Is the 5x7 format endangered? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Michael Kadillak

25-Feb-2019, 19:22

I’ve been hearing this about 5x7 for 20 years +/-. What’s your evidence? I can get film immediately from BH. Of course, I’m black and white only—don’t know and don’t care about color.

Agree completely with Keith. Go back in the archives and look at the identical fear mongering in the mid to late 1990's that was writing the obituary for 5x7 and look at what happened? Not only did 5x7 survive, it is doing just fine. Recent statistics show that a large percentage of sheet film users are younger new entrants to the LF world and they are the drivers to the upswing in film sales. Stop worrying and keep shooting.

Corran

25-Feb-2019, 19:27

Just bought a 5x7 camera though I haven't shot anything serious with it yet.

I've called it a dead format before and for those shooting color it basically is. There's some b&w film emulsions unavailable as well. I'm interested in a smaller contact print so will be doing that only. The camera I bought is a newly-manufactured 3D printed camera and I plan on using nothing but a 72mm XL lens.

Jim Noel

25-Feb-2019, 19:34

I have had 5x7 cameras since the 1950's. periodically the film has always been difficult to locate. as a result, when I have found it, I have bought a year's supply in each order. Currently i see a plentiful supply of the films in which I am interested.

Drew Wiley

25-Feb-2019, 20:21

It's been "dead" for decades, but seems to come out of its coffin during full moons. Pity. I love the longer rectangle. Color film can be quite problematic to acquire unless you cut it down from 8x10. Clean holders are also getting hard to find. Alas, I can't afford yet another format. 4x5 film is much easier to find; and 8x10 registers much better for masking purposes etc. Still... a little bird in the back of my brain keeps chirping that a 5x7 reduction back might make a fun shop project.

Tracy Storer

25-Feb-2019, 20:21

I have sold 5-5x7 negative carriers in the last month or so, trying to decide whether to make another batch. Keith Canham orders different varieties of 5x7 film with some regularity(including color neg), and I believe it's a stock size for Ilford (but would be available in their annual ULF and weird sizes order if not).

PS: Attn Dugan: I shoot 3.25"x4.25" and know several other shooters who do as well. The Super D in that size is SO manageable compared to the 4x5, and I have a 3x4 Speed that make a very compact kit even with a nice stack of holders. I even made a reducing back for my 8x10 for "Quarter Plate" aka 3.25 x 4.25. Film through Ilford, once a year, VERY affordable !

Back to 5x7, Calumet SF used to stock 5x7 Tri-X for years after I left since I planted "the bug" in the system, it even got mentioned on here way back when.

Daniel Unkefer

25-Feb-2019, 20:30

J Lane makes 5x7 dry plates.

Bernice Loui

25-Feb-2019, 21:39

5x7 has aways been the "odd" film format size. The alternative 13x18cm was common in places like Germany.

Back in the hey day of film, 5x7 film had to be ordered for B & W or Color. With that, stocking up on film and ordering film was just part of the routine.
Been using 5x7 film since 1988, never looked back after learning on 4x5, then trying 8x10 for some time. Gave up on both and stuck with 5x7 since then.

Bernice

Eric Leppanen

25-Feb-2019, 22:20

Ilford continues to regularly stock FP4+, HP5+ and Delta 100 in 5x7. Bergger included 5x7 sheets in their recently released Pancro 400 film. Arista and Foma regularly stock 5x7 film.

Keith Canham continues to arrange group purchases of 5x7 Portra and TMY and I have not noticed any slowdown in his order tempo, aside from 5x7 Ektar which doesn't seem to be as popular. I have not heard whether group purchases of 5x7 Ektachrome are anticipated but Kodak has indicated that sheet film is coming so it may be a possibility.

Chamonix recently iterated their latest Phillips-style 5x7 camera (057Fs-2).

If film demand further softens then 5x7 film will likely become a special order item, we all know that. It is difficult to imagine it disappearing entirely unless all sheet film formats go away. I needed a larger format than 4x5 but lighter than 8x10 so I bought a 5x7 and haven't looked back. In my case 5x7 forced me to become a better color neg shooter (after shooting chrome for many years) which actually improved some of the technical aspects of my photography.

Dugan

25-Feb-2019, 22:51

Wow, glad to see the outpouring of support for 5x7!
I am restoring an Eastman 33A, and also have a Conley 5x7 and a 5x7 pinhole.

Tracy: I didn't mean to offend re: 3x4...BTW, I have a 3x4 Anny Speed that I got to shoot paper negs with.
I have a 250ft. roll of 3 1/2" Polycontrast to play with. :)

Chester McCheeserton

25-Feb-2019, 23:29

Thomas Demand called it the ultimate format...

Needing color negative film and not wanting to deal with hacking down 8x10 in the darkroom is a big pain.

Only eccentric dilettantes like us are going to use it....I switched up from 4x5 just four years ago and would never go back.

A great book I just discovered in the library, "Lewis Hine, When Innovation was King; The WPA National Research Project Photographs, 1936-37" shows Hine making spectacularly good pictures of american factory workers using a 5x7 camera. Interesting that this was the same moment Walker Evans and Edward Weston were making pictures revered as Art, but Hine is considered 'just' a social documentary photographer...

Leszek Vogt

25-Feb-2019, 23:41

Jac, you didn't clarify why you think the 5x7 is no more or sliding towards extinction.

Ha, my initial LF quest was 4x5 and the 5x7 felled into my lap. Despite a bit of a rollercaster ride, I'm holding onto the 5x7, tho depends on the subject, etc., I may consider 4x5 aesthetic, using redux back. Not goona say "never", but for some reason 8x10 didn't have all that pull....like it has on many people here. Maybe I should just jump for something bigger like 11x14, he he.

Les

Bernice Loui

25-Feb-2019, 23:42

IMO, 5x7 and/or 13x18cm is the ideal sheet film format if the image are to be enlarged to the size constraints of good quality B&W print paper. It is large enough for contact prints. It is the best-tradeoff sheet film format size once ALL the image making bits are considered from camera size-weight, film holder size-weight, choice of optics, cost of optics, size of enlarger, projected print quality, size of post process real-estate needs, storage space requirements and every other aspect of the image-making process points to these sheet film format sizes as being ideal.

It is by far the most under appreciated sheet film format with 4x5 being the most common and 8x10 being the fabled ultimate sheet film format due to size, except the reality of 8x10 has very significant limitations. Going beyond 8x10 becomes more contact print centric which has a appeal and validity all it's own.

Bernice

andreios

25-Feb-2019, 23:45

I thought it was odd format - but then I realized I can get many BW emulsions - but I do work with the european 13x18 size. Moving to half plate which is similar in size showed me, what a endangered format menas :) I can still get Fomapan 100 any time in that size. (So far... fingers crossed.)
But as many have said, the largest andvantage is the "contactability"... (even though a Durst 138 comes useful as well.) Last night I developed half a dozen 4x5 negs, liked them and immediately reproached myself that I did not bring a larger camera with me...

Delfi_r

26-Feb-2019, 05:34

5x7 (USA format, Kodak film it's only availabe on 5x7 size) or 13x18 (Europe format, there are plenty of sheet holders here, and lots of enlargers availabe) it's the best format.

for color, you need to contact Keith Canham, and you have a lot of options to choosee in B+W film

New cameras come from the active makers and there are a lot of Cambo, Linhof and other brands in the used market. You can go very wide on 5x7 film.

You can scan in flat scanners and on the Imacon X1. And the 5x7 enlargers are big but not so big that you can't put them in your life (I have two of them)

Endangered? No more than film photography as a whole

John Layton

26-Feb-2019, 06:05

Paul Caponigro turned me on to 5x7 back in the '80's. He likes the aspect ratio, as do I. I also like the fact that the logistics of using this format are very similar to those of 4x5 - and for folks like myself (and many others on this forum from what I can gather) who depend on our aging backs to schlep our equipment, sometimes far into the field, for enough elapsed time/variety of subject matter to justify a dozen holders and three to five lenses, and who can then dependably enlarge resulting negatives to large sizes (in my case, 40x60)...this format is a godsend!

And then there are those situations where if I could choose any format, I would go to 5x7 as a "sweet spot" for reasons relating to size/aspect ratio (compared to 4x5), and "point of diminishing returns" relating to the use of 8x10 when dealing environmental factors, balance of movements with DOF requirements while being cognizant of diffraction-inducing aperture values when wanting to significantly enlarge results, relative consistency of film flatness, etc. etc. Given these potential issues, 5x7 is often hard to beat!

Eric Biggerstaff

26-Feb-2019, 07:35

Is 5X7 endangered? Nope, at least no more so than film in general I suspect. Plenty of great films available (just limited on the color side), enlargers can be found, most 4X5 lenses can cover 5X7, nice contact print size, camera bigger than 4X5 but still small enough to pack easily, aspect ratio wonderful for many subjects - all in all a nice format to use. Heck, B&H even has 100 sheet boxes of Ilford Delta 100 for under $200. I have been stocking the freezer for a few months and have Tmax, HP5+, Delta 100, Tri-X and FP4 so film is not hard to find. I have even used the Foma and Arista films which are nice once you test them and dial in the exposure and development (sort of gives you a nice "vintage" look). So if you are interested then go for it!

paulbarden

26-Feb-2019, 08:13

5x7 is my favorite aspect ratio. I acquired a cheap (Seneca?) 5x7 camera 15 month ago and I enjoy using it a LOT (though it has limitations: as a cheap camera, it curiously has no lock-down for the rear standard, but that is a manageable issue). I don't shoot film with it - I use it solely for wet plate negatives and ambrotypes (https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7919/47169874691_2ac4029101_h.jpg). I have a Voigtlander f3 lens (not sure of the focal length) fitted to it on a home-made 3D printed lens board.

Drew Wiley

26-Feb-2019, 10:09

Well, the specific films I routinely needed over the decades were never available in 5x7. I'd call the selection at any given time quite restrictive. I you just standardize on one particular black and white film like FP4 you could hoard it. But working in color chromes in tandem with very specific black and white emulsions for masking needs, and then pointing to a single color neg film option, and that infrequent, just didn't do it. Now I shoot Ektar for color - none of that in 5x7 either. But there are times I simply crop the same aspect ratio onto full 8x10 film, sorta 5x7 "supersized".

Thad Gerheim

26-Feb-2019, 10:19

188142About four years ago I bought a 1952 Deardorff 5x7 from someone on this forum, and love it! Wish I could have been doing 5x7 one hundred years ago. I have scanned film from 1910 thru 1936 that was shot with a circuit camera that used 5 inch wide film and some of the results are mind boggling. The 5x7 drum scan on my film can produce a stunning 45"x66" photo from a 1.7 gig file with no interpolation. I also thank Keith Canham for putting together orders for various 5x7 films.

tgtaylor

26-Feb-2019, 10:26

I'm actively considering platinum printing and the 5x7 format makes it more affordable than 8x10. I don't have a 5x7 camera but do have an 8x10 to 5x7 reduction back for my Toyo's.

Thomas

Drew Wiley

26-Feb-2019, 10:36

I've often coveted a Canham 5X7; it's the "sweet spot" in his wooden camera lineup in my opinion, with the option for a 4x5 back too.

tbransco

26-Feb-2019, 11:47

Hi, Corran.

I'd like to know more about your camera. Is it available commercially, or a personal project? If the former, would you please share a link to more information?

Many thanks,
Terry

Nodda Duma

26-Feb-2019, 11:49

J Lane makes 5x7 dry plates.

They are my most common size behind 4x5 (just a tad few more than 8x10).

Oren Grad

26-Feb-2019, 12:05

This isn't a "Darkroom Equipment" thread. As it's a fairly general topic and for lack of a better option, I'm going to move it into "On Photography" and revise the title slightly.

Vaughn

26-Feb-2019, 12:35

I'm actively considering platinum printing and the 5x7 format makes it more affordable than 8x10. I don't have a 5x7 camera but do have an 8x10 to 5x7 reduction back for my Toyo's.

Thomas

It is pretty sweet, Thomas, but you will get sucked in (with your wallet) to making 8x10s! I have been printing a mix of 5x7 and 8x10 (and some 4x10 tonight). That is another thought -- 4x10 is not significantly bigger than 5x7 (40 vs 35 sq in). A modified darkslide will get you that with your present equipment. All three of those formats will give you a print that is comfortable to handhold.

A 4x10 platinum/palladium print
Zone VI 8x10 w/ RD Artar 24"

Randy

6-Mar-2019, 17:29

Wow, glad to see the outpouring of support for 5x7!
I am restoring an Eastman 33A...
6-7 years ago I purchased an Eastman 33a off ebay - used it off an on for a few years, then sold it...regretted selling it, purchased another one...used it for a couple years then sold it...regretted selling it...purchased another one, which turned out to be the first one I had purchased and sold 4 years earlier. I plan on keeping it.
I enjoy making 5X7 cyanotypes.

MultiFormat Shooter

10-Mar-2019, 10:15

I wouldn't mind having a Linhof Technika in 5x7, with all the "trimmings," that allow it to be used handheld.... However, that's a rabbit hole I definitely don't need to go down in terms of both money and the lack of being able to order color film, especially transparency film, a box at time.

Drew Wiley

12-Mar-2019, 16:14

I know of other people looking for the 5x7 Technika. They come up from time to time, but if in good condition (rare), prohibitively expensively. Bulkier and heavier than many field 8x10's.

Mike in NY

12-Mar-2019, 16:33

I purchased my Durst 138S enlarger back in 2012 so that I could step down from 8x10 to 5x7 and make enlargements. It is my favorite format; I much prefer it to 4x5 except for portraits. But I'm focusing more and more on 4x5 now. The film is cheaper, but I'm having to acquire a few lenses on the smaller side as a result.

188703

John Kasaian

12-Mar-2019, 18:46

I've a 5x7 Speed Graphic, way lighter than a Technika. A fun camera! There are also three 5x7 Agfa Ansco Universals somewhere around here---beautiful cameras but I need to patch the pinholes in the bellows.

minh0204

13-Mar-2019, 06:16

I know of other people looking for the 5x7 Technika. They come up from time to time, but if in good condition (rare), prohibitively expensively. Bulkier and heavier than many field 8x10's.

Saw one in the camera shop by the Dom in Cologne. Looks exactly like a Tech III on steroid. The shop wanted €2000 for it, IIRC.

Willie

13-Mar-2019, 08:01

Yes, it is endangered and almost dead.
Just like it was when folks said this around 2000.
Just like it was when folks said this in the 1980's.
Just like it was when folks said this in the 1960's.

It just keeps right on dying - a long, lingering process.

Jim Galli

13-Mar-2019, 09:09

Jac . . . . you troll. Everything film is dead and you know it.

Pere Casals

13-Mar-2019, 09:35

Bob Salomon

13-Mar-2019, 10:18

I find that prehaps it's the best LF format beacuse of a number or reasons.

Cameras are still very portable, nice GG size, many affordable/good lenses covering the format, enlargers are of moderate size, if scanning even a cheap flatbed will get such an impressive image quality that it will exceed any need...

As it have been noted before, if a monster print is wanted then it's cheaper to shot 5x7 and flatbed scanning than using a drum with 4x5.

Here it's well explained why 57 is great: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/5x7.html

Regarding 57 film availability, we always may cut 8x10 sheets, only a 1x8" is wasted, so no problem.

1: if that large print is going to be an 8x10, 16x20 or any other size with the same proportions then you waste money shooting it on 57 rather then 45!
2: buy 810 to cut down to 57 is a tremendous waste of money compared to shooting 45.
3: regardless of the weight of your 57 outfit for field use 45 is always going to be lighter as will tripod, heads, equivelent lens range.
4: there is a far wider selection of 45 enlargers and highest quality lenses for 45 compared to 57.
5: 45 processing tanks, other then Kodak 810 rubber tanks, are far easier to find and use far less chemistry, unless a drum is used.
6: far more emulsions are available in 45 compared to 57 or 810.

A 16x20 print from 45 is 4x magnification. So is a 16x20 from 57.

Thad Gerheim

13-Mar-2019, 10:20

At this moment I'm scanning 5x7 portra 400 on my Creo Eversmart Supreme. With a 1.8gig file they look good up to 50x70, thats big enough for me. The color comes out better than a Tango drumscan using newcolor software.

Mike in NY

13-Mar-2019, 10:30

Pere, maybe we should go back to 35mm, or even 110 - less waste! Now if I could only find a Fotomat kiosk...

188746

Pere Casals

13-Mar-2019, 11:20

A 16x20 print from 45 is 4x magnification. So is a 16x20 from 57.

Bob, a 16x20 print from 57 is 2.86x magnification.

Let me answer point by point.

1: if that large print is going to be an 8x10, 16x20 or any other size with the same proportions then you waste money shooting it on 57 rather then 45!

Well, we have 11x14 paper, for example, that is a close match. If printing from paper rolls then problem disapears. It is true that we have way more choices in the 4x5 aspect...

2: buy 810 to cut down to 57 is a tremendous waste of money compared to shooting 45.

A (810 cut) 57 sheet (BW) may cost $3 more than a 45 sheet, but a drum scan from 4x5 at 4k dpi is $60 per sheet, so we save $57 if shooting 57 and EPSON scanning, and beyond the $57 savings we obtain remarkably better image quality.

3: regardless of the weight of your 57 outfit for field use 45 is always going to be lighter as will tripod, heads, equivelent lens range.

True, anyway 57 weight drawbacks are minor compared to the 810 size. In my case I use cambo 45, 57 and 810, the 810 is a monster compared to the other two.

4: there is a far wider selection of 45 enlargers and highest quality lenses for 45 compared to 57.

True, but today there are a lot of enlargers out there, I use a borrowed 138S that's a war machine, so no problem.

5: 45 processing tanks, other then Kodak 810 rubber tanks, are far easier to find and use far less chemistry, unless a drum is used.

Daylight type tray processing !! this works perfect and cheap. I develop inside a paper safe, after moving sheets to stop I open lights for the rest, while the paper safe is free and it can start a new batch at the same time.

No problem with tanks, etc...

6: far more emulsions are available in 45 compared to 57 or 810.

As said, I've no problem to cut 57 from 810. It requires a good paper guillottine and some practice.

__________________

Beyond that, I agree with you that 45 would be better format for a Pro (of the past) spending a lot of film, because probably he would usually have enough quality from 45 optical enlargements.

Also we should consider the USA vs EU preferences. In the EU 5x7" (or in fact the close 13x18cm to be exact) was a very Pro format, it was a popular choice when 9x12cm was considered too small. I the USA it was common (I guess) to go 810, obviating 57.

Jim Galli

13-Mar-2019, 11:29

Convenience and availability is a poor argument on a large format forum. I assume we all have Lionel trains in the basement instead of HO and would never ride anything but a leaky Harley Davidson.

Bob Salomon

13-Mar-2019, 11:31

Jim Noel

13-Mar-2019, 11:35

I have, and use, 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 as well as my ULF camera.
In fact,I have two 5x7 cameras, one over 100 years old and still functioning well. It has been said that 5x7 was dead or dying for at least 25 years, but it is still here. For me it is the ideal format for contact or enlarged prints. I have been using it since the 1940's and expect it will be the last format I give up when I finally am too old to do anything. I am 90 and looking forward to several more years of wet lab photography.

Pere Casals

13-Mar-2019, 11:42

“Bob, a 16x20 print from 57 is 2.86x magnification.”

If you enlarge the 5” dimension of a 45 4x you get 20”.
If you enlarge the 4” dimension of a 45 4x you get 16”.

If you enlarge the 5” dimension of a 57 4x you get 20”.
If you enlarge the 7” dimension of a 57 4x you get 28”.

Ain’t the same!

If enlarging to 16x20 from 57 the 7" are enlarged to 20", so we have the 2.86x magnification.

Of course we have to crop the image in the negative because the different aspect ratio requires that if wanting 20x16, so we'll have to take 4.375" of the 5" in the negative, so cropping 8mm at each end of the 5" side.

Pere Casals

13-Mar-2019, 11:46

I am 90 and looking forward to several more years of wet lab photography.

Probably you'll craft your best prints ever. Wisdom only grows.

Eric Woodbury

13-Mar-2019, 13:41

It's not about wasting film or paper, it's about the aspect ratio and what pleases you and how it fits your subject. The world wasn't built on the 4x5 ratio. The Golden Rectangle is 1:1.618 approx. I crop negs and paper all the time. If you put a 1" border around your print (now 7x9), you move away from the 4x5 ratio and closer to the 5x7 ratio. Who the f cares?

--ejw--

Corran

13-Mar-2019, 13:47

A (810 cut) 57 sheet (BW) may cost $3 more than a 45 sheet, but a drum scan from 4x5 at 4k dpi is $60 per sheet, so we save $57 if shooting 57 and EPSON scanning, and beyond the $57 savings we obtain remarkably better image quality.

Hoo boy.

Shoot 5x7 if you want, 4x5 is way more flexible in terms of lens/film choice, that's pretty much it.

Vaughn

13-Mar-2019, 14:30

I will agree that the concept of 'wasting' paper by fitting a 5x7 neg onto 16x20 paper is pretty insignificant. I suppose some folks print to the edge of the paper, otherwise Eric's comment about borders is right on.

I get around all that by contact printing on hand-coated material. BUT, printing 4x10 platinums on 11x14 sheets of Cot320 does get me to thinking about all that extra paper. The plus side is all the nice heavy 'extra' paper around the image for handling and presenting the image.

I have been printing 5x7s on half sheets of 11x15 Premium Rag (11x7.5) which works out nicely.

If one's tool of choice is 5x7 then scanning 4x5 is a non-starter. I believe the tools shape the artist as much as the artist shapes with his/her tools. And the artist picks the best tool to achieve his/her goal or vision. Tools do not have good or bad qualities, they have characteristics that one uses to create. My choice to take a 5x7 camping in southern Chile for a month was influenced by the type of work I wanted to do there...and the camera influenced the type of work I did there. My 4x5 travel outfit would have been a lot lighter, cheaper per image and so forth. Probably would have taken more than the twenty 5x7 images I made in that month (maybe...that wind was nuts at times and the advantage was to the heavier camera). If all that was more important than the work I wanted to do, I would have taken the 4x5. And using the Eastman View No.2 is quite fun most the time.

And there is no getting around that a 5x7 is almost twice the size of a 4x5 negative. Yes, it is only 1.75 times the area of a 4x5, but it feels more than that.

PS -- exercise was also part of reason I took the 5x7...the extra 8 pounds or so of the 5x7 kit helped me lose 15 pounds on the trip and strengthened my legs and lungs.

Dugan

13-Mar-2019, 15:17

Maybe I should make a panoramic camera that uses 1" x 8" film. But would that be large format? :confused:

Vaughn

13-Mar-2019, 15:52

Maybe I should make a panoramic camera that uses 1" x 8" film. But would that be large format? :confused:

Not by LFPF guidelines, but cool!
I made an image with a camera that made a negative the width and length of a 120 roll of film. Very cool, but not LF.

Edited to add...could be LF I suppose if made with a LF camera (ie cropped 8x10).

Bob Salomon

13-Mar-2019, 16:48

Not by LFPF guidelines, but cool!
I made an image with a camera that made a negative the width and length of a 120 roll of film. Very cool, but not LF.

Edited to add...could be LF I suppose if made with a LF camera (ie cropped 8x10).

When I was with Rollei of America I bought the first Rollei SLX the ROA received as a sample. Those,of you not familiar with it it was a 6x6 motorized SLR. My son had a Little League that afternoon so I took a shot of f him running out a hit. Pressed the shutter release and the entire 120 roll of film ran through to give me a full roll shot.

They took the camera back!

Vaughn

13-Mar-2019, 17:36

The one I used was a box on top of the tripod that rotated until it ran out for film. Brand? Too long ago (80s)! I figure about a 420 degree view. I could contact 360 degrees by going corner-to-corner on a 16x20 piece of paper.

Bob Salomon

13-Mar-2019, 17:39

bloodhoundbob

13-Mar-2019, 18:22

Don't try telling Steve Simmons that 5x7 is dead.

Bernice Loui

13-Mar-2019, 22:39

Many years ago, mentioned to Steve Simmons that 5x7 is the ideal LF format, he did not think so back about the time when he as doing View Camera Magazine.

Much time has passed since then, now Steve Simmonds believes 5x7 IS the ideal format (Still needle him about this from time to time :) for many of the same reasons previously mentioned over my time on LFF.

Regardless, 5x7_13x18cm is not for all, maybe for some. IMO, all film formats have their place. It really depends on the goals of the image maker, finished print expectations and all that.

All this batting about on which film format is better than that is not really constructive, as film folks need to and can decide on what works ideally for their needs. What we share about film formats, lenses, developers, and all that is based on our individual preferences, discoveries of what works for our specific image making needs.

What is most important is keeping film including 5x7_13x18m alive and well enough so folks who do choose this path has the ability to do so.

Bernice

Don't try telling Steve Simmons that 5x7 is dead.

LabRat

14-Mar-2019, 01:03

Back in the 90's, I wanted a format with a different aspect ratio in sheet film...I had been shooting 4X5 and 35mm, and I wanted something in between, so I took a look at what I had, and could get cheap/easily and their weak and strong points using "endangered" formats...

Long story short, I liked the size 5X7 could contact print to, but did not want to pay what a used enlarger was worth (during the film days) and noticed that the format film that was usually on extended backorder was 5X7, and even the local Freestyle had other odd formats in stock, but even the house brands had dissappear for extended intervals... My take on film is you should be able to get it when you need it without too much trouble, or its not worth it, unless you stockpile it... I passed the format when I realized I could also shoot 2x3 sheet film, although sometimes harder to get, I could at least enlarge it, had the same aspect ratio, had the gear, and could shoot it on the fly, but not that big, nice piece of film to contact print with... But I had some 5X7 cameras and lenses in need of extensive restoration, but the holders I could find were very worn out, and it did not seem to be a good idea at the time...

It seems there is more film for it now then then, so as long as there is film...

Steve K

Ken Lee

14-Mar-2019, 04:50

Thad Gerheim

14-Mar-2019, 06:37

http://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/5x7Kodak.jpg

It may be endangered but not extinct.

I managed to grab this shot in the wild. Downwind, during light snow fall (!) I managed to sneak up on this 5x7 film camera entirely unaware.

Note the red bellows which are unusual so early in the season.

This image will probably go viral and that will really be something.

It appears to be some kind of courtship ritual with the branches, hence the red bellows. I understand that they are able to reproduce objects with amazing detail if they are studious, move slowly and are patient. This one looks to be old and wise, a real trophy. They say the 5x7s are rare and endangered. Some people collect these just to decorate their homes with, but its good to see this one out in nature!