4x5 vs 8x10

[eyunicean]

need help!

I shot 35mm and medium format for the past few years and would like to move on towards large format. They would predominantly be used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour. I often do macro shots as well. I'm moving to large format because I would like to make large scale print (as large as 48x65 and 32x96 as well as smaller 30x40 / 24x72).

Could anyone give me advice on this?

Whilst an 8x10 system would give a sharper negative, I worry about purchasing 8x10 lenses (which I heard aren't as sharp?), as well as how hard it is to process 8x10 with a larger margin of error (I would most likely be sending them off to a professional) and film flatness. Would a 8x10 give a drastic difference in terms of quality to the 4x5 if, let's say, they were both drum scanned. Would the 8x10 or 4x5 film be obsolete anytime soon?

Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?

Further, what brand would you recommend, especially considering my usage with strobes and speedlights. I predominantly use speedlights, but often time borrow strobes from a friend when needed. What sort of lens should I be looking at as well...

Thank u.

[Monza1966]

For a 4ftX5ft print I'd recommend an 8x10in camera, but it depends how much grain you want to be visible and how it's processed.
Are you wanting to do darkroom prints or inkjet prints?

[David Karp]

I don't have any experience myself, but I once knew a guy who photographed automobiles. His work was often put on billboards. He used an 8x10.

[mdarnton]

40x50 is about 5X for 8x10 and 10X for 4x5. The equivalent 35mm magnifications would be about 5x7 and 11x14. Those are very approximate, of course. If you put your nose up to an 11x14 from 35mm, is that amount of detail and grain good enough for you, or do you greatly prefer the look of a 5x7's quality and grain? If the 11x14 looks bad to you, then I'd say you need an 8x10 camera.

You are right that everything about 8x10 color, with modern lenses, will be $$$$.

[Ted R]

Image quality is directly related to the degree of enlargement, the film grain and the lens aberrations are magnified in the process. Sharpness is related to lens quality but also to the aperture used and the DOF, camera shake, and film flatness. Given the same film and same lens quality in the three formats under discussion, and taking as an example ten times magnification from original camera film to print, which is often able to render a high quality print, the medium format reaches a print size of about 36in diagonal; 4x5 reaches about 65in diagonal; 8x10 reaches about 130in diagonal.

4x5 is an affordable and convenient format, on the other hand 8x10 is much less so, being bigger, heavier, more rare and more expensive.

At the risk of being accused of discouragement I urge consideration of the fact that we are in the age of decline of film, in all formats, especially the large formats 4x5 and 8x10. When (not if) the film becomes unavailable how will you recoup the investment in the camera, lenses and accessories?

[Ari]

Would a 8x10 give a drastic difference in terms of quality to the 4x5 if, let's say, they were both drum scanned.
Nope.
8x10 will give you a small improvement in apparent sharpness, and increased depth and tonality. All of those can quickly be negated by poor technique, which takes a while to overcome.


Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?
Yep.
But you ask about 4x5 vs 8x10, having had no experience with either; the learning curve for both formats is steep, expensive and time-consuming.
If I were in your shoes, I'd instead look at the Fuji GX680 system.
You already have experience with MF; the GX680 gives front movements, lots of lenses to choose from, and with top-notch technique & scanning, will yield fantastic mural-size enlargements.

[Leszek Vogt]

I think Ted and Ari are one the money.

You don't have to take anyone's word and rent both formats (few places still rent these cameras), shoot what you desire, spend the $'s on printing and drum scanning....and you'll be able to determine yourself. Either way, there is lots of experience on this forum....so may consider that too. Good luck.

Les

[otto.f]

Before I bought my Chamonix 45-F2 recently it helped me a lot to start at the end of the pipeline instead of at the beginning (which is the camera):
- how do I develop my sheet films stainlessly, I hate stains so I’d rather avoid tray-development. What developing tanks can I find and where, to develop my 8x10 or 4x5?
- can I get filmholders for 4x5 and 8x10, and where?
- how do I want to move with the whole pack: walking, bike, car, backpack, bike-pack, trunk
- is my tripod stable enough; do I need something else and more expensive for 8x10 than for 4x5; and the same for the tripod head/ball head

The answers to these questions led me to start with 4x5 with scanning of negatives at first. Along the road I’ll decide whether I go back to wet printing again.

[asf]

used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour. I often do macro shots as well.


This info alone is enough for me to say 8x10 is not a good choice

[Alan Gales]

Do yourself a favor and price 4x5 color film versus 8x10 color film. This is why I only shoot 8x10 b&w.

[Greg]

Many years ago was covering a national Bass Fishing Tournament for Riverfront Recapture in Hartford, CT. Met the official photographer for the event. Noticed that he was using a pair of Nikon D1s. (the D1s sensor is just 2.7-megapixels). So I asked him, if the D1 had enough resolution for a double page spread photo. He pointed me to a semi trailer that had an image printed on it. Told me it was one of his D1 images.

Years later, one of my D700's images was printed about 16 feet wide for an outdoor permanent exhibit... looked great.

Sometimes I really question why I shoot 11x14 and make contact prints from... shooting digital and make digital negatives of to print so much easier....

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] Sometimes I really question why I shoot 11x14 and make contact prints from... shooting digital and make digital negatives of to print so much easier....

Clearly, "F8 and be there" is difficult with a large view camera while the digialmatics are making 8 frames per second'.
.

[Two23]

need help!


Further, what brand would you recommend, especially considering my usage with strobes and speedlights. I predominantly use speedlights, but often time borrow strobes from a friend when needed. What sort of lens should I be looking at as well...

Thank u.


I suggest 4x5, partly because it's a little easier, partly because it does give very good results, and partly because the cost of shooting color 8x10 film (and pretty much everything associated with 8x10) will cost a big pile of money. As a beginner, you're going to be making a lot of mistakes, and with 8x10 color film those mistakes are going to cost you $15 each plus processing. As for flash, I shoot flash with 4x5. Typically I'm shooting black & white film (HP5) pushed to ISO 800. If you are shooting color at ISO 160, keep in mind you generally stop down to at least f16, and maybe more even with 4x5. That's going to take a lot of light! I use White Lightning x3200 monolights which put out 1240ws of power. I own eight of them.


Kent in SD

[Willie]

Before I bought my Chamonix 45-F2 recently it helped me a lot to start at the end of the pipeline instead of at the beginning (which is the camera):
- how do I develop my sheet films stainlessly, I hate stains so I’d rather avoid tray-development. What developing tanks can I find and where, to develop my 8x10 or 4x5?
- can I get filmholders for 4x5 and 8x10, and where?
- how do I want to move with the whole pack: walking, bike, car, backpack, bike-pack, trunk
- is my tripod stable enough; do I need something else and more expensive for 8x10 than for 4x5; and the same for the tripod head/ball head

The answers to these questions led me to start with 4x5 with scanning of negatives at first. Along the road I’ll decide whether I go back to wet printing again.

Tray development in the dark with a brush assures even development, no edge density problems and clean negatives. Easy to do.

Plenty of ads here for used 4x5 and 8x10 film holders. Plenty of good photo stores with new holders available.

Traveling with an 8x10 is not difficult. Lois Connor used a 7x17 camera in China and took it around on a bicycle. Morley Baer photographed the California countryside and architectural work using 8x10 for decades. If you want to do it you will find a way that works for you.

A lot of tripods work for 8x10. Same tripod will work fine for 4x5. Personal preference for pan/tilt heads with large format, not ball heads. Your preference may well be different. Used tripods and heads on here all the time.

If you want to use Large Format gear this is a good place to be. A lot of helpful people with experience. Sometimes decades of experience.

A book like Steve Simmons on Using the View Camera would be worth getting. Can help with some of the questions.

[otto.f]

Tray development in the dark with a brush assures even development, no edge density problems and clean negatives. Easy to do.

Plenty of ads here for used 4x5 and 8x10 film holders. Plenty of good photo stores with new holders available.

Traveling with an 8x10 is not difficult. Lois Connor used a 7x17 camera in China and took it around on a bicycle. Morley Baer photographed the California countryside and architectural work using 8x10 for decades. If you want to do it you will find a way that works for you.

A lot of tripods work for 8x10. Same tripod will work fine for 4x5. Personal preference for pan/tilt heads with large format, not ball heads. Your preference may well be different. Used tripods and heads on here all the time.

If you want to use Large Format gear this is a good place to be. A lot of helpful people with experience. Sometimes decades of experience.

A book like Steve Simmons on Using the View Camera would be worth getting. Can help with some of the questions.

Thanks Willie for your tips. In Europe your groceries for 8x10 are a lot more difficult than in the US, shipment from US isn’t ideal, I can better order from Japan. 4x5 is a starting point for me, maybe I skip 8x10 and jump to 11x14, which makes contact-printing a lot more interesting for me.
Tray development with a brush, I never heard of that. You mean brush on the emulsion side? Have you got a link?

[kcombublate]

Nope.
8x10 will give you a small improvement in apparent sharpness, and increased depth and tonality. All of those can quickly be negated by poor technique, which takes a while to overcome.


Yep.
But you ask about 4x5 vs 8x10, having had no experience with either; the learning curve for both formats is steep, expensive and time-consuming.
If I were in your shoes, I'd instead look at the Fuji GX680 system.
You already have experience with MF; the GX680 gives front movements, lots of lenses to choose from, and with top-notch technique & scanning, will yield fantastic mural-size enlargements.

Interesting that you suggest sticking with MF. Would a MF really yield fantastic mural-size enlargements? At 48x65", I assume the original poster wants a fine art print, perhaps to be viewed at a gallery or as a statement piece in homes, would it print nicely?

I shoot 35mm and am considering MF or LF because I would like to make larger prints for exhibitions...

[Willie]

Thanks Willie for your tips. In Europe your groceries for 8x10 are a lot more difficult than in the US, shipment from US isn’t ideal, I can better order from Japan. 4x5 is a starting point for me, maybe I skip 8x10 and jump to 11x14, which makes contact-printing a lot more interesting for me.
Tray development with a brush, I never heard of that. You mean brush on the emulsion side? Have you got a link?

I learned brush development from my Uncle who learned from a friend of his from Mexico, Jorge Gasteazoro. Never met him but am told he used to be on here a lot. Process is simple. Pre-soak the negative for a few minutes in water the temperature of the developer. Then transfer to the developer, emulsion side up. Then a Hake brush/richeson "magic" brush or the like. You go up and down, then side to side. Then down and up and side to side. Do it slowly and smoothly. No air bells, no scratches and no unevenly developed sky or single tone areas. Development is done in the dark using either time/temperature or with inspection under the green safelight or infra-red goggles.

It is simple and easy and the result is clean negatives. Downside for many is that it is slow and a one at a time process. At least it is one at a time for me as that is how I learned and have not experimented with more than one negative at a time.

[Alan Gales]

Something else to consider is who is doing the drum scan. Just like darkroom printers, some drum scan technicians are better than others. It takes time and experience to get good.

[Daniel Stone]

4x5. Try a rollfilm back on it as well, it's a cheap(er) way to test your skills with movements and the like.
Drum scan, drum scan, drum scan. Shoot less, pay for good scans from a quality operator, who knows their machine and how film curves work. Don't just go the cheap route.
Less is more. Learn with less equipment, equipment doesn't make the photographer, a photographer who understands composition and lighting techniques can use a cell phone and generate a higher quality photograph than some amateur know-nothing with all the money and equipment in the world.

Billboards are printed from cell phone pictures these days, Apple and Samsung have 150+ foot high advertisements on the sides of buildings here in LA.

Determine what print process you desire to do, then formulate your shooting process to match it.

[Pere Casals]

Billboards are printed from cell phone pictures these days, Apple and Samsung have 150+ foot high advertisements on the sides of buildings here in LA.




A Billboard needs no more than 2 MPix, while point of view viewing angle from left to right sides is normally smaller than the one we have at home when watching TV, a HD 1920x1080 like resolution is great for a billboard.

I've measured some 7MPix effective resolution from a cell phone (it had 20Mpix Sony sensor), so I agree that a cell phone shot can be way enough for a billboard.

[kcombublate]

4x5. Try a rollfilm back on it as well, it's a cheap(er) way to test your skills with movements and the like.
Drum scan, drum scan, drum scan. Shoot less, pay for good scans from a quality operator, who knows their machine and how film curves work. Don't just go the cheap route.
Less is more. Learn with less equipment, equipment doesn't make the photographer, a photographer who understands composition and lighting techniques can use a cell phone and generate a higher quality photograph than some amateur know-nothing with all the money and equipment in the world.

Billboards are printed from cell phone pictures these days, Apple and Samsung have 150+ foot high advertisements on the sides of buildings here in LA.

Determine what print process you desire to do, then formulate your shooting process to match it.

How large do you think a medium format drum scanned (decently) can be printed?

[Pere Casals]

How large do you think a medium format drum scanned (decently) can be printed?

Let me say my opinion: From 40" to 50" , depending on film. This is given the shot is good enough (vibrations, diffracton, etc), and requiring a high quality result.

To give an example, Sebastiao Salgado's Genesis exhibition had larger than 60" prints from 645 format (Pentax 645 system), if your MF camera is 6x7 it has 150% of the 645 format surface.

Also Salgado used TXP film, you can use TMX or Delta that may allow "greater" IQ, depending on what you consider "image quality".

Also it depends on if you want people viewing the full big print from 1m distance or you want people viewing it with their nose scratching the print.

Here you have an IMHO great source of information about all that: https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

[Drew Wiley]

I shoot both formats. But in terms of square inches of film, carrying around one 8X10 camera is a lot easier than lugging four 4X5's. I wouldn't worry too much about the future of film. Just buy a box of 8x10 color film, and you'll die of a heart attack long before that particular film ceases to be available. But LF gear itself is more affordable than ever, with the exception of certain "cult" lenses. I find 8x10 to be quite a different experience than 4x5. But it's a much more serious darkroom commitment unless you're just contact printing. And yes, I do shoot 8X10 in color, as well as in black and white. But then, some people spend more on cigarettes, booze, and lottery tickets every time they visit the Mini-Mart than I spend per month on film. So choose your addiction.

[Willie]

As to how large a particular size negative or chrome can be printed and look good - remember that Eastman Kodak used to have a billboard size print from kodachrome 35mm film that looked good when you passed it.

Not close but billboard viewing distance.

You are more worried than you need to be. 4x5 will look good and 8x10 will look a bit better - all things being equal. Trouble is that all things are not generally equal. From start to finish you find differences in your working methods, focus accuracy, depth of field, development and printing. Either will do the job and a 4x5 is generally more "user friendly" than the 8x10.

Pick an outfit, use it and see if it does what you want. Or have a friend or someone with the 4x5 and 8x10 shoot something for you and enlarge both so you have a direct comparison. Something tangible to look at will give you more answers than we can on a forum.

[Jim Andrada]

I can agree with 4 x 5, although I know in my heart of hearts that 5 x 7 is the best. And I have a couple of hundred sheets of 5 x 7 color film in the freezer so I'm good for as long as I can carry the camera. To say nothing of the hundreds of sheets of B&W. I've done a bit of 8 x 10 and I think it's more demanding of technique and more prone to workflow malfunction, wind, film flatness issues, etc than 4 x 5 so a lot of the advantage of the larger original gets lost by the time you get to the final print. (But in fairness, when the stars align and everything is right, 8 x 10 is marvelous, absolutely marvelous!)

And roll film in a 4 x 5 works well - I do a lot of 6 x 12 that way.

[LabRat]

For 8X10, the camera GG is bigger, but the lenses are a longer FL, so requires a bit more finessing the movements than 4X5, but the GG makes it easier to see... I have found many vintage 8X10's to have more limited (and stiffer) movements when using for table-top still lifes, and just setting them up on location to be more bulky, just lifting and moving the camera and tripod a few inches or feet more of an effort, reaching/extending my arms all day, and I come home sore... Keeping the holders clean in the field requires another level of compulsion, and lugging the cases requires 3 arms to carry camera case, (bigger) tripod, and holder cases... Feels like I came back from a bar fight that day...

We used to shoot 8X10 and 4X5 chromes in the food studio, and on the lightbox (even with a loupe), the same shot would look about the same on both sizes, but one bigger and one smaller...

It seems to me that the difference is a lower enlargement ratio for the bigger format, but you are more likely to have access to a 4X5 enlarger, but the main application would be alt processes that would need a larger neg, for sizes without going to the enlarged neg step... Both will blow-up well to massive sizes, but problems in the camera step with the bigger camera (vibration, wind, less DOF, slower speeds, diffraction from using smaller f stops etc) will also be blown up larger, so consider that...

But some like driving big Cadillacs, and some prefer sports cars, so enjoy the ride... :-)

Steve K

[Bernice Loui]

Finished print size alone should not be the prime factor to format size or imagining system (film or digital). Essentially bigger is not better, it is far more complex than that. Subject, viewing distance, print size, print longevity, print color rendition-accuracy, print contrast ratio-tonal range, print viewing conditions-lighting and much more all figure into what could be the ideal imagining system of choice.

If the viewing distance is great enough, a modest sensor digital camera can work surprisingly well. This is due to the human eye's way of putting structures like dots together to create an image within the brain. There was a time not too long ago when 35mm color slides were commonly projected to far greater than 20x on to a screen with very good visual results. Similar applies to cinema images where cine 35mm is projected to very large sizes with very acceptable image quality. This works due to viewing distance.

IMO, the days of widely available high quality film based color prints is mostly gone due to lack of materials and related. Digital printing has mostly taken over as the principal means to produce a color digital print. Given this reality, why not consider using a medium format digital camera with the appropriate lenses to achieve the large color print as needed?

Moving into a sheet film camera from roll films is not as simple as it appears, there is a significant learning curve involved. It is highly recommended to learn and try using a 4x5 first before diving into a larger sheet film format. Expect to burn and waste a LOT of film with a LOT of camera time before getting far up enough on the learning curve to gain the ability to used this imaging system to it's fullest capability.

8x10 makes GOOD contact prints, even larger sheets of film can produce larger GOOD contact prints. But when it comes to enlarging the 8x10 or larger sheet of film, it become a significant technical and physical challenge due to the sheer size if devices involved. The idea of scanning to produce a large size image data file has it's own set of difficulties that should not be taken for granted.


Camera, optics, film, processing choices for 4x5 is GOOD, for 8x10 these same choices are much less coupled with essentially an imaging system that is often four times the size, weight and more.

The often forgotten format is 5x7 which is pretty much the ideal trade-off between the two if one were to keep the entire image making process film base, not scanned.


Image "sharpness" or resolution alone does not make an emotionally expressive print as the emotionally expressive image is far more complex than simply "sharp".



Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

As for macro, greater the magnification to the imager (film or digital or _ ), greater the difficulty to produce an image with depth of focus, depth of field with increasing demands on optics and lighting. This is where a smaller size imager be it digital or film simply worked better. Once the image has been captured, the resulting image can be sized as needed.

Suggest doing a search on this topic as it has been discussed in depth here before.



Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

I love doing macro work in 8X10. Yes, you do need to be especially conscious of depth of field issues, and do need the correct lens. But when you've got it, you have REALLY got it!

[LabRat]

But with macro 8X10, shooting 1:1 with normal FL's, the shooting area size is also 8X10, so if you expect a small portion of a small object up close to fill a frame, you would have to crop down to a smaller format, basically wasting the rest of the film size, or maybe shoot it with a smaller format to begin with (at 1:1 magnification, your format frame size is the shooting area size also), to get really up close and personal from the get-go???

Very short FL corrected lenses can be used, but the amount of precision alignment required in the set-up and camera would make for a very difficult project!!!

Maybe not the tool for the job...

Steve K

[agregov]

To the OPs questions:


would predominantly be used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour.

If you’re going to be using artificial in studio lighting, digital is probably the way to go. The flexibility of adjusting your ISO on the fly and instant feedback after shots, a traditional film based workflow will have difficulty competing.


Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?

Depends how you scan and print it. If you scan with a high end scanner (drum, Hasselblad) and make digital C or inkjet prints, then yes you can make great prints that big. If you print optically under an enlarger, making prints that big look super is tough (that’s when you’d benefit from an 8x10 neg). But hardly anyone does optical mural printing that large (at least in color). Last Fall, I saw an Anthony Hernandez show at SFMOM. He shoots medium format color transparencies and he had inkjet murals that large that were spectacular. The key is finding a top notch pro printmaker. They’ll have the skills to scan your negs correctly and then print to either digital C or inkjets that large.

BTW, 4x5 and 8x10 are great. Lots of reasons mentioned by others in the thread may lead you to give it a try. But to make great looking murals, I’d stick to medium format (at least initially) and work with a great printer when you want to go big and just make workprints with your own inkjet. For studio shooting, I’d pick up a full frame 35mm digital camera and and stick to a pure digital workflow. It will be far less costly and faster feedback loop than working with film. When you nail your lighting skills, if you really want to move back to film it should be simple.

[kcombublate]

Finished print size alone should not be the prime factor to format size or imagining system (film or digital). Essentially bigger is not better, it is far more complex than that. Subject, viewing distance, print size, print longevity, print color rendition-accuracy, print contrast ratio-tonal range, print viewing conditions-lighting and much more all figure into what could be the ideal imagining system of choice.

If the viewing distance is great enough, a modest sensor digital camera can work surprisingly well. This is due to the human eye's way of putting structures like dots together to create an image within the brain. There was a time not too long ago when 35mm color slides were commonly projected to far greater than 20x on to a screen with very good visual results. Similar applies to cinema images where cine 35mm is projected to very large sizes with very acceptable image quality. This works due to viewing distance.

IMO, the days of widely available high quality film based color prints is mostly gone due to lack of materials and related. Digital printing has mostly taken over as the principal means to produce a color digital print. Given this reality, why not consider using a medium format digital camera with the appropriate lenses to achieve the large color print as needed?

Moving into a sheet film camera from roll films is not as simple as it appears, there is a significant learning curve involved. It is highly recommended to learn and try using a 4x5 first before diving into a larger sheet film format. Expect to burn and waste a LOT of film with a LOT of camera time before getting far up enough on the learning curve to gain the ability to used this imaging system to it's fullest capability.

8x10 makes GOOD contact prints, even larger sheets of film can produce larger GOOD contact prints. But when it comes to enlarging the 8x10 or larger sheet of film, it become a significant technical and physical challenge due to the sheer size if devices involved. The idea of scanning to produce a large size image data file has it's own set of difficulties that should not be taken for granted.


Camera, optics, film, processing choices for 4x5 is GOOD, for 8x10 these same choices are much less coupled with essentially an imaging system that is often four times the size, weight and more.

The often forgotten format is 5x7 which is pretty much the ideal trade-off between the two if one were to keep the entire image making process film base, not scanned.


Image "sharpness" or resolution alone does not make an emotionally expressive print as the emotionally expressive image is far more complex than simply "sharp".



Bernice

Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

[Pere Casals]

Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

Let me say may opinion.

It depends on your shooting needs/subject, the format, budget.

For wedings, Jose Villa made a fortune with Contax 645 and Fuji 400H film : http://www.josevilla.com/ (ask him why not going digital... :) )

171029

Sebastiao Slagado shot first half of Genesis with a Pentax 645. (Later he used Canon DSLRs, he said why...)


Refinement is Hasselblad, this is 6x6, a very pro way, you frame wider and later you decide if it is a vertical, horizontal or square shot.


Then with 6x7, the format I like the more, I shot venerable Mamiya RB67, this is a unit focus brick, and Pentax 67II.

For shooting people I love Pentax 67II, the 105 f/2.4 is a dream lens, and it is a very agile system.

Mamiya RZ67 also it is superb gear.

For traveling a Mamiya 7 is a camera with hot wheels.

Regards

[Ari]

Interesting that you suggest sticking with MF. Would a MF really yield fantastic mural-size enlargements? At 48x65", I assume the original poster wants a fine art print, perhaps to be viewed at a gallery or as a statement piece in homes, would it print nicely?

I shoot 35mm and am considering MF or LF because I would like to make larger prints for exhibitions...

I think MF can make some great mural-size prints.
As stated earlier, the key is good technique and drum scans, or high-quality flatbed scans.
The GX680 system has excellent optics, front movements, and can shoot as large as 6cmx8cm.

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, you'll need a far more serious tripod if you get into 8x10. That's just the tip of the iceberg. It can decades of experience and tens of thousands of dollars to master this stuff. Do you have any idea of what it costs merely to decently mount and frame color prints this big?

[Bernice Loui]

Film or Digital ?

IMO, Hasselblad and their Zeiss lenses are over rated. They are good, but not THAT good. Having owned or used nearly every lens in their 500CM and 2000FCM/FCW series, except the 105mm UV sonnar, 300mm F2.8 Tele-Superachromat, IMO their best optic offerings 100mm Planar, 135mm planar, 50mm f2.8 Distagon, 40mm FLE, 60mm f4, chrome, 30mm Fish eye, 250mm Superachromat. 38mm SWC. Focal plane shutter in body cameras are IMO better than leaf shutter only bodies. All cost more than they are worth as image making tools and the native square format (yes there are 645 film backs) as there are far better lower cost alternatives depending on imaging needs, like Fujinon GX 680, Fujinon fixed lens rangefinders, Mamiya 7, Rolli and many others.


There are 6x9 - 2x3 field (press cameras) and view cameras like Horseman, Linhof, Arca Swiss 6x9 and others. These can be used with film or digital backs. They can offer movements common to view cameras mixed with roll film or digital back. Know there will be trade offs due to being a more generalized imaging tool.


Modern MF digital is expensive, previous generation MF digital is less expensive but no less effective at image making. Phase One, Hasselblad and others including the new Fuji MF digital. IMO, if one is using digital as their back end work flow, it maybe better to start with a digital file and remain in the digital domain for the entire process.

As for macro. Most of the stuff done is past 1:1, often begins at 2x or more. The best modern image making tool for this IMO, Wild-Leica M420 or the current offering Leica Z6 series. Image of the M420 with a Canon M3 digital. This system solves the problem of lighting, camera stability and support, magnification and more.

171054
171055


Bernice












Hey, what MF cameras would you recommend...

[Drew Wiley]

Oh gosh, folks. He could just use a cellphone camera and have a billboard company print it, Even MF is going to be utter mush that big unless you're viewing the image from a long ways away. That might be fine for some applications, not for others.

[Alan Gales]

I've read on here where Lenny Eiger claimed that he could get just as good a drum scan from a 4x5 as an 8x10. Of course using a traditional enlarger would be a different story.

Lenny is a member here. In the past he has done traditional enlargements for Richard Avedon. He is also well respected for his drum scanning. He knows his stuff and isn't just somebody. Before I invested any money, I would talk to him. Ask him what to expect from medium format and large format 4x5 and 8x10 film scans.

http://eigerstudios.com/contact/

There is nothing like talking to an expert who does it every day! :)

[Alan Gales]

Do you have any idea of what it costs merely to decently mount and frame color prints this big?

But Drew, my friend. You promised me that you would print, double matte and frame my color 8x10's that size for a buck 99!

Just watch. Drew will ignore me like he always does. ;)

[Jim Andrada]

You can get really excellent results with a Mamiya RB67 or RZ67. I use an RB67 with a 140mm Mamiya Macro lens and a set of extension tubes. I also often shoot multiple photos and use image stacking in Photoshop. I have cameras for just about every film size from 8 x 11mm up to 8 x 10" and if I were to do Macro work in LF it would probably be with a Linhof Technika and a roll film adapter like the Sinar Vario which has incredibly good film flatness and can produce images from 6 x 4.5mm up to 6 x 12mm (nominal size of course.) And for larger objects the option to use 4 x 5 is there. The camera is very stable. For film, Ektar 100 is hard to beat.

Of course it all depends on what you're shooting. If you have an object half an inch on a side and you want a 2X photo, anything larger than roll film would just be a waste of film since the 2x image would be smaller than the film size. As others have said using really large cameras for macro work will prove to be a logistics challenge of the first order.

The Fuji GX680 that Ari suggested is also an outstanding camera - maybe one day I can convince myself that I need one!!!

[xkaes]

Would a 4x5 be sufficient for a 48x65 inch print?

Just as I expected -- if you ask 10 photographers for their opinion, you'll get 25 answers! In short, it all comes down to an opinion -- YOUR opinion. While I know that it is hard for you to have an opinion on formats that you haven't used, you can try it now with your current MF gear. If you can't get the results you want -- however you define that -- you can try a larger format.

I've done a lot of close-ups in B&W and Color from 8x11mm to 4x5" and made lots of LARGE prints -- up to eight FEET. I've got some GREAT (in my opinion) SIX foot prints taken with 35mm Kodak Plus-X. Sure, you can see the grain from a foot away, but due to the subject matter and normal viewing distance, it works great -- again, in my opinion. I've done the same with my Mamiya RB67 and TOKO NIKKI II 4x5. Yes, the 4x5" results have less grain -- depending on the film used. For example, my 35mm Ektar 25 shots hold up pretty well when compared to my 4x5" Agfacolor 125 shots. Another example? Back in the 80's, Peterson's Photography did a comparison of 35mm Agfapan 25 and 4x5" ISO 125 film and could not find any difference in the final prints.

What will you like? Only you will know. Push what you have to the limit. See if it works. You might just need a different film or technique -- instead of a different format.

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds like an article written in the 1880's, not 1980's. Or else the author was an utter klutz with a view camera. But it is better to deal with the devil you know than the devil you don't. Try a big print with your current camera gear and see if you like it or not.

[Drew Wiley]

Apples to apples. Try comparing current 35mm Ektar to 8X10 Ektar, not to 16-grit sandpaper.

[xkaes]

Sounds like an article written in the 1880's, not 1980's. Or else the author was an utter klutz with a view camera.

You're absolutely correct, of course. It's obvious that David Brooks, Chief Editor of Peterson's Photographic (who has more experience in photography than you and I put together) is "an utter klutz":

http://www.subclub.org/apx25.pdf

His conclusion?

"The only way any distinction between prints from the two formats (SIC, 35mm vs 4x5") can be made is by examination with a magnifying glass".

My conclusion? I have to assume that the other, numerous editors at Peterson's (AKA "utter klutzettes") were simply asleep at the wheel when it was published.

Me? I'm just glad I've got a freezer full of Agfapan APX 25 in 35mm, 120, and 4x5 format -- AND EKTAR 25!!!

[Drew Wiley]

That magazine had about as much credibility with me as the Natl Enquirer reporting on Bigfoot sightings.

[xkaes]

That tells me all I need to know -- about you! Thanks for the tip.

[Drew Wiley]

You know zero about me. That magazine's target audience was amateur anyway. I saw the same nonsense published about 35mm Tech Pan versus 4X5 unspecified. Well, I've got a couple boxes of 8x10 TechPan in the freezer; but even that constitutes a lousy taking film. I use it for pan highlight masks in color printing.... Not the kind of thing they talk about in a drugstore magazine rack.

[xkaes]

You know zero about me.

Right again -- I know you are a zero.

[Leigh]

I shot 35mm and medium format for the past few years and would like to move on towards large format. They would predominantly be used for still life (with speed lights and strobes) in colour. I often do macro shots as well. I'm moving to large format because I would like to make large scale print (as large as 48x65 and 32x96 as well as smaller 30x40 / 24x72).
Given your goals, I STRONGLY suggest 4x5 over 8x10 (I shoot both).

Your interest in macro work points to one major difference in the formats.

Any 1:1 image (on film) requires that the lens be extended from its infinity-focus position by a distance equal to its focal length. For a 4x5 with a 150mm lens, that's not too great.

But for an 8x10 camera with a 300mm (normal) lens, adding another 300mm of bellows extension creates a monster.

I'm not saying it can't be done. I've done it. But it's very cumbersome and unwieldy.

- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

I have a picture of an 8x10 micro (not macro) setup using about a dozen Sinar standards and bellows mounted on a 16ft structural iron beam. That must have required one helluva strong light source!

[Rich14]

Guys,

I don't know the history between you, but any time a thread goes in this direction, this forum is the loser.

What you're doing has nothing to do with the topic and is unnecessary.

I'd be glad to get you some 14 oz. gloves and see who can lift his arms after about 2 minutes of what will be essentially a no-hitter.

Rich :-)

[Drew Wiley]

(??) I just put somebody on Ignore.

[Jim Andrada]

Hey gang - can we get back to the OP's question and quit the personal criticisms? Let's argue with each other's ideas, not with each other!!!!!

[xkaes]

Hey gang - can we get back to the OP's question and quit the personal criticisms? Let's argue with what each other' ideas, not with each other!!!!!

I agree, and that was exactly what I was trying to do when I wrote:

"I've done a lot of close-ups in B&W and Color from 8x11mm to 4x5" and made lots of LARGE prints -- up to eight FEET. I've got some GREAT (in my opinion) SIX foot prints taken with 35mm Kodak Plus-X. Sure, you can see the grain from a foot away, but due to the subject matter and normal viewing distance, it works great -- again, in my opinion. I've done the same with my Mamiya RB67 and TOKO NIKKI II 4x5. Yes, the 4x5" results have less grain -- depending on the film used. For example, my 35mm Ektar 25 shots hold up pretty well when compared to my 4x5" Agfacolor 125 shots. Another example? Back in the 80's, Peterson's Photography did a comparison of 35mm Agfapan 25 and 4x5" ISO 125 film and could not find any difference in the final prints."

I've never attacked anyone's ideas or approaches. My attitude has always been "Do what works for you. Don't just simply copy someone else's method. Check it out yourself." But apparently that "gets under the skin" of a few people.

[Drew Wiley]

Repeating a published myth helps nobody. There is nothing wrong with making big prints from 35mm; but they're going to look very different from LF prints. And this is a LF forum, where nearly everyone recognizes the inherent distinction. But one doesn't necessarily need a LF camera. Translucent flat subjects like leaves or flower petals can be sandwiched in a negative carrier and projected onto large film. And in the past, this was even done directly onto Cibachrome or dye transfer printing matrices.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I am with Leigh on this matter. Totally.
8x10 introduces four times complexity without
yielding anything better than 4x5" for all practical purposes.

[Drew Wiley]

This

Anything bigger than 20X24, and the enlargements from 8X10 really stand out. But I print optically and like prints that hold fine detail even with close-up viewing. But 4X5 is logistically more convenient.

[xkaes]

The original question was about the benefits for large prints of LF vs MF. Some, including myself, have said the move may or may not be worth it. I have provided my evidence, as well as published results, with results exactly as mine. We all have different standards, but these results are hardly "myths". I make large prints from 4x5" film on down. I'm happy with them, and that is all that matters.

I'm as capable, as anyone, to try to degrade or diminish what others do, with silly, barbed nouns and adjectives, but I try not to stoop that low.

[ndwgolf]

Before I bought my Chamonix 45-F2 recently it helped me a lot to start at the end of the pipeline instead of at the beginning (which is the camera):
- how do I develop my sheet films stainlessly, I hate stains so I’d rather avoid tray-development. What developing tanks can I find and where, to develop my 8x10 or 4x5?
- can I get filmholders for 4x5 and 8x10, and where?
- how do I want to move with the whole pack: walking, bike, car, backpack, bike-pack, trunk
- is my tripod stable enough; do I need something else and more expensive for 8x10 than for 4x5; and the same for the tripod head/ball head

The answers to these questions led me to start with 4x5 with scanning of negatives at first. Along the road I’ll decide whether I go back to wet printing again.
How do you like your Chamonix 45-F2 ............I just bought one yesterday to use for traveling as my Chamonix 8x10 is just to big for traveling around Asia

Neil