics available with equally good technical technique.

Some years ago during the 1990's when I was still doing 8x10 after beginning with 4x5 the reality of what it takes to produce images using 8x10 film became glaringly apparent that this format is an equipment heavy weight, choices for optics limited and expensive for the very best optics available, can be difficult to deal with DOF at times and ... After using and comparing 5x7 - 8x10 since the mid 1980's it became apparent that 5x7 was the better format for me. The difference in image quality between 4x5 vs 5x7 is not small, there is a belief that 5x7 is only slightly bigger than 4x5 and the difference cannot be that much while 8x10 is twice the size and must be better. More often than not, this is not true.

Consider for a moment what extreme quality optics are available for 8x10 and what they cost. As the demands for high definition and large image circle grows, so does the difficult to make a optic to produce excellent image quality out to the limits of a large image circle. Basically, the best choices and best variety for optics works for 5x7.

Consider for a moment what f stop might be required to achieve the desired Depth Of Focus. If that number is f16 for 4x5, it can be f22 for 5x7, then f32 or smaller for 8x10 to achieve the same DOF which is not ideal for lens performance. During those 8x10 days, using f32 was very common and f64 was not at all out of the question. With this realization, why carry such a large and heavy modern optic that is f5.6 when it is more or less only used to focus? Exception to this would be portraits which is often done at f8 or there a-bouts.

Then we have soft focus lenses, which I'm of the belief that anything smaller than 5x7 does not get the best from these speciality optics.

If the subjects are near infinity focus, 8x10 or lager works pretty good as there is little reason to stop down much beyond the ideal aperture for a specific lens, once the distances become closer than infinity, 8x10's film size advantage begins to diminish quite fast. Consider for a moment the DOF problems of creating images at life size or 1:1 using 8x10 film format size beyond lighting problems and optical problems. More stuff to consider.

It is not just resolution, the overall tonality of 5x7 or 8x10 or larger is simply better than smaller film format sizes. While most may obsess over image resolution, more often than not, tonality is not considered much yet it is one of the most important aspects of producing sheet film images.

Film is simply not an issue as it is available in 8x10, it can be easily cut down to 5x7 as needed. This has been true for color 5x7 film for quite some time now. For B&W film, 5x7 does not appear to be an issue.

Then we have film flatness in the film holder problem. The larger the un-supported film in the film holder, the greater the difficult to hold sharp well defined focus across the entire film area. This is why process cameras have vacuum systems to hold the film flat and often the copy equally flat. The 5x7 film holder does a slight better job at supporting the film due to this format being slight longer on one edge due to it's slightly longer edge.

If one does traditional darkroom using the photo chemical process and enlarger, a high quality 5x7 enlarger is reasonable, any high quality 8x10 enlarger is huge in every way imaginable.

As for scanning, IMO the only way to produce high quality scans would be to have then done by a highly experienced individual using the very best drum scanner and related hardware. After tinkering with my Epson 4990, I'm not convinced it can produce extreme quality scans. This will limit the quality of print results regardless of film format size.

This topic has been discussed a length over they years and it pretty much comes down to what works for you.


Bernice

thanks for the comprehensive reply. My reasons, as for most people I guess, are subjective. I want something with oomph. I have an 8x10 system but with my current work situation I can seldom afford film, luckily I may have a few moderately funded pop-up studio projects coming up, at least my film costs will be covered. It's hard to justify the cost of 8x10 for purely 'portfolio/personal' projects where the potential for work/financial return, is ropey at best. I hope to pick up an affordable 5x7 camera, already have a lens and will muddle along for the next while with multiple formats and see how I go, thanks again, D

dimento
15-Apr-2014, 03:45
If you improvise a 5x7 film holder for the Epson 700 and scan at 2400 bits, you'll be editing nearly 200mb files. If you resize to a printer's native resolution of perhaps 300 dpi, you'll have a file twice that size for 5 foot prints. Technology isn't the only consideration here; the expectations of the customers is important. Most clients should be happy with these prints. Most should also accept prints from 4x5 capture. For practical considerations, I limit print size to what looks good enough from 4x5 film.

Good points Jim, I guess like all photographers, the self is the hardest and most discerning 'customer' to please. Cheers, D

John Kasaian
15-Apr-2014, 06:45
To mitigate film costs have you considered shooting x-ray film?
5x7 is a great format for portraiture IMHO due to it's rectangular shape. How much an improvement over 4x5 is, I think, very subjective.
Certainly using your 8x10 lens on a 5x7 will open up some interesting, perhaps even unique possibilities.
I shoot 5x7 over 4x5 because:
1. I'm not really into color(there's plenty more color 4x5 available than 5x7)
2. I like the dimension of the format for contact printing(I'd shoot 11x14 if I could afford it!) 4x5 Contacts are IMHO just too small.
3. 5x7 is more portable than 8x10 in some circumstances. My camera is only marginally larger than a 4x5.
4. Focusing on the gg is easier for me with a 5x7 over 4x5 (and even easier with the 8x10!)
5. Cost is proportionally cheaper than 8x10 (but still more expensive than 4x5.)
6. I already have an 8x10 enlarger which I can use to enlarge 5x7s if desired.
7. I enjoy working with the gear and I think that element shows up in the finished product.
8. My 5x7 offers the option for handheld photography, which is always a plus in my book.
I hope this helps.

Daniel Stone
15-Apr-2014, 07:00
5x7 works well for me, because I like the slightly longer ratio vs. 4x5/8x10.

However, I still use 4x5 from time to time. Same camera, but have two separate backs, one for 5x7, one for 4x5.
5X7 b/w film is easy to source if you like Ilford's offerings, and Kodak has 5x7 Tri-X as a stock product. TMax 400 occasionally gets a custom order run through Keith Canham up and running, but you'll have to wait for others if you can't buy a whole run yourself.
Color film is easy to source: just buy 8x10 and cut it down in the darkroom(in the dark!). I've been shooting Ektar 100, Provia 100F, Velvia 50, E100G, E100VS, etc. that I purchased with intent to shoot in my (former) 8x10 camera, but have now "doubled" my effective film supply by getting 2 sheets of 5x7 from that one sheet of 8x10 film :)

So a 10 sheet box of color film becomes a 20 sheet box, etc...

Jim Noel
15-Apr-2014, 08:46
My early 5x7 Deardorf has been my quick grab camera for 40+ years. By quick grab I mean it is always ready to go , and I can have it operational faster thanany of my other cameras from 4x5 to 7x17. A great format for portraits,landscapes, and everything else. The format is the closest thing to the Golden Rectangle available.

Bernice Loui
15-Apr-2014, 19:39
Not sure if moving to 5x7 or any other format alone (film or digital) will deliver that extra "oomph". This appears to be some what like searching for that magic making lens or other image magic maker.. More often that not, that extra oomph is not found in camera, film or film size, optics or ...

Brings back the time when Fuji introduced Velvia 50, instant market hit, not for me.. When Fuji introduced Astia, it became my fave color transparency film and mostly lacked market popularity.

That extra oomph might come from what the image has to say or it's content more than all above.

Sadly, many clients many not care about the great efforts or details put into the finished product and it becomes a vicious circle where producer figures out client does not care about specific difficulties to achieve great details in the finished product causing the producer to skimp on future products. The world of commercial digital images appears to be an example of this.

Still, I do believe there is a market, very small market for extreme quality images that consist of clients that care about all those painful details which matters to them as much as the image creator.



Bernice




thanks for the comprehensive reply. My reasons, as for most people I guess, are subjective. I want something with oomph. I have an 8x10 system but with my current work situation I can seldom afford film, luckily I may have a few moderately funded pop-up studio projects coming up, at least my film costs will be covered. It's hard to justify the cost of 8x10 for purely 'portfolio/personal' projects where the potential for work/financial return, is ropey at best. I hope to pick up an affordable 5x7 camera, already have a lens and will muddle along for the next while with multiple formats and see how I go, thanks again, D

dimento
15-Apr-2014, 23:12
Not sure if moving to 5x7 or any other format alone (film or digital) will deliver that extra "oomph". This appears to be some what like searching for that magic making lens or other image magic maker.. More often that not, that extra oomph is not found in camera, film or film size, optics or ...

Brings back the time when Fuji introduced Velvia 50, instant market hit, not for me.. When Fuji introduced Astia, it became my fave color transparency film and mostly lacked market popularity.

That extra oomph might come from what the image has to say or it's content more than all above.

Sadly, many clients many not care about the great efforts or details put into the finished product and it becomes a vicious circle where producer figures out client does not care about specific difficulties to achieve great details in the finished product causing the producer to skimp on future products. The world of commercial digital images appears to be an example of this.

Still, I do believe there is a market, very small market for extreme quality images that consist of clients that care about all those painful details which matters to them as much as the image creator.



Bernice

Completely agree, a camera/film is a tool, what I meant by oomph, and I expressed it badly, is that part of the reason why I use large formats is for extreme detail and the slow, deliberate approach creates a different dynamic with the sitter. For projects where I want detail but can't afford or justify using 8x10 I'd like something that's "nearly as good" for less cost. Although our cameras are tools, there is a psychological element as well, sometimes a particular camera, format or lens just feels "right" and although in itself it doesn't change the images, our sense when using the tool may be different which affects our interaction with subject, etc. Case in point I shot lots of very close-up portraits of ww2 veterans with a Hasselblad, tried using a Mamiya RZ for a while and a Bronica SQA, just didn't work for me, perfectly good professional tools, Hasselblad felt like an extension of me, others not.

I don't generally shoot large formats for paying clients, most of that work is digital (albeit scarce now). I've yet to shoot a portrait with my digital camera which would meet my portfolio standards, it's not the camera or the technology or the inherent difference between pixels or film, it's an intangible thing, completely to do with me and how I interact with the equipment. Maybe if I could afford a digital back for my med or large format cameras, it might be different. I have got some project proposals with funding bodies at the moment and if some of those go through I may have the luxury of shooting 8x10, but I may also have the option of shooting a big format for less money, satisfying me and staying within budget, one can only hope, thanks, D.

Bernice Loui
16-Apr-2014, 09:44
It is appearing to be the only way to know for certain is to try a larger format to see if it works for you and your work flow's resulting image.

8x10 is always do-able and the cost related to 8x10 can be controlled some what by using less film and related materials. Make each exposure count.

There are specific trade offs to any specific imager format be they digital or ULF, they all have something to offer and the question / challenge is to choose the one that meets the specific image making requirements.

What can be said for 5x7, there is a significant improvement over 4x5 in the areas of tonality, resolution, selection of optics with moderate increase in film cost. More specifically, if one is producing B&W film images using soft focus lenses, the improvement over 4x5 images of the same is quite apparent.... even if the image is cropped to 5x6. It is easy to think that adding one inch to the edges does not make much if any difference at all, yet it does.

Historically, 8x10 was often used for high quality portrait work as offered easier re-touching of the negative due to its size. Examples of this type of work is common in the portrait work from the golden age of Hollywood portraits. I knew a working photographer from that era and place. He talked often of how 8x10 negatives were scrapped, penciled, varnished and more to achieve a specific look in the print. It was their form of Photo-Shop. I do believe this is where the tradition of using 8x10 for high quality portrait work came from. It is also worth noting that the majority of great soft focus lenses where made in focal lengths specific to 5x7 or 8x10. 4x5 was the industry standard for press work which is why the Graphmatic, speed graphic and various other hand held range finder 4x5 press cameras were built in large production numbers until 35mm became the tool of choice for press photographers.

Got to say using a Hasselblad is nice due to it's ergonomics and system offerings. That was a camera and system that burned many, many rolls of film for me over many, many years.


:)
Bernice



Completely agree, a camera/film is a tool, what I meant by oomph, and I expressed it badly, is that part of the reason why I use large formats is for extreme detail and the slow, deliberate approach creates a different dynamic with the sitter. For projects where I want detail but can't afford or justify using 8x10 I'd like something that's "nearly as good" for less cost. Although our cameras are tools, there is a psychological element as well, sometimes a particular camera, format or lens just feels "right" and although in itself it doesn't change the images, our sense when using the tool may be different which affects our interaction with subject, etc. Case in point I shot lots of very close-up portraits of ww2 veterans with a Hasselblad, tried using a Mamiya RZ for a while and a Bronica SQA, just didn't work for me, perfectly good professional tools, Hasselblad felt like an extension of me, others not.

I don't generally shoot large formats for paying clients, most of that work is digital (albeit scarce now). I've yet to shoot a portrait with my digital camera which would meet my portfolio standards, it's not the camera or the technology or the inherent difference between pixels or film, it's an intangible thing, completely to do with me and how I interact with the equipment. Maybe if I could afford a digital back for my med or large format cameras, it might be different. I have got some project proposals with funding bodies at the moment and if some of those go through I may have the luxury of shooting 8x10, but I may also have the option of shooting a big format for less money, satisfying me and staying within budget, one can only hope, thanks, D.

axs810
16-Apr-2014, 17:34
What if you just stuck with 8x10 and shot xray film

Here is a link to some xray film thats coated on only one side..other xray films are double sided

http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/8x10-in-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html

dimento
17-Apr-2014, 01:50
What if you just stuck with 8x10 and shot xray film

Here is a link to some xray film thats coated on only one side..other xray films are double sided

http://www.zzmedical.com/analog-x-ray-supplies/x-ray-film/kodak-x-ray-film/8x10-in-kodak-ektascan-b-ra-single-emulsion-video-film.html Thanks for the link Eric, worth bearing in mind. My interest in 5x7 is also about the portability issue, otherwise I'd just put a 5x7 back on the 8x10 when I didn't want to shoot 8x10. 5x7 is attractive to me for a number of reasons. I'll probably shoot all 3 formats at different times depending on project, finances and logistics. Cheers, D