8x10 photography and diffraction

[StuartR]

Hi everyone. I am a fairly recent convert to 8x10 photography, after a lot of time spent doing 4x5 and smaller formats. In general, I try to maximize the technical qualities in my work. Art first, of course, but performance is also very important to me. I work as an artist and exhibition printer, and in some recent shows I made murals that were 170x220cm. I am interested in trying to get the best technical results out of 8x10, or at the very least, understanding the techniques for getting the best technical results out of 8x10, so I can either employ them or ignore them for any given picture. I do not intend to enlarge every piece to gargantuan proportions, but I would like to know how best to do so if for a certain piece I would like to.

So. I have found that with my lenses, I get the best image quality at f/16-f/22 with 4x5. In certain narrow cases, f/11 can be slightly crisper, but generally DOF is an issue at that point. Starting 8x10, I tried f/22 as a baseline, and while the results are acceptable, in general the performance upon close inspection is not as good as on 4x5. Obviously the negative is 4 times the size, so it will be better in the end, but I am wondering what the real "best" apertures are for 8x10 with very large enlargements. I understand that maximizing depth of field might require f/64 or greater, but I am guessing that for normal subjects that is quite soft. I know this is hard to generalize about, but assuming a very good modern 8x10 lens like the 300mm f 5.6 Fujinon CM-W (which I have), the 450mm Nikkor M (which I am looking at), what is the optimal aperture for large enlargements? f/22-f/32?

[JyL]

Bonjour,
On principle, it seems to me that using a given optics the result must be the same regardless of the film format used.
Why would it be otherwise?

[StuartR]

Bonjour JyL. You are of course correct! I am just trying to get an idea of at what sizes does it really start to come into play in 8x10. Since the enlargement ratio is significantly lower, is it ridiculous to worry about the loss of sharpness at f/45 or f/64? Or is that something that is visible in larger prints? I do not have a drum scanner, or I would test myself. I am also not sure if it is just my lens (300mm 5.6 CM-W) which is not as sharp as my 4x5 lenses (the best of which is a 110mm Super Symmar XL).

[Oren Grad]

In general you should not expect lenses designed for 8x10 to perform as well on close inspection as lenses designed for 4x5 - remember that they are designed to cover a much larger image circle. The quality improvement from using larger formats comes from being able to use smaller enlargement ratios to achieve a given final print size.

FWIW, Rodenstock used to recommend f/16-f/22 as overall "best apertures" for 4x5 and f/32-f/45 for 8x10.

That said, you really need to run your own tests to see for yourself what the image character is like at your preferred enlargement ratios and decide what will suit your purposes. Our lenses are not the idealized optical systems on which theoretical resolution calculations are based, and it's not always straightforward to model the subjective perceptual effects of the diffraction patterns generated by non-circular diaphragm shapes along with the particular mix of residual optical aberrations allowed in each lens design.

Remember that you don't necessarily have to spend the $$$ and darkroom/lightroom effort for a series of big prints to do this - enlarging to smaller paper from carefully-chosen crops may tell you most or all of what you need to know.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 is not an ideal film format. It is widely believe the larger sheet of film and lower magnification ratio will result in the very best enlarged prints. This is not so simple or idea once all factors in the print making process is considered. This was the conclusion after burning a LOT of 8x10 film and making prints back in the late 1980's and early 1990's.

8x10 and larger is ideal and best for contact prints.

Difficulties with 8x10, which has been posted numerous times here:

*Choice and availability of optics-lenses. The very best modern and vintage lenses that are optimized and designed for 8x10 is pricey and currently in high demand. Add limited number of optics-lenses that have historically been specifically designed for 8x10 is limited.

*Film flatness, is a challenge with 8x10. While there is mention of adhesive and vacuum film holders, consider if this is actually practical in real world image making.

*Camera alignment become crucial if larger lens apertures are to be used. Taking apertures with the exception of soft focus and highly selective focus images. Typical taking aperture for 8x10 will be f22 and smaller which puts a, "way Nature actually is" limit on possible resolution. There is a belief-mind set that "stopping down" will cure most and the film size will make up for that. This is simply not true.

*As the image ratios move towards life size, the larger film format will begin to experience great difficulty with depth of focus-depth of field. Images made at true infinity focus is not really a problem as the largest format can be used with the largest lens aperture with excellent results (historical aero recon film images made on BIG sheet film support this assertion) once images are no longer made at infinity, the larger the film format, the greater this problem.

*Then there is camera system size-weight, carrying loaded film holders, film processing, 8x10 enlarger and wet print making system and .... Once all this is considered, 8x10 is no longer so simple or ideal.


-Point being, go one film format size down to 5x7 or 13x18cm and most if not all these problems are reduced significantly.

-Ideal LF film format lens apertures are typically f8 to f32, smaller taking apertures will be impacted by they way Nature really is, how Nature will enforce its ways regardless of the technology involved to exploit the way Nature really is.


There is vast initial visual appeal to sheets of color or B&W film images, this is one of the prime reasons for some to be so drawn to 8x10, technically, the realities of print making with 8x10 often comes with a slow realization of what the very real limits of 8x10 is. I'll say this again in the face of much opposite here, 4x5 is IMO too small a sheet film format for very high quality projected film images. The projected print image made using the very best 4x5 is lesser than 5x7 or 13x18cm with 8x10 often experiencing a different set of problems.



Bernice

[Bob Salomon]

Are you trying to make mural size prints? If so, do you print with an enlarging lens designed for murals rather then a standard enlarging lens? An example would be a Rodagon G.

Are you printing with a glass carrier?

[Corran]

IMO 4x5 is the best compromise between size of film and technical limitations. However you don't tell us what type of images you are making. As someone who primarily shoots landscapes out in the real world, DOF and exposure times are an issue and the larger the format the more of a problem this becomes.

If you are shooting flat-field work or some other type of images where moderate apertures are okay, perhaps you can eke out a bit more resolution - and only if your lens performs that well at those apertures.

There is no free lunch.

[Sasquatchian]

Diffraction affects large format exactly the same as smaller formats, you just don't see its effect on small to medium sized prints. If you look up resolution charts for various large format lenses, you can easily see where most of them peak at f/11 - f/16 and start falling off from there. What you really have to look at is the relationship to corner and edge performance to center performance, and that's where the compromises happen. You might see that center performance drops off considerably at f/22-f/32 but the corners have come up considerably as well, providing a more balanced performance across the frame, even if you gave up some central detail.

I used to drum scan 8x10 chromes for a well known car photographer - twenty years ago, and every single one of those was soft even to the naked eye - because he shot them at f/64-f/90 for maximum depth of field. But the agencies insisted on 8x10 and 8x10 is what they got, sharp or not.

In another situation with a friend who designed and built his own custom aerial 8x10 camera, I helped him judge the test images to see when the lens was sharp enough for his purposes - which were six feet by eight feet Lightjet prints. The fixed focus aerial lens needed to be stopped to f/11-3/4 to be acceptable in the corners. Shooting Portra 400 pushed a stop let him get to a barely acceptable shutter speed for hand holding this beast standing on the skid of a Jet Ranger.

[Pere Casals]

what the real "best" apertures are for 8x10 with very large enlargements.



In practice, with good 8x10 "modern" lenses try to keep aperture around f/16 or f/22 when center sharpness is the important thing, depending on the particular lenses, for optimal corners or to get necessary DOF you may have need stop more.


___________________


The 8x10 optimal aperture for best image quality mainly depends on 3 factors:

1) Lens performance. A 1930's 8x10 glass may have optimal aperture at f/45 and a recent model may have it at f/22. Each glass has it's optimal aperture.

2) Your subject, if you shot a distant mountain then you may have all in perfect focus, so you may use the optimal aperture of the lens. But you may have different objects at different distances so you may need DOF management skills, including movements.

3) Importance of sharpness in the corners, for your image.



1) Lens performance

Many 8x10 modern lenses (those made in the say last 40 years) are diffraction limited by f/32, and some at f/22, so optimal aperture may be at around f/16 in some cases, beyond optial aperture, you know, you start damaging Image Quality, specially in the center, while usually for optimal results in the corners an smaller aperture would be better.

Here you have some tests made by Mr Croell, see for example the fujinon C 300, that sample was better at f/16, for 4x5. As tests are done for 4x5 this not says how 8x10 corners are. https://www.arnecroell.com/lenstests.pdf

You may learn to measure lens performance in lp/mm in practical conditions to see how your particular glasses do behave.


2) Your subject

You may use a DOF calculator mobile app to know the theoric circle of confusion at each distance and when this is limiting the lens performance, you should learn when lack of DOF is degradating image beyond what lens is able, in that way you will understand the good diffraction vs DOF balance for your glasses.

192252


3) sharpness in the corners

If you have sky in the top corners and moving water in the bottom corners, or top corners are simply OOF, then you may stop for optimal center rather than for the +optimal average.

[Drew Wiley]

That's a significant enlargement, but not terribly big for 8x10 film. There are much more important things to think about first before potential diffraction issues in a taking lens, namely, how to keep film flat in the film holder to begin with (can be done, but don't take for granted that an ordinary holder will do it), management of more serious depth of field issues than in 4x5 photography (which generally mandates smaller apertures), and precise enlargement afterwards in the darkroom itself, or equivalent scanning precision. I really wouldn't worry about anything in the f/32 to f/45 range with those lenses. Diffraction starts getting apparent at f/64 upon close inspection. If one can spot the difference on non-enlarged 8x10 film, like Sasquatchian noted, then something else is wrong instead. Don't be scared of 8x10. I've done lots of high detail work with 8x10; and the results truly can be visibly superior to 4x5. But there's a learning curve to it. The logistics of 8x10 are somewhat different from 4x5, as well as realistic depth of field control. Then, if you happen to print on something like inkjet rather than optically, you have to ask yourself if the bigger format is worth it, since inkjet itself is not as high a resolution medium as direct enlargement. But there are a couple of things I disagree with Bernice about, though what he states in general is relevant. Vac or adhesive film holders are completely practical in the real world. And my own real world includes a lot of harsh terrain and bad weather. That's how I've been doing it for precise 8x10 work now for decades (vac in the lab, adhesive outdoors); there are numerous previous threads how to make and use these. There are plenty of good lenses to choose from. Some are expensive and some are a bargain. 8x10 cameras differ in quality, precision, and rigidity; so you have to think about that too. Think logistically in terms of travel - what you really need and what you don't. Try to keep lens weight down if you have to carry equipment. Heavy lenses also affect image accuracy at long bellows extension if a front lens standard is not especially rigid. You'll need more serious tripod support, etc. Nikkor M lenses are wonderful; but in the 450 length, I prefer the Fuji 450C for its much lighter wt. Most 300mm lenses are going to struggle with the larger image circle
necessary for 8x10 using serious rise or tilt unless they are well stopped down. So you can forget about nitpicking "ideal" lp/mm or "optimal" aperture. It doesn't mean much unless you're doing flat copy graphics work. Otherwise, just try the excellent lens you've already got in that focal length, and if you absolutely need more image circle, think about a 360mm lens instead.

[Greg]

Attached is an image of Goldmine Falls (Massachusetts) that was originally taken back around the late 1970s with an 8x10 B&J Commercial View with a 12" f/4.5 Wollensak Velostigmat lens at probably f/45, but could have well been f/64. Super-XX developed in Edwal FG-7 1:15 with a 9% Sodium Sulfite solution is my memory serves me well. Made some silver prints back then but was never satisfied with them since they required some dodging and a lot of burning in of specific areas and all 4 borders. Back around 2015 scanned the negative and was finally able to make all the detailed dodging and burning in adjustments. Made a digital negative and printed on Platinum/Palladium paper. View at normal viewing distances the Platinum/Palladium print absolutely looks sharper than the silver print. Viewed using a quality loupe, the silver print is definitely a bit sharper. So objectively (using a low power loupe) the silver contact print is sharper. Subjectively the final exhibition Platinum/Palladium print looks to be far sharper and the tonalities far superior to the silver print. FYI: no sharpening done with PS. IMO too many people hung up on image resolution. Went back to shoot the falls twice in the 1990s with a 4x5 Sinar Norma and a modern optic used at its optimum aperture... the negatives/images were no where as good as my original shot with my 8x10, vintage lens, and probably shooting way too stopped down. Comments welcome.

[Eric Leppanen]

Some years back On Landscape published a comparison of the various film formats:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/big-camera-comparison/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/12/camera-test-editors-commentary/

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2014/12/36-megapixels-vs-6x7-velvia/

Their results are consistent with my experience. Back in the oughts I shot primarily landscape subjects with 8x10 for a number of years in search of large prints with better tonality and resolution than what I was getting with 4x5. I used a heavy tripod (multiple tripods when using long lenses); a bevy of Super Symmar XL, Sironar-S and even APO Tele Xenar lenses (which now would cost a fortune at today's prices); lens hood; faster film when possible (Provia or Velvia 100 pushed one stop; Portra 400; and TMY); a beanbag sitting on my Copal 3 shutters to dampen shutter kick; an umbrella to deflect the wind; etc. I did not use double-sided tape to improve film flatness in my film holders (I simply did not have the patience for this) and I did use tripod ball heads (at least an Arca B1, sometimes an Arca B2 when I could) for convenience rather than attaching the camera directly to the tripod legs. After severely restricting my choice of compositions due to the limited depth of field of 8x10, I did achieve a measure of technical improvement versus 4x5. But in real world conditions (wind, haze, heat convection, subject movement due to slow shutter speeds, even vehicle vibration when standing on bridges) the results were relatively disappointing compared to the extreme effort I was making. Yes, I have a handful of 8x10 shots that knock the socks off of anything I could have done with 4x5. I am staring right now at a stunning (if I may say so myself) 8x10 wall mounted enlargement of a chrome taken with a 600mm Fuji C lens. Because the subject was unusually planar I was able to get everything in focus at f/22 (versus my much more typical f/45 or smaller) and use a decently fast shutter speed. Even at a relatively small 24x30 inch print size it has incredibly high resolution and tonal detail, which would only increase if I printed larger. But for me this print was very much an exception.

I finally concluded that my shooting 8x10 in the field amounted to chasing unicorns. Yes, maybe a few times a year I'd get a technically stunning shot, but most of the time I achieved a far more limited set of compositions with only incremental technical superiority.

Can you restrict your choice of subjects enough to avoid 8x10's limitations, without compromising the breadth of your work?

[StuartR]

Thank you all for the detailed information. This is all very helpful. It seems as though I am in the ballpark, but also that I should not be afraid to stop down a bit more if the photo seems to need it. In general I do a lot of landscape work, but Iceland is pretty kind on that front since it is pretty easy to get long views where much of the interesting information is quite far away, and therefore DOF is not as large a concern. In images where things are closer, it is generally less of a problem. I have mostly been photographing non-living things at around f22, but managed one portrait so far, and I shot that at f/16. That one looked quite sharp and nice, so I am happy about that.
Eric -- my initial first impressions of shooting 8x10 was that it seemed to work better for portraits and environmental work better. I am thinking about Alec Soth and people who work in a similar way. But then I started to think about Stephen Shore and Robert Adams (though not all is 8x10). I agree that it seems to be something that in the best case scenario can really lead to something spectacular, but in general, it does seem to be overkill. One thing I can give to it, however, is that it has made 4x5 seem SUPER convenient and easy, haha.

P.S. Here are a few of my first shots with it.

192258

192259

192257

[StuartR]

Obviously these images are so tiny as to be essentially useless for anything other than "take my word for it" statements. But, what can I say?
Edit: Well, I can add some crops.
I believe f22
192263
f16
192264
And these two are a similar photo on 4x5 with a similar crop. This was scanned on the X5, while the other was on the Epson flat on the glass, so the 8x10 likely has more in it. On the other hand, the 8x10 was Delta 100 and the 4x5 Tmax 400.
192265

192266

Edit, clearly the 8x10 or 4x5 was reversed in scanning...I will have to check and see which was right...probably the 4x5. Please just ignore it for now!

[Bernice Loui]

Print image qualities to justify going to a larger film format is not "sharpness" or Resolution. In the case of B&W prints it is much about tonality and zero visible grain in the print. John Wimberly would have some of his B&W prints on display at KSP in Palo Alto. The framed prints were accessible enough to allow very close up ( inches away) inspection of his prints. He was known for using 4x5 for his prints during this time, the film grain was clearly apparent close up on 16x20 prints. Much the same applied to John Sexton and a number of other famed B&W folks prints that are available for viewing at the Photo galleries in Carmel and Monterey area. Compared to 8x10 negative to 16x20 B&W prints from Ansel Adams and others using film formats larger than 4x5, there is zero visible grain in these prints and the overall tonality is better in subtle-special ways. While some of this can be attributed to personal style, the larger film negative does make a difference.

Another prime consideration for using a larger sheet of film is to completely eliminate the concern for visible grain due to developers & film. This can provide a total freedom to use any film and developer combination with zero worries about visible film grain and focus on the other deeper qualities zero visible film grain in the print with magical contrast and tonal rendition in the print. To achieve this means making contact prints or making enlargements no more than 4x and zero cropping.

Film format choice depends on the subject matter in many ways and is often a set of trade offs that are not "linear". That is four times larger film is not four times better image.

These technical aspects of the print can be easily discounted by the overall effect emotional of the print, yet these subtle zero grain with their magical tonality adds
special factor making prints like them just a bit more magical.


Bernice

[Drew Wiley]

Nearly everything that Ansel and numerous others did in 8x10 several decades back was VERY grainy and unsharp in comparison with what can be done today if one knows the ropes and has precise equipment. I routinely print modern 6x7cm negatives sharper than he could do using the 8x10 film, holders, and lenses of his era. But if you compared even the modest sized 20x24 color prints I've made over the past couple of weeks from 6x9, 4x5, and 8x10 film, even if the distinction in grain and detail is almost nil, the 8X10 work stands out just as much superior to the 4X5 examples as 4x5 does compared to 6x7, qualitatively. Of course, the are many other factors involved, such as subject matter that might influence what constitutes a "favorite" print.

[Pere Casals]

I should not be afraid to stop down a bit more if the photo seems to need it.


Diffraction limit at f/22 is 71 lp/mm. Meaning of this is that diffraction at f/22 makes the contrast fall to zero at 71 lp/mm, but at f/22 we should remember that contrast is also damaged at 35 lp/mm...

https://kenrockwell.com/tech/diffraction.htm


IMHO in many situations it's not easy to balance aperture for an optimal result, but an smaller (than optimal) aperture also solves other problems like focus inaccuracy, alignment imperfections and flaws in the film flatness.


--------------


Also we should remember how great is 5x7 format:

> much easier to field than 8x10, a nice GG

> 5x7 enlargers are not aircraft carrier sized like 8x10 ones

> still having a lot of (more affordable) choices for the glass

> easier to scan for top notch quality, a cheap scanner at 5x7 delivers as good scans than a drum at 4x5-4000dpi, so 5x7 is cheaper. If we are to drum scan 8x10 at 2000dpi because of 4000dpi scanning cost and file size then...

> Not many film choices but we can split 8x10 sheets



but... 8x10 is 8x10...

[StuartR]

Thank you all. I do realize that not everything is about resolution. Frankly, renting a Phase One IQ150 or even a GFX 100 would be a more practical way to achieve massive, grainless prints. I am pretty well aware of the trade-offs involved, I just wanted a bit of advice on the best practices regarding apertures since, as some of you have indicated, it is not solely about diffraction. I am using a Chamonix with Chamonix and Toyo holders, not an Arca Swiss or Sinar studio monorail with vacuum backs, so there is certainly a bit more slop in my setup than I might like (not to demean the Chamonix, it is beautiful!), so the idea of shooting at f/16 to maximize lens sharpness may be less relevant than shooting at f/45 to minimize alignment and film sag. These are the questions I am trying to answer. My first 8x10 shots did not really blow me over. A few subsequent ones have. So I know that it is possible with my setup, I just need to dial in the best way to do it. I do think 8x10 will be more of a camera for ideal conditions, rather than one for constant use. For me it seems to come into its own in portraiture or rather flat landscapes (assuming I want the whole landscape in focus!). I will stick to 4x5 and 6x7 for the more dynamic and three dimensional compositions.
Pere -- 5x7 is indeed a good deal more practical in some ways. For one, I can scan it on my X5, which would be great. But...I do not have a 5x7 camera or enlarger, and I do not want to cut down 8x10 film. Managing dust and handling for 8x10 is bad enough...at the moment, it is 4x5 or 8x10.

[Pere Casals]

Managing dust

If you see dust, let me recommend something:

192274

An HEPA class air purifier is an smart solution, just start it in a clean room some 10min in advance before loading holders, drying negatives, scanning, darkroom printing or manipulating negatives. It removes very small particles (see wiki HEPA) in the air so it's used by people with allergies.

I use a Honeywell 16200, but any other HEPA purifier for home should work great.

[Alan Klein]

I shoot 6x7cm medium format landscapes with a Mamiya RB67. What diffraction limitation are there and what settings would you recommend?

[StuartR]

Thanks Pere,
I use an iQ Air HEPA filter. It does indeed help, but the more handling, the more problems, unfortunately.



If you see dust, let me recommend something:

192274

An HEPA class air purifier is an smart solution, just start it in a clean room some 10min in advance before loading holders, drying negatives, scanning, darkroom printing or manipulating negatives. It removes very small particles (see wiki HEPA) in the air so it's used by people with allergies.

I use a Honeywell 16200, but any other HEPA purifier for home should work great.

[Drew Wiley]

If even basic dust control is still an issue, it's pretty much a waste of time to be nitpicking all these other issues.

[ic-racer]

I am wondering what the real "best" apertures are for 8x10 with very large enlargements

Use this information to determine the sharpest aperture for a plane of focus: http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/testing.html#300mm_and_longer

Compare to this information to determine the sharpest aperture for a 3D subject: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

Taking those data into consideration it frequently would be f 32 for me.

If you are an artist, rather than a technician, throw all that out the window, stop down to f90 and shoot some "Cape Light (https://www.joelmeyerowitz.com/cape-light)" and be famous.

[Vaughn]

... I do think 8x10 will be more of a camera for ideal conditions, rather than one for constant use. For me it seems to come into its own in portraiture or rather flat landscapes (assuming I want the whole landscape in focus!). I will stick to 4x5 and 6x7 for the more dynamic and three dimensional compositions....
The 8x10 is my main format...flat landscapes are a rarity for me...3-D landscapes being usually what I face (most of my work is either in the Redwoods or "non-grand' landscapes in Yosemite). It takes a lot of patience, practise and perservence. Fortunately, I only contact print and generally do not have to consider diffraction, so f45 to f90 are my friends, although the need for very long exposures can be frustrating. When I do photograph a flat landscape, I am thankful for the ease they present in using the 8x10.

Vibrations in one's set-up and/or wind moving the camera are also sources of a lack of sharpness. I have never done it, but putting a laser pointer on your camera and checking out the amount and length of vibrations sounds like a good idea to try if a lack of sharpness with the 8x10 continues to be an issue.

Best of luck and enjoy!

[Drew Wiley]

I find all this obsession about grain and ideal aperture largely impertinent. There are bigger fish to fry when mastering 8x10. And the idea of jumping into an entirely new learning curve and cornucopia of complications with a fancy digital back -why? If you want to save money on film or prefer an all-digital workflow, I'd understand. But trading worries about 4x5 grain versus the inevitable loss of detail in oversized digital capture just doesn't add up. Film grain itself could be softened post-scan if that is the effect one desires. I don't even know if it's b&w or color imagery in question. But people going back and making comparisons with extinct Super-XX film, which had grain the size of buckshot, makes no sense in this era of films like TMY400, which gives you very fine grain along with high acutance and superb tonal linearity and control. But I've seen mural sized work done from even good ole Super XX that was truly eloquent.

[Drew Wiley]

Now let me explain this from an entirely different angle. 8x10 photography inherently involves depth of field compromises. Crunching numbers will only take you so far. You need to learn how to strategize depth of field in a compositional sense, intelligently, for sake of the specific image itself, rather than rely on rote formulas. Some scenes might be amenable to very crisp overall plane of focus control, especially if wide angle lenses with their greater depth of field are involved. But in most cases, I find myself prioritizing certain things in the picture which I want the viewer's eyes to instinctively focus upon within context of a much richer cumulative print. I often do this by carefully nuancing the critical focus. Please do not confuse this with the notions of either soft focus or what small camera tele-photographers term selective focus. It's a lot more subtle, but allows me to strategize big highly detailed prints. Nothing is more disconcerting than these new huge digitally stitched panels where everything in the scene is artificially equally sharp. Human vision does not work like that. Vermeer would roll over in his grave. The eyes survey, select, re-focus, and prioritize; and any intelligent composition should assist that process.

[Vaughn]

Excellent points, Drew, but I also take into consideration not just how we see, but how we process that information and store it (memory). Most of us (or at least I) do not remember the out-of-focus parts of the 'gestalt' image created by our brains, and a print as a 2-D surface does not easily allow us to recreate the same process as viewing the scene in person. However, I agree that being aware of the process with which we see, and how we create mental images and memory can be an important part of one's creation of photographic images.

An aside: I have made 16x20 silver gelatin prints from 4x5 Super-XX -- I do not remember large or objectionable grain. But then, I think I developed it in Microdol-X (1:3). I'll have to track down a couple of those prints and refresh my memory...that was back in 1987.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Grain is my friend. It promotes accutance.

[Drew Wiley]

Hi Vaughn. I've often watched how even the otherwise uniformed public reacts to my large prints. I want to lead them in, over and over again, to discover new things, whether viewing from a distance or right up close, but in a prioritized manner so that the compositional flow is itself at least subconsciously absorbed. It hate the instant "gotcha" mentality of big prints today, similar to advertising billboards. But if you want a good debate over the psychology and physiology of vision, too bad my aunt isn't still alive as both a famous muralist and professor of art history. She was dialectically adamant how the world should be viewed, totally outspoken, and taught it. "The eye always rolls itself clockwise when taking in the world". That kept the experts and pontificators constantly at odds among themselves hypothesizing what made her own work so effectively two-dimensional. They didn't even know she was blind in one eye and actually saw things that way!

[Jac@stafford.net]

Hi Vaughn. I've often watched how even the otherwise uniformed public reacts to my large prints.

We of this forum are the uninformed because your work is entirely absent.

[StuartR]

If even basic dust control is still an issue, it's pretty much a waste of time to be nitpicking all these other issues.

Jeez, you guys are relentless. Basic dust control is not an issue. I just don’t want to muck about cutting sheets in half in the dark! I was just interested in diffraction vs camera rigidity and film sag etc in terms of choosing the best aperture.

[Drew Wiley]

In this respect, pertaining to the use of detail in large scale, the web would be utterly useless anyway - less than useless. I have set up a very efficient new copy table replete with dedicated, calibrated pro digi camera in the lab, which would allow me to begin posting certain images later; but I can't do that yet, since this new computer is my wife's for her professional and personal use, and she doesn't want it cluttered with imagery. Hooking up my old personal Mac would double our DSL rate; and it's rather obsolete anyway. I'd have to justify the next step from a cataloging standpoint related to marketing. I have no interest in digital shooting or digital printing per se.

[Drew Wiley]

Stuart - In 8x10, film sag itself is a way bigger issue than "best" aperture, which differs anyway per focal length, image circle properties, and subject matter. Being much smaller, 4x5 film is far less affected by sag. But if you want generic advice, I already gave it : aim for around f/45, or if the plane of focus is more consistent, f/32; but allow for f/64 if necessary. By f/90 things get conspicuously soft. I think most people here would agree with that. Yet the degree of film sag risk differs. If the camera is pointed downwards, and you are using a relatively flexible thin or acetate-based film, there is likely to be more sag than when using a stiff normally-thick Estar based film. If you want to
optimize big enlargements using 8x10 film, eliminating sag is the first thing you should think of.

[Bernice Loui]

"Film flatness is more problematic with LF than with other formats. The film tends to buckle and curve away from the film plane, so a little extra depth of focus helps."
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/fstop.html

*As previously mentioned and said many time in this thread and before, larger the sheet film format, greater the film flatness problem. This along with the list of problems with 8x10 previously posted has not changed any at all.

*This harsh reality is why worrying about lens performance at apertures larger than say f22 for 8x10 is mostly moot. Film flatness or sag plus camera alignment and more tends to force using small taking apertures. Exception to this is soft focus lenses for 8x10. When properly done these images contact printed from a 8x10 negative can be magic (Take a LOT more than just lens on a 8x10 camera). For contact prints with 8x10, f90 or even smaller is often not an issue. One these film images made using apertures smaller than f45 are enlarged, the sort-of-focus qualities becomes magnified. Still this does NOT take away from the inherent advantages of lower film grain visibility, tonality and all those other advantages larger sheets of film offer.

Too many get sucked into the myth of bigger sheet of film results in "sharper" images, more resolution and better everything. It does not work that way in the real world of view camera images.

*Or why giving up on 8x10 over two decades ago was more than wise.



Bernice






*In 8x10, film sag itself is a way bigger issue than "best" aperture, which differs anyway per focal length, image circle properties, and subject matter.

*If you want to optimize big enlargements using 8x10 film, eliminating sag is the first thing you should think of.

[Vaughn]

Smoother tonality is a great advantage going up in format size. For example, an 8x10 will have 4 times the number of silver particles (grain) between the eyes of a headshot than on 4x5, allowing for a smoother transition in tonalities. I guess that is due to greater "resolution", tho that may not be the correct use of the word.

I stuck a small piece of double-sided tape (with different degrees of tackiness on each side -- the least tacky towards the film) in the middle of some of my 8x10 and 11x14 holders to help with sagging and moving film -- but it made loading/unloading a hassle and if I did not get to the film in awhile, the stick-em would stick onto the back of the film...which got in the way of development (incomplete removal of the anti-halation layer, actually). I removed the tape and now give my holders a little bump before I slide them into the camera to seat the film properly -- on long exposures I have had the film shift during long exposures.

[Two23]

I have been toying with the idea of buying 100 yr. Old 8x10, mostly to use impressively huge lenses on. :) My plan is to make contact prints from it. I was considering using it for wet plate but those are so big i would have trouble handling them. My thinking now is to just shoot dry plates only. Film sag should be less of a problem with those. Thinking about it more, I'm realizing just how much I like using my 5x7. It's portable, manages my largest 19th century lens ok (just ok,) will make decent contacts and is small enough I can handle it doing wet plates.


Kent in SD

[Greg]

Here's how I have settled on testing my lenses today for diffraction: 4x5 Sinar Norma mounted on a Linhof Heavy Duty tripod (no head). Nikon D850 mounted on a Sinar board and intern mounted on the back of the camera. Camera body is also mounted on top of a second tripod. Camera is about about 20 feet away from a resolution test target that I created. I use a magnified Live-View image to obtain optimum focus. Then shoot one frame at each of the lenses full f/stops. Later on I view the images in Lightroom or Bridge and compare the images. Then I make a simple table for each of my lenses with notations after each of the f/stops. Then put a small yellow dot next to what I believe is my "optimum" f/stop for the type of images I shoot. My marked "optimum" f/stop is of course a starting point depending on the scene. This all just plain works for me.

At what I think will be my "most used" aperture setting will be for the type of images I shoot, I shoot my standard scene (center of town from the covered second floor porch of our History Museum with the focus point a sign on the side of a building about 200 feet away) using a larger format than the lens will be used for. 8x10 for 4x5 and 11x14 for Whole Plate and 8x10. With these negatives I can calculate my lenses coverage based on my practical criteria.

This month I intend on finally determining the coverage of my 11x14 lenses by shooting 11x14 negatives with maximum horizontally shift the front standard in one direction and the rear standard maximum horizontally shift in the other direction. After making sure that I have included an object (a stop sign in my case) in the exact center of the frame with all the standards aligned, to help me determine lens coverage.

Negatives used to determine lens coverage I label with the date shot, lens used, aperture used, and other notes.

[Drew Wiley]

What Bernice reiterates is certainly true for garden variety work. But 8X10 film CAN deliver significantly more detail in a print than smaller film options, and I have hundreds of negative and chromes which prove it. I've got one in an enlarger right now. In a fair fight, you have to compare apples to apples, not what was commercially routine decades ago versus the kind of superb quality obtainable today with some attention to optimization. Since I rarely print black and white larger than 20x24, and all the b&w sheet films I use are nice and stiff, I rarely use adhesive holders for that application, since it's only 3X magnification. On the other hand, 8x10 color film is much more expensive, and I print it in various sizes up clear to 30X40, so reserve my adhesive holders for color film, or else applications that inherently demand high precision like in-camera color separations using b&w sheet film. But I've done comparison shots with an un-tilted camera and triacetate 8x10 Provia, ordinary holder vs an adhesive one, at "optimum" f/22; and the loss of acute focus towards the center of the developed image was way worse than the effects of diffraction at f/90. Add that to a list of things of other items of overall sloppiness in both the field and the darkroom, and it's easy to see why 8x10 has gotten a bad rap. It need not be so. There are of course other advantages too, such as better tonality, being able to choose films for other reasons than simply fine grain, better color saturation, etc. And 8x10 certainly takes green better than 4x5 - takes green out of your wallet!

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have been toying with the idea of buying 100 yr. Old 8x10

A genuine Century 1 is an interesting choice, but frankly it has a weak front standard.

[interneg]

Most of the reason to use 8x10 is for the effect of the camera on the operator & the subject. That there are all sorts of technical flaws are rather irrelevant when viewed in that context. As has been said earlier, we rather forget that most of the 'grand landscape with deep focus' images were rarely enlarged beyond 16x20, let alone 20x24". You are going to have to choose what you want to hold in focus & stick to it - worth noting too that most contemporary-ish photographers using 8x10 to make very big prints tend towards this sort of approach rather than attempting deep focus via excessive camera manipulation & deep stops. Personally I prefer f45 & making smaller prints, but each to their own...

That many technical headaches come with the territory of 8x10 is a fact of life & you have to choose to live with them or go for a smaller format if an excessive/ exclusionary obsession with 'perfection' is your thing.

[Drew Wiley]

Well stated. I love 8x10 for the sheer joy of looking at that big opalescent ground glass, and how it facilitates contemplative composition, regardless of whether it gets printed big or just by contact. I sometimes do both with the same negative.

[Bernice Loui]

That "Big" ground glass image appeal lasted for about a year. After that reality of negativity making color and B&W 8x10 film images settled in as being simply not worth the hassle, cost and.... for 8x10. Know there was very easy access to some of the very best modern optics and Sinar, Linhof, Dorff and other famed 8x10 cameras to make this choice.

Even the 8x10 color transparencies that once was SO appealing completely lost their appeal. Going back to 4x5 proved lesser even with the very best cameras & Lenses and all from the early 1990's to later 1990's never produced B&W images as good as the next film size up. For color this was a much lesser problem for B&W, 4x5 is IMO remains too small a sheet film format.

Or been down that 8x10 road and never again.

BTW, 6x7 is very capable of producing excellent 16x20 color prints, B&W no.


Bernice



Well stated. I love 8x10 for the sheer joy of looking at that big opalescent ground glass, and how it facilitates contemplative composition, regardless of whether it gets printed big or just by contact. I sometimes do both with the same negative.

[Vaughn]

I have to admit that being 6'4", 220 pounds of muscle (okay -- that's 25 yrs ago), an ex-wilderness ranger, backpacker, 3-games-a-week basketball player, and building up to 8x10 slowly with 4x5 and 5x7, made 8x10 an easy camera for me to work with . Packing the 11x14 around on my back is still possible...not significantly heavier than the 8x10, but bulky. 5x7 is great when traveling by airplane....and will probably see even more trail use as I approach 70 (still 5 years away).

[Drew Wiley]

Well, it was easy for me until a month ago when I tweaked my shoulder with bursitis again. Hopefully, I'll have enough time to build my pack weight conditioning up again for sake of a lengthy backpack later in the season. And I'm only 5'7" and just a few months shy of 70. But perhaps it's good thing not to be taking still more 8x10 images right now, since it allows me a break to catch up printing some of the many color ones I already have.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 and larger works great for Vaughn as he makes contact prints with these film negatives and the carbon prints are gorgeous...


Bernice

[Vaughn]

8x10 and larger works great for Vaughn as he makes contact prints with these film negatives and the carbon prints are gorgeous...Bernice

Thank you -- what you said basically was to pick the right tool for the imagery one wants to make.

[Bernice Loui]

Now going off topic.... due to the weight-size direction.

The travel Norma:
192318

-5x7 Sinar Norma with normal bellows.

-Sinar Shutter.

-Sinar Bag bellows.

-Two Sinar 6" rails.

-Goerz 450mm Artar in barrel.

-240mm f4.5 Schneider Xenar or 12" f6.3 or 10" f6.3 or 8-1/2" f6.3 Kodak Commercial Ektar in barrel.

-165mm f6.8 Schneider Angulon in barrel.

-115mm f6.8 Grandagon in Copal shutter, almost always used with bag bellows.

*Minolta Spot F & spare battery.

*Horseman loupe.

*100mm Sq. Sinar B&W filters.

*Sinar shutter cable, 24" cable release with angle adapter.

*Dark cloth.

*Six 5x7 or 13x18cm film holders.

All into a Pelican 1510 FAA approved carry on roller case, about 25 pounds.
Tripod goes for a ride on the roller.


Bernice

[Bernice Loui]

PRECISELY !!!!!
Condition being know precisely what the absolute limits, weakness and strengths of the tool is.


Bernice


Thank you -- what you said basically was to pick the right tool for the imagery one wants to make.

[Vaughn]

Staying off-topic...I got one of those, Bernice, but I have not used it. Bellows has pinholes and just too fancy, I should sell it and let someone else play with it. (5x7 back is a well-made home-made affair.)

I am enjoying my 110-year-old Eastman View No.2 and if I go with just one lens, it tends to be a FujiW 180/5.6 (inside lettering) with a 210mm as a second possibility. Six to 8 holders, Pentax Digital Spot -- all in a Tamrack Extreme Series pack (a hand-me-down from a famous photographer -- good karma!) I might get a field 5x7 with full front movements one of these days...but it probably will not be much lighter.

That's a mat board lensboard that was taped on with gaffers tape after the 210mm lens fell off while hiking in Zion. It hit rock, of course (nothing but rock there), but still works 100%. Got to do better than that!

[Bernice Loui]

Replacing the bellows on a Norma is not difficult and they are easily available. If the bellows is leaky, it is very likely the lubricants have become stiff clay which would also need to be addressed by take apart cleaning, re-assemble with the proper lubricants then adjusted.

Fine image maker. Been down the mat board made into a lens board road more than a few times to try out an unknown lens. This can work surprisingly well to get a rough idea of what any given lens might be like.

Nice illustration of how little the basic concept of a view camera has changed over the decades.


Bernice




Staying off-topic...I got one of those, Bernice, but I have not used it. Bellows has pinholes and just too fancy, I should sell it and let someone else play with it. (5x7 back is a well-made home-made affair.)

I am enjoying my 110-year-old Eastman View No.2 and if I go with just one lens, it tends to be a FujiW 180/5.6 (inside lettering) with a 210mm as a second possibility. Six to 8 holders, Pentax Digital Spot -- all in a Tamrack Extreme Series pack (a hand-me-down from a famous photographer -- good karma!) I might get a field 5x7 with full front movements one of these days...but it probably will not be much lighter.

That's a mat board lensboard that was taped on with gaffers tape after the 210mm lens fell off while hiking in Zion. It hit rock, of course (nothing but rock there), but still woks 100%. Got to do better than that!

[Thom Bennett]

Very well put.


Now let me explain this from an entirely different angle. 8x10 photography inherently involves depth of field compromises. Crunching numbers will only take you so far. You need to learn how to strategize depth of field in a compositional sense, intelligently, for sake of the specific image itself, rather than rely on rote formulas. Some scenes might be amenable to very crisp overall plane of focus control, especially if wide angle lenses with their greater depth of field are involved. But in most cases, I find myself prioritizing certain things in the picture which I want the viewer's eyes to instinctively focus upon within context of a much richer cumulative print. I often do this by carefully nuancing the critical focus. Please do not confuse this with the notions of either soft focus or what small camera tele-photographers term selective focus. It's a lot more subtle, but allows me to strategize big highly detailed prints. Nothing is more disconcerting than these new huge digitally stitched panels where everything in the scene is artificially equally sharp. Human vision does not work like that. Vermeer would roll over in his grave. The eyes survey, select, re-focus, and prioritize; and any intelligent composition should assist that process.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks, but I don't want to be misunderstood in the context of this thread. It is entirely possible that I have the most sophisticated optical enlarging setup of anyone on this forum, not necessarily in terms of sheer size capacity, but precision and hue accuracy. I too use a Norma camera, except when sheer lightness of the pack is a travel priority, and routinely fine-tune its settings. But even it doesn't have the visual authority of even my lesser-made 8x10 field camera. I have some the best lenses for both darkroom use and shooting. I know how to do very complex masking protocols, internegs, and duplication work. But that's all just a means to an entirely different end. Technical chatter for its own sake is about as rewarding as reading the list of ingredients on a food package. If it doesn't taste good, none of that matters. Nor does all this fuss over technical detail mean a darn thing unless it serves the higher purpose of meaningful, rewarding composition. It's way too simplistic to simply defer to a good "subject" versus technology debate; people who talk like that usually don't understand either. And a truly compelling big print has to have more going for it than just overwhelming size and a catchy theme or loud color that looks good over the sofa like a hyper-saturated billboard. Of course, if making fast money is your primary motive, then catering to the lowest common denominator of taste possible seems to be the proven route; but that's an instant dead-end to any personal gratification in having done something well that can be enjoyed over the long haul, in my way of looking at things. I like richly-layered images, not just highly detailed or "colorful" ones. But other people have their own priorities, and that's why we share, and often debate, our respective viewpoints.

[Bernice Loui]

Image preferences depends on a host of factors from an individual's innate visual, cognitive and numerous other bias to cult tribal membership to monetary demands to an individuals need for ego or other self gratification and much more.

At the core, this is one of the great and diverse abilities of art, it can be a means to share with others who we really are along with an individual's perception of the human condition in so many ways.

*What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?


Bernice





Of course, if making fast money is your primary motive, then catering to the lowest common denominator of taste possible seems to be the proven route; but that's an instant dead-end to any personal gratification in having done something well that can be enjoyed over the long haul, in my way of looking at things. I like richly-layered images, not just highly detailed or "colorful" ones. But other people have their own priorities, and that's why we share, and often debate, our respective viewpoints.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I have to admit that being 6'4", 220 pounds of muscle...

I hate you! :) Seventy-three years old now and short of six feet, paying dearly for an athletic youth and military injuries. Keep on, Sir. Someday I hope be in Humboldt Co where my late younger brother's family lives. Peace on you.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?

Shared artistic vision is shared delusion, persons misdirected. But there is nothing wrong with that. It is the in-between revelations that matter to connect us.

[Drew Wiley]

But you have to be on the road awhile to figure that out. You even have to be on the road awhile to learn which tools best fit your own vision. One shoe size does not fit all.

[Jac@stafford.net]

One shoe fits all who want to move forward. It is not an exclusionary technology.

[Vaughn]

One shoe fits all who want to move forward. It is not an exclusionary technology.
Ah, but to wear shoes is to cover the earth with shoe leather.

I gave up basketball when my triplets were born (1997) -- after 3 knees surgeries, I wanted to be able to go backpacking with them! Of course the last few day hikes I have taken with them, I told them to go on ahead and I'd see them on their way back! But a side benefit is still being able to carry 60+ pounds or so of equipment (carrying my age, lol!)...just not as far as I use to! Hope you can make it up here...well, out here since you are to the east!


What is any art produced then shared trying to say to anyone taking in the art?

Socially-conscience art tends to have a direct message, some art just entertains, and the rest of art opens up possibilities, with the artist/s providing the hints...I would not call it misdirection, unless that was the artist's purpose. Just my way of looking at it, anyway...subject to change.

[Drew Wiley]

How come old fashioned slide shows looked sooooo much more impressive than viewing images on a computer screen; and how come a funky old wooden view camera can still take sooo much better images than some fancy dancy super-expensive digital camera, which must be really really good in inverse proportion to how quickly goes obsolete! The term technology does not just apply to electronics. Film and chemical-based photography had a hundred year head start; and for my purposes, the tortoise is still ahead in the race, while the rabbit has to repeatedly pull off the road to change into new fur. Useless fur all over the place, especially glued to gallery walls.

[Pere Casals]

How come old fashioned slide shows looked sooooo much more impressive than viewing images on a computer screen

An slide is an slide :)

[Drew Wiley]

A wet plate is ZERO pixels. That's why I like it, slides shows too. Digital projectors were for those really boring Powerpoint presentations at sales meetings before I retired - worse than Aunt Maude showing Kodachrome slides of her vacation to the donut factory in Peoria taken the previous summer.

[Bernice Loui]

All this text goes back to the question of what is "Art", why Art is IMPORTANT to the human family and human condition.
Question of 8x10 and Diffraction is just one grain of sand on the beach of expressive image making.


Bernice

[Fred L]

question for the those who use 2x sided tape. to remove the sheet, do you simply pop one side out the rail to peel it off the tape, or is there a better method ? also one would want tape with minimal sticktion ?

tia

fred

[Vaughn]

I slid a finger under the film and popped it off the tape, then slid out the film as usual. I used a 3M tape that had high tack strength on one side and low on the other.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Film sag did you say? Double-side tape. Bob's your uncle.

[Bernice Loui]

Depending on the thickness of the tap, amount applied and .... lifts up the film altering it's focal point position.
Adhesive film holders were once a Sinar item. Linhof made a vacuum film folder.

Just another trade-off.


Bernice


Film sag did you say? Double-side tape. Bob's your uncle.

[Drew Wiley]

It has to be the right kind of tape! - 3M no. 9415PC - permanent adhesive on one side, repeatedly repositionable Post-It adhesive on the other side. 9425 has also been successfully used. Both are 2-mil thick. Modifying holders is simple if you have typical plastic Lisco or Fidelity holders. Just take a sharp box knife, a steel straightedge, and slice the film-retaining fin from each side (not the darkslide retainer). Practice on a funky holder first. After your tape strips are carefully placed and permanently pressured down, remove the top liner. Film is carefully aligned to the bottom end position then gently dropped down. It's easy with practice. Be careful not to let dust build up on the adhesive so that it will remain effective over the long run, potentially many years.

[Michael Kadillak]

Depending on the thickness of the tap, amount applied and .... lifts up the film altering it's focal point position.
Adhesive film holders were once a Sinar item. Linhof made a vacuum film folder.

Just another trade-off.


Bernice

Been shooting primarily 8x10 for 15 years and never ever have I had a situation where I witnessed or could see in the negative / print the adverse effects of film sag on 8x10 even shooting straight down at an image. Sharp as a tack. Similarly I have never seen a problem with this on 11x14 although I have to admit that I have never taxed the conventional horizontal +/- 20 degrees with he 11x14. Why be concerned about something that by its own implementation could induce a problem with double stick tape?

[Bernice Loui]

Try using a Schneider 480mm f4.5 Xenar with a taking aperture of f8 on sheet film 5x7 or larger, then make an enlargement of up to 4x. Then do a close up inspection of less then 12" away and inspection with a 4x loupe magnifier on the print.

If the taking aperture is f22 and smaller then contact printed a taking aperture of f90 on 8x10 and larger is not a problem.

All relative and dependent on expectations and demands of the image maker.



Bernice



Been shooting primarily 8x10 for 15 years and never ever have I had a situation where I witnessed or could see in the negative / print the adverse effects of film sag on 8x10 even shooting straight down at an image. Sharp as a tack. Similarly I have never seen a problem with this on 11x14 although I have to admit that I have never taxed the conventional horizontal +/- 20 degrees with he 11x14. Why be concerned about something that by its own implementation could induce a problem with double stick tape?

[Vaughn]

I have had many 8x10 negatives adversely affected (as in unusable) by film movement during exposure, but this is over a 25 year period in conditions that might be different than Michael's...such as 10 to 30 minute exposures in cool damp climates. But most of them were due to the film shifting in the holder during the exposure, not sagging/popping. Giving the film holder a bump with the heel of my hand before inserting the holder into the camera is now providing protection against that...thus I could do away with the tape.

I have a boatload of 11x14s to develop, so hopefully I will not see any problems with those.

[Drew Wiley]

Popping of large sheet films during the exposure is a distinct possibility for those of us who work out in the damp and cold elements; and it can happen in under a minute, like when you get a brief break in a cold rain and quickly pull a holder out of your pack and the film and holder don't have time to temperature equalize. It's only happened to me twice - but two good images lost that were quite a bit of work to try to get. One more argument for an adhesive holder.

[Jim Noel]

Ray McSavaney taught me that when photographing in weather conditions different from that which would be considered normal for the film, going from warm dry indoors to humid,or cold, or any other condition which might cause the film to warp, put the holder in the camera, remove the dark slide and wait at least one minute to allow the film to warp or pop. Since then I have never had a problem with film movement.

[Bernice Loui]

Had this happen more than once... the results were NOT good :(


Bernice



Popping of large sheet films during the exposure is a distinct possibility for those of us who work out in the damp and cold elements; and it can happen in under a minute, like when you get a brief break in a cold rain and quickly pull a holder out of your pack and the film and holder don't have time to temperature equalize. It's only happened to me twice - but two good images lost that were quite a bit of work to try to get. One more argument for an adhesive holder.

[Oren Grad]

I've had occasional popping of large sheet film too - it's no fun to pull a sheet from the drum after a processing run and find a double image. When shooting conditions allow, I use Ray's/Jim's solution of pulling the dark slide and letting the film equilibrate before opening the shutter. I'd rather not put sticky stuff in my holders.

If you think this means that the film isn't very flat before popping, after popping, or potentially both, you're absolutely right!

[Drew Wiley]

Jim - I'd always keep my pack outside of the house or tent in bad weather for sake of temp equilibrium. But that's not realistic for security reasons if you happen to being staying in a motel etc and want to get out shooting early on a cold or rainy morning. Or even car camping last yer, I couldn't do that because junkfood-addicted Tubby the Bear kept showing up wanting to check out what was in the pack. And Oren, it's not "sticky stuff" - it's a very well engineered, dependable 3M product quite superior to the old days when someone would put a tab of just any ole ATG tape on the middle of a ULF holder. But you do want to load it under temperate reasonably dry conditions to begin with, not in a changing tent in the field if the conditions are especially humid or cold.

[Oren Grad]

And Oren, it's not "sticky stuff" - it's a very well engineered, dependable 3M product quite superior to the old days...

It better be sticky, or it won't accomplish anything. :)

Seriously: that's fine. I still don't want to put it in my holders. YMODV. (Your Mileage Obviously Does Vary.)

[Drew Wiley]

What I was implying is that it's the right kind of "sticky". It permanently bonds on the backside, where you need that (though this can be removed later with solvent or film cleaner if replacement is necessary). But on the front side, none of the other type of adhesive transfers to your film or fingers if you apply it correctly to begin with (there is a bit of technique, including cleanup of any backside residue that might have gotten where you don't want it). So it's not "sticky" in that respect at all, but does serve to reliably hold film flat. Ive use the same holders for nearly 30 years without needing to replace the adhesive sheets. No, I don't shoot 8x10 film every week; but holders which have been neglected, and still have the same sheet of film in them after two years are perfectly usable. No problems. But if someone is going to do this, and necessarily alters certain of their holders permanently, do it right! Not just any double-faced tape works. If you just want to be two-faced in general, become a politician or insurance adjustor instead.

[Michael Kadillak]

I have had many 8x10 negatives adversely affected (as in unusable) by film movement during exposure, but this is over a 25 year period in conditions that might be different than Michael's...such as 10 to 30 minute exposures in cool damp climates. But most of them were due to the film shifting in the holder during the exposure, not sagging/popping. Giving the film holder a bump with the heel of my hand before inserting the holder into the camera is now providing protection against that...thus I could do away with the tape.

I have a boatload of 11x14s to develop, so hopefully I will not see any problems with those.

I shoot primarily in dry West climates and mostly at shutter speeds well within 15 seconds which likely is considerably improving my odds against this adverse situation.

[Drew Wiley]

Contact printers can SEEMINGLY get away with a lot. But try seriously enlarging some of those sheets versus ones held truly flat and you'll discover quite a difference.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Contact printers can SEEMINGLY get away with a lot. But try seriously enlarging some of those sheets versus ones held truly flat and you'll discover quite a difference.

Who in the world would 'seriously' enlarge a contact print? if a contact works, it is done. Don't invent scenarios.

[Michael Kadillak]

Who in the world would 'seriously' enlarge a contact print?

You took the words right out of my mouth. If and when I run into a problem with film "popping" in some way shape or form I at least know what my options are. Until then it is one less thing to be concerned about.

[Drew Wiley]

I for one might print the same negative as both a contact and an enlargement. If all you intend to do is contact print, fine; but if otherwise, you've painted yourself into corner. But its all relative. I rarely worry about good stiff black and white 8x10 film (the largest format I personally use) because I rarely make black and white prints larger than 20x24 - a modest enlargement. But color film is a different topic. Not only might I enlarge it bigger, but for awhile all I could get is triacetate film base, which is way more susceptible tio sagging than Estar base.

[Michael Kadillak]

I for one might print the same negative as both a contact and an enlargement. If all you intend to do is contact print, fine; but if otherwise, you've painted yourself into corner. But its all relative. I rarely worry about good stiff black and white 8x10 film (the largest format I personally use) because I rarely make black and white prints larger than 20x24 - a modest enlargement. But color film is a different topic. Not only might I enlarge it bigger, but for awhile all I could get is triacetate film base, which is way more susceptible tio sagging than Estar base.

Well that for me is a game changer because I have never exposed a sheet of 8x10 color film in my 8x10 cameras - only B&W and yes, it is pretty stiff.

[Drew Wiley]

For at least a decade both Fuji and Kodak were coating chrome sheet film on acetate. What a headache! Filmholder issues were just the tip of the iceberg. I was printing one of those two days ago, a truly exceptional 8x10 shot, but which required multiple masking steps. Acetate isn't dimensionally stable and registration gets out of whack with humidity changes. Fortunately, Fuji finally came out with Astia 100F on polyester base at the right point in the ongoing battle, and I used it to generate a master printing duplicate, and more recently a contact interneg from new Kodak estar-based sheet film. It has a few minor misregistration issues which someone nitpicky might spot in the 30x40 inch scale, but overall it's still quite a bit more seamless and convincing than any scanned and digi manipulated version would be.