4x5, is it worth it?

[Robert_5479]

I recently bought a new Toyo 4x5 and some extras. My dilema is wether to pump the money into building a complete system, considering the following concerns, or just dump the 4x5 format altogether and get a medium format system and continue busting my balls packing my 8x10 around for the large format work.

1) Currently I'm not able to print conventionally where I live even if I could afford a quality 4x5 enlarger and all that is needed. 2) I hear there are no affordable dedicated 4x5 film scanners on a par with the ones for roll film, such as the Nikon 9000. 3) If I go with a roll-film back in the toyo, I probably wouldn't get the same sharpness as from a medium format system. 4) The angle of view from a typical collection of 4x5 lenses would wind up being telephoto lenses with a roll-film back unless I selected super-wide lenes and the toyo doesn't accept bag bellows. 5) 4x5 negs are a bit small for contact printing.

Given these conditions and my perceptions, it seems that perspective control is the only real advantage of continuing with the 4x5.

I'm sure others have faced this decision...am I missing some options or merits of the 4x5 given the fact that I can't afford a drum scanner or use a 4x5 enlarger where I live? Should I continue to print 8x10 contacts but be limited to shooting close to a car and bag the 4x5 idea?

I guess in the end it all comes down to money...which I don't have much of, so I could benefit from opinions rather than regrets.

Thanks for any help!
Robert

[Bill_1856]

You are becoming an equipment junkie. You need help.

[Ron Marshall]

Robert, I began shooting 4x5 this year. I don't have the room for a darkroom, or drum scans, so I use an Epson 4990. I gives results suitable for 11x14 or perhaps 16x20 prints.

I wanted to have better quality scans from the 4990 and the posibility to make contact prints, so I have just purchased a 5x7. I see it as the Goldilocks format. Of course most things in photography (life) involve compromises. But that is my solution. Time will tell if it satisfies me.

[Hugh Sakols]

Because I already owned a Minolta Multi Pro dedicated scanner and a 6x6 system, I went with a Horseman VHR with a 6x9 back. It's limiting when it comes to the telephoto range but I get some fantastic scans - I haven't printed anything larger than 12x18 but I hope to someday.

[paulr]

with 4x5, the scans you can get from a low to middle end flatbed scanner are remarkable. for all but very large prints, they will be better than what you can do with an enlarger.

[Walt Calahan]

Nope, skip 4x5, skip 5x7, skip 8x10, even skip 11x14, go directly to 20x24. Don't forget to get your "get out of jail" card on the way. HA!

Of course 4x5 is worth it. It's not the gear. It's how you use your imagination with whatever tool you have on hand to make a compelling image.

Get a chisel and some stone if you like.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

I think 4X5 is worth the effort for sure, but why not try 5x7?

I am leaning hard towards selling my 4X5 cameras and getting a 5X7 with a 4X5 reducing back. Gives me the best of both worlds, the 5X7 will make wonderful contacts and I can still use the 4X5 for images I might want to enlarge in the darkroom and for those where the more square shape of the 4X5 would suite the subject better. Also, no need for more lenses ( yeh,sure) as those that I have for my 4X5 will work with the 5X7.

Just a thought.

[Aender Brepsom]

I second Hugh's opinion. If money is an issue - as for most of us - then I would advise you to stick to rollfilm and a 2x3" field camera. The results from a good flatbed scanner like the Epson 4990 just can't match what a Polaroid Sprintscan 120, Nikon 9000, etc are able to deliver.

I have printed 2x3"-slides, scanned with the Sprintscan 120, at 60x90 cm (+/- 23x35 inch) and they just look fantastic.

If I could afford an Imacon for 4x5" , then I might switch to 4x5, but I simply don't see why I should spent all that money on a larger camera and film/processing and give away the quality advantage by scanning on a flatbed afterwards.

Good luck

[Stephen Willard]

Robert,

Digital is not cheap to do. B&H prices a Nikon 9000 for $1800 which is not cheap. When you consider the computer, extra RAM, screen calibrators, inkjet printer, color management software, photoshop software, and the cost of keeping current with the latest software releases you can easily spend $4000 to $6000. After 2-3 years most of the equipment you have will be obsolete and have almost no resale value. It will be cost prohibitive for you to stay current with the hardware. Then there is the cost of making a print. I believe an inkjet print is about LOT more expensive to make then a traditional photographic print.

Used 4x5 enlargers on ebay are very cheap. I saw a Durts Laborator S-45 on ebay for $425 with the buy now option. Most 4x5 enlargers can make 20x24 prints or bigger. To complete with this in digital you would have to buy one of the big 20" plus inkjet printers which are not cheap. A Jobo CPP-2 which can do up to 20x24 color prints and film is selling on ebay for about $600 to $900. I suspect you could put together an excellent traditional color dark room for about $2000 - $2500 buying used on ebay. I can make a 16x20 color print in my darkroom for less than $2 including chemistry and using Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I believe the cost for a 16x20 digital print is around $10 - $14. Inkjet ink and paper is not cheap.

The bottom line is digital is just a lot more expensive then using traditional darkroom methods. So if money is your concern than go traditional for sure.

[ronald moravec]

Digital was invented for planned FAST obsolesence. You will go broke. The ones who will make money are equipment manufactures. If you decide to get a new computer, you will find the scanning software and printing software will not match the latest microsoft system. You may or may not find upgraded software on line.

A printer will pay for itself if you make a lot of prints before it goes obsolete. Otherwise factor in the cost of the printer to each print and you will see why it is expensive.

I am ready to recommend people scan the color negs, do the photoshop as required, and file transfer the program to a good pro lab to have the print made. I have had SUPERB luck doing this with a local lab. You get to do the creativity with photoshop, burn dodge, add textures etc, and the print matches exactly.

Stay away from the locals that use commercial paper. Use a pro lab that prints on profesional portrait paper. Kodak has a list of their qualified Q labs on their site. I use AIprolab.com. All they care about is quality. Price is a little high, delivery a bit slow, but you will love the results.
My local Ritz sometimes gets a print file if I`m in a hurry. You get a print fast, cheap, reasonable quality, but contrasy because of the commercial paper they use. Reduce contrast in photoshop before sending a file to one of these.

Now you do 4x5 and have anyone process the print. How can you beat that?

[John O'Connell]

I'm not sure what you mean by a "complete" 4x5 system. The 4x5 system I have lying around the house is a broken camera and two $150 lenses, 6 holders and an old box of TMX. I haven't used it in a while, but I will most likely fix/replace the camera and go back to shooting 4x5, even though I don't have an enlarger.

It makes sense because you can contact print your 4x5s until you get an excellent sample print and then have a decent lab follow it for the enlargement.

[Ben Calwell]

What Eric said, plus, I think 4x5 contact prints can be quite nice when matted and framed.

[MIke Sherck]

So... you said that you acquired your 4x5 system "recently". Why did you buy it (i.e., what were you expecting?) How did you plan on printing when you bought it, and why didn't that work out?

[Jim Rhoades]

I think Eric is on the right track. It might be annoying spending even more money, but... Last year I traded a fine 4x5 field camera. For a half pound more weight and one more inch in height I have a fine 5x7 and a 4x5 back. My 8x10 stays home or in the car now. One camera fits all. You can contact the 5x7 and flat scan the 4x5.

Of course now I really want a 5x7 enlarger.

[Scott Knowles]

I don't know what you mean by a "complete" system. I still plan to go to 4x5 this year, when the Layton camera is finally produced, for reasons unrelated to the print process. I have one lens with plans for two more lenses and the typical field stuff. But I plan to let a lab do the film processing for now, maybe developing b&w film later, and for any printing and scanning I need. I'll keep my complete film 35mm system for additional and other photography.

I moving to 4x5 for the film, camera controls, and the field process. I set aside a the money and everything must fit inside the budget. I overindulged myself in my 35mm system and learned to avoid the equipment focused mentality by focusing on the minimal system I need to work in 4x5. I've talked with several longtime 4x5 photographers who have the equipment bug to see it's a never-ending road to avoid. All I have to do is look at a closet full of 35mm equipment.

In short set and stay within a budget. Good luck.

[Alan Davenport]

1) Currently I'm not able to print conventionally where I live even if I could afford a quality 4x5 enlarger and all that is needed.

That leaves you with several options. I see you've already though a little about scanning and printing digitally. The availability of reasonably-priced scanners for 4x5 film was the key that opened the large format door for me. I had a wet darkroom for many years, but I don't miss it.

2) I hear there are no affordable dedicated 4x5 film scanners on a par with the ones for roll film

Scanners for 4x5 don't necessarily need to be equal to rollfilm scanners. One of the advantages of large formats, is that you don't need as much enlargement. That translates to scanners; you don't really need a 4,000 DPI scanner to produce excellent prints from LF films. A lot of people are making stunning prints from 4x5's using inexpensive scanners.

3) If I go with a roll-film back in the toyo, I probably wouldn't get the same sharpness as from a medium format system. and 4) The angle of view from a typical collection of 4x5 lenses would wind up being telephoto lenses with a roll-film back unless I selected super-wide lenes and the toyo doesn't accept bag bellows.

If you want to shoot roll films, you should probably buy a medium format camera.

5) 4x5 negs are a bit small for contact printing.

Not really; it's the prints that are small. If contact prints are your thing, start at 8x10 and go larger from there.

Should I continue to print 8x10 contacts but be limited to shooting close to a car and bag the 4x5 idea?

You're already shooting 8x10? That neatly solves the 4x5 contact printing question. It'll also save you lots of money, since you'll already have some nice long lenses for the 4x5.

[Herb Cunningham]

read confessions of a magic bullet chaser-we all need to.

I had a scan of a b/w on my epson 3200 pro and printed on an epson 2200. Then took the neg
to a good pro shop to enlarge.

They could not duplicate my digital print after three tries. I made a 13x19, they tried a 16x20
and it was not as contrasty (that's cheating-photoshop can always pump the contrast), but not
as sharp either.

I am doing my own wet processing now, and can beat the lab any day, so if you want to contact
print and do digital for the larger work, it is a good solution.

You cannot be sure of what you like until you work with it at least one year, shoot hundreds of
pics, etc.

[Don Wallace]

Stephen Willard is dead on in his assessment of the costs of digital. If money is an issue, then do not consider it. If, on the other hand, the issue is that you think there are no scanners that do a good job with 4x5, the stop worrying. You will be able to find one. I use an Epson 4870 (precursor of the 4990) and I am happy with it. You are right about contact printing 4x5. It is just a wee bit small.

FWIW, here is what I do. I use an RB67 for vacations and family photos. My main camera is a 4x5 and I also use an 8x10, sometimes with a 5x7 back. I shoot b&w and colour in medium format and 4x5, and I scan and print the colour. If I want really superior prints, I get a pro lab with pro scanners and printers to do it. I shoot only b&w in 5x7 and 8x10, and I print all my own black and white (medium to large format) in a traditional darkroom.

I am happy with this setup although I find the digital VERY expensive (factoring in computer costs, ink, etc.) Since I use it only for colour, I likely will not replace it when it dies, and I will simply send out any colour I want printed.

If I were in your situation and could not use a traditional darkroom, I would get a very portable 8x10 with a 5x7 back and work 0nly in those formats, only in b&w, and only contact print. Rather than seeing this a limitation, it could be seen as an opportunity to really concentrate on a particular part of the craft. I have a friend who only shoots 8x10 for contact printing. He has no fancy equipment, has only one lens, and his work is beautiful. His life is also a lot simpler.

[Bruce Watson]

What makes you think you can't afford a drum scanner? Excellent used drum scanners seem to be easily available, many in the $2K USD ballpark. People pay more than that for LF lenses.

[Percy]

Robert...my issues some time ago were frighteningly similar to yours. Short answer: yes, 4x5 is worth it, especially if you have a 4x5 enlarger. Just enlarging to 8x10 yields an image quality that is...well...majestic is the term that comes to mind. Scanning is a bit of a let down, but very nice, until you see what silver halide can do in comparison. So, if you are going to scan, by all means avoid viewing well done enlargements on photo paper, especially in black and white. I worked my way down from 8x10 to 5x7 to 4x5; I now shoot all formats.

If I had to do it all over again, I'd shoot 8x10 and 4x5. 4x5 film is far easier to develop without major issues with dust and scratches, and enlargements can be exquisite. 8x10 is a completely different world...
I now shoot digitally for all color work. I save my real cameras, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 for black and white.

[wfwhitaker]

"...the Goldilocks format". I like that! Another vote here for 5x7, possibly with a reducing back for occasional 4x5 as Jim suggested.

[Scott Squires]

I have used a Toyo 45AII for 7 years and to keep my cost down I have been using 6x9 and 6x12 backs. I crop the 6x9 to 6x7 if needed and I crop the 6x12 to 4x12 if I want a 1/3 panorama. I use an Epson 4990 scanner and Epson 2400 printer. The scans are great and the 13x19 prints are beautiful. The costs are accepable for me and having 4 different formats makes my nature photography more interestng. I now look at an image four different ways. I still use the 4x5 setup for Polaroid type 55, my favorite of all.

Scott Squires

[Brian Ellis]

I think it depends on whether you enjoy large format photography or not. If you're looking strictly at the technical side of things, and regard the whole process of large format photography as a burden that must justify itself in terms of technical improvement over other formats, then I'd suggest ignoring large format. However, many of us just enjoy the whole process of large format photography and don't worry too much about justifying the results from a technical standpoint.

I used a 6x7 camera and a 4x5 camera for many years. IMHO you can get equally good results up to 11x14 and often 16x20 with a 6x7 system or, better yet IMHO since medium isn't exactly the wave of the future, a good digital camera. The latter eliminates most of your concerns with processing, scanning, etc. and the latest offerings from Canon and Nikon (probably others as well but those are the ones I've seen) produce outstanding results. They will become obsolete only if they cease to serve your needs, I still use a 3 mp Olympus digital camera I bought six years ago for some things.

Of course you won't know how well you enjoy large format photography until you try it but you don't have to spend huge amounts of money to do that. Getting into large format with the intent of only using it with a roll film back has never made any sense to me unless the movements are something you absolutely can't get by without.

There's no comparison IMHO between trying to work in a darkroom and printing digitally from scanned film. You have much more control and ability to easily experiment with different options by printing digitally than the darkroom affords and you can get excellent results with a scanner such as the Epson 4990. I used a darkroom off and on for about 20 years. I began scanning and printing digitally about three years ago with the thought that I'd print some things digitally and other things (mainly 8x10 contact prints) in the darkroom. However, as soon as I realized what I could do digitally I was no longer satisfied with the limitations of a darkroom and I haven't been in there since except to process film. Unfortunately the learning curve for digital printing is very steep, much more so than darkroom work, but IMHO it's well worth it.

[Marko]

Stephen Willard: The bottom line is digital is just a lot more expensive then using traditional darkroom methods. So if money is your concern than go traditional for sure.

Stephen, I would have to disagree with you here. It is simply not true that traditional darkroom is more cost-effective than a digital one.

The fact that you are comparing the cost of used traditional with the prices of new digital aside, computers are multi-purpose technology. Vast majority people already own one these days, so starting a digital darkroom involves only upgrading RAM and disk, and adding color management.

A 100 sheets of 8x10 b&w film will buy all the RAM you need, ditto color management package. Photoshop is not really required, Elements, at one sixth of the cost of Photoshop, will serve a digital beginner just fine until the learning curve is sufficiently negotiated. That's another 25 sheets of film.

That's altogether about $600 - less than what most "normal" 4x5 lenses cost and a far cry from the $4000 to $6000 you quote. New lens, of course, since we're comparing it to new computer equipment, just to keep comparing apples-to-apples.

Obsolescence is another topic that anti-digital posters always bring up. 2-3 years is simply not accurate. Not any more - it may have been accurate back in the 90's, but personal computers have long reached their development curve plateau. My late 90's G3 and Nikon LS-10 scanner attached to it are still as functional as they were back in the late 90's. My G4, itself a four-year old, is doing just great, running the latest operating system and software. My G5 is of course even faster, but if it suddenly died, I could still get by without it. None of these cost nowhere near the $6000 mark you set, not even the $4000 one. Even counting all the RAM and disk upgrades I did over the years.

My PCs typically last 30-50% less than that, but they also cost less to begin with. They used to cost less if I cobbled them together myself, but even that is not the case any more. Base line, but still very functional PC could be had for about $500 these days, often including the monitor. Add a decent flatbad scanner for about $250 and comparable ink-jet for another $250, and all of a sudden you have a bare-bones digital lab for about a grand. That's not something I'd like to use nor would I recommend it, but it could do the job in a bind, especially for a beginner.

And I simply can't see how could "digital" paper + ink be "LOT more expensive" than "traditional" paper + chemicals.

The biggest cost of entry into digital, however, is something that the anti-digital crowd, curiously enough, never mentions - it's all the time and effort needed to acquire the appropriate skills. It can easily take a year or so of regular work to acquire something approaching intermediate photoshop skills. Scanning is a topic of its own and that will take another few months. Both those skillsets have extremely steep learning curve, but once acquired provide great rewards.

Only at that point would it make sense for one to buy decent quality printer and scanner. But those are no more expensive at worst and much cheaper at best than comparable level wet darkroom equipment. Dollar for dollar, new. We could also compare used vs. used, but the difference would be even greater because digital does depreciate in price much faster and thus two-year old but fully functional stuff could be had for a song.

If I were to give an advice, I would center it on the skills rather than money. Those with skills usually already have the hardware, so the switch to digital could be pretty smooth and not all that expensive for them. Those who don't, however, should consider acquiring the skills much more carefully than the cost of hardware.

Regards,

[Ed K.]

Greetings Robert,

I have a decent range of cameras from medium format through 8x10. I try to use the largest camera I can get away with most of the time lately. Sometimes, the largest is just too large to get into places to shoot, or conditions prevent the use of a tripod in which case I use a bean bag set. Part of what I have run into is the 8x10 being too large ( film holders included ) to climb around with on location and then take more than 2 shots per climb ( industrial shooting ). The 4x5 really works well with an external finder on top and a bunch of Quickloads in my pocket. It is worth it when it means still getting large format shots when the lugging is tough work.

If you want to contact your 4x5 work, you could skip the whole digital thing entirely, and still get marvelous prints. If you process your 4x5 black and white in David Wood's dr5, you will get a black and white slide that exceeds the range of a print, yet is a nice, viewable positive. If you pick the few that you really like, the slide can be enlarged directly onto a large piece of film suitable for your favorite contact print style with no interneg, plus contrast can be increased or decreased when making that enlarged neg. I think dr5 will again offer enlarged negs soon ( analog, not digital ). Then you can skip all the troubles of a scanner and grain aliasing. And until you get around to printing, you can
always show stunningly beautiful black and white slides to people. And if you get an Ilfochrome made of your 4x5, you'll be wondering why you ever started shooting 8x10 - a properly done, all analog photo is a real sight to behold - be it color or black and white.

After shooting 8x10, I found that my desires to shoot 4x5 and medium format really cooled off. The 4x5 ratio of "keepers" for me was less than 8x10 or medium format, in part because the 8x10 is easier to see while using it and doing movements, and in part because the medium format has all the convenience features and easy focusing. A recent project has changed all that for me though. I'm on location and have to do a wide variety of shots. I use ALL of my cameras, and have even resorted to 645 format just to get the shot when none of the other cameras could be used. Smaller means faster usually, and that can include 4x5 over 8x10. Sometimes I have to use 4x5 because the film I want is not available in 8x10 - that's a good reason for 4x5. You could also optimize your 4x5 to do what your 8x10 can't, etc. A 1200mm on an 8x10 is a pretty large beasty - you'd only need a 600 for the same shot with 4x5.

All of that said, the people who suggest a 5x7 camera with a reducing back probably have the most sensible solution if you want to cut down on gear overall. Every piece of equipment one can skip when doing a shoot in the field just makes everything go easier. 5x7 film is not as easy to buy though, and processing it is the equal in headaches to processing 8x10. Scanning 5x7 has the same troubles as 8x10 as well, and nearly the same costs. At least 4x5 scanning setups, even the low-end ones, have some kind of film holders that work ( no Newton rings! ). 4x5 can be processed in a little CombiPlan for little money, six sheets at a time, and nice even results with no scratches.

Another thing I have run into lately, is that fewer and fewer labs can even handle 5x7 or larger size negatives for enlargements. 4x5 is still quite available. If you can't print yourself at your own place, at this time, chances are very good that you can find a rental lab or a regular lab with a 4x5 enlarger to print for you once in a while.

Having a 4x5 can be so handy, and the difference in cost for film and processing related costs is really significant. If you don't mind using the 4x5, and if your prints don't need to be enormous, the mobility of a 4x5 setup is really a plus.

A roll film back for 4x5 is a pain to use unless it can slide in. The Graflock kind are a real pain to use and definitely more costly in time than the small savings in film. If you have a fancy slide-in type, which costs a fortune for a good one ( Sinar ), that's a different story.

Shoot it a bit longer before you ditch it, and think about what shots it can get that you would have a tough time getting with a larger camera. Many medium format cameras are heavy too, with the exception of the marvelous little Fuji fixed lens cameras. My RZ weighs triple what my low-class Toyo CF weighs, and don't laugh, that plastic Toyo with a good APO lens on it brings home the shots just fine. Gowland's little PocketView weighs even less, however film holders and lenses tend to even it out a bit. Another thing to consider before outfitting your 4x5 too much is whether you can survive with less of a system for it or not. Sometimes just picking a real favorite "one lens" rig can be quite fruitfulll,
and many times it is cheaper to move the body into the right location at the right time than to buy more lenses to pack along.

I look at it this way:

Most Mobile/Rugged Best Quality in the right conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangefinder MF Fuji 4x5 Cameras 8x10 and Up, some digital solutions

Least Cost to Use More costly
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rangefinder MF Fuji 35 size Digital 4x5, 8x10, larger digital systems

Indy Car Sports Car Tank
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
35mm Film SLR 645 MF 4x5 (Hummer), digital with computer, 8x10

[Wayne Crider]

Dump the 4x5, I'll trade something MF to you for it, and continue with the 8x10 and a MF system. I find that having too many "systems" is a waste of money. Define yourself to two and make do. If your a professional, buy what you need. If you can afford 4x5 scans for Lightjet prints, then maybe go that way. The best things about 4x5 is film cost/availability and portability. But to have a complete system sitting and not being used is a waste of money.

[John Kasaian]

I shoot 8x10 as well. 4x5 I see as a format to use when I can't sherpa the 8x10 into position. Useful, but if you shoot 8x10 regularly that small 4x5 negative takes a lot to get used to. Why not get a flywieght 8x10 like a Gowland or Nagaoka for venturing far from the car? Since neither would require a 'heavy duty judy' tripod like a reglar 8x10, the only draw back I see are the size of the holders and probably less stability in windy conditions. Certainly issues that can be worked around if the desire is there.

Good Luck!

[Ed Richards]

For those of you 8x10 shooters who are not full time photographers, how many pictures you take? As I walk around with my 4x5 camera and take pictures of hurricine damage, I keep thinking about whether I could do the same work with 8x10. I generally carry 5 holders with me, and go back to car when they are gone, but I can put my holder bag on my shoulder and carry 20 with no problem. Just hauling the holders around for 40 shots of 8x10 seems like a show stopper. There are many scenes where I shoot 2 or even 3 angles because it is hard to tell what will make the best print. How does that fit in with 8x10? I particullarly like keeping a few boxes of readyload in the car, so if something really interesting develops, I am not limited to holders I can carry. Do you keep 30-40 holders loaded to cover this?

[Ralph Barker]

Ed - I'm not sure how the other folks approach it, but I usually carry a 4x5 reducing back with my 8x10, as I tend to be fairly conservative with the 8x10 film. I usually have a dozen loaded 8x10 holders in the vehicle, along with about the same number of 4x5 holders. That allows me to shoot both 4x5 for enlargements, and 8x10 for contact prints. The Leica M usually tags along for miscellaneous shots, as well. A large changing bag allows me to reload in the field if I need to, but that's usually done back at the motel at night.

[Robert_5479]

All:

Thanks all for the wisdom via the written opinions offered. I like the idea of an Epson 4990 scanner (a device I've not used) and even the Horseman VHR with a 6x9 back...is this rig still offered?

By a "complete system", I mostly meant the lenses.

I may just keep the 4x5 around as I am somewhat of an equipment junkie as bill stated :-) Not to mention all the other advantages of this format as pointed out, such as using type 55 film and the viability of a 4x5 contact print.

Thanks!
Robert

[Gregory Gomez]

While it's tempting to own a wide range of camera gear, as Ansel Adams did (e.g., 8 x 10, 4 x 5, Hasselblad, and Contax 35mm all at one time), it's far better to specialize, or focus on one or maybe two formats, as most fine arts photographers have done over the years. Unless you have the time, money, energy, and talent of Ansel Adams, or someone like him, it's best to keep your gear to a minimum and to choose equipment that will serve your vision and way of working the best.

It's my impression that you may like results of producing high-quality contact prints using an 8 x 10 camera; however, you feel that it's a lot of trouble (e.g., "continue busting my balls packing my 8 x 10 around"). While I can agree with you that the 8 x 10 contact print is truly stunning, it does take considerable energy, drive, and focus to carry around gear as large, heavy, and bulky as an 8 x 10. And as you age, you will notice the 8 x 10 getting even heavier and bulkier. Eventually, you will be forced to give up the format as did Edward Weston, Brett Weston, and Ansel Adams because of infirmity or illness, or both. Or you can always pay someone to tote your gear around as Morley Baer did when he was no longer able to carry the big camera.

Four-by-five enlargers can be purchased used at a discount to what one would pay new. E-bay has several listings from time to time, and premier camera stores often carry them on consignment. You might be able to assemble a 4 x 5 darkroom for less than you think, and you can accumulate the needed equipment over time as your finances allow. This pay-as-you-go method could also be applied to 4 x 5 lenses, film holders, and accessories. If you are alert, you might be able to save 30 to 40 percent off the retail price by buying used.

I wouldn't worry too much about flat-bed scanners being inferior to scans produced by the Nikon 9000. The Epson 4990 produces excellent results, allowing you to produce really nice prints easily up to 11 x 14 inches, and very good prints up to 16 x 20, provided fine-grained film has been used, such as Fuji Velvia 50, Fuji NPS-160, Kodak T-Max 100, or Ilford Delta 100, etc. Some may dispute what I have said here, but keep in mind I have very high standards. And for the truly wonderful image, you could always have it drum-scanned professionally.

Keep in mind that high-quality medium format cameras, like a Hasselblad, are not cheap either. If I had the choice, I would choose a view camera over medium format for many types of shooting situations, but not for all situations of course.

I have used a roll film back on my 4 x 5 to produce very fine prints up to 11 x 14 inches. Perhaps high-quality medium format lenses would allow me to print larger, but the added expense of such equipment has always been a deterrent for me.

As for contact printing 4 x 5 negatives, I agree that this image size is a little small, but Minor White produced some very wonderful 4 x 5 contact prints that have made a lasting impression on me. Nevertheless, bigger seems to be better for many, so if contact prints is your passion, the 8 x 10, or larger camera, would be your equipment of choice. Although I like the look of contact prints, I am not "married" to that way of working.

In the final analysis, the camera equipment we choose is a means to an end, and not an end in itself, unless you are a collector. Our gear should assist our photographic vision and help us work to the best of our capacity. Moreover, it should give us pleasure when using it in the field, and it should help yield the type of image we seek in the darkroom or at the computer.

If I were you, I would spend some time thinking about what gives you true satisfaction using the cameras you already own, and then narrow your formats down so as to produce the very best images for which you are capable.

Good luck!

[Gregory Gomez]

VanCamper,

You have made a very good argument in favor of 4 x 5, especially if one is shooting color film.

The 8 x 10 camera is good if one only wants to make contact prints or wants to make billboard-sized enlargements. But then again, not all subjects lend themselves to the 8 x 10 because of depth of field limitations and the speed in which an 8 x 10 can be set up and used.

Then there is the cost of film, especially color film. If I were shooting color, 4 x 5 would be my format of choice, as it is with many color landscape photographers.

[Andre Noble]

1) Keep the 8x10

2) If you decide to go medium format, go Hasselblad (40 or 60mm, 100mm, and 180mm lenses are the outstanding ones) or Mamiya RB/RZ 6x7 - stay away from Bronica - I have a Phd on that mistake.

3) I don't ever recommend dumping 4x5

[audioexcels]

Ed - I'm not sure how the other folks approach it, but I usually carry a 4x5 reducing back with my 8x10, as I tend to be fairly conservative with the 8x10 film. I usually have a dozen loaded 8x10 holders in the vehicle, along with about the same number of 4x5 holders. That allows me to shoot both 4x5 for enlargements, and 8x10 for contact prints. The Leica M usually tags along for miscellaneous shots, as well. A large changing bag allows me to reload in the field if I need to, but that's usually done back at the motel at night.

To all the 8X10 shooters, I keep reading about the use of 8X10 for contact printing and the 4X5 for enlargements. Why not enlarge the 8X10 by a factor of only 2 and get a nice 16X20 print? You have to enlarge the 4X5 image 4X to get this same enlargement size. Seems one would be able to appreciate the 8X10 prints from only 2X enlargement over a 4X enlarged 4X5 print.

On the concept of 5X7 and 4X5...are people doing the same thing with 5X7 and using the 5X7 part for contact prints and 4X5 for the enlargements? I can see it making sense to do contacts with whole plate/8X10 and larger formats, but in spite 5X7 is a nice size, it is far from what you can see from Whole or 8X10. Just curious if those with the 5X7/4X5 path are doing equal photos shoots with these two and using the 5X7 not only to contact, but for enlarging. Somewhere I read that 5X7 is a major step ahead of 4X5 when it comes to b/w and grain (in larger prints of course).

[eddie]

keep the 4x5.

look out for a used 4x5 enlarger. i got mine for ....well....free. i sold some of the other things from the darkroom i bought and it paid for the enlarger. we are talking small money for sure, well under a 100$.

enjoy.

eddie

[Ole Tjugen]

I shoot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and occasionally 9.5x12".

The thing I like about 5x7" is that it's big enough for a contact print, and small enough to be enlarged in an enlarger that will fit in a normal house.

and then there's the level of detail: http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

[Dean Jones]

'4x5, is it worth it?' could be interpreted as 'Shall I get out of bed today?'
It solely depends upon your approach to the format, it has so much to offer and so many rewards...but like anything worth doing, it requires a little effort to achieve a good result. ;)

[adrian tyler]

i don't think digital prints are more expensive it depends how many prints you make, i worked an epson 2450 and a 950 printer for about 3-4 years and made 1000's of working proofs, that thing paid for itself 100's of times.

you don't need a super scanner and a super printer for the great shot we make, most of the shot i think are great end up in the trash, at the end of a project, year, or whatever the ones worth spending time on printing are not so many...

[cyrus]

Cheapest option: Scan the 4x5 negs using a flatbed like the Epson Pro 750 and have Snapfish or some outfit like that print them up.

Also, keep an eye on Craigslist.

[Nick_3536]

To all the 8X10 shooters, I keep reading about the use of 8X10 for contact printing and the 4X5 for enlargements. Why not enlarge the 8X10 by a factor of only 2 and get a nice 16X20 print? You have to enlarge the 4X5 image 4X to get this same enlargement size. Seems one would be able to appreciate the 8X10 prints from only 2X enlargement over a 4X enlarged 4X5 print.

On the concept of 5X7 and 4X5...are people doing the same thing with 5X7 and using the 5X7 part for contact prints and 4X5 for the enlargements? I can see it making sense to do contacts with whole plate/8X10 and larger formats, but in spite 5X7 is a nice size, it is far from what you can see from Whole or 8X10. Just curious if those with the 5X7/4X5 path are doing equal photos shoots with these two and using the 5X7 not only to contact, but for enlarging. Somewhere I read that 5X7 is a major step ahead of 4X5 when it comes to b/w and grain (in larger prints of course).

A 4x5 enlarger that can do 16x20 can be pretty small. I've got one that I can basically lift one handed. Even a small 8x10 enlarger takes up more room. Will be less common and harder to find.

5x7 is different. 4x5 and 8x10 should be lumped together. 5x7 is more like 11x14. I often want to crop 8x10. 5x7 seems a nicer format. 5x7 enlargers are harder to find then 4x5 but it's possible.

[Scott Davis]

8x10 enlargers generally need a dedicated room to themselves, and a big one at that. 4x5/5x7 enlargers can still be put on a non-dedicated table in many cases. And besides, once you get into 8x10 and bigger, the contact prints are just so nice.

[Ole Tjugen]

I shoot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and occasionally 9.5x12".

The thing I like about 5x7" is that it's big enough for a contact print, and small enough to be enlarged in an enlarger that will fit in a normal house.

and then there's the level of detail: http://www.bruraholo.no/images/Lodalen.html

Updated that a little bit - it's now a 130 Mp scan :)

[audioexcels]

Now I'm gonna go a little further off-topic, though much has been discussed regarding different formats in this thread and I think the 4X5 question has been answered;)...

What about 5X7 vs. 8X10 in terms of how well one holds up next to the other? In other words, lets say we scan 5X7 and 8X10 film, then post-process via CS2/3. We make an 8X10 print out of the 5X7 scan. We make an 8X10 print out of the 8X10 scan. Will the "discerning" be able to tell which 8X10 photo was done with which film size? Now take it a little further...lets say we take the same 5X7 scan and 8X10 scan, print it out to equivalent ratios of 8X10 enlargements=16X20, 24X30, etc. At what point do we see the difference between the 8X10 negative and the 5X7 one?

I've heard mixed views on this one as one claims an 8X10 looks better than 5X7 even at something like an 11X14 print. Others say it's not so.

[Doug Dolde]

Only if you can't afford a Phase One P45+

[Ole Tjugen]

What about 5X7 vs. 8X10 in terms of how well one holds up next to the other? In other words, lets say we scan 5X7 and 8X10 film, then post-process via CS2/3. ...

The limiting factor here is the scanning, not the film format. With a wet print you should be able to see the difference in a 2x enlargement from 8x10" vs. a 3x enlargement from 5x7".

At what resolution would you scan? At what resolution would you print?

[audioexcels]

The limiting factor here is the scanning, not the film format. With a wet print you should be able to see the difference in a 2x enlargement from 8x10" vs. a 3x enlargement from 5x7".

At what resolution would you scan? At what resolution would you print?

I don't imagine scanning much higher than 2000dpi off a flatbed via wet mounting and precise focusing using the Epson V750 or any other flatbed that comes out that may be better than what we have at present time and still at a reasonable price. If I did any drum scans (i.e. $50 ones;)), then they likely would do it at 2000dpi, but have a nicer scan of the image.

[Ole Tjugen]

2000 dpi is about 80 dpmm, corresponding to a maximum resolution of 40lppmm - somewhat simplified, as these numbers always are. Anyway that's a good number, since it's about the same resolution as can be reasonable expected on LF film - with the best lenses, supercritical focus, fine-grained film, vacuum holders, and perfect conditions in all other respects.

The general rule is that the human eye can discern details down to about 10 lppmm at normal viewing distance under optimal conditions. This should make the difference discernible after a 4x enlargement.

But printers don't print at 500dpi - they print at 300dpi, 240 dpi, 180 dpi or whatever; depending on the printer, the operator and what the customer is willing to pay! And it also seems that our perception of prints is influenced by details too small to be seen, one reason why contact prints are said to be superior to enlarged prints.


I've heard mixed views on this one as one claims an 8X10 looks better than 5X7 even at something like an 11X14 print. Others say it's not so.

That's about my conclusion too: It depends.

[audioexcels]

2000 dpi is about 80 dpmm, corresponding to a maximum resolution of 40lppmm - somewhat simplified, as these numbers always are. Anyway that's a good number, since it's about the same resolution as can be reasonable expected on LF film - with the best lenses, supercritical focus, fine-grained film, vacuum holders, and perfect conditions in all other respects.

The general rule is that the human eye can discern details down to about 10 lppmm at normal viewing distance under optimal conditions. This should make the difference discernible after a 4x enlargement.

But printers don't print at 500dpi - they print at 300dpi, 240 dpi, 180 dpi or whatever; depending on the printer, the operator and what the customer is willing to pay! And it also seems that our perception of prints is influenced by details too small to be seen, one reason why contact prints are said to be superior to enlarged prints.



That's about my conclusion too: It depends.

Thanks Ole;)!

I'm still really trying to figure out what format to finalize on and it's getting more and more difficult to figure out. I wish I could have an 8X10 camera that had a $400-$500 ultra wide lens, say, a 90mm with a 400mm image circle and resolution similar to any other $400-$500 lens that is a wide on a 4X5, then some other nice lenses with little price to them to make for a packing kit 8X10 system...but things don't quite work this way. Even with a Toho or other similar sized 6lbish camera, you have another how many pounds in holders???, then how much money invested in that nice 150mm length wide lens, or even if you get the 120mm Nikkor, you are limited/restricted to movements so what's the point really when something so wide is great to move around and make some funky photos and not just a basic stationary photo that needs no movement at all (not that I do not take these a lot since I do a TON of landscape). So many pros/cons to one looking for a lightweight system to pack around anywhere in the world and still be able to get a beautiful refined image that can hold its ground to larger sized film...hmmm...I think I'm am getting closer to what I want to be shooting with, but not "quite there".

Oh yeah, and then the wishing to have panoramic which I would want at least a 4X10 image...5X12 even better...but how with a 5X7 camera?:):):)