Have any of you downsized from 8x10 to 4x5? Why?

[Certain Exposures]

EDIT: This title and post should read "downsize" not "downgrade." I couldn't think of the appropriate word at the time.

I decided to make this a "sister" thread to this one. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147055-Opinions-on-upgrading-from-4x5-to-8x10)I'm curious if any of you "downgraded" from 8x10 to 4x5 for reasons beyond just health or fitness and why you did so.

I thought about it hard this weekend.

I decided I won't go from 4x5 to 8x10 despite the temptation because:

1) The price.
2) I often want to print a size larger or smaller than 8x10.
3) The subject matter I like the most usually requires some speed.
4) I've walked miles with my Crown Graphic in my backpack. I could still get a 4x5 with even more movements, less weight, and a smaller footprint.

Moderator's note: just saw this now, I've revised the thread title. -- Oren

[Michael R]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

[Andrew O'Neill]

I still shoot 8x10, but not as much as I used to. Why? Price.

[Mark Sampson]

I actually began in LF with an 8x10 camera, in 1981. After a year I downsized to 4x5, basically for your reasons 1,2, and 4.
Since then I've used 8x10 on the job, sporadically, and very occasionally for personal work. That not since 2010... I admire the format but it's still not optimum for me. As you gain LF experience you may change your mind; nothing is more beautiful than a big contact print. But those will be waiting for you when you're ready.

[ethics_gradient]

I bought an 8x10 for wet plate, and while I love the handful of (successful) bigger plates I've done, the vast majority of what I shoot is still 4x5.

1) Much more work to get the gear out - I'm pretty much stuck shooting "tethered" to my van. The 4x5/5x7 setup I can pack everything into a big pram and take on-site.
2) More limited range of lenses - I have a pretty complete set of 4x5 lenses already, but only a 180 (with marginal coverage) and 300 for 8x10.
3) Less happy to risk it because it's more expensive - last time I had it out I actually aborted the shoot because I was worried a stray wave might knock it over while I was going back for my plate. I also don't want to leave it on a tripod out in public, although in fairness everyone seems to think my beater Rittreck is expensive and it's always been left alone.
4) Collodion is really expensive here in Australia, so only getting 1/4 as many plates out of a bottle is tough.

[earlnash]

I've shot 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. Much of what I love about large format is present in any size - the intentionality of it, the procedures and work flow, the patience of it, the relationship to the subject, the film, the darkroom or scanner/printer. Unless you're Alec Soth shooting 8x10 color for massive wall-sized prints at exhibitions, or you do work like Edward Burtynsky, or maybe you like contact printing...

I'd be interested to hear from others where they see the niche for 8x10.

www.michaelsobel.photo

[Eric Woodbury]

I like the idea of 8x10, but it is too heavy for me now. Too many trips. The contact prints are beautiful, but it is just too much for me. I still have 5x7 and 4x5. That's fine. The Deardorff is on the auction block soon.

e

[linhofbiker]

I started shooting 4x5 in 1973 and always had a 4x5 camera along with various 35mm and 120/220 and lately several digital including my iPhone 8.
Over the years, shooting 4x5, I tended towards wide angle.
Changed my Linhof 4x5 Kardan TL to a 4x10 with a Chinese back.
Now with the 4x10 and the Super Angulons in 121 and 165 I am all set for shooting wide stuff that interests me.
Still have 4x5 and 5x7 cameras and a bunch of lenses - may have to sell these to concentrate on the 4x10 (less distractions).
I always thought that you can never have too many cameras and lenses. I was wrong. At 78 I intend to practice the KISS principal more astutely.

[gypsydog]

Blaspheme

[interneg]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

And they could do with jettisoning most of the lenses they have too...

A great deal of the better 8x10 work was/ is done with much more minimal setups than opinions on here seem to think people must have for 8x10

[bmikiten]

I go through moods. I love 8x10 and 4x5 but also shoot 6x17 (cm). I got rid of my 8x10 a while back and had to repurchase the entire kit, lenses, etc. It all depends on my mood and the subject. They are like children - you love them all.

[BrianShaw]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

Amen!

(I really dislike these threads that use the terms “upgrade” or “downgrade” referring to different film formats. Silly. )

[G Benaim]

I think 810 is the perfect format, really don’t like the smaller lf, but am considering them again for color given the exorbitant price of 810 color. When I did try 4x5 I didn’t really enjoy it, and once I moved up to 810 I realized the smaller formats have most of the disadvantages and none of the advantages I like in 810 (larger screen, decent size contact prints). I can honestly say 810 changed how I see for the better immediately (as did 717 later) and I’m glad I didn’t stop at the smaller formats.

[Tin Can]

I like enlarging and have many ways to do it

3-1/4 X 4-1/4 is not LF on this forum

However there are many available and in good condition

[Jim Noel]

Although I still own a few 4x5's, they rarely get used. I'm saving them until I get too old and feeble to handle the 5x7, 5x12 and 8x10. Maybe next year when I'm 95.

[Tin Can]

Agree!

May I add that using leading questions in a thread title may sour the candy

IMHO




Although I still own a few 4x5's, they rarely get used. I'm saving them until I get too old and feeble to handle the 5x7, 5x12 and 8x10. Maybe next year when I'm 95.

[rfesk]

Although I still own a few 4x5's, they rarely get used. I'm saving them until I get too old and feeble to handle the 5x7, 5x12 and 8x10. Maybe next year when I'm 95.

Count your blessings!

[Certain Exposures]

Amen!

(I really dislike these threads that use the terms “upgrade” or “downgrade” referring to different film formats. Silly. )


Agree!

May I add that using leading questions in a thread title may sour the candy

IMHO


https://youtu.be/Of_jyeDZ3Sg?t=7

I love all formats! I just needed some motivation not to click "purchase" on the 8x10 in my shopping cart. :)


I go through moods. I love 8x10 and 4x5 but also shoot 6x17 (cm). I got rid of my 8x10 a while back and had to repurchase the entire kit, lenses, etc. It all depends on my mood and the subject. They are like children - you love them all.

Lol, yes very true.


I think 810 is the perfect format, really don’t like the smaller lf, but am considering them again for color given the exorbitant price of 810 color. When I did try 4x5 I didn’t really enjoy it, and once I moved up to 810 I realized the smaller formats have most of the disadvantages and none of the advantages I like in 810 (larger screen, decent size contact prints). I can honestly say 810 changed how I see for the better immediately (as did 717 later) and I’m glad I didn’t stop at the smaller formats.

I took a look at your work and 8x10 definitely matches your subjects and process!


I like enlarging and have many ways to do it

3-1/4 X 3-1/4 is not LF on this forum

However there are many available and in good condition

Hmmmm. I'm not familiar with that format and its pros or cons yet.


Although I still own a few 4x5's, they rarely get used. I'm saving them until I get too old and feeble to handle the 5x7, 5x12 and 8x10. Maybe next year when I'm 95.

Much respect, Jim!


I still shoot 8x10, but not as much as I used to. Why? Price.

Felt. Large format slides in this economy???


I actually began in LF with an 8x10 camera, in 1981. After a year I downsized to 4x5, basically for your reasons 1,2, and 4.
Since then I've used 8x10 on the job, sporadically, and very occasionally for personal work. That not since 2010... I admire the format but it's still not optimum for me. As you gain LF experience you may change your mind; nothing is more beautiful than a big contact print. But those will be waiting for you when you're ready.

Yes, I want to have a whirlwind 8x10 romance some day - ideally on a client's dime. ;)


I started shooting 4x5 in 1973 and always had a 4x5 camera along with various 35mm and 120/220 and lately several digital including my iPhone 8.
Over the years, shooting 4x5, I tended towards wide angle.
Changed my Linhof 4x5 Kardan TL to a 4x10 with a Chinese back.
Now with the 4x10 and the Super Angulons in 121 and 165 I am all set for shooting wide stuff that interests me.
Still have 4x5 and 5x7 cameras and a bunch of lenses - may have to sell these to concentrate on the 4x10 (less distractions).
I always thought that you can never have too many cameras and lenses. I was wrong. At 78 I intend to practice the KISS principal more astutely.

It's liberating when you have less options!


Blaspheme

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/8/8c/Devil_(7F10).PNG/revision/latest?cb=20111013021150

[Roberto Nania]

Hello,

I use both formats for different projects and for different reasons.
Honestly, I would downgrade to 4x5 if I didn't have something specific to do with 8x10; it is so much lighter and less expensive that I cannot see really a reason to use 8x10 for the same kind of images that can be done with 4x5, at least for current times.

[John Layton]

Have a couple of DIY 8x10's around but have never really embraced the format. Smaller LF's (mostly 5x7 these days) work so well for me for all kinds of reasons (aspect ratio, logistics, field-condition performance thresholds, enlarge-ability, relative costs, etc.), and if I want to do contact prints...I go right to 11x14. Works for me!

[neil poulsen]

Of course, downgrading from 8x10 to 4x5 can be a matter of degrees . . .

At various times, I've had a Sinar P 8x10 (a lightweight version), a Toyo 8x10 G, a very nice Deardorff, and an Arca Swiss 8x10 older version. (Not necessarily at the same time.) All were excellent cameras. And, I had a set of 8x10 lenses, including a 250mm f6.7 Fujinon for moderate wide-angle (ic of 398mm), a 355mm G-Claron, a Nikon 450mm M, a Nikon 450 Q, a 600mm Fuji C, and a Repro Claron 610mm. And, I should probably mention an 8x20 that I owned.

But, I didn't really use them. Any of them. :D

Alas, they've all been sold. I still have an 8x10 representation. I have a Bender kit 8x10 that I've customized. (It's actually quite a nice camera.) And, I recently purchased a 355mm Red Dot Artar in a Copal 2 shutter mounted by S. K. Grimes. Not to be caught short-handed, I also own an 8x10 enlarger. I'm keeping these items for one purpose, to photograph an old violin that I own.

The fact is, straight out and simple, I'm a 4x5 person. That's what I like, and that's what I've used the most. I took a workshop from John Sexton, and he articulated much the same sentiment. He said that he owned an 8x10, but he wasn't sure of where to find it.

I guess I'm in good company.

[Tin Can]

I am still working slowly on my largest possible/affordable camera for me

I have 500 sheets of 2x 14X36" X-Ray

Maybe I get it done and usable before the sky falls

I keep busy as I fiddle about

PTL

[Axelwik]

I'm not sold on the idea that going from 8x10 to 4x5 is a downgrade. I use 8x10 and 4x5 for different purposes, but tend to use 5x7 the most. The downsides of 8x10 can be many.

[fotopfw]

Having ended my professional activities, I have no more use for the 36x60" prints, so 8x10" gets less use.
I now have time to walk in rough terrain, then I take the 4x5" Linhof Technika.

[Eric Woodbury]

Why is it a downgrade? Best camera is the one with film in it.

[Jody_S]

5) The vast majority of people will do better work with smaller formats

(not a popular opinion here but I stand by it)

The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

For some reason, I find it hard to do impressionist soft focus landscapes on 4x5. So I still use 8x10, or I will this summer after a 2 year hiatus for health reasons.

[Vaughn]

I have found a lot of fun with 4x5 this past year. I only contact print (alt processes), so working with the small image has been challenging. Form becomes dominate over detail, and that sort of thing. The 4x5 has made it possible to do a small series of images while solo backpacking in the redwoods, hopefully continued when the water goes down this summer. Although the 5x7 is also possible, the extra weight is killer on the hike back out (and up). But 8x10 is a load unto itself these days...my equipment is too heavy, and spending the bucks to lighten that load no longer makes sense for backpacking concerns. That wind has blown...can't do both at the same time.

But for portability and print size, I have been loving the 5x7 quite a bit. 8x10 is still a lot of fun...it was cool and fun to get it out in Yosemite Valley for the participants of my workshop to use last month! And I need to make the purchase of the 11x14 worthwhile by printing the negatives! Especially the 5.5"x14" negs.

Wimping out on this trip to Scotland with family. Time-wise and all, the Rolleicord is going. Hopefully the 5x7 to Japan in the late Fall...but who knows, the 4x5 might be sweet in Kyoto.

[Joseph Kashi]

I've generally settled upon 5x7 negatives for scanning and digital printing ( I have a 5x7 Omega E5 cold light enlarger but prefer digital processes for 5x7) and upon 11x14 for silver gelatin contact printing. The 5x7 Canham MQC57 outfit is only marginally larger and heavier than the 4x5 outfit and uses the same lenses, yet the larger negative and wider aspect ratio are preferable, at least to me. The Ritter carbon-fiber 11x14 is about the same weight as many 8x10 rigs, but my own sense is that the 11x14 negative makes a usefully bigger contact print. It's certainly larger and more awkward, though.

I may well be quirky, but 4x5 and 8x10 are the two formats that I generally do not use.

[Tin Can]

No plans to downsize in this life

I need to get back to work on 14X36"

[uphereinmytree]

I can't afford 8x10 film on a regular basis. that said, I did just buy an 8x10 studio camera. For me, there is a huge difference in looking at an 8x10 ground glass vs. a 4x5. Magic. 4x5 seems small after shooting 8x10

[Michael R]

The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

Agree. I mean to implicitly include digital cameras under "smaller formats".

[Serge S]

A few observations....and ramblings:)

I've never used 8X10 but admire the portrait work I have seen in that format. Weight being an issue for me I settled on 4x5 as I like the aspect ratio. Since my camera came with a 5x7 back, I shot 5x7 although I had no initial interest in the format.
A lingering thought of one day possibly acquiring an intrepid to do 8x10 contacts....I want to try platinum prints also & 5x7 will work.

My favorite portraits are done in 6x7 & 4x5 formats. I like the way the look is rendered. I don't find my 35mm digital or film work as compelling.
The bigger cameras force you to work differently & result in different looking work which I like vs the smaller format.

Now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, it will be interesting to see how my prints will look.
(I have been using an epson V800 to scan my negatives).
On a side note my 5x7 epson scans are a huge jump in quality compared to the 4x5 scans. I was quite surprised.
Also my 6x7 negatives (8x10 prints) are sharper than from 4x5 negatives. I don't really mind, just an observation that initially surprised me.
Not sure if it is a lens issue, as I tend to use the same lens 95% of the time.

I have been intrigued by soft focus lenses for portraits & in the Kodak soft focus lens with that big number 5 shutter.
That big shutter needs a sturdy camera.
Soft focus lenses to my eye work better with an 8x10 negative. I like the look!

I recently visited a gallery and my eye was pulled by a great series of portraits.
It happened to be 8x10 camera work & printed on silver gelatin paper.
They were wonderful environmental portraits - something about the 8x10 - maybe it's the fact the lenses are longer but the images have a great look & more immediacy and pull you in - more personable I guess.

Hope everyone has a enjoyable day!
Glad winter is over & I can shoot outdoors more!

[Roberto Nania]

A few observations....and ramblings:)



Hello Serge, you said it right. It's not (only) how big the negative is, there is more than that.
I do like the proportion of 4x5 / 8x10 (and 6x7), for portrait work it gives a sort of focusing point to the subject which I found it is not the case with 35mm (and 6x9); you can have very beautiful portrait with both (think about Steinmetz work which is mainly 6x9 - 35mm) but the photograph (the way we "read" it) will be different.
Big soft focus lens renders better on 8x10": I agree as well. I have a big Dogmar 5.5/360 (not a true SF lens but it is when used at FA) and I was amazed by the last portrait I made to my son on direct positive paper, there was like "magic" (allow me the word).
Then, I have shot many beautiful photographs on 4x5 that simply I couldn't do with 8x10" (mostly for lack of commitment, maybe).

Cheers

[gfeucht]

Ask Ansel.

Moon and Half Dome was taken with a Hasselblad. Cropped to portrait aspect.

Unless you intend to make contact prints in 8x10 from non-digital-negatives, I don't see much of a point to 8x10.

[Tin Can]

I prefer to make contacts up to 11X14

I will be making far larger contacts

this year

[Drew Bedo]

"Downgraded"? That sounds so judgmental!

I have shot both for years. Why limit yourself to one format? While many do, I just can't take my 8x10 rig outside, but the little Wista-made Zone VI goes into a shoulder bag that fits under the airplane seat or in the overhead.

[Drew Wiley]

I'll have to downgrade someday when the 8x10 finally gets too heavy, or else the film gets too darn expensive. In the meantime, I'll happily remain a format schizophrenic : MF last week, 8x10 in the pack for tomorrow, maybe 4x5 next week, even 35mm once in awhile.

gfeuct - gotta take exception to your remark. Put one of those cropped Hassie 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as optimized modern enlargements from 8x10 film printed the same size, and oh my, something just won't look right! And I'm very familiar with the actual AA print you're talking about, not just its reproductions. It's famous, of course, but barely holds up even to 16X20 scale. Different era. Most of his 8X10 images didn't fare so well larger than 20X24 print size. But relative to my own standards and full modern fillm and lenses, I would personally never print anything 645 (essentially 6X6 cropped) any larger than 11X14.

I do print a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 negs, color ones up to 20X24. They look great unless they're side by side with ones printed the same size from LF negs. Right now, in my fresh darkroom stack, I've got some of each, and the distinction is obvious. An 8X10 enlarged to 20X24 (only 2.5X) using a graphics apo lens has almost a micro-etched contact print look, maybe better. What's 645 at 2.5X? - smaller than a 5X7 postcard.

[Certain Exposures]

Hello,

I use both formats for different projects and for different reasons.
Honestly, I would downgrade to 4x5 if I didn't have something specific to do with 8x10; it is so much lighter and less expensive that I cannot see really a reason to use 8x10 for the same kind of images that can be done with 4x5, at least for current times.

Yes, that makes sense. I've been thinking about what I would want to shoot 8x10. I did a small project recently (on 4x5) as a "test."


Have a couple of DIY 8x10's around but have never really embraced the format. Smaller LF's (mostly 5x7 these days) work so well for me for all kinds of reasons (aspect ratio, logistics, field-condition performance thresholds, enlarge-ability, relative costs, etc.), and if I want to do contact prints...I go right to 11x14. Works for me!

11x14 would be so fun to try but my wallet protests!



Of course, downgrading from 8x10 to 4x5 can be a matter of degrees . . .

At various times, I've had a Sinar P 8x10 (a lightweight version), a Toyo 8x10 G, a very nice Deardorff, and an Arca Swiss 8x10 older version. (Not necessarily at the same time.) All were excellent cameras. And, I had a set of 8x10 lenses, including a 250mm f6.7 Fujinon for moderate wide-angle (ic of 398mm), a 355mm G-Claron, a Nikon 450mm M, a Nikon 450 Q, a 600mm Fuji C, and a Repro Claron 610mm. And, I should probably mention an 8x20 that I owned.

But, I didn't really use them. Any of them. :D

Alas, they've all been sold. I still have an 8x10 representation. I have a Bender kit 8x10 that I've customized. (It's actually quite a nice camera.) And, I recently purchased a 355mm Red Dot Artar in a Copal 2 shutter mounted by S. K. Grimes. Not to be caught short-handed, I also own an 8x10 enlarger. I'm keeping these items for one purpose, to photograph an old violin that I own.

The fact is, straight out and simple, I'm a 4x5 person. That's what I like, and that's what I've used the most. I took a workshop from John Sexton, and he articulated much the same sentiment. He said that he owned an 8x10, but he wasn't sure of where to find it.

I guess I'm in good company.

Was it the size and weight that turned you off?


I am still working slowly on my largest possible/affordable camera for me

I have 500 sheets of 2x 14X36" X-Ray

Maybe I get it done and usable before the sky falls

I keep busy as I fiddle about

PTL

Sounds interesting!


I'm not sold on the idea that going from 8x10 to 4x5 is a downgrade. I use 8x10 and 4x5 for different purposes, but tend to use 5x7 the most. The downsides of 8x10 can be many.

5x7 seems like the "Goldilocks." I'm really tempted to try it. The entry cost keeps me out.

I couldn't think of a more fitting word than "downgrade" the time. "Down-size" would have been perfect.


Having ended my professional activities, I have no more use for the 36x60" prints, so 8x10" gets less use.
I now have time to walk in rough terrain, then I take the 4x5" Linhof Technika.

Heavy camera but beautiful!


Why is it a downgrade? Best camera is the one with film in it.

I just couldn't think of the word "down-size" at the time. No harm meant. We agree.


The vast majority of us, myself included, probably make better images with digital now. If I just want a picture of something, I use my phone like a normal person.

For some reason, I find it hard to do impressionist soft focus landscapes on 4x5. So I still use 8x10, or I will this summer after a 2 year hiatus for health reasons.

Sometimes when I'm out shooting 4x5 in the city dozens of people will see what I'm going for, pull out their phone, get the shot way before me, walk off, and look super pleased. It's really funny.


I have found a lot of fun with 4x5 this past year. I only contact print (alt processes), so working with the small image has been challenging. Form becomes dominate over detail, and that sort of thing. The 4x5 has made it possible to do a small series of images while solo backpacking in the redwoods, hopefully continued when the water goes down this summer. Although the 5x7 is also possible, the extra weight is killer on the hike back out (and up). But 8x10 is a load unto itself these days...my equipment is too heavy, and spending the bucks to lighten that load no longer makes sense for backpacking concerns. That wind has blown...can't do both at the same time.

But for portability and print size, I have been loving the 5x7 quite a bit. 8x10 is still a lot of fun...it was cool and fun to get it out in Yosemite Valley for the participants of my workshop to use last month! And I need to make the purchase of the 11x14 worthwhile by printing the negatives! Especially the 5.5"x14" negs.

Wimping out on this trip to Scotland with family. Time-wise and all, the Rolleicord is going. Hopefully the 5x7 to Japan in the late Fall...but who knows, the 4x5 might be sweet in Kyoto.


TLR's are so easy to travel with. Boxes fit anywhere, they offend no-one, they're light, the image quality rocks. I'm super tempted to try 5x7. Enjoy your trip(s)! Japan is on my list.


I've generally settled upon 5x7 negatives for scanning and digital printing ( I have a 5x7 Omega E5 cold light enlarger but prefer digital processes for 5x7) and upon 11x14 for silver gelatin contact printing. The 5x7 Canham MQC57 outfit is only marginally larger and heavier than the 4x5 outfit and uses the same lenses, yet the larger negative and wider aspect ratio are preferable, at least to me. The Ritter carbon-fiber 11x14 is about the same weight as many 8x10 rigs, but my own sense is that the 11x14 negative makes a usefully bigger contact print. It's certainly larger and more awkward, though.

I may well be quirky, but 4x5 and 8x10 are the two formats that I generally do not use.

I would love to try 11x14 but I can't justify the expense. 11x14 contacts must look sooooooooo good.


No plans to downsize in this life

I need to get back to work on 14X36"

Lol, keep us posted :cool: .


I can't afford 8x10 film on a regular basis. that said, I did just buy an 8x10 studio camera. For me, there is a huge difference in looking at an 8x10 ground glass vs. a 4x5. Magic. 4x5 seems small after shooting 8x10

4x5 really is small if you compare a contact to the effort. I wouldn't be able to shoot 8x10 regularly either.



A few observations....and ramblings:)

I've never used 8X10 but admire the portrait work I have seen in that format. Weight being an issue for me I settled on 4x5 as I like the aspect ratio. Since my camera came with a 5x7 back, I shot 5x7 although I had no initial interest in the format.
A lingering thought of one day possibly acquiring an intrepid to do 8x10 contacts....I want to try platinum prints also & 5x7 will work.

My favorite portraits are done in 6x7 & 4x5 formats. I like the way the look is rendered. I don't find my 35mm digital or film work as compelling.
The bigger cameras force you to work differently & result in different looking work which I like vs the smaller format.

Now that I have a 4x5 enlarger, it will be interesting to see how my prints will look.
(I have been using an epson V800 to scan my negatives).
On a side note my 5x7 epson scans are a huge jump in quality compared to the 4x5 scans. I was quite surprised.
Also my 6x7 negatives (8x10 prints) are sharper than from 4x5 negatives. I don't really mind, just an observation that initially surprised me.
Not sure if it is a lens issue, as I tend to use the same lens 95% of the time.

I have been intrigued by soft focus lenses for portraits & in the Kodak soft focus lens with that big number 5 shutter.
That big shutter needs a sturdy camera.
Soft focus lenses to my eye work better with an 8x10 negative. I like the look!

I recently visited a gallery and my eye was pulled by a great series of portraits.
It happened to be 8x10 camera work & printed on silver gelatin paper.
They were wonderful environmental portraits - something about the 8x10 - maybe it's the fact the lenses are longer but the images have a great look & more immediacy and pull you in - more personable I guess.

Hope everyone has a enjoyable day!
Glad winter is over & I can shoot outdoors more!

Nice comment. Maybe it's harder for you to focus on the 4x5 ground glass than the 8x10 or 6x7? Who was the photographer behind the prints you liked?


Hello Serge, you said it right. It's not (only) how big the negative is, there is more than that.
I do like the proportion of 4x5 / 8x10 (and 6x7), for portrait work it gives a sort of focusing point to the subject which I found it is not the case with 35mm (and 6x9); you can have very beautiful portrait with both (think about Steinmetz work which is mainly 6x9 - 35mm) but the photograph (the way we "read" it) will be different.
Big soft focus lens renders better on 8x10": I agree as well. I have a big Dogmar 5.5/360 (not a true SF lens but it is when used at FA) and I was amazed by the last portrait I made to my son on direct positive paper, there was like "magic" (allow me the word).
Then, I have shot many beautiful photographs on 4x5 that simply I couldn't do with 8x10" (mostly for lack of commitment, maybe).

Cheers

8x10 is just so big that hauling it out has to be a song and dance. 4x5 still takes a lot of commitment. I just got back from a shoot and my back is still feeling it. I had to carry the camera around in a bag for a few hours. The weight piles up fast.


Ask Ansel.

Moon and Half Dome was taken with a Hasselblad. Cropped to portrait aspect.

Unless you intend to make contact prints in 8x10 from non-digital-negatives, I don't see much of a point to 8x10.

Yes, I'll be going for contacts and big slides if I ever try 8x10.


I prefer to make contacts up to 11X14

I will be making far larger contacts

this year

Link us when you do!


"Downgraded"? That sounds so judgmental!

I have shot both for years. Why limit yourself to one format? While many do, I just can't take my 8x10 rig outside, but the little Wista-made Zone VI goes into a shoulder bag that fits under the airplane seat or in the overhead.

Yes, I couldn't think of a better word (like "downsize") at the time. My main limits are weight and budget. I'd still like to expose a few 8x10 frames some day though. Maybe a workshop is the best bet.


I'll have to downgrade someday when the 8x10 finally gets too heavy, or else the film gets too darn expensive. In the meantime, I'll happily remain a format schizophrenic : MF last week, 8x10 in the pack for tomorrow, maybe 4x5 next week, even 35mm once in awhile.

gfeuct - gotta take exception to your remark. Put one of those cropped Hassie 16X20 prints in the same portfolio as optimized modern enlargements from 8x10 film printed the same size, and oh my, something just won't look right! And I'm very familiar with the actual AA print you're talking about, not just its reproductions. It's famous, of course, but barely holds up even to 16X20 scale. Different era. Most of his 8X10 images didn't fare so well larger than 20X24 print size. But relative to my own standards and full modern fillm and lenses, I would personally never print anything 645 (essentially 6X6 cropped) any larger than 11X14.

I do print a lot of 6X7 and 6X9 negs, color ones up to 20X24. They look great unless they're side by side with ones printed the same size from LF negs. Right now, in my fresh darkroom stack, I've got some of each, and the distinction is obvious. An 8X10 enlarged to 20X24 (only 2.5X) using a graphics apo lens has almost a micro-etched contact print look, maybe better. What's 645 at 2.5X? - smaller than a 5X7 postcard.

You must have a killer darkroom setup! I'd love to see 8x10 enlarged to 20x24 in person.

[Tin Can]

Just u wait

I am expecting Friday the biggest and heaviest 8x10 ever made

[Alan Klein]

Even Clyde Butcher had to downsize. Even went to digital.
https://clydebutcher.com/about-the-artist/technical-information/

[domaz]

I thought about downsizing from 8x10 to 5x7 then I realized by 8x10 Gowland camera is lighter than my 5x7 Linhof Tech III. The Tech III is somewhat easier to setup but I also discovered it has a fatal flaw focusing 90mm lenses which I was hoping to use with it.

[Tin Can]

We all weaken over time

When I signed onto LF

I was very ill

Yesterday I slept all day outside

Plotting my porch into a solar studio

LFPF has been very good for me

[Axelwik]

Many years ago before my time, going from large format down to medium format and eventually small format was considered an upgrade. In terms of portability and ease of use it still is.

Going bigger very quickly runs into the law of diminishing returns. The vast majority of the World's most memorable and famous photographs were taken with smaller cameras.

[Tin Can]

NOPE wrong

I need big film and contact prints for my sorry vision

I also need LESS DIGI everything


Many years ago before my time, going from large format down to medium format and eventually small format was considered an upgrade. In terms of portability and ease of use it still is.

Going bigger very quickly runs into the law of diminishing returns. The vast majority of the World's most memorable and famous photographs were taken with smaller cameras.

[rfesk]

Many years ago before my time, going from large format down to medium format and eventually small format was considered an upgrade. In terms of portability and ease of use it still is.

Going bigger very quickly runs into the law of diminishing returns. The vast majority of the World's most memorable and famous photographs were taken with smaller cameras.

Agreed as to the smaller cameras. But most of my photography is for archival purposes. 4x5 is best suited for that - and I do use the rangefinder of my Busch Pressman 4x5 fairly often.

[Mal Paso]

I think 4x5 is the sweet spot. I don't have a reason for 8x10 but I'm happy for those that do. I spent my money on lenses this time around. I'd rather have a selection of focal lengths than a camera with one or two lenses. 8X10 would sink the budget. If only I could find a woman to support me in a style to which I could become accustomed......

[Axelwik]

NOPE wrong

I need big film and contact prints for my sorry vision

I also need LESS DIGI everything

Sure, for you. But one would think that enLARGEments would be preferable for bad eyesight. I don't much like digi for my photography either, but like it or not it's the way of the world. Maybe as AI makes fake pictures easier to make there will be a demand for real photographs.

I love large format, but don't have any delusions about it. And for the sake of film, paper, and chemicals I hope more photographers get into it.

[GuillaumeZuili]

I shoot most of the time 4x5 and then run into an 8x10 crisis. When the crisis is over, I'm back to 4x5... Until the next one.
Completely irrational and personal. So everybody is right in his own madness !

[Tin Can]

Enlargements need very good focus

I am moving to contact prints 5X7 and larger

As I do mostly faces, I can shoot with a string to a persons eye to gain focus

Head steady also helps
I have one Auto focus enlarger for 35mm PTL

I have zero desire to follow 'the way of ANY world



Sure, for you. But one would think that enLARGEments would be preferable for bad eyesight. I don't much like digi for my photography either, but like it or not it's the way of the world. Maybe as AI makes fake pictures easier to make there will be a demand for real photographs.

I love large format, but don't have any delusions about it. And for the sake of film, paper, and chemicals I hope more photographers get into it.

[Axelwik]

Enlargements need very good focus

I am moving to contact prints 5X7 and larger

As I do mostly faces, I can shoot with a string to a persons eye to gain focus

Head steady also helps
I have one Auto focus enlarger for 35mm PTL

I have zero desire to follow 'the way of ANY world

Yep, understand. For large format I don't do much 4x5 anymore and find that my sweet spot is 5x7. My eyesight isn't terrible (yet), but the 4x5 ground glass is a bit small to me.

Using a 5x7 Intrepid with a couple lightweight lenses and two or three film holders I've been able to get my field kit to about 10 pounds, not including the tripod. Very workable for hiking.

[GuillaumeZuili]

The thing most frustrating for me in 8x10 is that I dont have an 8x10 enlarger. Yes a contact print is beautiful but making a mural print from an 8x10 negative is where it really explodes in your face.

[Dan Dozer]

Making an 8 x 10 horizontal enlarger is real easy using your 8 x 10 camera (did it with my Kodak 2D). Found a old cold light head from an old Durst enlarger (that was the hard part), cut out the inner septum in an old wooden 8 x 10 film holder to be my negative holder, made a folding base out of plywood and hang it off the counter in the darkroom, and project the image on the wall.

239382

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Dan, nice job on the enlarger.

I love shooting my 8x10 camera. It is my "point and shoot." Contact printing in carbon with 8x10 negatives is pure joy as is printing 8x20 and 14x17 negatives. Some of my friends said I was done with the ULF cameras after my first rotator cuff surgery. Guess what? No way! You find ways to take the big cameras out no matter what, it is so much fun every time I use them.

[Scott Davis]

As has been said many times already in this thread, the primary justification for downsizing would be convenience factor, perhaps tied with budget - feeding an 8x10 these days is costly. But I stick to my 8x10 because there's just so much great glass for it that can be had at reasonable prices (just scored a 250mm Kodak Wide-Field Ektar for $500). I feel like if I'm going to use a 4x5 for convenience and cost savings, then I may as well just shoot my Rolleiflex and get a whole lot more convenience and cost savings per-frame.

[Tin Can]

No hobby is rational

Look at the car hobbist

way more money

Few remember Japan bought all the American Collector cars

Then sold them all back

and all hobbies have fads

gotta have it

but no, I need food....

New Star Trek just started

many lessons

[rfesk]

"I feel like if I'm going to use a 4x5 for convenience and cost savings, then I may as well just shoot my Rolleiflex and get a whole lot more convenience and cost savings per-frame."

Don't say stuff like that! It causes problems in my head!

[Joseph Kashi]

The thing most frustrating for me in 8x10 is that I dont have an 8x10 enlarger. Yes a contact print is beautiful but making a mural print from an 8x10 negative is where it really explodes in your face.

Perhaps it would be feasible to scan the 8x10 image with an Epson V850 and digitally print it on a decent large format printer like an Epson 7590 using fiber-based paper?

[Scott Davis]

Perhaps it would be feasible to scan the 8x10 image with an Epson V850 and digitally print it on a decent large format printer like an Epson 7590 using fiber-based paper?

That's what I do for making digital negatives for alt process printing.

[Jim Jones]

Perhaps it would be feasible to scan the 8x10 image with an Epson V850 and digitally print it on a decent large format printer like an Epson 7590 using fiber-based paper?

That's what I do. Spotting prints on a computer is better and far less tedious than doing it with Spot Tone! An Epson with P800 with Epson Exhibition Fiber Paper and sometimes a few other Epson papers are all I want.

[Mal Paso]

The D word? I have the P800 too and my favorite paper is Canson Baryta, like glossy fiber dried matt. Epson mostly sells other people's paper.

[Drew Wiley]

Death to the "D word"! It might as well mean, "Default". What's the point? Might as well downgrade to a cell phone. Anyone ever heard of a 4X5 enlarger? I admit I no longer have one - now my smallest enlarger is a 5X7.

[Tin Can]

Very ocasionally I may send a file to a Pro Digi Printer

My biggest DIGI print is 3X4 FEET with a frame that makes it 4X5 FEET

Shot with an old NIKON P&S

Matte paper Pro mounted on some fancy board and no I will not submit it to any minaturation

Printed in USA, shipped flat

also useful as backdrop for portraits

The frame is perfectly flawed for this image

Bought the frame at GoodWill for $5

[Mal Paso]

Death to the "D word"! It might as well mean, "Default". What's the point? Might as well downgrade to a cell phone. Anyone ever heard of a 4X5 enlarger? I admit I no longer have one - now my smallest enlarger is a 5X7.

The way att has let the quality of landlines to slide combined with the exceptional quality of Starlink my iPhone is my favorite home phone now. Cellular quality is a crapshoot but on my end WiFi over satellite is better than copper.

After tourists burned most of my photo equipment in 2016 I bought a serious digital camera and printing equipment. I have a 46MP Nikon now that is approaching the resolution of 4x5 and beats film for color and tonal range.

That said, I can't imagine shooting 8x10 film and not printing it with traditional processes. It might not be rational but from the posts I've seen, that's not a requirement here.

[Jim Becia]

EDIT: This title and post should read "downsize" not "downgrade." I couldn't think of the appropriate word at the time.

I decided to make this a "sister" thread to this one. (https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?147055-Opinions-on-upgrading-from-4x5-to-8x10)I'm curious if any of you "downgraded" from 8x10 to 4x5 for reasons beyond just health or fitness and why you did so.

I thought about it hard this weekend.

I decided I won't go from 4x5 to 8x10 despite the temptation because:

1) The price.
2) I often want to print a size larger or smaller than 8x10.
3) The subject matter I like the most usually requires some speed.
4) I've walked miles with my Crown Graphic in my backpack. I could still get a 4x5 with even more movements, less weight, and a smaller footprint.


While I have both 8x10 and 4x5 formats, it is the 8x10 that gets used 90% of the time. I'm 71 years young and still backpack with my 8x10. I figure it is a way to stay young, and to be honest, an 8x10 setup (I do have the Chamonix Alpinist) with a couple of lenses doesn't weigh all that much more that some of the digital DSLRs and lenses that are out there. As to the cost, (I use Provia 8x10) yes, it is extremely expensive but being retired with no debt and with only one bad habit (Provia 8x10 film) I put my money into using the format I really enjoy. When I pull out the 4x5 it almost feels "toy-like" which I know is absolutely silly. For me it's the journey and the experience of using this format. An 8x10 ground glass is "bewitching" which is both good and bad. An 8x10 transparency can be a thing a beauty. I'm holding on to my 4x5 for the day when either color 8x10 film disappears, or when my body tells me to give 8x10 up. Until then, I'll use the 8x10 whenever possible.

[GuillaumeZuili]

Making an 8 x 10 horizontal enlarger is real easy using your 8 x 10 camera (did it with my Kodak 2D). Found a old cold light head from an old Durst enlarger (that was the hard part), cut out the inner septum in an old wooden 8 x 10 film holder to be my negative holder, made a folding base out of plywood and hang it off the counter in the darkroom, and project the image on the wall.

239382

Very nice Dan. There was a picture of Ansel Adams in his darkroom with the same kind of setup.

[Andrew O'Neill]

For me it's cost. I had to let TMY go years ago. HP5 at $11 Cdn per sheet just became too much for me. Started shooting a lot more 4x5 and 120. Much better selection, anyways. Then I discovered CatLABS 80, and can still shoot 8x10. Of course I shoot a lot of x-ray film!

[paulbarden]

CatLabs X80 is Fomapan, you know. So if you find it usable, then you can get the same stuff under Foma's own branding as well.

[neil poulsen]

Of course, downgrading from 8x10 to 4x5 can be a matter of degrees . . .

At various times, I've had a Sinar P 8x10 (a lightweight version), a Toyo 8x10 G, a very nice Deardorff, and an Arca Swiss 8x10 older version. (Not necessarily at the same time.) All were excellent cameras. And, I had a set of 8x10 lenses, including a 250mm f6.7 Fujinon for moderate wide-angle (ic of 398mm), a 355mm G-Claron, a Nikon 450mm M, a Nikon 450 Q, a 600mm Fuji C, and a Repro Claron 610mm. And, I should probably mention an 8x20 that I owned.

But, I didn't really use them. Any of them. :D

Alas, they've all been sold. I still have an 8x10 representation. I have a Bender kit 8x10 that I've customized. (It's actually quite a nice camera.) And, I recently purchased a 355mm Red Dot Artar in a Copal 2 shutter mounted by S. K. Grimes. Not to be caught short-handed, I also own an 8x10 enlarger. I'm keeping these items for one purpose, to photograph an old violin that I own.

The fact is, straight out and simple, I'm a 4x5 person. That's what I like, and that's what I've used the most. I took a workshop from John Sexton, and he articulated much the same sentiment. He said that he owned an 8x10, but he wasn't sure of where to find it.

I guess I'm in good company.

As an update, before long, it will all be gone! That includes my Bender 8x10, the Zone VI 8x10 head and adapter, my 8x10 enlarging lens, and all my film holders. It took me a long time to time to come to this decision. But, I'm in the process of simplifying my life by trimming down equipment to only that which I use. And if I can't sell it, I'll throw it out!!!

I do love my current 4x5 kit, and my Zone VI Type II enlarger with its adapted Beseler 45s color head. 4x5 will be my LARGE format camera. And for color, I have a 6x9 Arca with an older digital back, that will of course also accept medium format roll film holders for black and white.

That will definitely do it for me.

[John Kasaian]

Out of an overabundance of caution, I keep a Graphic View II, and 4x5 reducing backs for both my 8x10 'dorff and 5x7 Agfa Ansco incase 8x10 become unaffordable or I cannot physically schlepp the 8x10 kit around, but the 8x10 is still my "go-to"
I simply prefer contact printing the big 8x10 negatives.

[dvanmet]

I had an 8x10 Tachihara with a 12" Goerz Gold Rim Dagor and a Zone VI tripod, and that was all I used for a number of years then it just got too bloody heavy so I sold it. Now, 8x10 is far too expensive for me in addition to the weight issues so I now own a Zone VI 4x5. I am still contact printing though as I enjoy pulling the viewer in to the printed image, forcing them to get closer. I must have a sadistic streak.

[Roberto Nania]

... I am still contact printing though as I enjoy pulling the viewer in to the printed image, forcing them to get closer. I must have a sadistic streak...

I like this

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I'm with Jim Noel on this one. I'll keep shooting 8x10, 8x20 and 14x17 and then downsize to maybe 5x7 in my 90's. Now that means building a 5x7 of course.

[Carl J]

I'm with the two Jim's on this, as well (a cart or other means to transport 11x14 and up goes a long way).

[Jim Andrada]

Interesting topic. I started with 5 X 7 and keep coming back to it. I do have a couple of 8 x 10 cameras and some of what I consider my best shots were done on 8 x 10. I have a 30 x 40 of one hanging in my living room and the detail is insane. 4 x 5 always feels a bit claustrophobic to me but somewhat surprisingly 2 x 3 is OK. Maybe it's the aspect ratio, although of course that's the same for 4 x 5 and 8 x 10, so size must get into it somewhere.

Lately of course, almost any camera is too big for me since I now use a power wheelchair full time having just survived a flesh eating bacteria after "only" 10 months in the hospital. But I'll figure out a way to get back behind the groundglass.

[Alan Klein]

Jim, I hope you get back on your feet full time.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks, Alan

I must say it's been an "interesting few months". Learned a lot of medical stuff I didn't want to know. Little by little I'm starting to get back on my feet a bit with support. Don't have full use of my arms and hands yet, though. But where there's a will there's a way, as they say.

[Alan Klein]

Thanks, Alan

I must say it's been an "interesting few months". Learned a lot of medical stuff I didn't want to know. Little by little I'm starting to get back on my feet a bit with support. Don't have full use of my arms and hands yet, though. But where there's a will there's a way, as they say.

You might consider downsizing to smaller formats. I'm getting older (78) and find it harder to carry stuff, much beyond my car. In any case, I shot a roll of 35mm Tmax 400 after my triple bypass three years ago. The first 35mm in decades. It was a lot of fun. I scanned it at home and made a little video slideshow. There's a lot to be said for smaller and processing digitally so you can sit more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2pUj1MPQj0

[rfesk]

35mm is an amazing format. You can do so much with it as to subject matter. (I am not an enthusiast of prints over 8x10 though others are.)

These days, if 4x5 isn't feasible I usually just go to 35mm - skipping medium format.

[Mal Paso]

I got into 35mm in the '60s added 2 1/4 and 4x5 in the '70s looking for more resolution and didn't shoot much 35 after that. My last snapshot camera was a 120 film Bronica SQA and serious was a 4x5 Cambo.

Interesting to hear the stories!

[Ironage]

Dan, your horizontal enlarger inspires me. Gears are turning in my head for a future project.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Jim Andrada]

You might consider downsizing to smaller formats. I'm getting older (78) and find it harder to carry stuff, much beyond my car. In any case, I shot a roll of 35mm Tmax 400 after my triple bypass three years ago. The first 35mm in decades. It was a lot of fun. I scanned it at home and made a little video slideshow. There's a lot to be said for smaller and processing digitally so you can sit more.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2pUj1MPQj0

I have a MF digital Mamiya 645 AFD and two digital backs. I was using one (Phase 1 P45+) on a Linhof M679 before I fell out of my van and set off an "unfortunate" chain of events. I have a couple of Nikon F's that I bought new around 1962and a really nice little Contax with a Planar 50mm on it. And a Rollei 35 that I'm "dusting off" to play with again. Haven't used it since a 1968 trip to Newfoundland in a brand new Porsche 911 that cost me $7800. If I'd kept the car instead of the camera I could probably retire (again) quite comfortably.