4x10 On An 8x10 Camera

[neil poulsen]

I've been considering different ways to shoot 4x10 on an 8x10 camera. An "obvious" way is to have a 4x10 back made for the 8x10 and purchase some Shen-Hao 4x10 film holders.

A less obvious (and far less expensive) way would be to dedicate a few 8x10 holders to holding 4x10 film, and glue guides onto the flat surface under the darkslide that would hold the 4x10 film. One would also need to add a mask to the 8x10's ground glass for composing the images. Load 'em up, and yer ready to go. :cool:

It seems like this would be workable. Has anyone given this a try? It should be an advantage that the length of the 4x10 film would be same as the film-length for which the holder was originally designed.

Is there a material that comes to mind for making the guides?

[John Layton]

Thinking aloud here...I wonder if you could fabricate a 4x10 insert that would slide in to an 8x10 holder - using the original guides to hold it in place? One that you could then insert and remove as needed? Seems like this might be worth investigating. Comments?

[John Layton]

On further thought...any type of insert which was self-supporting would need to be a frame of some sort - which would likely mean sacrificing a bit more film area on the ends of the 4x10 image. Also - a removable insert would necessitate a "full capture" (both sides) of film edges, at least along two parallel sides - which would raise the film up a bit or at least cause it to bow upwards along these edges. Not good. The film guides would need to have open bottoms to ensure film plane accuracy and film flatness...but a removable insert with such (open bottom) guides would, I would think, put the film at risk of sliding under these guides and partially out of the frame. Not good.

So the guides would likely need to be firmly attached to the core of the holder - but not necessarily along their entire lengths. So maybe drilling three small holes along each edge of the guide strips (at the middle and near the ends) and then attaching these to the 8x10 holder with shallow screws which are captured by a guide strips/shallow nuts on the reverse side, would allow these strips to be removable. The question then I suppose would be that when being used for 8x10 film, the small holes would be a problem - but perhaps some very thin, black tape over these would work. Thoughts?

[Michael Roberts]

Neil,
Why not use a splitter on your gg back and shoot two 4x10s on a single sheet of 8x10?

No hassle with modifying holders or buying/carrying 4x10 holders....

This is what I do.

[Alan9940]

As Michael suggested, a wood splitter fits into the back on a Deardorff that allows two 4x10's per each single sheet of 8x10. I've never actually tried it on mine--seems like there could be some "light leakage" on to the covered side of the film--but could be an inexpensive way to give it a try.

Good luck!

[Daniel Stone]

Split darkslide, 2 shots on a single piece of film, less stuff to fiddle with.

[Michael Roberts]

Dan, it's six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. I've used a cut darkslide, too. I've also broken cut darkslides because it becomes a challenge to protect them when they are not in a holder.

Another advantage of splitters is you can shoot 5x8 as well as 4x10 on 8x10. You can't shoot 5x8 on an 8x10 holder with a cut darkslide.

As Alan mentions, splitters were commercially made by Deardorff and Kodak. I've also made DIY splitters for gg backs that are not manufactured to accept wooden splitters. I will put up a post in the DIY forum to demonstrate.

[ic-racer]

Expose two frames of 4x10 on a single sheet of 8x10 and cut it apart after processing seems like the easiest to me.

[neil poulsen]

I'm thinking of sacrificing the 8x10 holder for further 8x10 use.

My thought was to center the 4x10 sheet of film in the holder and put two guides on either side. Since the film is the same length as 8x10, only two guides are needed.

[neil poulsen]

Got it! :) I didn't think of this. For some lenses, this would work fine, as long as I could raise the front standard high enough. (Am I thinking correctly on this.)

I also want to be able to use my 121mm S.A. with this outfit.

[Ken Lee]

Be sure to work out a system for how to record which 1/2 of which side of which holder has been shot. I double-exposed a number of shots before abandoning the approach.

[Michael Roberts]

Ah....there's the rub. The only time splitters won't work is with a very short fl lens and no bag bellows. So, if the goal is to use the 121 on an 8x10 camera, then I see why you are contemplating centering the film in the gg frame. Unless you have a bag bellows your bellows may not be able to allow enough shift to center the 121 on one-half of the 8x10 frame.

IIRC, you have an Ebony 8x10. Do you happen to have the Ebony bellows that is a semi-bag up front? If so, you might be in luck. It will be easy enough to set up the camera with the 121 and test it out on the gg.

[Michael Roberts]

Be sure to work out a system for how to record which 1/2 of which side of which holder has been shot. I double-exposed a number of shots before abandoning the approach.

Ken, I record every shot in a small Moleskine journal. For split shots, I label T and B for the top and bottom for 4x10 and F and B for the flap and baffle ends for 5x8 (I also note whether the shot was 4x10 or 5x8 so I don't confuse the F designation). I also try to use the second half ASAP so there's not a long delay; this decreases the odds of a mistake. You're right, though, you do have to be careful.

[neil poulsen]

On further thought...any type of insert which was self-supporting would need to be a frame of some sort - which would likely mean sacrificing a bit more film area on the ends of the 4x10 image. . .

Wouldn't this also be the case with 4x10 film holders? I've never yet had, nor measured, the dimensions of a 4x10 sheet of film. But, I suspect that two 4x10's side by side make an 8x10? Is this correct? I may want to use off the shelf, B&W, pre-cut 4x10 film with these holders.

At any rate, it would be a relatively small amount of loss along the edges. Given the film area of 4x10 compared to 6x12, or other smaller panoramic formats, one could make up the difference when scanning or enlarging B&W.

But, one could not make up this difference if contact printing. It would be a permanent loss of width.

Thanks for raising this point.


. . . So the guides would likely need to be firmly attached to the core of the holder - but not necessarily along their entire lengths. So maybe drilling three small holes along each edge of the guide strips (at the middle and near the ends) and then attaching these to the 8x10 holder with shallow screws which are captured by a guide strips/shallow nuts on the reverse side, would allow these strips to be removable. . .

I see what you mean. I was thinking of using glue; but a few small screws (Ace Hardware!) would be cleaner, as long as they didn't interfere with the darkslide when inserted. The screws could easily be recessed.

I don't plan to remove these guides strips. These conversions would forever become 4x10 holders. But, converted 8x10 holders would be a lot less expensive than 4x10 holders.


. . . The film guides would need to have open bottoms to ensure film plane accuracy and film flatness...but a removable insert with such (open bottom) guides would, I would think, put the film at risk of sliding under these guides and partially out of the frame. Not good.

Yes, open bottoms would preserve film plane accuracy. Again, the advantage of make these 4x10 holders permanent.

[neil poulsen]

I was thinking of these converted 4x10 holders as a work around. But the more I think about it, if one has an 8x10, they make 4x10 cameras and holders unnecessary. They can also be sued for vertical photos as well.

Of course, 4x10 cameras and holders aren't as heavy, either.

[neil poulsen]

Ah....there's the rub. The only time splitters won't work is with a very short fl lens and no bag bellows. So, if the goal is to use the 121 on an 8x10 camera, then I see why you are contemplating centering the film in the gg frame. Unless you have a bag bellows your bellows may not be able to allow enough shift to center the 121 on one-half of the 8x10 frame.

IIRC, you have an Ebony 8x10. Do you happen to have the Ebony bellows that is a semi-bag up front? If so, you might be in luck. It will be easy enough to set up the camera with the 121 and test it out on the gg.

I have a Deardorff. But, if one has an 8x10 that accepts bag bellows, one could use a splitter and make the use and development process more convenient.

[blindpig]

Seems to me a simple and inexpensive way to try converting an 8X10 holder would be using strips of film and two sided tape. You could attach several thickness of film strips to the holder septum allowing the unexposed film to slide underneath.Plus the holders could be returned to full size if needed.Just a thought.

[barnacle]

A thought which occurs to me - sure I've seen this somewhere - is simply a spare dark slide, cut so half of the film area is covered and the other half exposed. Prepare the shot on whichever of the top or bottom of the 8x10 is next, remove the standard dark slide, insert the half-slide to expose the appropriate half, push the button, remove the half slide, replace the full slide.

Rinse and repeat for the other half.

It's complicated, and needs some way of indicating which halves have been exposed, but it has the advantage of being inexpensive.

(Unless I've repeated something mentioned upthread, without understanding something :)

Neil

[Richard Wasserman]

Neil, I don't know your budget, but it's always fun to spend other people's money, Shen Hao in addition to film holders makes a very nice 4x10 reducing back for their 8x10 cameras. I'm sure it could be adapted to fit your camera. Unless of course you'd rather be spending my money...

[Chauncey Walden]

I use the split back/darkslide method with a 121 Super Angulon but I cheated and made a camera especially for it. The lens board can be positioned to place the lens high, low or centered. The important thing when cutting the darkslide is to leave enough of the full width to seal the light trap. The camera uses the back from my 8x10.

[Tin Can]

I use the split back/darkslide method with a 121 Super Angulon but I cheated and made a camera especially for it. The lens board can be positioned to place the lens high, low or centered. The important thing when cutting the darkslide is to leave enough of the full width to seal the light trap. The camera uses the back from my 8x10.

That's a neat idea and execution!

[Michael Roberts]

I have a Deardorff. But, if one has an 8x10 that accepts bag bellows, one could use a splitter and make the use and development process more convenient.

Yes, sorry, I was thinking of Jim Becia, who has another thread going on 5x8 and 8x10.

Here's another idea I have been toying with for ULF, but applies here as well: use a discarded, processed sheet of 8x10 as your base and tape your unexposed 4x10 sheet to it. You can center the 4x10 sheet. Then simply slide the 8x10 sheet (with 4x10 taped to it) into your 8x10 holder. No need to modify any holders.

I would test for film sag in daylight with a cut-in-half sheet of discarded 8x10. The only downside I can see (other than possible film sag, which could be fixed with 3M repositional tape) is the T-distance would be off, but only by the width of the 8x10 film, which I believe would be trivial.

[Paul Cunningham]

Neil, it must be the Portland vortex, but I've been working on this same issue. I tried using a splitter to mask an unmodified 8x10 holder (Tachihara camera), but found that my (Nikkor) 120mm simply didn't have enough coverage to work without gymnastics.

So now I'm on track to modify a film holder to use the center for half sheets of 8x10. Whether or not this is the true size of off-the-shelf 4x10 probably doesn't matter. The approach I plan to take is to add guides to the inside of a holder, perhaps constructed of layered film (I have some thick xray film that I think will do the trick.) I'm actually going to use 18x24cm holders, but that's an irrelevant detail.

Good luck with your project and I'll keep you posted on mine. Paul

[Alan9940]

Neil,

Since you have a Deardorff, wouldn't it be easy enough to make a wooden splitter that fits into the back?

[Michael Roberts]

Here's another idea I have been toying with for ULF, but applies here as well: use a discarded, processed sheet of 8x10 as your base and tape your unexposed 4x10 sheet to it. You can center the 4x10 sheet. Then simply slide the 8x10 sheet (with 4x10 taped to it) into your 8x10 holder. No need to modify any holders.

I would test for film sag in daylight with a cut-in-half sheet of discarded 8x10. The only downside I can see (other than possible film sag, which could be fixed with 3M repositional tape) is the T-distance would be off, but only by the width of the 8x10 film, which I believe would be trivial.

On reflection, what I dreamed up a couple of months ago was to tape down strips of something like manila file folder to use as holders for the top and bottom edges of the smaller-sized film. No need to tape the actual film. This way the 8x10 inserts are reusable.

One other thing I did to get more rise/fall out of my 121 was to drill the hole in the lens board as low as I could. I can reverse the board on the camera, so this provides an extra inch or so of rise/fall without stressing the bellows.

[j.e.simmons]

I use the cut 8x10 darkslide method. I painted the handle end of the cut slide - red on one side and green on the other (instead of the usual black and white/silver). In my notes, I record whether I used the red or green side of the slide. I haven't had a double exposure yet. Of course I'm not using a 121mm lens, either.
juan

[vinny]

I shoot a fair amout of 4x10 in my 8x10 camera and have done it 3 different ways mentioned above

I preferred the spitter board to the darkslide method because you are blocking off the portion of the gg which isn't being used. This makes framing easier/less distracting and also serves as a reminder of which side of the holder you shot last (I left mine installed when going from one setup to the next. What I didn't like was when I needed to do a shot with a different development time n-1,n+1, etc. there's nothing you can do easily after the fact so another holder gets used in the field.

I tried the split darkslide method and while it's okay, now I prefer my dedicated 4x10 back and the dozen holders I picked up for about $35/each. I made the back myself since it was going on my homemade camera.

[neil poulsen]

Excellent idea. I've offset lenses on boards previously. If I offset by an inch on a Deardorff, using the built-in 1 inch rise-fall, I could achieve an overall rise-fall of -2" to +2".

[neil poulsen]

Neil, I don't know your budget, but it's always fun to spend other people's money, Shen Hao in addition to film holders makes a very nice 4x10 reducing back for their 8x10 cameras. I'm sure it could be adapted to fit your camera. Unless of course you'd rather be spending my money...

This has occurred to me. Thanks.

Based on what I've been told, which would warrant verification, the baffle on the Shen-Hao 8x10 back has the same dimensions as that on the Deardorff back. Since the overall dimensions of the Shen-Hao back are a little larger than those of the Deardorff, it would be a matter of trimming the excess on the Shen-Hao back and adding and positioning pins on the Shen-Hao 4x10 back that align with the back clips on the Deardorff.

By "baffle", I mean the square portion on the back that recesses into the camera as a stepped light trap.

Money is a bit of an issue. For the percentage of panoramas that I'd be taking, adapting two or three 8x10 holders to 4x10 would work just fine.

[Greg]

Back in the 1970s I was a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology and wanted to shoot 4x10 with my 8x10. Was using an older 8x10 wooden Burke & James flatbed view camera and the front standard didn't rise high enough to shoot using a split dark slide. So took two 8x10 film holders and constructed film guides to place the film in the center of the holders. Film guides were had by a visit to a model Railroad store and buying very thin pieces of square and rectangular plastic rods. I believe model railroaders used the plastic rods to construct models of bridges. Once I got the right pairs of rods to construct the film guides, glued them together and then into the film holder. First time was a failure probably cause I used too little or the wrong plastic cement. Solution was to glue the rods together and then use the glue on side opposite where the film slots were to sort of like caulk the two rods in place like in a right angle seam in a tiled wall in a bathtub. This worked and the rods were firmly in place. Ended up with two 8x10 film holders that were dedicated to holding centered 4x10 sheets of film. I do recall that I did have some trouble loading the 4x10 sheets of film but probably because the 4 inch dimension was not accurate (my Nikkor rotary trimmer was pretty beat up). I marked the ground glass with thin artist's tape that was very easy to remove when I was shooting 8x10 and took only a minute to re-tape in the field. In the end took a few 4x10 pictures, but went on to rig up my 8x10 over a microscope to use it to take photomicrographs. Had to stand on the lab bench to view the ground glass and have someone else turn the focusing knob which was well out of my reach... still have those prints. Oh yes after completing this project, anther student suggested that I should of just tilted the microscope back 90 degrees and the 8x10 B&J could have been easily resting on the lab table....

[neil poulsen]

Back in the 1970s I was a student at the Rochester Institute of Technology and . . .

Thanks. This is the same strategy that I've been considering. I'll take a look at your approach.

[Keith Pitman]

This has occurred to me. Thanks.

Based on what I've been told, which would warrant verification, the baffle on the Shen-Hao 8x10 back has the same dimensions as that on the Deardorff back. Since the overall dimensions of the Shen-Hao back are a little larger than those of the Deardorff, it would be a matter of trimming the excess on the Shen-Hao back and adding and positioning pins on the Shen-Hao 4x10 back that align with the back clips on the Deardorff.

By "baffle", I mean the square portion on the back that recesses into the camera as a stepped light trap.

Money is a bit of an issue. For the percentage of panoramas that I'd be taking, adapting two or three 8x10 holders to 4x10 would work just fine.

Neil,

Post #2417 shows a Shen Hao 4x10 back adapted to fit my Deardorff V8. It's not plug and play, but it's not hard to do.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!&p=1212243#post1212243

[neil poulsen]

Neil,

Post #2417 shows a Shen Hao 4x10 back adapted to fit my Deardorff V8. It's not plug and play, but it's not hard to do.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?36782-Show-off-your-Large-Format-camera!&p=1212243#post1212243

Thanks for posting this and the photo. The Shen-Hao 4x10 back is a special purchase. So, probably no return. Your post verifies that the Shen-Hao would work.

[Duolab123]

Here's my lazy man way, shoot a 8x10 film, develop it, put it on a light table place a 4x10 mask over it, compose your exact image your after and cut it out. I had pan backs, 6x12 backs, I get it, first time I saw 6x17 cm Fuji chromes at B&H I almost bought the camera. But as cheap as film is, (and as lazy and cheap as I am) I would lean towards trimming 8x10 films.
I know this is not what OP is after. I don't intend to stir up a hornets nest.
Best Regards Mike

[Andrew O'Neill]

Expose two frames of 4x10 on a single sheet of 8x10 and cut it apart after processing seems like the easiest to me.

Me too.

[George Losse]

Neil,
When I first started shooting 4x10 I did exactly as you were thinking. I used older wooden 8x10 holders and placed two guides in the center of each holder which held one sheet of 4x10 film. I found that I needed a standard size so I made a standard (for me) template out of a wasted sheet of film. I used this to set all the guides in the same place of 4 different holders. Worked fine for me.

I had tried the split dark slide and didn't like it because I found myself thinking more about which half of the film the shot was on, instead of thinking about the shot. With the modified holders I just placed lines on the ground glass and it was easy to use the center of the glass to compose one image.

Now I'm in the process of modifying a Canham 8x10 to 4x10 reducing back to fit my Wisner 8x10.

[Duolab123]

Me too.

Neat!!

[Randy]

Since I am quite poor, and can only afford X-Ray film for my 8X10 / 4X10 shooting, at $.40-.50 a sheet, I just shoot everything at 8X10 and crop when scanning or cut for contact printing.

[jbenedict]

Split darkslide, 2 shots on a single piece of film, less stuff to fiddle with.

+1 That's how I do it.

[jbenedict]

I had tried the split dark slide and didn't like it because I found myself thinking more about which half of the film the shot was on, instead of thinking about the shot. With the modified holders I just placed lines on the ground glass and it was easy to use the center of the glass to compose one image.
Easy solution I use:

Put four pieces of tape on the holder. - two on each side. When you shoot one, pull a pice of tape off corresponding to the piece of film exposed.

Extra benefit of this is that, if you decide that you want the shot 8x10, it is easy to do. Just pull the whole slide out.