Opinions on upgrading from 4x5 to 8x10

[v.kapoor]

Hi all,

I have been shooting LF for about a year - a Linhof Master Classic. It's a beautiful camera.
I'm tempted to move up to 8x10. I think the lure of looking through such large ground glass has me under its spell!

What's your opinion on the upgrade, especially now as things become more and more expensive?
Lens, film, processing, etc.

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts who made the jump and had the same sentiments as me.

Thank you!

[consummate_fritterer]

If I had better health and tons of money, I'd upgrade to 8x10. That's as succinctly as I can state my opinion, as the matter pertains to me. As it pertains to you, I haven't a clue.

[Leigh]

I started shooting 4x5 with a Graflex press camera in 1960, adding cameras in the years since.

I started shooting 8x10 with a field camera and a studio camera about 10 years ago.

The main difference I have seen is the very limited selection of lenses for 8x10. I have about 20 lenses for the 4x5 systems, but only 3 or 4 for 8x10. That severely limits my 8x10 shooting options in the field, less so in the studio. Good lenses for 8x10 are EXPENSIVE.

The film selection for 8x10 is also somewhat limited. I used to shoot Fuji ACROS in 4x5 (was never available here in 8x10). Of course, it's no longer available. But there are still more films in 4x5 than in 8x10.

If your goal is 8x10 prints, you can obviously contact-print an 8x10 negative with superb results, no enlarger needed. For larger prints, you'll find an 8x10 enlarger is huge.

- Leigh

[Tin Can]

Maybe it depends on your eyesight.

My eyes recently degraded and fresh RX is not doing it

But last night I set up two 11X14, an 8x10 and 5x7.

The bigger the GG the better for me in this permanent condition.

Also if your mind is set on a bigger ‘engine’ you can only answer that question by getting the gas hog.

[Mark Sampson]

The increased size, weight, bulk, and cost will slow you down, even compared to 4x5. Most people choose to contact-print from 8x10; as Leigh said, 8x10 enlargers are rare, expensive, and very bulky. And so require a large darkroom.
Consider what kind of prints you want to make. Is an 8x10 print big enough? Will your subjects of choice be suited to 8x10's detail and slow approach? Would you like to make 'alternative' prints, e.g. platinum, salted-paper, etc?
And if you're worried about the cost, remember this. If after a couple of years, you decide to stop, your gear will have held its value.
8x10 is a marvelous format. I hope you enjoy it.

[Alan Gales]

I agree that there is nothing like looking at an 8x10 ground glass unless of course you go larger. Contact printing is better than 4x5 because it's 4 times as big. If you use an Epson Flatbed scanner then the largest negative you can use is an 8x10. An 8x10 flat bed scan is better than a 4x5 flatbed scan for enlarging. Leigh, is correct about an 8x10 enlarger. You will need a tall ceiling height for most of them. Most are expensive too and you may need to go pretty far to pick one up.

There are great lenses you can buy cheap if you like a more normal focal length. Wides with coverage for movements and long lenses get pretty expensive. Figure about 60 dollars a pop for used film holders. You need a strong tripod for the camera. I use a J200 Ries with my Wehman. Some 8x10's require an A100 Ries or similar large tripod of another brand.

One thing about buying used gear. If you decide to sell later and you bought right then you will get most of your money back if you sell.

[BradS]

I dunno...I went from 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10 and back to 4x5. I prefer 5x7 but could not find an enlarger so now I use only 4x5.
Since you asked specifically about 8x10...here is a little bit of my experience.
I had three 8x10 cameras. I started with an Deardorf and mmmm, very strongly disliked it - and the one I had was in very good condition after I replaced the bellows. They are heavy and old and just a pain in the ass to deal with. I sold it and got a much newer Tachihara..which I really liked - except for the gaudy gold plated hardware. It was lighter than the deardorf, used standard sized (Sinar) lens boards and was generally a great camera....but, again it was big and heavy. Too much to carry very far from the car. While this was in my possession, I happened upon an 8x10 Kodak 2D. I spent two years meticulously disassembling, cleaning, refinishing and restoring the Kodak. It was nice, and, I think, lighter than the Tachihara. I sold it at a considerable profit (not counting my many hours of labor, of course). Ultimately, for me, the crazy bulk, vastly increased weight, and really, the fact that the contact prints are the only viable choice for prints made it an easy decision for me to dump 8x10 altogether.

I now have a few 4x5 cameras and am quite happy. I'll never do 8x10 again.

[Peter De Smidt]

Ask yourself what you hope to gain. Do you want to make contact prints? Bigger prints? Higher quality prints...?

[Jim Jones]

8x10 has the advantages others have mentioned above, but how many of us really need that? We may take many more good photographs with smaller cameras. Most of my favorite photos were taken on 35mm or digital. Good enough is good enough.

[Tin Can]

I have D750 with 3 great lenses.

I must use AF but cannot gimp and see IF the image is in focus.

Even tethered is crap to my ‘new’ eyes.

Perhaps Pictorialists had poor vision. I am grasping for definition...

So it goes

[Alan Gales]

8x10 has the advantages others have mentioned above, but how many of us really need that? We may take many more good photographs with smaller cameras. Most of my favorite photos were taken on 35mm or digital. Good enough is good enough.

The same could be said about 35mm or digital cameras, Jim. Most people only need their iPhone. ;)

[ic-racer]

Of course operating the camera is easier because everything, including tolerances, would be bigger than 4x5. Once you see some 2x enlargements of 8x10 you will not want to go back to 4x5.

[Two23]

I've been shooting 4x5 for ~20 years and recently bought a nice vintage 5x7. I've been tempted to buy a really nice vintage 8x10 but just keeping stopping myself. The reason is mainly the expense--film, processing, holders, and pretty much everything. I also love the lightness and portability of 4x5. I scan negs to make prints, so the enlarger question doesn't apply to me. So, I remain on the fence. I really like 5x7--it's sort of the "moma bear" size, i.e. "just right." The only reason I was even thinking of 8x10 is I like to use old lenses and old cameras and this was one I haven't tried yet. A vintage Petzval that covers 8x10 is well over $1,500 though, and that puts me off. I really like the versatility and flexibility of 4x5. I don't really see 8x10 as an upgrade, just different. Maybe if I did more portraits I'd have more interest. Then again, where I live on the Northern Plains it's very windy, and I just question how viable 8x10 would be for me outdoors much of the time.


Kent in SD

[Leigh]

8x10 and larger formats (and maybe 5x7) were invented because enlargers did not exist.

If you wanted an 8x10 print, you needed an 8x10 negative.
If you wanted an 11x14 executive portrait to hang on the wall, you needed an 11x14 neg.

Once enlargers were invented, the NEED for ULF formats dropped to near zero.

- Leigh

[Bernice Loui]

Similar discussion not too long ago:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?146596-LF-Camera-Recommendations


Re-post from that discussion. Fundamental to this question, ponder why 8x10? Yes, the ground glass can be impressive due to size, the processed films can be impressive due to size, but consider all the related items to 8x10.. Know the impressiveness of size can wear out over time.. give using 8x10 a decade or more will decide if that film format is really one's proper choice.

Will going to a larger film format really make that much difference in expressive image creation?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is more to LF imaging than camera, lens, tripod. Size-weight difference between 4x5 to 8x10 is about four times the size, four times the weight, four times the bulk. Add to this film cost and consider how will exposed film be processed? Ready to spend $10 and much more per sheet of 8x10 film? Add to this film processing.

Lens selection for 8x10 is limited and can easily get pricy really fast.

A sturdy and stable tripod is a must, this enforces weight and bulk. While the camera might be low weight, the tripod can easily equal then exceed the weight of a lightweight field camera.

Add to this 8x10 film holders, dark cloth, light meter, tape measure, focusing loupe, filters, cable release, case and other non-optional accessories.

If optical printing in a wet darkroom is the post processing is the desired method of print making, 8x10 enlargers are not small or light weight.
One can do contact prints which can be OK to really excellent, but the print size is limited to 8x10_ish.


Essentially, 8x10 carries a HUGE penalty with IMO, not a lot of benefits unless contact prints are to be the resulting prints.

Step on size down to 5x7 (IMO, the ideal LF format unless larger contact prints or alternative process prints are to be made) and most of these problems are very significantly reduced. Further down to 4x5 is easier still with lower cost and THE place where anyone interested in LF should begin for many, many, many reasons.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

Difference in optical print quality form 4x5 to 8x10 can be remarkable... Difference between optical prints made from 5x7 to 8x10 far more often than not- unremarkable. Essentially 5x7 can produce similar to better print quality than 8x10 for a host of reasons once the entire image making system is accounted for.

Difference in optical print quality between 4x5 to 5x7 is a LOT more than most would believe.


Bernice



Of course operating the camera is easier because everything, including tolerances, would be bigger than 4x5. Once you see some 2x enlargements of 8x10 you will not want to go back to 4x5.

[Liquid Artist]

I personally started with 4x5 6 years ago switched to 5x7 3 years ago, and although I bought a 8x10 that still needs restoring 2 years ago it wasn't until I bought a 8x10 enlarger plus a beautiful 8x10 Kodak 2d 3 weeks ago that I started shooting 8x10.

Here is my take on it.

If you like to enlarge images listen to Brad S, and only get a bigger format if you can find a big enough enlarger.
I lucked out and found a 5x7 ( Durst 138 ) before even buying a 5x7 camera.
It took me 2 years to find my 8x10 enlarger, a Durst 184.

With that in mind 4x5 is my choice for travel. However I grab the 5x7 95% of the time. It isn't much heavier than my Linhof 4x5, and is my first choice for life in general. . Plus I prefer the image dimensions.
I do love the 8x10, however it is just too big to take on hikes.
If you choose to lugg around an wooden 8x10 you will draw a crowd.

Good luck on your decision

[scheinfluger_77]

Great thread. Here is my take on the situation. First of all i can add nothing to the size/weight/quality/output suggestions above. For me personally if going to 8x10 for “better quality” images is my goal... I may as well go up to the Banquet Camera formats and stick with contact printing (the 7x17 whispers in my ear).

Years ago in high school a friend showed me his dad’s 5x7 Burke & James, with whopping bellows extension. I have wanted that format ever since. Since college my LF of choice (read... availability) has been one of two Crown Graphics my dad purchased long ago. I enjoy using the camera for landscapes and abstract details and wanted a 4x5 with movements. But when thinking of my upgrade options, my early fascination with 5x7 came back to life.

Consequently I now have a 5x7 Kodak 2D, along with everything else needed for wet darkroom work. I just don’t have the “dark” yet.

Didn’t Weston use an 8x10? And isn’t he the one who said ‘the only good photographs were within 100 yards of the car’?

Just my 1.5 cents worth. :)

[Chuck Pere]

If you can afford the investment and are physically able to handle the equipment I'd say do it while you can. Don't like it just sell the stuff. Not like buying a new couch. You also need to have the time and energy to research what to buy and how to process the film.

[consummate_fritterer]

If you can afford the investment and are physically able to handle the equipment I'd say do it while you can. Don't like it just sell the stuff. Not like buying a new couch. You also need to have the time and energy to research what to buy and how to process the film.

I agree completely. If you really want to do something and are fiscally and physically able, then do it. There will come a day when you either don't have the funds, or are in poor health, or both. By then, it's too late.

[BradS]

If you can afford the investment and are physically able to handle the equipment I'd say do it while you can. Don't like it just sell the stuff. Not like buying a new couch. You also need to have the time and energy to research what to buy and how to process the film.


Yup. this is good advice. You'll never know for sure unless you try it...and in this case, there is little downside risk. You might loose a couple hundred dollars but, you can reckon that against the education & experienced gained.

Go for it and have fun!

[docw]

I started in 4x5, which I still use quite a bit, but I also got an 8x10 about 10 years ago. I had a few used and somewhat shaky cheapies (like an old B&J) but I finally got a Kodak Master View for about $1200 if I recall. You can still find them for under 2K, easily, and they are both sturdy and relatively light. A really good camera.

I tend to use only one or two lenses. I would rather move the camera than mess around with a pile of lenses. Also, I cannot imagine the cost of regular CLA maintenance on a wide range of lenses. Until very recently, my only 8x10 lens was a 14 inch (about 366mm) Commercial Ektar which is a great lens and can often be found for a very reasonable price. Both Karsh and AA used the same lens as me although their photographs are still better than mine. Maintenance is getting harder on them because fewer and fewer technicians want to work on the old Universal shutters. In any case, you don't have to sell the farm to get a decent 8x10 lens. My second 8x10 lens is a Fujinon-W 250mm f/6.7. It is very sharp and was not that expensive.

After camera and lens (and if I were you, I would start with just one lens), the main expenses will be
- film holders (NOT cheap for 8x10)
- film (hold your breath before looking). It is probably a good idea to practise with some of the "student film" (like Arista Edu which is way cheaper and pretty good I have heard)
- tripod - if you can, get a second hand carbon fibre right away and be done with it, unless you are a young lad with strength and stamina

That seems like a lot of extra expense and I suppose it is, but you will probably shoot less too. The bigger the format, the more contemplative the process, I find. Maybe it is just because of the expense, lol, or maybe an unconscious resistance to hauling around a pile of film holders. In any case, I love my 8x10 (with 5x7 back!) and I still use my 4x5.

[Neal Chaves]

There are many ways to make photographs, but the easiest and least expensive way to make an excellent photograph is with an 8X10 camera.

[docw]

There are many ways to make photographs, but the easiest and least expensive way to make an excellent photograph is with an 8X10 camera.

Neal, I agree that it is, in the long run, the least expensive way, but I bet there is gonna be some blowback over that! I will make some popcorn and wait for the sparks.

[Peter Collins]

Dear OP, why do you think such a move is an "upgrade"?

[Two23]

There are many ways to make photographs, but the easiest and least expensive way to make an excellent photograph is with an 8X10 camera.


My own experience is that the camera is the least important thing to photography. Just because I'm shooting this or that camera does not mean my images will be better (except for specialty photography such as birds in flight etc.) Some of my favorite photos have been made with my 1904 Kodak Brownie No. 2.:)


Kent in SD

[Liquid Artist]

I agree completely. If you really want to do something and are fiscally and physically able, then do it. There will come a day when you either don't have the funds, or are in poor health, or both. By then, it's too late.

I have got to agree with you,
The lady I bought my 8x10 Kodak 2D and Durst 183 from had to give it all up due to health reasons.

I myself can barely walk some days due to spinal injuries in my past, so I know that I am on borrowed time. I plan on taking advantage of it.

[v.kapoor]

I love these existentialist answers - it's inspiring! Thank you.

[Tin Can]

Yes, far better than rationalization.

Dance now!




I love these existentialist answers - it's inspiring! Thank you.

[consummate_fritterer]

Yes, far better than rationalization.

Dance now!

Yes. Not every question can be answered rationally and logically. Many can only be answered with the heart. The 'need' to do something is moderated by logical conclusions reached by careful consideration of factual data. The 'desire' to do something cannot be so coldly controlled.

If you want to do something and it harms no others, then do it. Stop questioning your heart once you've determined that desire's relative harmlessness. Nearing the 'midnight hour of winter' you'll be glad you did, or regret you didn't.

[Bernice Loui]

Or find a temporary dance partner.

Before "inve$ting" in a 8x10 outfit, consider finding a local LF photographer who would be willing to share and allow using their 8x10 camera and related film image making system. Do this over an extended amount of time can go a ways to help with the choice.

Think, try before ya buy.


Bernice



Yes, far better than rationalization.

Dance now!

[Tin Can]

Not that easy to find even in my last big city, Chicago. Now I am rural.

I started LF by DIY and asking questions on this forum in 2011.

I have learned the same way since I was very young. No mentor ever appeared in my life. I used books to learn anything. Or by riding and racing motorcycles just doing it. My father told me photography was for the ‘experts’. He also forbid motorcycles.

I started riding on a hidden bike at 16 and now at age 67 I still ride motorcycles. Carefully!

8x10 and any film camera is now way cheaper than it ever was. So I got a few. I am now building my second home Darkroom with 6 enlargers in a spare bedroom. Not rich. I live on Social Security as I did pay into the system all my life.

My new Darkroom has Beseler 2x3, CB7 4x5, 2 Elwood 5x7 for beauty and usage. An 8x10 DIY Beseler V XL conversion and a 35 mm Leitz Focomat V35. $100 SS sink. Hot press. Scanner but no inkjet.

No, I am not the greatest photographer and in fact have extreme eyesight issues. So what!

The sky will soon burn.

Dancing as fast as I can. 😍




Or find a temporary dance partner.

Before "inve$ting" in a 8x10 outfit, consider finding a local LF photographer who would be willing to share and allow using their 8x10 camera and related film image making system. Do this over an extended amount of time can go a ways to help with the choice.

Think, try before ya buy.


Bernice

[consummate_fritterer]

Or find a temporary dance partner.

Before "inve$ting" in a 8x10 outfit, consider finding a local LF photographer who would be willing to share and allow using their 8x10 camera and related film image making system. Do this over an extended amount of time can go a ways to help with the choice.

Think, try before ya buy.


Bernice

While that's excellent advice, it's not easily done.

[Drew Wiley]

Decent 8x10's now exist which don't weigh much more than your Technika. Filmholder weight and general bulk will increase. And film is much more expensive, though most of us who shoot 8x10 shoot it more carefully than even 4x5, so the overall expense is almost inherently tempered. I really enjoy the kind of visualization the larger ground-glass provides. I'm a format schizophrenic who bounces around between different cameras, depending on my mood and the kind of subject matter involved, and alas, at times my budget too. I also like the extra pack weight of an 8x10 system for its exercise value.
I shot roll film this past weekend with a specific film test in mind, but had to carry two different MF camera systems as well as the big Ries wooden tripod to get the weight up to where I need it for conditioning. Backpacking season is rapidly approaching. BUT ... if you want to enlarge 8x10 film rather than just contact-printing it, you need significantly more darkroom space, especially ceiling height, than for 4x5 work.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 is a blast!
If you thought 4x5 is slow, 8x10 is even slower yet, but it is fun! Especially if you like contact printing. Composing on an 8x10 gg is an almost mystical experience.
Sure it's more expensive, but you can do this on a budget.
Sure everything is heavier and more bulky and logistics is a challenge if you venture beyond 100' from your car, and interaction with other people and wildlife somehow takes a more bizarre turns when you're sugar-anting an 8x10, big tripod and stack of Life Magazine sized film holders around the mountains, beach or marsh.
Sort of like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9t-slLl30E

Go for it!

[Bruce Watson]

If I had better health and tons of money, I'd upgrade to 8x10. That's as succinctly as I can state my opinion, as the matter pertains to me. As it pertains to you, I haven't a clue.

When I had better health and had the money, I tried to justify the jump from 5x4 to 10x8. But I couldn't justify it. The extra weight, the extra cost, the loss of resolution due living in the diffraction zone, etc...

My conclusion was that the only way to justify it was to want to print contact prints. 10x8 excels at contact printing, no question. But if you're going to be making enlargements, 5x4 excels at that, and up to pretty darn large prints too (10x is typically no problem at all). And if you're going to be scanning, again 5x4 wins.

But of course, that was only true for what I was doing, and the workflow I wanted to use. As Consummate_fritterer says, "As it pertains to you, I haven't a clue."

[Drew Wiley]

I think 4X is pushing your luck for really crisp prints. As far as scanning goes, the bottleneck is how you're going to print the thing - inkjet can't equal laser prints or optimized optical enlargements; and in the case of the latter, 8x10 can be conspicuously better than 4x5. I say "can" mainly because there's quite a learning curve to managing depth of field issues in 8x10 work compared to 4x5. My take on it is that 4x5 is in fact more versatile; but when size matters, size
matters. And then there's the all-important Fun Coefficient to think about. Some of us really enjoy working with 8X10. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with Bruce about qualitative loss due to diffraction. Sure it's gonna kick in a bit at f/45 versus f/22; but heck, if you know how to keep your film flat, you've got four times the surface area with 8x10, so the overall effect can be distinctly more detailed if that is what you are seeking... whatever; it's all good.

[BradS]

I remember setting up the big Tachihara, focusing, adjusting the movements, refocusing, checking the light, setting the aperture and shutter speed, making sure the preview lever was in the closed position....exercising the shutter....and just at the moment that I was ready to pull the dark slide and make the exposure....I'd think, is this really worth $3.00 (just for the sheet of film) ? and stop...paralyzed. Then i'd take it down, pack it up and move on....eventually, I just wouldn't set it up...and then, I just left the whole 8x10 kit at home. I think I made fewer than 25 8x10 negatives total. Most are portraits of my kids.

I am perfectly content with 4x5 and 35mm....oh,and one 6x9 folder that i should probably sell.

But (!) the OP needs to feel this, to experience this for himself.

[Drew Wiley]

You were hedging over a $3 per sheet for 8x10 film ?? I can identify with that fear because 8x10 color film plus processing now costs about $30 a pop. But 3 bucks is currently 4x5 black and white territory. It's all relative. More shots doesn't necessarily equal better shots. Sometimes I just like looking through the big ground glass of the 8x10. Then I'll pause ... is this REALLY a shot that's worthy of being printed? If not, I still get a kick out of "pretend composition".

[BradS]

You were hedging over a $3 per sheet for 8x10 film ?? I can identify with that fear because 8x10 color film plus processing now costs about $30 a pop. But 3 bucks is currently 4x5 black and white territory. It's all relative. More shots doesn't necessarily equal better shots. Sometimes I just like looking through the big ground glass of the 8x10. Then I'll pause ... is this REALLY a shot that's worthy of being printed? If not, I still get a kick out of "pretend composition".

Yeah...foolishness , I know. Especially, when compared to the cost and effort to get to a place.
it's funny because I have no such qualms (and never have had) about exposing a sheet or four of 4x5.


...then too, things change with time. we grow older, more mature, maybe a little wiser. Perspective changes.
I think about all the money I wasted chasing cameras...only to end up with what I started out with.

I go out for breakfast with my son every Saturday morning...nothing special, same local diner we've been going to for 20 years (since before he was born)...He has pancakes and bacon, I have eggs, sausage and hash browns, we both have plenty of coffee...with tip, it cost $40 and I wouldn't much care if it were $100.

[Drew Wiley]

Well I did stockpile into the freezer quite a bit of 8x10 film when it was about a third of the current price. But this year I've shot only black and white in 8X10,
with just a little 4x5 color shooting. I have way too many color negs and chromes to print already, and I'm currently infatuated with the 300EDIF on my Pentax 6x7. Incredible lens. Really want to get up to Sonora Pass area with it for a few days, and try to get a bit of altitude conditioning before backpacking season in Sept. What is killing me now is the price of museum board. I'm behind about 200 silver prints in terms of drymounting. Some nasty vet bills these past few months, so just have to take it a step at a time.

[Vaughn]

I went Rolleiflex (1977) - 4x5(1979) - 5x7(1992) - 8x10(1995) - 11x14(~2013, and a new one in 2017). Still use all of them. Nice to build up the muscles and knowledge on the way up. Still learning how to best work with the 11x14.

I do alt processes with in-camera negatives. I started with carbon printing in 1992 with 4x5 negatives and easily transitioned to 5x7. Using the 8x10 camera was not a big jump from the 5x7, but making 8x10 alt prints was a bigger jump from 5x7 than going from 4x5 to 5x7.

Give 8x10 a try!

[John Kasaian]

If you're into making B&W contacts, you can do that with a pretty simple 8x10 kit. The expensive consumables will be film and chemistry. At the economical end will be x-ray film and paper negatives which may or may not satisfy you, but that will cut your costs way down, less per shot than 4x5 if $1 buys a sheet of 4x5 Arista panchro and .30 buys a sheet of 8x10 Fuji x-ray if you want to shoot x-ray film.

[p-trick]

I don’t have any experience with 8x10, but there is something about this discussion I find surprising.

One of the things that I like about using different formats is the difference in what can and cannot be done aesthetically.

With larger formats I frame differently, adopt different postions, and (most importantly) use sharpness/unsharpness differently. The quality of out-of-focus parts of an image is very different in larger formats. For me, this would be one of the reasons to try 8x10 at least once. (And larger contactprints with alt-processes)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ben Calwell]

I had a fling with 8x10, but never got the kind of results I was hoping for. For me, there was never a "wow -- look at that" moment with 8x10. For the added weight, cost and fuss of 8x10 over 4x5 (and 5x7, which I've also shot), it wasn't worth it to me. In the photos I produced, I didn't see much difference between an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 print made from a 4x5 negative. Of course, I'm no Ansel Adams, either. I did, however, enjoy composing scenes on the bigger ground glass.

[Jim Graves]

I did 4x5 for several years and now do mostly 8x10 ... but ONLY because I do carbon contact printing with in-camera negatives primarily. I also did a toe in the water try of 11x14 but found it way too inhibiting.

I would say try 8x10 but keep your 4x5 gear for regular shooting. Going up in size inhibits use and drastically reduces your shooting production. The ease of use, variety of films, variety of lenses, cost differential, etc., etc. of 4x5 ... is exponential in the amount of good shooting you end up doing. Easily 90% of the best shots I have are 4x5s. Why? Because it is so much easier to get out in the field and use it.

If I'm heading out and am not sure what I'll be shooting, I take the 4x5 ... if I find something great ... I go back with the 8x10. Even then, I often find that the 4x5 shots are better than the 8x10 ... and ... I can use the 4x5 negative in an enlarger and crop and adjust to my heart's content. Of course, if you're scanning and digitally printing you can crop and adjust too ... but I guarantee you won't have as many negatives to work from if you're shooting 8x10 as you would if you were shooting 4x5.

All that being said ... hey, it's a hobby ... have some fun and try it!

[Luis-F-S]

Hi all,

I have been shooting LF for about a year - a Linhof Master Classic. It's a beautiful camera.
I'm tempted to move up to 8x10. I think the lure of looking through such large ground glass has me under its spell!

What's your opinion on the upgrade, especially now as things become more and more expensive?
Lens, film, processing, etc.

Thank you!

I'd shoot 4x5 for another 5 years and then decide. If expense is a concern, I'd stick to 4x5 or at best 5x7. I shot 4x5 for years, but haven't shot any for well over 10-15 years. I shoot mostly 8x10 or 135, if I want something smaller, I generally go to 57. My 45 camera is actually a 57 (V5), so there is no size savings there and since I have both 45 and 810 enlargers, negative size is not an issue. But again, if cost is a factor, I'd stick with 45, plus the fact that most folks contact 810 which may or may not suit your fancy.

[LabRat]

If you are new to large format, today's main reason for it is to not just machine gun a subject (with seemingly endless chip space),but slow down and concentrate on a "one sheet/one shot mentality, and yes any LF format will slow you down plenty...

Then there is the "bigger is better" mentality, but has been well pointed out in this post that there are trade offs as one goes larger...

Keep shooting the 4x5 for now, because if you can't get good results from it, you won't if you go larger...

The Tek is a good camera, but very hard to get the most out of the movements if you don't know what movements to apply from experience first... A monorail is a much better learning tool as you try different movements as you watch the GG... I think movements are my best reason for LF, and I have seen where larger formats do not respond as well when they are applied...

And as mentioned, enlarging bigger LF films open bigger cans of worms...

Steve K

[Jim Andrada]

I started with 5 x 7 about 50 years ago and it's still my favorite. I have a couple of nice 4 x 5's and a couple of 8 x 10's. The 8 x 10 is fun but it isn't enough bigger than the 5 x 7. I think I'd really like a vertical 7 x 17 or 8 x 20, but realistically I'll stick with the 5 x 7 and 4 x 5. I often think that Whole Plate (6 1/2 x 8 1/2) would be ideal.

[Tim Stahl]

I have a love hate relationship with 8x10. I love using the camera, composing the image, thinking about how to make the image better, the technical challenges, dropping the negatives on a light table and looking at them, enlarging 8x10 vs 4x5 or 120 (6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12) is a joy. I really enjoy printing 8x10 more than the other formats using an enlarger. I hate the cost, the decreasing film emulsions available, the weight and size when travelling. After nearly being arrested (twice) going through TSA to get on a plane and telling them in no uncertain terms could they open or x-ray a number of boxes coming on the plane with me, I just mail the film to locations where I will be travelling and mail the film from there to a processor for color, or back home in the case of B&W. I feel that for most of the images I make (mostly landscape and some still life), 8x10 has allowed me to produce a better print. This has all been in a wet darkroom with an optical enlarger onto fiber paper. I am beginning to explore scanning and digital output. Yes, I'm one of those guys who never accepted digital for the purpose of making my art. I am slowly coming around to it, particularly for color. I still believe that film is a better capture method for me than digital, but it is hard to argue with the results of digital output. Going the digital route, I am not seeing a massive difference between 4x5 and 8x10 for prints under 24"x30". This could be for any number of reasons, I'm still in the learning stage with digital. I have a feeling that in the future I will shoot less 8x10 due to the digital output changing the way I capture the image. 6x12 become an interesting choice because it allows one roll film holder instead of a stack of film holders, it allows me to more easily go through TSA at the airport, it allows me to continue to use the 4x5 camera for perspective control, and it is darn near the size of 4x5... and if digital output is used to create the end product... well, it works. I am kind of warming up to the wider format of 6x12 as well. HOWEVER, at the end of the day, for B&W, I still enjoy using the 8x10.

[Drew Wiley]

Most of you won't relate to this, but when it comes to pure darkroom color printing, 8x10 polyester film allows much more precise, consistent registration of masks etc than smaller film. This of course carries over into those who do masking of black and white images. The digital equivalents just don't ring quite as true.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Do not do it.

[Richard Rau]

The price of 8x10 film certainly should be a determining factor, especially if you plan on shooting a lot. What Drew said, "What is killing me now is the price of museum board." I wholeheartedly agree with. This, of course, is applicable to any format you shoot, IF you plan on enlarging, mounting, matting and displaying your work. What was affordable for me 40 years ago, has become a rich man's sport, especially if you like the way your prints look matted with 8 ply board. But certainly you can use 4 ply as well, as most folks probably use. And enlarging your work will only exasperate the cost when it comes to displaying your work. (Not much discussion about the cost of finishing your photographs in the forum, but it is a consideration.) I use 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10, and for me, my go-to format is 5x7. To me the quality of the finished photograph is hard to discern between a 5x7 and an 8x10 neg. Smaller, lighter, and less expensive. But if your heart is set on 8x10 and enlarging your prints, there's a lot more cost associated with it. But then again, as almost everyone on this forum would agree with, an 8x10 contact can be a thing of beauty!

[John Kasaian]

Do not do it.

On the contrary, do it while you can, or your life forever after will be one vast surging regret.:cool:

[Tin Can]

I have 2 sealed boxes of 50 sheets of this https://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/RTPIIAF3-024E_1.pdf

NOT FOR SALE as it expired 1996 and was mistreated by a failed freezer. The boxes did not get wet.

In Fall Color, I will shoot a couple and send them out.

Maybe it will work...

[Drew Wiley]

Irrationality is part of the joy of photography. Just like a vacation. Plan to the best of your ability, take what you need, and then forget and simply enjoy.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

When I hear this question what comes to my mind is how are you going to print? You should already know that everything will be much more expensive and should have done a lot of research before you ask the question. Many of you know that my smallest size is 8x10. Now I only print carbon transfer from the negatives I produce. So when I want a bigger print I shoot a bigger camera. If you contact print by all means go for it if you enlarge keep the 4x5 and get on with it. My .02.

[tgtaylor]

I don't think that the price of museum board is overboard - in fact it is fairly reasonable considering the other cost involved in arriving to that point. I mount 16x13 and 17x14 on 4-ply Rising depending on the printing. I have 5 32x40 8-ply Rising board that I haven't used so far but when I do I'll use a 4-ply for the back board and 8-ply for the window. The cost breakdown (at today's non-sale prices) would be $2.91 for the back and $7.34 for the window or $10.25 for the print. That's less than the cost for the Nielsen frame and when you consider the time and cost to find the image, develop the negative and to make the print, it becomes almost inconsequential.

Thomas

[Leszek Vogt]

@OP. It seems that you have some choices.

1) Obtain 8x10 + lens/es. You can progress to enlarger/wet/contact printing or using a scanner.

2) 8x10 + one film holder + one lens = smaller scale and determine your way of printing.

3) Contact someone with an 8x10 and arrange an outing or two...may require of you taking a small vacation and maybe even a payment for your request (?). Bring your Linhof with you, so you can have a reference in a later date. Perhaps the person will allow you short training on the nuances and even provide/lend a film holder for this practice run.

Who knows, 8x10 might be the size that could be more satisfying than all others. It could also open another can of worms and you'll want to experience 11x14....

My attitude is, however, that if I can't do the image with a 5x7 or smaller film/digi, I probably couldn't enhance it with larger format/s.

Anyway, good luck deciding.

Les

[Drew Wiley]

Thomas - I was buying 30X40 sheets of Rising 4-ply for around eight bucks. That's was in full ctns and wholesale. So what you're talking about is actually the huge markup taken by art stores or even so-called discount distributors. I also bought my Nielsen mouldings wholesale and cut them myself, not only due to vastly lower price, but due to the fact most commercial "chop" services are automated in such a manner that the cuts are often sloppy. I have explained the real problem elsewhere already. But let me repeat it. All our true framing wholesalers are gone up here despite the demand simply because the land under their warehouses is worth more than the business itself. They've evaporated to cheaper warehousing in LA, or more correctly, gone out of business while LA distributors attempt to grow; so now I just gotta get around to reestablishing an account with someone. There is a big so-so priced matboard distributor in Santa Rosa, but they carry Strathmore and Crescent ragboard, not my preferred Rising. But I'll look into them too, and see if they can give me a volume break, since they are reasonably nearby. So Thomas, hang a whole show of big prints, crunch the numbers for all the board, backing, Plexi, and framing, and see what that scenario looks like, if you don't suffer a stroke in the process. I save about 80% doing it my way. Of course, I seem to have lost about 80% of my energy and ambition except when it comes to hiking, shooting, and printing per se. But I did shape and assemble some of my own hardwood mouldings recently.

[MAubrey]

@OP, my two cents.

If you're interested in analogue print-making, formats larger than 5x7 become more useful when you have limited access (or no access) to an enlarger.

[Drew Wiley]

Enlarging 8x10's is simply the best kind of enlarging as far as I'm concerned. Contact printing can be rewarding, but having big negs worthy of big prints or wonderfully detailed and nuanced smaller prints just adds a whole other dimension of possibilities. You do realistically need more darkroom space.

[MAubrey]

Enlarging 8x10's is simply the best kind of enlarging as far as I'm concerned. Contact printing can be rewarding, but having big negs worthy of big prints or wonderfully detailed and nuanced smaller prints just adds a whole other dimension of possibilities. You do realistically need more darkroom space.

Absolutely. My point is simply if you have an enlarger for 4x5, then a million things are instantly simpler, weigh less, and easier to transport. The only reason I shoot 11x14 is because I don't have an enlarger at all and I want to print. If I did have an enlarger, I'd be shooting a lot more 4x5 and 5x7 than I do. Scanning negatives takes the fun out of things.

[Jim Noel]

I started with a 4x5 SPeed Graphic about 75 years ago. When working in a camera store in junior high school I fell in love with 5x7 resulting in the purchase of a 57 Deardorff in 1940 which I still have and use. I don't remember when I decided I must have an 8x10, but I have owned several. As I got into my 70's I moved to a lighter 8x10. About this time I acquired a 7x17. This is the camera I loved most and hated to get rid of, but at 85 I sold it and replaced with a 5x12. Throughout my life I have used each of the formats for different purposes, and still do. I'll be 90 in a few months and hope to still be using each of these cameras as appropriate. If I have to begin cutting down the last to go will be the 5x7,just after the 5x12.
I prefer the larger sizes because most of my prints are alternatively printed. I still have both the 4x5 and 5x7 enlargers, but neither gets turned on very often.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I started with a 4x5 SPeed Graphic about 75 years ago. When working in a camera store in junior high school I fell in love with 5x7 resulting in the purchase of a 57 Deardorff in 1940 which I still have and use. I don't remember when I decided I must have an 8x10, but I have owned several. As I got into my 70's I moved to a lighter 8x10. About this time I acquired a 7x17. This is the camera I loved most and hated to get rid of, but at 85 I sold it and replaced with a 5x12. Throughout my life I have used each of the formats for different purposes, and still do. I'll be 90 in a few months and hope to still be using each of these cameras as appropriate. If I have to begin cutting down the last to go will be the 5x7,just after the 5x12.
I prefer the larger sizes because most of my prints are alternatively printed. I still have both the 4x5 and 5x7 enlargers, but neither gets turned on very often.

Jim, you are my inspiration to keep the ULF going! Keep at it my friend!

[jnantz]

Hi all,

I have been shooting LF for about a year - a Linhof Master Classic. It's a beautiful camera.
I'm tempted to move up to 8x10. I think the lure of looking through such large ground glass has me under its spell!

What's your opinion on the upgrade, especially now as things become more and more expensive?
Lens, film, processing, etc.

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts who made the jump and had the same sentiments as me.

Thank you!


hi v.kapoor:

it is a question with a lot of answers.
and more questions..
8x10 is a lot of fun to use, there really is nothing like
a giant negative ( except for a bigger negative but that's a different thread )
the first couple of questions has to do with the extra stuff you need after
you get an 8x10 body, cause that's pretty much it, the box ..
lenses can cost a bit, unless you dont' mind "vintage" which can be a little less expensive .
the tripod is a bit bigger and head ( separate usually ) .. and film holders ..
granted these things might be available on the used market or here in the classifides
( or other classifides ) but maybe not the stuff you "yearn for" or maybe it is ?
not sure what kind of photographs you make but if you travel with a camera, sometimes
it can be big pain to haul all this bigger stuff around, maybe not ?
and the paranoia that the film wasn't exposed right ( if its color maybe that was a lot of $$
if it was expired film, less $$ if other "stuff" ... ) there's the processing it can be not easy to
develop 8x10 panchromatic film .. deep tanks and hangers, shuffle in a tray, in a tube
send out .. and then there is the non panchromatic stuff which makes it a little more affordable ..
photo paper instead of film makes great negatives and it is cheap, xray film too ... and hand coated
paper from bottled or hand made or alternative process emulsions ..
nothing's "cheep" you already know with 4x5, but even less cheep in 8x10 ..
that all said, its not hard to cobble togehter a 8x10 camera and lens for less than a few hundred dollars
( and a holder or 2 ) a tripod might cost a few bucks ( surveyors trips and a bolt are usually not too much $$ )
and xray film and paper negatives can be dirt cheep which makes it all worth the innitial hassle of
buying big to begin with.
have fun !
john

[Tin Can]

john

been a while since i read your links

excellent 😎

i am inspired

[Jim Graves]

OK ... we haven't heard from the OP, v.kapoor, for a couple of weeks now ... where are you located?

Maybe we can hook you up with an 8x10 and let you have a go with one of our cameras.

Jim in Sacramento

[Peter Collins]

Jim Noel--
WOW!!

[v.kapoor]

Hey all,

Man! This thread has really taken off. I love all these viewpoints. Thanks for everyone's insight!

Jim Graves- I live in Los Angeles.

[Jim Noel]

Jim, you are my inspiration to keep the ULF going! Keep at it my friend!

Thanks Jim.

[jnantz]

john

been a while since i read your links

excellent 😎

i am inspired

thanks randy ! 8D

[William Whitaker]

Unless you want to contact print in that size or if you have portrait lenses that were intended for 8x10, there just isn't a valid photographic reason that I can think of why you would want to switch to 8x10.

Everything is more expensive. Takes up 3x as much space and weighs 4x as much. I know because I made the jump many years ago. My rationale was similar to everyone else's. I wanted the bigger negative. Romantic notions often took the form of, "Well, if it was good enough for Eddie (Weston) [or Ansel or Morley or *pick your favorite*]", then it's good enough for me. Damn the cost! There's tradition here!

Honestly, if you ever have any doubts about the 4x5 format, take a look again at the work of John Sexton or Alan Ross. I was fortunate many years back in that I was able to attend workshops with each of those guys and was just blown away by the capabilities of "little old" 4x5 in the hands of a true master.

For one thing, you're not limited to an 8x10 print (8x10 enlarger notwithstanding...that's an advance level of insanity). Some images simply seem to demand a certain print size and shape and being able to enlarge is a valuable tool.

Now, I'm sounding about like the biggest hypocrite that ever walked the face of this earth. I have hammered away at the 8x10 format for 25 years. And I admit I love using it and am fully seduced by the romance of the big ground glass. And I love shallow depth of field. And hauling mountains of gear with me in a car that's too small for it all...

Ok, well not the last. But the big ground glass thing is very real. In its advanced stages this disease causes irrational purchases of bigger and bigger formats. ULF becomes the next frontier where bigger is better. And one develops a fascination with historic lenses, leading to further monetary issues. Schneider-itis ain't nothin' compared to "Cooke-itis" or "Pinkham & Smith-itis".
"Well, I've got an 8x10...
So if I use it in the way it was intended...
Then I need this lens!"

As if GAS wasn't already a concern with avocation of photography in any format!

Think about what you want to accomplish photographically. Think about your budget (and no cheating!!)

And think about your ceiling height, because you're going to want, nay, need! an 8x10 enlarger eventually!

And you'll get one...

[Drew Wiley]

I personally don't give a hoot about tradition. For me, 8x10 is about addiction! I love shooting 4x5 too, as well as MF. But
one needs a valid excuse for having at least one room with a high ceiling, and I can't think of a better one.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I personally don't give a hoot about tradition. For me, 8x10 is about addiction!

There is a program for that.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm incapable of sitting cross-legged in an anonymous circle sharing about having once been traumatized by evaporating pixels. And I actually do most of my 8x10 printing in a slightly lower than normal height room using a 12X12 cold light mounted onto a modified Durst 138. It's perfectly adequate for up to 20x24 black and white prints with a 305 lens. Only the big 8x10 color enlargers need the high ceiling. I like the smaller room in winter because it's so easy to get warm and cozy.
My 5x7 color enlarger is also in there.

[Tin Can]

My new DR is 10 ft high. Right now I am thinking about how to rig something to hoist my wall mount Beseler 45V-XL 8X10 converrsion to sit at 41".

It's not that heavy, but I doubt I can place it on the bottom mount AND fasten it down.

A current idea is a boat winch bolted to the bottom of it and feed the strap through it to a skyhook.

Hoisted by its own petard.

[Drew Wiley]

I have a boat winch for just lifting my big 8x10 custom colorhead to replace bulbs. I made the colorhead out of 1/2-inch thick phenolic Garolite - heavy dense stuff. The whole enlarger was engineered to not flinch in an earthquake. The Durst 184 and its colorhead sitting next to it looks tiny by comparison; but it's all bolted securely too. I don't know what your definition of a "skyhook" is in that part of the country. Around here it was something you added to a list of things you wanted an annoying assistant to go fetch, along with a metric Crescent wrench and left-handed monkey wrench. I'd also hand them a lag bolt without the head cut (still round), and ask them to buy it in volume down the road somewhere.

[Tin Can]

Same all over. I always sent my helper for more bolts. For over a year he always got one, until I made it very clear time is money, bolts are cheap, bring 3 times what I ask for.

For a few years, the bolts were often 'bad' as in not usable. They were breaking all over the huge factory. Some bean counter got a deal. We had to toss that vender and restock our also huge tool crib.

Injuries, time and money.

[Drew Wiley]

Same with imported rebar and nails about a decade ago. Worthless. And now the last two US manufacturers capable of making quality nails are in distinct risk of going under due to steel tariffs. There simply are not sufficient domestic sources for necessary raw material anymore, nor is there likey to be anytime soon. Ironic, but most of our scrap steel gets exported across the Pacific then is sent back as manufactured substandard product. Huge shipping costs back and forth, lots of pollution at our ports, and nobody gains except the middlemen - the dozen or so parasitic brokers who totally monopolize that particular commodity. I met with one of them a few times, a "Suit" for sure - not a bean counter, but the guy who swindles the real beans from the bean counters. I could have tripled my income bootlegging Korean rebar, but the tortoise usually wins the race in the long run while the jackrabbit languishes in jail for taking bribes. The giant cost overruns having to redo parts of the Bay Bridge are a good lesson in why not to seek exemptions from strict domestic bolt specifications. Had to shut down our substantial power tool repair dept just before I retired because all the domestic tool brands are now Chinese mfg and not worth repairing. Even when you can get replacement parts, things like screws and switches almost immediately fail.
A big industrial drill model that would go twenty or thirty years before needing even a minor repair now doesn't last even two weeks, sometimes not even twenty minutes. The darn bean counter doesn't even know which end the drill bit fits in, or care.
And yeah, the first thing I did with at least one wooden folder view camera was replace the screws, bolts, n' nuts with something of known quality. Didn't want to have to go to the hardware store for a tap or die afterwards, then have those
junky things themselves break right and left! (McMaster stocks good ones, for those of you who have bothered following this
rant).

[Jim Noel]

My suggestion to the originator of his thread is to borrow or rent an 8x10. Use it for about a month, even a weekend is better than nothing, give the format a serious try and then decide whether you want to buy one or not.

[Drew Wiley]

I dunno. It does take awhile to learn to re-visualize and manage depth of field when converting from 4x5 to 8x10, not to mention strategizing the bulk. Ya kinda gotta jump in and not just wiggle your toes in the water. 8x10 is not just a big 4x5.
Nowadays you can buy fairly lightweight highly portable 8x10's, but you still need to rethink the whole system. A tripod which is adequate for 4x5 might be almost useless for even a lightwt 8x10. And if you're a machine-gunner, you better be both rich and have an elephant and mahout to carry your holders. It's a format that rewards a contemplative pace. But at a certain point you get comfortable with your equipment and operate intuitively. Then it really gets fun.

[pgk]

It ..... rewards a contemplative pace. But at a certain point you get comfortable with your equipment and operate intuitively. Then it really gets fun.

This excellent statement could also be applied to a lot of different areas of photography and it is oh so true. It appears to me that there is all too often a preponderance for changing gear whilst often equipment actually takes a considerable time to evaluate, get to know and appreciate, and then finally to use effectively. Well said.

[LabRat]

So, the OP just got a very nice Linhof recently and is looking at a larger camera... I agree with others that suggest jumping on the learning curve and getting going first...

Read the faq's on the home page carefully about magic bullets...

And if you want to do color, you better do a cost analysis beforehand... Or this new thing might end up being expensive prop decoration at your place...

Not trying to be negative, just real...

Steve K

[John Earley]

I agree completely. If you really want to do something and are fiscally and physically able, then do it. There will come a day when you either don't have the funds, or are in poor health, or both. By then, it's too late.
This is so true. As much as photography is a cerebral endeavor, when it is large format photography it is also a very physical activity. And although it is now mostly vintage equipment, the cost grows quickly. Do it if you have the funds. You can recoup almost all if you change your mind later on.

[campy]

I have the opportunity to buy an 8x10 Calumet C1 along with a Dagor 10 3/4 in. f6.8 and 4 film holders for $450. I am just dabbling back into film with a Wista 45DX and a recently purchased Hasselblad 500 C/M. I have the 4x5 enlarger but not the darkroom to take full advantage. I don't want to cover my windows permanently and to put something up every time I want to print is a pita. I would love to buy it, but honestly it would be wasted on me.

[Alan Gales]

I have the opportunity to buy an 8x10 Calumet C1 along with a Dagor 10 3/4 in. f6.8 and 4 film holders for $450. I am just dabbling back into film with a Wista 45DX and a recently purchased Hasselblad 500 C/M. I have the 4x5 enlarger but not the darkroom to take full advantage. I don't want to cover my windows permanently and to put something up every time I want to print is a pita. I would love to buy it, but honestly it would be wasted on me.

When I was young and lived with my parents, my room was in the basement. It was what was then called a "Mother in law's quarters" and included a kitchenette. I had a refrigerator to store paper and a sink to use. I had three windows to cover so I just hang blankets over the curtain rods and only printed at night. I used Unicolor drums for Cibachrome printing. It wasn't too bad a hassle and it worked fine.

I've heard of people building light weight frames and covering them with opaque material. They would just hang the frames over the windows when needed. It would be quick but you would have to have room to store the frames. Post your problem on the forum and someone may have a better solution. As they say, there is usually more than one way to skin a cat.

[tgtaylor]

Walmart sells darkroom curtains (white on one side and black on the other) with loops to open and close that work and the L shaped rods for cheap - like $50 to cover a 6.5 x 4 foot window down to the floor.

Thomas

[v.kapoor]

Ok! I made the plunge and purchased a Canham 8x10 used. It's an older model, so I need a Toyo lensboard and a good first lens. I'm thinking a 300mm?
Does Toyo make 8x10 film holders, and if not sholud I go for Fidelity/Elite?
Any thoughts welcome.

Scared, but excited.

[Leigh]

...so I need a Toyo lensboard and a good first lens. I'm thinking a 300mm?
Does Toyo make 8x10 film holders, and if not sholud I go for Fidelity/Elite?
Congrats. 300mm is the "standard" lens for 8x10, just as 150mm is standard for 4x5.

I believe TOYO does make 8x10 holders, but most of my holders are Fidelity Elites. They're fine.

- Leigh

[Two23]

Any of the more modern holders will fit. I buy all holders used, either from here or ebay.


Kent in SD

[Len Middleton]

Ok! I made the plunge and purchased a Canham 8x10 used. It's an older model, so I need a Toyo lensboard and a good first lens. I'm thinking a 300mm?
Does Toyo make 8x10 film holders, and if not sholud I go for Fidelity/Elite?
Any thoughts welcome.

Scared, but excited.

Either 300mm (approx 12") or 360mm (approx. 14") I would be consider a normal lens on the format, although most of mine are 360mm / 14".

To provide some perspective, my most frequently used lens on 4x5 is 210mm, so I use typically a slightly longer than normal viewpoint...

Hope that helps,

Len

[pepeguitarra]

I would say, go for it. Buy an Intrepid 8x10, it is cheap, light and you can carry it to places. I am going to do it, as I will only care for B&W and 8x10s. In fact, there is a group asking The Intrepid Co. people to do the enlarger for 8x10. You will be able to enlarge with your camera and projecting on the wall of a room in your house if you want to go large. Do not stop, go for your feelings. One day we all are going to die and you will not be able to do what you like, do it now. I am 66 and feel like 21 with this hobby. Oh, I forgot: Get some money, those color negs are expensive. Go B&W.

PS: I already have an 8x10 pinhole camera that I built. I have done some shots, developed it myself and scanned it with my Epson V800.Here is a pic of my 4x5 pinhole camera taken with my 8x10:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/825/41737648212_1014b04607_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/26AdmGm)My 4x5 Pinhole Camera (https://flic.kr/p/26AdmGm) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

[Pere Casals]

What's your opinion on the upgrade, especially now as things become more and more expensive?
Lens, film, processing, etc.

-> think twice before buying the gear, lenses in special, you can spend way more in 4x5" if you want, you need clear ideas about the glass you want.

> tripod, one for 810 is a serious tripod, place a toy laser pointer in the front to evaluate vibrations of the spot 20m far

> film, usually you shot less sheets but shots are usually well worth... from cost, preparation, etc you may be shooting 1/4 of the sheets you would shot with 4x5, so film has the same cost :)

[John Layton]

My only problem with this thread is its premise...that a move from 4x5 to 8x10 would necessarily be considered an "upgrade." Of course this move could rightly be (or become) an upgrade for some folks...but not for others. And indeed, for some, the reverse (8x10 to 4x5) might be an "upgrade" depending upon a whole host of factors, variables, and results. Might I suggest that the term "transitioning" could be more relevant?

[Louis Pacilla]

I would say, go for it. Buy an Intrepid 8x10, it is cheap, light and you can carry it to places. I am going to do it, as I will only care for B&W and 8x10s. In fact, there is a group asking The Intrepid Co. people to do the enlarger for 8x10. You will be able to enlarge with your camera and projecting on the wall of a room in your house if you want to go large. Do not stop, go for your feelings. One day we all are going to die and you will not be able to do what you like, do it now. I am 66 and feel like 21 with this hobby. Oh, I forgot: Get some money, those color negs are expensive. Go B&W.

PS: I already have an 8x10 pinhole camera that I built. I have done some shots, developed it myself and scanned it with my Epson V800.Here is a pic of my 4x5 pinhole camera taken with my 8x10:

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/825/41737648212_1014b04607_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/26AdmGm)My 4x5 Pinhole Camera (https://flic.kr/p/26AdmGm) by Palenquero Photography (https://www.flickr.com/photos/palenquero/), on Flickr

Pepe the OP reported back to say he just bought a Canham Wood Standard (W/ Toyo lens boards) he's no longer looking for "which 8x10 camera to buy".

BTW- Nice pinhole camera you made.

[Pere Casals]

My only problem with this thread is its premise...that a move from 4x5 to 8x10 would necessarily be considered an "upgrade." Of course this move could rightly be (or become) an upgrade for some folks...but not for others. And indeed, for some, the reverse (8x10 to 4x5) might be an "upgrade" depending upon a whole host of factors, variables, and results. Might I suggest that the term "transitioning" could be more relevant?

I feel you are right, more a transitioning than an upgrade, while 810 would be a moderate upgrade in ultimate image quality for moster prints, for the rest it's a transitioning, and of course 8x10 has many drawbacks compared to 4x5. IMHO 45 and 810 may have slightly different aesthetic footprints, and at least it may be a transition in the way we approach to the subject.

[Tin Can]

For me, 4X5 IS good enough for most artistic purposes.

But it ultimately leads to enlarging or scanning.

8X10 and up is very good for contact prints.

And requires less gear...and room.

Process film and prints in the same trays.

Smaller total footprint.

[John Olsen]

Since the OP has already made his choice, I'll only pipe in with my retrospective thought: I found that my Deardorff 8x10 was great for grand, open landscapes and vistas. But I seem to be drawn personally to tighter spaces, in the woods or in historic sites, where I rarely achieved my goals with the larger camera. Over 30 years I had problems with the sheer size and weight of it, the cost of lenses and film, short depth of field, and the general clunkiness of operation. The Toyo 4x5 and Hasselblad were my workhorses, returning satisfying images on nearly every outing. My 8x10 is now living in Chicago with a new owner, who I hope is having a great time with it. So my advice to the OP is to enjoy your Canham, but be very selective in where you try to use it.

[Greg]

When I was a student at RIT in the 1970s, got a super deal on an 8x10 Burke & James wooden view and a 12 inch Wollensak Velostigmat lens in a Betax shutter. Couple of film holders and a spot meter forum locally in Rochester at great prices. My mentor was Nile Root. Under him pursued an independent study course in learning the ZONE System and using the 8x10. His advice to me:
1. First learn the ZONE System as per in the book PHOTOGRAPHY: CONTROL & CREATIVITY by T L Bollman & G E DeWolfe. Pages 1-19 "Exposure and Development for Contrast Control in Black and White Photograph" Fortunately George DeWolfe was on staff at RIT at the time so was able to spend some one on one time with him.
2. Use only one film, with one developer, and one brand of VC paper. Paper size was easy since I was contacting all my prints.
3. Stick with one lens (that 12" Wollensak in my case) and shoot exclusively with it for one year. Advice hard to follow since we could sign out, for free, many other lenses from the "cage".
I pass this on since it was to be the basis of an almost 50 year quest as a photographer... was a very firm foundation to build upon for all these years.

[DrTang]

Commercial Ektar - 12 or 14 inch


'nuff said

[Certain Exposures]

[ I removed this because I just noticed you specifically asked for opinions from people who made the jump. ]

[gary mulder]

Once upon a time I had a Sinar p2 8x10 and the money to buy boxes of Polaroid. Oh Boy that was a treatment :rolleyes: But I also remember dragging a heavy weight through Italian mud in Tuscany. :(

[Tin Can]

My V4 810 Intrepid is far lighter than most of my 8X10 boxes

Film holders are the real big diff

I like good wood 8X10 holders only in wood cameras

as it wears less

and plastic holders in metal cameras are more compatible

[Salmo22]

I've had the good fortune of making photographs with a friends 8x10. Compared to my 4x5, I found it a superior experience. Don't get me wrong, I very much enjoy making photographs with my 4x5. But an image being projected onto the ground glass of an 8x10 is magical - at least it was to me. Down the road, I'll get an 8x10 and put my 4x5 into mothballs for a time. Making contact prints with an 8x10 and enlargements of my 6x6 negatives is the stuff of my dreams.