Does It Really Matter?

[macmaster77]

I'm new to LF and looking at buying a 8x10 camera. I know 4x5 is popular, but I know I want the bigger format since I'm going to print really big, so I would prefer to only send my money once. I watched a presentation by Clyde Butcher (he's a big deal here in Florida) and he mentioned something that stuck with me. Keep in mind this guy as every camera you can imagine and up to 12x20. He said as long as you have a great lens and great film, the rest does not matter (granted you don't have light leaks). Looking to purchase a camera, there are options as low as $1,200 up to $8,000 on eBay. My question is, does it really matter what brand you buy since the function is mostly the same? I realize that some have more movements than others and the material and lighter weight drives the price up. Is this like buying a car where the everyday car will get me there, but the Porsche will get me there in style? I appreciate it in advance.

[Kevin Crisp]

Yes and no. The essential view camera function is to hold the lens, move it in and out to focus, and keep the light out. There is nothing magic about it. There are inexpensive (often rather old) cameras that can do just that. They may lack movements you will decide are essential, depending on what you photograph. I couldn't work with an 8X10 that did not have front tilt. Some people get buy without it. using old Kodak's with front rise and back tilt. It depends on what you are using it for. I couldn't get by without a great deal of front rise either, but some people do. If you're shooting architecture, then movements matter. A lot. You can go a lot lower than $800 on an 8X10.

Though movements do matter, there is no one answer for everybody on what is essential. The answer is largely dictated by subject matter.

Are you lugging it around half a mile from the car? Or more? Now weight matters. 8X10 lenses can be heavy, film holders are big, and light weight is worth paying for. If you're working out of your car, don't pay for light weight.

So to your automotive analogy, no it isn't a question of style. It is a question of capabilities and (in the case of weight) considerable convenience.

[macmaster77]

I appreciate the comment. Makes a lot of sense. I'm looking at photographing Florida landscape and Americana subjects. Many folks have said that you can get 8x10 cameras for less than say $800, but I have not had luck locating cameras at these price points. Thanks...

[Alan Gales]

I appreciate the comment. Makes a lot of sense. I'm looking at photographing Florida landscape and Americana subjects. Many folks have said that you can get 8x10 cameras for less than say $800, but I have not had luck locating cameras at these price points. Thanks...

Go to Ebay and type in 8x10. You will see Calumet C1s and old wooden tailboard cameras for less than $800.

When I bought my 8x10 I was looking for sub $1000 but found nothing I liked for various reasons. I ended up selling some more of my camera equipment to up my budget and bought a used Wehman field camera for $1500. If you can find one 'Wehmans tend to go for $2000 now. There are other used 8x10 field cameras around this price point too. Of course you can always spend more on a used or new 8x10.

Do your research before you buy!

[Jody_S]

Is this like buying a car where the everyday car will get me there, but the Porsche will get me there in style?

90-99% of the time, yes. Of course, all cameras are compromises and have their limitations. I suggest you start with what you find readily available in working condition, making sure the price is such that you can re-sell and buy something else if it turns out that camera won't do something you absolutely need to do. You could obsess for months studying the advantages and limitations of various cameras but frankly, that time is better spent with an actual camera in your hands making images and learning through practice.

[macmaster77]

90-99% of the time, yes. Of course, all cameras are compromises and have their limitations. I suggest you start with what you find readily available in working condition, making sure the price is such that you can re-sell and buy something else if it turns out that camera won't do something you absolutely need to do. You could obsess for months studying the advantages and limitations of various cameras but frankly, that time is better spent with an actual camera in your hands making images and learning through practice.

I agree, since I'm a photography teacher, I have seen students read for months, but never pull the trigger. I have a feeling I'm at that point. I have found one I think will work. As Alan suggested, I'll sell some of my brand new Nikon lenses to increase the budget. Thanks!

[Drew Bedo]

The older field cameras are just as functional now as they were when new. given no light leaks, they can be just what you want. I like my Kodak 2D even it has no swing/tilt on the front standard. An 8x10 Burk and James has about any movement you will ever want, but they are a bit clunky and painted grey. Examples of either can be had well within your price point.

Don't be too concerned about spending your money once. I garentee that uf you stay with LF photography, this purchase will not be the last camera you buy or the only one you have in the closet—just ask anyone else here.

[Pere Casals]

does it really matter what brand you buy since the function is mostly the same?

It's not the brand at all, at least in a beginner situation: it's the type of camera and its condition. This is a way simple device, but can have broken or loosen things


It depends on budget, a refined camera is something one may want, but in LF what maters the most is photographer, and then the glasses, last it is the box.

If you have to but all gear from scratch you'll need to distribute your investment in glasses, tripod, camera, film, holders, darkroom, scanner...


Today, because film usage declined, we can get formidable gear with moderate investment.

So it depends on global budget and on priorities. If you have $15000 to go you can buy without restrictions what you like. If you have $3000 you have to balance very well what you buy, also with $1000 you can get basic things to start, and perhaps to make a better work than with expensive gear.

Now I'm completing my LF gear, I'm ready with 4x5 and 5x7, and I'm completing my 8x10 gear acquisition.

I can say that you'll have more doubts with glasses than with wood/irons.


Let's divide cameras in 2 categories. Studio Cameras vs Field Cameras.


Studio Cameras:





These have all possible movements to learn everything, simple, modular, moderately cheap, sturdy, not the most refined but very efective.

Outside studio it is hard to haul it and to deploy it, it has movements that most of times are not useful for landscapes but can be useful for architecture and studio.

But I'll be using the CAMBO also for landscape, in a masoquist way because hauling all those irons around. I prefer to have a budged for velvia and glass (still want a Nikkor SW 120mm, that covers 8x10) than investing in a convenient field camera



Field Camera:

Tachihara 8x10



A refined device, lighter and easily deployable. Lacks some movements that are not critical for landscape.



What are you going to shot? You don't know ? take a CAMBO or similar, if you use it for landscapes you'll also get rid of going to gym :)


Tripod!!

Also you need a very good tripod, a really sturdy one, it is as important as the camera, it can be a bit elastic but it has to return into place after inserting the film holder, because if camera movements done plane of focus can move from place. A 8x10 is not a 4x5: you'll need a "TRIPOD" because a "tripod" won't work, and if it fails the camera can even kill you, at least broken bone is for sure :).




Glass

And then you need glass. For 4x5 you'll find cheaper glass that will cover 4x5 with movements. I've other glasses that cover 4x5 starting at 65mm, but for 8x10 I selected a Sironar-N 300, an old Schneider Symmar 360 (Tecknika selected! :) ) convertible to 620 with limitations, and 2 Symmar 210 because I want to make stereo photography. And stil I want a Nikkor SW 120 that is very wide in 8x10, in fact the wider I know that cover 8x10.




Darkroom

Then you also need the film holders and darkroom apparel. I'd recommend to start developing sheets in a tray or with a paper safe, that's straight. I want to go Velvia so I'm preparing a CPE2 processor for 8x10 sheets, this is way more PITA than with BW.

Also you may want a scanner, EPSON V850 to start with, in the future you may spend in other scanners, V850 is ideal to start and it covers 8x10.



As you see, it's not the camera, at the beginning the camera is something in what you may want to save money in it because there are more important things, like glass. Me, I prefer a Sironar-S or a Universal Heliar 36 jewel instead a luxurious box, at least by now.



Also

Look if in your area there is somebody in LF action, sure he will want to help you (or "chiseling" you :) )



Remember: no step back, 8x10 is magnificient.

Regards and luck !

[Kevin Crisp]

The Burke & James 8X10s are functional and inexpensive and their bellows seem to last a long time. If you remove the bottom plate under the front standard, you can swing the front. The Agfa Ansco cameras with front tilt are decent users too, but will cost more than the B&J.

[macmaster77]

It's not the brand at all, at least in a beginner situation: it's the type of camera and its condition. This is a way simple device, but can have broken or loosen things


It depends on budget, a refined camera is something one may want, but in LF what maters the most is photographer, and then the glasses, last it is the box.

If you have to but all gear from scratch you'll need to distribute your investment in glasses, tripod, camera, film, holders, darkroom, scanner...


Today, because film usage declined, we can get formidable gear with moderate investment.

So it depends on global budget and on priorities. If you have $15000 to go you can buy without restrictions what you like. If you have $3000 you have to balance very well what you buy, also with $1000 you can get basic things to start, and perhaps to make a better work than with expensive gear.

Now I'm completing my LF gear, I'm ready with 4x5 and 5x7, and I'm completing my 8x10 gear acquisition.

I can say that you'll have more doubts with glasses than with wood/irons.


Let's divide cameras in 2 categories. Studio Cameras vs Field Cameras.


Studio Cameras:


These have all possible movements to learn everything, simple, modular, moderately cheap, sturdy, not the most refined but very efective.

Outside studio it is hard to haul it and to deploy it, it has movements that most of times are not useful for landscapes but can be useful for architecture and studio.

But I'll be using the CAMBO also for landscape, in a masoquist way because hauling all those irons around. I prefer to have a budged for velvia and glass (still want a Nikkor SW 120mm, that covers 8x10) than investing in a convenient field camera



Field Camera:

Tachihara 8x10

A refined device, lighter and easily deployable. Lacks some movements that are not critical for landscape.



What are you going to shot? You don't know ? take a CAMBO or similar, if you use it for landscapes you'll also get rid of going to gym :)


Tripod!!

Also you need a very good tripod, a really sturdy one, it is as important as the camera, it can be a bit elastic but it has to return into place after inserting the film holder, because if camera movements done plane of focus can move from place. A 8x10 is not a 4x5: you'll need a "TRIPOD" because a "tripod" won't work, and if it fails the camera can even kill you, at least broken bone is for sure :).




Glass

And then you need glass. For 4x5 you'll find cheaper glass that will cover 4x5 with movements. I've other glasses that cover 4x5 starting at 65mm, but for 8x10 I selected a Sironar-N 300, an old Schneider Symmar 360 (Tecknika selected! :) ) convertible to 620 with limitations, and 2 Symmar 210 because I want to make stereo photography. And stil I want a Nikkor SW 120 that is very wide in 8x10, in fact the wider I know that cover 8x10.




Darkroom

Then you also need the film holders and darkroom apparel. I'd recommend to start developing sheets in a tray or with a paper safe, that's straight. I want to go Velvia so I'm preparing a CPE2 processor for 8x10 sheets, this is way more PITA than with BW.

Also you may want a scanner, EPSON V850 to start with, in the future you may spend in other scanners, V850 is ideal to start and it covers 8x10.



As you see, it's not the camera, at the beginning the camera is something in what you may want to save money in it because there are more important things, like glass. Me, I prefer a Sironar-S or a Universal Heliar 36 jewel instead a luxurious box, at least by now.



Also

Look if in your area there is somebody in LF action, sure he will want to help you (or "chiseling" you :) )



Remember: no step back, 8x10 is magnificient.

Regards and luck !

I appreciate you taking the time to put this all together. Some of the items I have which takes the load off a little. I have been researching whether to invest in a scanner like the V850 or Epson 11000XL. This is a journey, we'll see where it goes! Thanks.

[macmaster77]

Great to know. Thanks!

[Pere Casals]

Epson 11000XL. This is a journey, we'll see where it goes! Thanks.

One thing... the 11000XL makes A3 size you don't need for 8x10...


Happy journey !!!

[Leigh]

(still want a Nikkor SW 120mm, that covers 8x10)
I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.

If you really want to shoehorn an image onto 8x10 it may work with zero movements, but you'll likely get some light fall-off in the corners.


Field Camera:

Tachihara 8x10
I have that camera (double rail) with a 5x7 reducing back.

This is a beautiful piece of work, made from 300-year-old cherry.

Unfortunately, Mr. Tachihara retired a few years ago with nobody to take over the company, so no longer available.



Tripod!!

Also you need a very good tripod, a really sturdy one, it is as important as the camera...
I use a Majestic. Rather old, American made, also supports my car for an oil change.

Seriously, this is one of the most stable tripods I've ever used, and I have several professional brands/models.


Glass


You'll not find many lenses that cover 8x10 well. Those that do are large, heavy, and expensive.

I have the Nikkor SW in 120mm/8 and 150mm/8,
Rodenstock Apo-Sironar W 210mm/5.6 and Apo-Sironar S 240mm/5.6,
Nikkor W in 240mm/5.6, 300mm/5.6, 360mm/6.5, and
Nikkor M 450mm/9.

If you want shift, the Nikkor W 360mm/6.5 is the winner at 110mm narrow/98mm wide.
It's also large enough to anchor the Queen Mary, at 108mm long and 1420grams (50 ounces = over 3 pounds)
The flange focal length (FFL) of 345.8mm requires a pretty long bellows.

And then of course you have to buy filters and other lens accessories.
Most of these lenses take 90mm or larger attachments ($$$).


Darkroom

Also you may want a scanner, EPSON V850 to start with, in the future you may spend in other scanners, V850 is ideal to start and it covers 8x10.
A scanner is almost a necessity in the modern computer age.
Even if you wet-process entirely, you still must scan to post your favorites here. ;-)

I have its predecessor, the V750. It works very well.

Anyhow, just some observations from a guy who's spent far too many hours with this stuff. YMMV

- Leigh

[Corran]

I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.

Yes it does, regardless of what the specs say, and anyone who has actually used it on 8x10 knows this. There's even some wiggle room.

[Leigh]

Yes it does, regardless of what the specs say, and anyone who has actually used it on 8x10 knows this.
There's even some wiggle room.
It all depends on your expectations regarding light fall-off at the edges.

With any lens the light does not just stop at any particular circle diameter.
It falls off as you get farther from the optical axis.

I prefer to use coverage as defined by the manufacturer, with zero fall-off.

And yes I have used it, on numerous occasions.

- Leigh

[Corran]

Well by your definition, no wide-angle lenses even "cover" the formats people use them on. Does a Schneider 90mm f/8 Super Angulon cover 4x5? Of course it does. Does it have fall-off? Yes...but what it doesn't do (and neither does the 120mm Nikkor on 8x10) is hard vignette at a certain point on the film. More relevant (similar angle of view on the respective format), the 58mm Schneider XL definitely covers 4x5, with fall-off. So your statement doesn't really make any sense - 100% even illumination is not going to happen with a wide-angle lens with a tight image circle. Just recently Bob Salomon mentioned it starts at 30% of the image circle, which means by your definition the 120mm Nikkor doesn't even cover 4x5!

[FredrickSummers]

-


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

I have that lens. It really does not cover 8x10. Its image circle is 312mm, while the diagonal of 8x10 is 325mm.



Hello Leigh,

8x10" diagonal is 312.5mm = sqr(8*8+10*10) * 25.4, so sw 120 does not cover by 0.5mm

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

I agree with the rest !

Regards

[Leigh]

8x10" diagonal is 312.5mm = sqr(8*8+10*10) * 25.4
Sorry, Pere,

but sqrt(164) = 12.806" = 325.28mm, not 312.5mm.

312.5mm = 12.303". 12.303^2 = 151.37, not 164.

- Leigh

[Corran]

There's only so much one can know by assuming and looking at spec sheets.

8x10 inch film is not 8 inches by 10 inches. It's about 1/8th of an inch shorter in both directions. You also lose some rebate from the film holder, which varies by type. If you plug in exactly 7.875 x 9.875 and calculate to the appropriate significant digits and don't round anywhere, you get 320.816429 millimeters (so not only are you technically wrong on the film dimensions, but your math appears to have been wrong anyway). Considering the typical film holder eats into the image, I believe that the "normal" film diagonal that has been used is 312mm.

Regardless of all that, I'll state once more that the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10 perfectly fine. And not just "covers" with poor edge definition as may be the case with some lenses, but is perfectly sharp/usable in the corners of 8x10 and even has a bit more to give if you want to use movements, at least at typical shooting apertures. I would guess the 312mm specs from Nikon is conservative estimates given to match the accepted 8x10 diagonal after the film holder cuts in a bit. Fall-off inherent in symmetrical wide-angle designs is an irrelevant point. Buy a CF with a 77mm attachment thread if you need it - didn't Heliopan make one?

Unless you've got a broken lens, the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10. Just ask everyone who is using it frequently on 8x10 (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UO6J2f7eZ-U/V9Rb1utag9I/AAAAAAAAK0E/Ym_5Tfvi_SoYlkZmPTai_HXObki6JMHpACLcB/s1600/bloodmtn-4110s.jpg).

I guess this isn't the purpose of the thread though so I hope this clears everything up.

[Leigh]

Just ask everyone who is using it frequently on 8x10
That's fine, Corran. Whatever makes you happy.

Are you happy?

You have your standards, I have mine.

- Leigh

[Corran]

Just refuting false statements, for future reading. It's not about "standards," though if you have thorough resolution tests for the corners of the Nikkor 120mm on 8x10 I'd love to see them.

[Pere Casals]

Sorry, Pere,

but sqrt(164) = 12.806" = 325.28mm, not 312.5mm.

312.5mm = 12.303". 12.303^2 = 151.37, not 164.

- Leigh

Yes... you are right, I took the 312.5mm from here http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html

it says "New Large Format Lenses for 8x10in (312.5 mm Diagonal)"



There's only so much one can know by assuming and looking at spec sheets.

8x10 inch film is not 8 inches by 10 inches. It's about 1/8th of an inch shorter in both directions. You also lose some rebate from the film holder, which varies by type. If you plug in exactly 7.875 x 9.875 and calculate to the appropriate significant digits and don't round anywhere, you get 320.816429 millimeters (so not only are you technically wrong on the film dimensions, but your math appears to have been wrong anyway). Considering the typical film holder eats into the image, I believe that the "normal" film diagonal that has been used is 312mm.

Regardless of all that, I'll state once more that the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10 perfectly fine. And not just "covers" with poor edge definition as may be the case with some lenses, but is perfectly sharp/usable in the corners of 8x10 and even has a bit more to give if you want to use movements, at least at typical shooting apertures. I would guess the 312mm specs from Nikon is conservative estimates given to match the accepted 8x10 diagonal after the film holder cuts in a bit. Fall-off inherent in symmetrical wide-angle designs is an irrelevant point. Buy a CF with a 77mm attachment thread if you need it - didn't Heliopan make one?

Unless you've got a broken lens, the Nikkor 120mm f/8 covers 8x10. Just ask everyone who is using it frequently on 8x10 (https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-UO6J2f7eZ-U/V9Rb1utag9I/AAAAAAAAK0E/Ym_5Tfvi_SoYlkZmPTai_HXObki6JMHpACLcB/s1600/bloodmtn-4110s.jpg).

I guess this isn't the purpose of the thread though so I hope this clears everything up.

It's very clear...

SW 120 covers 8x10 with no movements, focusing at infinite, and with more movements as focussing closer... then we can stop to /16 or /22, what it's a common situation...

Also nikkor specs are a bit conservative... they place the image circle where they consider performance it's not really perfect, but extreme sharpness in the last half inch (diagonal) of corners may not be important, not a drawback for portrait (people groups in this case :) ), and for landscape you have clouds there, or perhaps something a bit out of focus at the bottom.


The SW 120 it's a nice 8x10 option, as it's the wide thing for 8x10... at 150mm there are better well known options, because movements...

[Leigh]

SW 120 covers 8x10 with no movements, focusing at infinite, and with more movements as focussing closer... then we can stop to /16 or /22, what it's a common situation...

Also nikkor specs are a bit conservative... they place the image circle where they consider performance it's not really perfect, but extreme sharpness in the last half inch (diagonal) of corners may not be important, not for portrait (people groups in this case :) ), and for landscape you have clouds there, or perhaps something a bit out of focus at the bottom.
I just pulled out some of my Nikon lens catalogs, and found I was wrong on the specs for the 120/8 SW.

155213

The image circle wide open is only 200mm ! ! !

If you stop the lens down to f/22, its 312mm ic at infinity focus will barely cover 8x10.

With closer focus or using a smaller aperture, the ic will be larger, thus accommodating some movements.

As has been pointed out, the definition of "image circle" varies with different manufacturers.

- Leigh

[jeroldharter]

Haven't read all the above posts, but:

yes, it matters. I went through multiple 8x10 cameras including the old style Arca Swiss, Toyo M field camera, Cambo view camera, and finally a Wehman 8x10.

I hated using all but the Wehman which was a pleasure. The others were impossibly heavy for field work. They were built like tanks and very nice but very impractical. If you just do studio work so that your camera is always on a tripod, then the camera makes a bit less difference although in that case you might appreciate geared movements and more refinement.

the Wehman folded to a practical size and shape for field use. Setup was quick and easy. It was lightweight. The bellows were long and flexible. The lens board was easily adaptable (I suppose they all are). It was much better for plane travel. As for lenses, you could just barely cram a 90 mm lens on it with a 4x5 reducing back but the bellows were max compacted. On the long end, 600 was fine. It had extensive movements and a fabulous asymmetric rear swing. Of course, everybody has his own aesthetic but I found that the right camera for me made a huge difference. IT was not the most expensive and actually one of the least expensive new cameras at the time.

[John Kasaian]

Yes, it matters.

Photographs don't care what the name on your camera is, but you should develop (heh-heh see what I did there?) an element of intuitiveness with your camera and that will come with use, so my recommendation is to get a camera in good condition that looks like you'll enjoy using it---that you can picture yourself using. If you get something you're incompatible with, it will tend to stay in the closet until you decide to sell it.
It takes a lot of effort to shoot an 8x10 in the field and there will come a time when you'll use your equipment as an excuse for not getting out on the dance floor unless you really love dancing with that camera.
It is sort of like marriage.

As for a lens, there are plenty of great lenses for 8x10 that won't break the bank---the 14" Commercial Ektar and the 240mm G Claron are two of my favorites among many others. Pick one and have fun with it. Keep some $$ set aside for a shutter CLA clean, lube and adjust if needed. Sometimes you get lucky.
Don't forget that you'll need film holders and a really strong tripod

[dodphotography]

I think it matters... I've worked with a lot of formats and for a 5 year span (the duration of my LF life) I kept everything I had, perhaps selling and upgrading here and there, but overall I quickly realized each format has its own merits and downfalls.

To keep the story short, this year my wife and I were forced to move and as we are living on one income I sold my large format cameras, a Leica, a Hassy just to keep some living expenses at bay. Well, now after some saving and maneuvering I am ready to come back but I can't afford both formats. On one hand, 4x5 is quick for me and it allows me to shoot color. On the other hand, deep down I hate color... but its a challenge and thats what keeps me coming back. If I go 8x10 again, I am committing to only shooting black and white.

I have access to a wet darkroom now but thats going to dry up within 12 months. A 4x5 contact print doesn't satisfy me but an 8x10 is magical.

So like yourself, my heart is torn. The only upside of my situation is that I never sold the underlying structures of the formats so I have lenses and holders and such, just plug and play a new body.

[uphereinmytree]

I feel one has to shoot 8x10 and and 4x5 to see the difference. Image making with 8x10 feels less like work than 4x5 to me. I enjoy an 8x10 ground glass much more than 4x5. A print from a scanned 8x10 vs. 4x5 may be technically identical depending on print size, but I can see a difference. 8x10 is better although I shoot way more 4x5.

[Pere Casals]

I just pulled out some of my Nikon lens catalogs, and found I was wrong on the specs for the 120/8 SW.

155213

The image circle wide open is only 200mm ! ! !

If you stop the lens down to f/22, its 312mm ic at infinity focus will barely cover 8x10.

With closer focus or using a smaller aperture, the ic will be larger, thus accommodating some movements.

As has been pointed out, the definition of "image circle" varies with different manufacturers.

- Leigh

Yes... that list http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF8x10in.html specifies image circles @ f/22...


I guess the definition of IC of a manufacturer also depends a bit on competition, on marketing...


I consider the SW 120 as it's one of the widest glass for 8x10, for many photographers the last millimeters in the corners are not critical, as we do not have many zooms in LF some frammings are made with the next wider glass than the intended composition requires, and then we can crop to the ideal selective frame in post. The 8x10 IQ allows it...

Of course, also there is a purist approach that tries to use the full format surface... That's a personal choice...

Personally, I always try to use the full format surface, but I've no problem to crop later if I want to shot from a particular point of view and want a particular framming,

[John Kasaian]

I'll hazard to comment that most 8x10 glass is very good if it hasn't been fooled with and the spacing twerked or something else terrible has happened.
With most things 8x10 it is an "it's the Indian, not the arrow" sort of thing as 8x10 has long been considered a professional's format and in it's day, that profession was highly competitive.
Nearly all my used gear was owned at one time by a commercial studio or pro lab.

[Alan Gales]

I think it matters... I've worked with a lot of formats and for a 5 year span (the duration of my LF life) I kept everything I had, perhaps selling and upgrading here and there, but overall I quickly realized each format has its own merits and downfalls.

To keep the story short, this year my wife and I were forced to move and as we are living on one income I sold my large format cameras, a Leica, a Hassy just to keep some living expenses at bay. Well, now after some saving and maneuvering I am ready to come back but I can't afford both formats. On one hand, 4x5 is quick for me and it allows me to shoot color. On the other hand, deep down I hate color... but its a challenge and thats what keeps me coming back. If I go 8x10 again, I am committing to only shooting black and white.

I have access to a wet darkroom now but thats going to dry up within 12 months. A 4x5 contact print doesn't satisfy me but an 8x10 is magical.

So like yourself, my heart is torn. The only upside of my situation is that I never sold the underlying structures of the formats so I have lenses and holders and such, just plug and play a new body.

Like you, I can't afford 8x10 color film. I bought a reduction back for my Wehman 8x10 so I can shoot 4x5 color when I want to. If you go 8x10, this may be a solution for you. On my camera the widest lens I can use is a 90mm with no movements (my widest lens is a 121mm). There is always a compromise. :)

[Drew Wiley]

I strongly believe that the camera itself must be rigid and precise, or else you end up with a rickety kite and not a camera. Same goes for the tripod. You're only
as good as your weakest link. All the 8x10 lenses I personally use are lightweight and top quality, and have ample coverage. Some have dramatically increased in
resale value since I acquired them, some have gone down, and a few have never been worth much. In other words, price might not have much to do with image
quality at all, but just about supply, demand, and alleged cult reputation. If you want superbly sharp lenses cheap, buy graphic arts "process" lenses in barrel. If
you want a soft look instead, stick a coke bottle over your shutter. But given the fact I probably know more about Indians and arrows than most people on the planet, I'd confidently state that it's both the Indian and the arrow, if you want to eat. John - I have a lovely soapstone arrow straightener in my collection, like
a huge slotted egg. They heated it, since soapstone retain heat superbly, then spun the shaft in it. I once also had a remarkable set of actual preserved arrow
blanks, untipped, completely straight, until my klepto cousin stole them for drug money. The paleolithic versions were even more remarkable, in which they'd
precisely groove a long section of bone or ivory using an obsidian burin (itself made by lithic techniques unknown to historic Indian tribes), then mount tiny symmetrical "microliths" in these grooves to created a long serrated projective, itself attached to a longer shaft. These were of course pre- bow & arrow for
atlatls. It requires a low power microscope to even duly appreciate the technique, which was apparently proprietary to the Ice Age, though Eskimos did similar
things for harpoons.

[stawastawa]

I agree heartily with John and Jody,

Find something and try it. perhaps even going for some cheap 4x5's to compare how the movements work. But buy somethign that feels interesting and good. I am more excited to shoot with one of my cameras, even though it has limits, because of how it feels under the dark cloth.

Also, keep looking locally so you can get your hands on one. Try out other peoples cameras if you can, maybe a school or university will let you join a class and access their cameras. Find what feels good and go for it.

Good luck!


Yes, it matters.
... my recommendation is to get a camera in good condition that looks like you'll enjoy using it---that you can picture yourself using. If you get something you're incompatible with, it will tend to stay in the closet until you decide to sell it.
It takes a lot of effort to shoot an 8x10 in the field and there will come a time when you'll use your equipment as an excuse for not getting out on the dance floor unless you really love dancing with that camera.


...Of course, all cameras are compromises and have their limitations. ... You could obsess for months studying the advantages and limitations of various cameras but frankly, that time is better spent with an actual camera in your hands making images and learning through practice.

[faberryman]

For me, photography is a much about the journey as the destination. If the print is the destination, some get there with dilapidated wooden cameras and tarnished brass lenses, others with carbon fiber marvels and cutting edge exotic glass. Pick the one that will give you the most pleasure.

[Fr. Mark]

A couple more ideas:

Build an 8x10. For pinhole photography it is very simple. For a field camera, more challenging. 8x10 is still small enough to consider friction focus, I think, particularly if you focus from the back (a la tailboard cameras). A tailboard camera would be relatively simple to build, but movements might be limited, but that might be good in some cases. A monorail might not be so hard to build either. See Jon Grepstadt's site and the DIY section of this one.

Restore an old one. Old, limited movements 8x10's are out there in generally poor condition for very little money. But, often, the hard parts (brass, fancy woodwork) are in pretty good shape. Bellows can be made or purchased new or used. Lens boards are easy to make, ground glass can be bought or made. if the camera has an odd tripod mount, or none, make an adapter, install a tripod mount, build a "tray" in which the camera sits snugly and put a tripod mount on that.

You could also opt for the modify an existing 8x10 to increase movements. Many cameras could have axis or base front tilt added fairly easily, swing and shift, that would be more challenging, but not impossible. One simple approach to getting more rise/fall or shift is to mount a lens off-center in a lens board and rotate the lens board 90 degrees to make it move. Or, if you like a challenge and don't want to modify the camera, make a lensboard where the lens mount slides back and forth or floats free and can be locked where you need it.

People have recommended scanners and the OP talked about printing big but...an 8x10 negative makes a potentially beautiful contact print. Printing 8x10 contact prints is about as simple as darkroom work gets where equipment required is concerned. If you are going to scan and print large, Ken Lee's website (he's a member here) has lots of information about the scanning approach as well as LF printers. I think he commonly prints 16x20 from 4x5 and 5x7 negatives that he has scanned with an Epson scanner.

Tripods can be made from scratch, adapted from surveying tripods, or bought used. With the right tripod, a tripod head may not be needed.

It is tempting to think you can get into LF and buy everything once. But, it may happen that as you get involved you find that your tastes get more refined or your work changes direction and that "requires" different equipment. What is "ideal" for one thing is not "ideal" for another.

For example, I'm heading to 8x10's for contact printing processes for my LF work. So, I'm restoring an old 8x10 field for going hiking (I've not yet figured out the tripod for going hiking, I will probably build it taking a lot of inspiration from Ries tripods) and building an 8x10 format kit for the Sinar P (I can't imagine spending what people are asking for that bit of kit!) for close to the car and at home.

If I ever get to scanning I may well go back to film for family outings with smaller cameras like 35mm and 120 and do it in color, too. Family isn't patient with the LF work. If I find I like the scanning thing, (I doubt it...) I may go back to 4x5 because, in reality, there's way more information on 4x5 (done well) than I need for enlarging to sizes I can imagine wanting to print.

[John Kasaian]

I strongly believe that the camera itself must be rigid and precise, or else you end up with a rickety kite and not a camera. Same goes for the tripod. You're only
as good as your weakest link. All the 8x10 lenses I personally use are lightweight and top quality, and have ample coverage. Some have dramatically increased in
resale value since I acquired them, some have gone down, and a few have never been worth much. In other words, price might not have much to do with image
quality at all, but just about supply, demand, and alleged cult reputation. If you want superbly sharp lenses cheap, buy graphic arts "process" lenses in barrel. If
you want a soft look instead, stick a coke bottle over your shutter. But given the fact I probably know more about Indians and arrows than most people on the planet, I'd confidently state that it's both the Indian and the arrow, if you want to eat. John - I have a lovely soapstone arrow straightener in my collection, like
a huge slotted egg. They heated it, since soapstone retain heat superbly, then spun the shaft in it. I once also had a remarkable set of actual preserved arrow
blanks, untipped, completely straight, until my klepto cousin stole them for drug money. The paleolithic versions were even more remarkable, in which they'd
precisely groove a long section of bone or ivory using an obsidian burin (itself made by lithic techniques unknown to historic Indian tribes), then mount tiny symmetrical "microliths" in these grooves to created a long serrated projective, itself attached to a longer shaft. These were of course pre- bow & arrow for
atlatls. It requires a low power microscope to even duly appreciate the technique, which was apparently proprietary to the Ice Age, though Eskimos did similar
things for harpoons.
Drew, my point being that it takes a good archer to accurately shoot an arrow. No arrow, no matter how straight, can shoot by it's self. Conversely, an expert archer can hit a mark even with a dollar store Cowboy and Injuns set.
I sure appreciate the education though!

I once saw a runner up to the Swiss National Ski Team clean the clocks of a bunch of prep school US Ski Team hopefuls on a set of rusty 10 year old skis he kept stashed in a barn.

Charlie Parker played a Grafton plastic sax because he was given one gratis after pawning his "real" sax for heroin---

From Steve Hoffman Music forums:
"The most notable player of a Grafton saxophone was Charlie Parker. While in Toronto, Charlie Parker and “the quintet” were scheduled to perform at Massey Hall, but Parker had pawned his saxophone - some sources say to buy heroin. A sales representative for Grafton (or the owner of the company, depending upon from whom one receives the story) asked Parker to use a Grafton for a Massey Hall gig in May 1953"

The Grafton was arguably one of the poorest saxophones ever built, but when blown by a talented musician like the Bird, the Grafton achieved a (rather short lived) cult following after the Massey Hall concert.
It wasn't the Grafton, it was "The Bird" in spite of the Grafton.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno, John. Down there around Fresno, back when it all used to be swamps and tule patches, the Indians didn't even have to aim that well. They'd attach small basket-like devices at the end of the arrows to whack waterfowl - their version of a shotgun. Out in the Channel Islands, big crescent-shaped flints would be attached sideways, rather than a forward-facing point, to hit the ducks. The moral of this whole story is, don't be a duck.

[Jody_S]

The day j can't make a decent photo with an old phone with a cracked screen and a scratched lens, I'll give up on lf.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

[Robert Opheim]

I agree with Drew - I had an old wood 8x10 camera for years - it was a kite! my negatives always seemed to show camera movement when I was shooting outside (there is always some wind). I could blame this on the tripod, my lack of technique in focusing, focus shift or other. I acquired a Calumet "black beauty" and it does not move - rock solid on a heavy tripod. The Calumet is probably the heaviest - heaviest 8x10 camera. I do use a 4x5 Technikardan for long walks. At 16 to 18 pounds for the camera - the Calumet is a beast of weight - however. With film holders 3 lenses, light meter, tripod, filters, etc there is still 30 to 40 pounds of equipment. 8x10 isn't lightweight equipment to haul around. There are many very fine cameras out there you need to find one that you can afford and work with.

[Jim Noel]

I'm new to LF and looking at buying a 8x10 camera. I know 4x5 is popular, but I know I want the bigger format since I'm going to print really big, so I would prefer to only send my money once. I watched a presentation by Clyde Butcher (he's a big deal here in Florida) and he mentioned something that stuck with me. Keep in mind this guy as every camera you can imagine and up to 12x20. He said as long as you have a great lens and great film, the rest does not matter (granted you don't have light leaks). Looking to purchase a camera, there are options as low as $1,200 up to $8,000 on eBay. My question is, does it really matter what brand you buy since the function is mostly the same? I realize that some have more movements than others and the material and lighter weight drives the price up. Is this like buying a car where the everyday car will get me there, but the Porsche will get me there in style? I appreciate it in advance.

Remember - the camera doesn't make the photograph, it only records what the photographer sees. i have owned and used LF cameras from a very early (1897)drop bed 5x7, which i still have and use with the original lens to s modern Sinar, which I no longer have. It seems that through the years i have drifted away from the modern heavy monorails with all their fancy movements, back to the nice simple and lightweight cameras like the Koronas and their ilk. These will do everything I need out of the studio.

[Alan Gales]

I sold some gear to buy a Wehman because I wanted something nice that didn't weigh a ton. I have a bad back so a Calumet C1 or Toyo monorail wouldn't do. I didn't want an old rickety wooden tailboard camera. I know that there are photographers on here that can produce beautiful results with the worst piece of crap but I didn't want to fool with that. I'm just an amateur having fun with a hobby so I want to enjoy using the camera and not fighting with it.

[Corran]

Same for me and my Wehman. I had a Tachihara which is still a nice camera but I just didn't get along with it. So I never wanted to shoot with it.

[dodphotography]

I think the biggest problem with LF is that it just needs to be a format you use to make you work... Versus the reality for most, which is a casual format we enjoy but ultimately it holds us back because of financial aspects.

My photographic heroes told me if I can't shoot 8x10 like a roll of 120 then I'm just holding myself back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Leigh]

My concern regarding entry of a newbie into LF work is that there's a substantial learning curve.

LF relates to small-format or digital imaging only in that light passes through a lens.
All other aspects of LF work are very different from smaller formats.

Learning how to do LF properly requires a lot of experimentation. Starting out with 4x5 lets you explore many options (films, lenses, tripods, etc) at much lower cost than with 8x10 or larger.

If you have really deep pockets, it doesn't matter at all.

- Leigh

[dodphotography]

My biggest issue was and continues to be the back end stuff... Developing film is scientific and formulaic... I'm a little to loosey goosy and it costs me. I let my lab take care of critical work and they do a much better job than I do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fr. Mark]

If you want to shoot LF like 120 film in terms of quantity of exposures, and keep costs in control there is X-Ray film. There is an enormous thread about that on this site.

[John Kasaian]

FWIW I'm not advocating that the OP buy a loosey goosey piece of junk, only that with all things being equal the photographer's vision is what matters more. If you can't see a great potential photo (upside down and backwards, no less) it doesn't matter if your camera and lens cost $5,000 or $50.

[John Kasaian]

My biggest issue was and continues to be the back end stuff... Developing film is scientific and formulaic...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I prefer to think of my approach as Cavalier. :o

[Alan Gales]

Same for me and my Wehman. I had a Tachihara which is still a nice camera but I just didn't get along with it. So I never wanted to shoot with it.

I had a Tachihara 4x5 before I bought the Wehman. I replaced the lenses for the Tachi with ones that would cover 8x10. Unfortunately, most were pretty heavy on the Tachihara's front standard so I sold the camera and bought a 4x5 back for the Wehman.

My Tachihara was so pretty that I was always afraid I was going to scratch it. The Wehman reminds me of my Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. It may not be pretty but it sure is rugged! ;)

[Corran]

My biggest beef with the Tachi 8x10 was the paper bellows (original to the camera). Not sure if the 4x5 is the same as I've never seen/used one, but when I was hiking I was always worried I was going to skewer the bellows with an errant branch. Most times I hike with the camera on the tripod and slung over my shoulder, padded with my darkcloth. Anyway, I've read a lot of comments saying the Wehman is ugly...but I think it looks cool and modern. It's the only camera I've used where people correctly guess it is newer manufacture. Even my Linhofs don't get comments like "that looks like it was made recently." Regardless of all that, the ~6 pound weight without the front bed is frankly beautiful :).

[dodphotography]

I should have a Wehman now but a seller got jumpy and sold it for what felt like the quickest cash... Someone posted it for 1400 bucks at 2AM and I messaged saying id paypal first thing in the AM, she confirmed, then as I awoke she sold it to someone else. East vs west time zone thing, I was bummed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alan Gales]

My biggest beef with the Tachi 8x10 was the paper bellows (original to the camera). Not sure if the 4x5 is the same as I've never seen/used one, but when I was hiking I was always worried I was going to skewer the bellows with an errant branch. Most times I hike with the camera on the tripod and slung over my shoulder, padded with my darkcloth. Anyway, I've read a lot of comments saying the Wehman is ugly...but I think it looks cool and modern. It's the only camera I've used where people correctly guess it is newer manufacture. Even my Linhofs don't get comments like "that looks like it was made recently." Regardless of all that, the ~6 pound weight without the front bed is frankly beautiful :).

I don't think my Wehman is ugly. It's just not as pretty as some of those wooden folders. Remember Frank calling wooden folders "pieces of furniture"? ;)

Of course what do I know? I think my Jeep looks beautiful with the winch and Hi-Lift jack on the front end!

I have a bad back and I used to own a 4x5 Sinar P. It was a pain for me to mount the camera onto a tripod. With the Wehman I tilt the Ries head so I can get my fingers on the screw. I then hold the camera in place by the camera webbed strap and screw it down. I then level it with a torpedo level. Easy on my back and fast! I pull the camera around in a wheeled cordura tool bag but sometimes I do carry it a short distance attached to the tripod. I wouldn't want a heavier camera.

[dodphotography]

I don't think my Wehman is ugly. It's just not as pretty as some of those wooden folders. Remember Frank calling wooden folders "pieces of furniture"? ;)

Of course what do I know? I think my Jeep looks beautiful with the winch and Hi-Lift jack on the front end!

I have a bad back and I used to own a 4x5 Sinar P. It was a pain for me to mount the camera onto a tripod. With the Wehman I tilt the Ries head so I can get my fingers on the screw. I then hold the camera in place by the camera webbed strap and screw it down. I then level it with a torpedo level. Easy on my back and fast! I pull the camera around in a wheeled cordura tool bag but sometimes I do carry it a short distance attached to the tripod. I wouldn't want a heavier camera.

If you're ever looking to retire the Wehman let me know!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pere Casals]

My concern regarding entry of a newbie into LF work is that there's a substantial learning curve.

LF relates to small-format or digital imaging only in that light passes through a lens.
All other aspects of LF work are very different from smaller formats.

Learning how to do LF properly requires a lot of experimentation. Starting out with 4x5 lets you explore many options (films, lenses, tripods, etc) at much lower cost than with 8x10 or larger.

If you have really deep pockets, it doesn't matter at all.

- Leigh


What you say it's a very good advice.

I've started in LF a year ago, my first shots were 8x10 with a borrowed camera... I can say that you are right, it is cheaper and less risky to start with 4x5, starting with 8x10 requires to be very well focussed in initially criptic techincal concerns, and gear acquisition should be slow.

Anyway it was very great to make the first shots with 8x10, it's manificience makes one adict to LF :) but later film and material are 4x more expensive.

A way is to learn as intensively as possible, and identifiying and targeting what knowledge one needs, and also from what information sources.

I found this site an incredible source of knowledge, and a way to get diverse answers from people that have a lot of bullets under skin... This is a vault of knowledge that preserves spritual concepts.


Newbies like me today have some advantages, first is that internet allows for easy learning, second is that we can access to a world wide used gear market, with very moderate prices. This allows amateurs to enjoy LF easily, and amateur photography can be very serious, I think that this is a way LF can add fresh activity.

[Alan Gales]

If you're ever looking to retire the Wehman let me know!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm sorry but I think I'll keep mine for a while. I love using it. :)

Wehman's have turned up here in the for sale section and of course occasionally on Ebay. I bought mine second hand off Ebay. Just keep your eye open and hopefully you will get one.

[Corran]

(Sorry to get more off-topic) Also, regarding the Wehman, Bruce is a great guy and still has replacement parts. I took a spill after slipping in mud the first time I shot mine and broke the focus track. He was able to send me a replacement part within the week! He seems like a real nice guy.

[dh003i]

I moved away from large format photography, but really enjoyed working large-format and wanted to post a few suggestions for a beginner.

8x10 isn't just a little more expensive than 4x5, it's a *lot* more expensive; think 4x the cost. However, if you want to work with digital images and scan in your slide or negative film, you can more easily use a high-end consumer scanner such as the Epson V600, V700, V750, V800, V850 with 8x10 film than with 4x5 to get high-quality results, provided you can avoid Newton rings on the 8x10 film (http://bendolman-photography-journal.blogspot.com/2014/09/alternative-way-to-scan-8x10-film-on.html).

That said, I think 4x5 is the way to go for beginners. Film is more affordable and comes in more varieties, the equipment will be lighter, tripod requirements will be slightly less strict. I still would suggest a heavy duty Gitzo tripod with a good Arca Swiss head like the Z2 (shameless plug, as I'm selling both on these forums). The Gitzo Super Giant Tripod I am selling is probably more than needed for height, as having a 'pod that goes above your head is useless for large-format unless you bring a ladder with you. There is a nice new UniqueBall head that doesn't provide pan/tilt head functions like the A-S Z2, but does allow you to lock the head from rotating about the yaw axis and changing the levelness of the horizon, which may be enough.

4x5 Cameras. I have used 2 4x5 cameras. The Linhof supercolor and color monorail 4x5s are great "economical" solid sturdy monorails, but portability suffers. However, movements will be excellent. They are great for learning and starting out and can found for around $500 (I see $300-$700 on eBay). Cambos, Sinars, and Calumets may be cheaper, but will not be as solid. I also have an Alpenhaus Polaroid conversion back made by Steven Icanberry with a 135/3.5 Xenotar lens mounted (more on that later). The Polaroid conversion backs are excellent for portability and they are beautiful. If Steve Icanberry still makes them, I'd suggest the Alpenhaus. These will be around $700+.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/alpenhause/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_ipg=&_from=

8x10 Cameras. The Wehman field camera is fantastic. I parted with mine for $2200, about what I paid Bruce for it. Can't say enough good things about it. If you want a solid "portable" 8x10 with good movements, this is it. This is an excellent choice for 8x10 and will make field-work a relative joy.

Ground Glass. Get good ground glass. I highly recommend Hopf Glass, made from borosilicatef glass. It will make every lens you work with easier to use. Steve Hopf and his son Julian Hopf believe that they can drill small holes in the GG with a precise drill, which would allow you to use a 20x loupe for aerial focusing on the raw "aerial image". Search the forums for that. If you don't use aerial focusing, you won't need a loupe greater than 5x.

http://hopfglass.com/index.htm

4x5 Lenses. For 4x5, I've used the Schneider Symmar Convertible 150/5.6 (converts to 265/11.2) (~$150), Nikkor-SW 90/4.5 (also consider 90/8) ($350+), Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5 (~$500 in shutter), and Nikon Nikkor-T 600/9 / 800/12 / 1200/18 set (~$3k now on eBay). All are fantastic. The Nikkor-T set has a ton of movement with 4x5 and is also usable for 8x10.

If you want a moderate wide angle lens and want focusing to be a joy with 4x5, I'd recommend the Xenotar 135/3.5. There is also a 150/2.8, but it is outrageously expensive and heavy (not worth it, imo). However, all of those lenses will be top-tier to work with in their focal range, although the Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 is special. With a Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set, you will need a 2nd mounting drilled into your Wehman and will want to use a long lens support clamped to the tripod leg and secured into that 2nd hole.

For a beginner, my top recommendation is the Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5 with 4x5. f/3.5 just makes it easier to work with than any other lens and it is very sharp when stopped down.

8x10 Lenses. I've used the Nikon Nikkor-SW 120/8 (~$350), Fuji-A 240/9 (~$455), Nikon APO-Nikkor 610/9 (~$450+$1000), and Nikon Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set (~$3k now on eBay). They are all fantastic. The APO-Nikkor 610/9 is a beast when put in a mount and you'll need to have SK Grimes do that for you. It is tack-sharp, however. It will cost at least $700-$1000 to have it mounted in a suitably sized #5 shutter. The Fuji-A 240/9 is "the one lens" to have with 8x10 if you have to choose one and want to do field photography with the Wehman. I'm pretty sure you can unscrew the front element and get ~580/18 from the Fuji-A 240/9, as I had S.K. Grimes make a front element inner screw-on cap for the Fuji-A 240/9.

The Nikkor-SW 120/8 is the most economical super-wide you will find that covers 8x10. It is very sharp. The Nikkor-T 600/800/1200 set will give you an incredible amount of reach with 8x10, but you'll really need a solid tripod, head, and long-lens support arm. Extended to the bellows length needed for 1200mm, the Wehman can bellows can very well become a sail in the wind. I had SK Grimes make an extension box to mount this lens set in to provide greater macro capabilities with the Wehman camera.

4x5 Bottom Line: Alpenhaus polaroid conversion back with Schneider Xenotar 135/3.5.

8x10 Bottom Line: Wehman with Fujinon-A 240/9.

[macmaster77]

I really appreciate everyone's input, this is more helpful than you'll know. As I'm still working on finding all of the parts to put a "kit" together that I would like to make, I have asked a few folks what they think about one using a "vintage camera" (as they would have no idea what a Large Format camera would mean). I was surprised from a few folks saying, "That's brilliant" to others saying, "You're romancing a technology that is fading fast". I have to say, this has me at a crossroads. Frankly, my end goal is to print really big prints and document our nation's history before it's gone (Americana photography). I have taken some time and thought about why would one want to spend money on a film based hub of their photography wheel. I'm sure this answer is different for everyone. For me, it will force me to slow down and work through the composition, and a sense of fulfillment when I hold the final print and say, "I did that, from loading the film to taking the photo, developing it properly and making the print". Also, it's a way to separate one from all of the "digital noise" out there. I guess in the end, it's all about what the person wants out of their photography. I may be out in left field with this, but it feels right.

[dh003i]

You're last post really makes me want to double down on my "bottom line" suggestions. Either the polaroid conversion back 4x5 with a Xenotar 135/3.5 or Wehman with a Fujinon-A 240/9 (conv 580/18) would be very classic setups and those moderately wide but not super-wide angles will give a nice classic angle.

[Bernice Loui]

With all this debate over 4x5 -vs- 8x10 again, why not 5x7?

8x10 has significantly limited choices in optics, significantly increased cost, challenges with camera movement during exposure, increased film cost, physically larger-heavier than smaller formats, challenges with depth of focus and more.


As for optics, the Fuji A240 appears to be the choice by many, yet IMO having owned and used both Fuji A240mm & A180mm, both did not impress me image quality wise. Do consider the host of vintage optics (Cooke, Kodak, Goerz and others) that are available and have a long history with being used on 8x10 and other formats. Really Good wide angle 8x10 optics will be modern-large-expensive like Schneider's XL series.

Really "big" prints, how big is really big? Projected Cinema once came from 35mm film projected on to very sizable screens.

View camera has a learning curve, larger the camera makes this learning curve more difficult. Be prepared to burn a significant amount of sheet film before being comfy with the entire process of using any view camera. It is completely different than using a modern digital imaging camera in many ways.

IMO, 8x10 (and larger) is best and idea for contact prints.

As for digital... Recent experience with Canon digital has been interesting yet, in ways bland and binary-contrived. It appears modern optics + digital camera system appears to be engineered-manipulated for producing images that are high contrast, overly sharpened, look good in a display and such. It has crowd appeal, yet IMO lacking in feel, depth and image complexity content. Digital is instant-easy, yet the image they produce still come up lacking in many ways.



Bernice

[Fr. Mark]

No love for whole plate?
Just kidding. Sort of. I'd like one. I have nice half plate camera to keep it company.
Can I put in another plug for the joys of imperfect equipment at a possibly lower price point? Someone was railing against modern digital. Ok. I kind of agree. But some subjects, particularly in b/w, do really well with pinholes, and 19th and early 20th C lens designs. Weird things like projector lenses can work and yield pleasing results. Sometimes the simplicity of older cameras is a blessing too (or modern cameras that have restricted movements). If nothing else they frequently weigh less. And, contact prints even of 4x5's can be powerful. And, carry more detail than you need for prints that seem huge to me. I've heard the case made for contact printing Rollei and Hassy sized negatives and those little negatives can make huge enlargements. I realize not everyone likes to build or rebuild stuff and all, but LF cameras aren't that hard to use as improvised enlargers too. Particularly now that we have LCD screens or LED arrays that could be used as diffusion light sources. Or if you can find one that did not hit the scrap dealers a copy camera could be made into an enlarger. There is a converted 11x14 studio camera as horizontal 8x10 enlarger in one of Ansel Adam's books.

Reaching for perfection is laudable (and scriptural) but sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good. Get something that you can make pictures with and have some fun. You might need to upgrade or make a lateral move that's ok.

[dodphotography]

With all this debate over 4x5 -vs- 8x10 again, why not 5x7?

8x10 has significantly limited choices in optics, significantly increased cost, challenges with camera movement during exposure, increased film cost, physically larger-heavier than smaller formats, challenges with depth of focus and more.


As for optics, the Fuji A240 appears to be the choice by many, yet IMO having owned and used both Fuji A240mm & A180mm, both did not impress me image quality wise. Do consider the host of vintage optics (Cooke, Kodak, Goerz and others) that are available and have a long history with being used on 8x10 and other formats. Really Good wide angle 8x10 optics will be modern-large-expensive like Schneider's XL series.

Really "big" prints, how big is really big? Projected Cinema once came from 35mm film projected on to very sizable screens.

View camera has a learning curve, larger the camera makes this learning curve more difficult. Be prepared to burn a significant amount of sheet film before being comfy with the entire process of using any view camera. It is completely different than using a modern digital imaging camera in many ways.

IMO, 8x10 (and larger) is best and idea for contact prints.

As for digital... Recent experience with Canon digital has been interesting yet, in ways bland and binary-contrived. It appears modern optics + digital camera system appears to be engineered-manipulated for producing images that are high contrast, overly sharpened, look good in a display and such. It has crowd appeal, yet IMO lacking in feel, depth and image complexity content. Digital is instant-easy, yet the image they produce still come up lacking in many ways.



Bernice

Agreed... I spent first year of graduate school experimenting with a number of digital options and while the final output print has it's own unique qualities it's a very cold and distant process of working.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LabRat]

Agreed... I spent first year of graduate school experimenting with a number of digital options and while the final output print has it's own unique qualities it's a very cold and distant process of working.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

To me, working with the "distant" digital process, reminds me of using those arms in the containment booths of nuclear labs... You have controls (on your screen) to manipulate what you are working with, but no real contact with it...

Steve K