Is bigger better?

[Gary Smith]

Hi All,

I have been thinking about this for a while, though I am not completely decided if it’s right thing to do or not.

I have been shooting with a Shen-Hao, and then a Toyo 45AII for a little more than a year. (The Shen has been sold). I really like the Toyo and have been pleased with my results. But I keep thinking that since I currently don’t have a dark room maybe doing contact printing is the way to go. However, if I do that then I need (should get??) an 8x10.　Ultimately, I would like to try some alternative processes.

I am currently thinking about selling the Toyo 45 setup, buying a newer 8x10 (I am thinking Toyo 810M), and a Cooke XVa convertible lens, and something wider either a 210 or 150mm lens. That way I would have nearly the equivalent focal lengths that I have been using for 4x5.

Maybe I am crazy, but I wonder if this would be a good idea or not. Any thoughts or opinions about this would be greatly appreciated. Somebody on this forum once said, after a while you will find 4x5 too small and I am beginning to think they may be correct.

Thanx!

Gary

[Joseph O'Neil]

I don't shoot 8x10 myself, but the last lens I just bought will cover 8x10 and larger. I'm in the same boat as you.

You know what answered your question for me? The very first time I saw a contact print made from an 8x10 negative. All doubt disappears. If you really want to punish yourself in a most brutal manner, go see a contact print made from 11x14. I'm just grateful I've never seen a 20x24 contact print (yet). :)

One bit of advice - don't be in a rush to sell your 4x5 gear until you get your feet fully wet with a larger format.

joe

[Scott_3597]

A couple of thoughts. For contact printing the answer is yes. For enlargement, I guess it would depend on size of enlargement. For viewing and composing behind the glass, I prefer the larger size 8x10 glass to 4 x 5. 8x10 is very manageable in the field with the right gear, imo.

Contact prints can be spectacular. I also contact print 7 x 17, which is also very nice, but more work.

[giancatarina]

i don't find 4x5 too small, but just too close to an excellent 6x7... 8x10 is an other story !
But you should consider the cost per view also !

[Ralph Barker]

I don't have the answer for you, Gary. But, having gone through a similar experience a few years ago, I'll share that for what it's worth, the difference being that I do have a darkroom, and can enlarge the 4x5 negs.

While I really (really, really) like shooting 8x10, and making contact prints, the issues of added bulk and weight aren't to be ignored. There are times that I just don't want to deal with the extra hassle, so out comes the 4x5.

I, too, looked at the Toyo 810M, as I already had a 45AX for field work, and a 45C for in-studio stuff. Due to cost and weight, however, I opted for a double-extension Tachihara. But, I did the next-best thing, and made a lens board adapter for the Tachi, so I could leave the majority of my lenses mounted on the 110mm boards for the 45AX. I also made an adapter for the back, so I can utilize the Toyo reducing back on the Tachi. That way, I have several alternatives available, and can choose based on circumstances (or, mood, phase of the moon, or whatever). Since then, I've also added a used 810G (purchased for a song) for studio work that needs more extension.

Bottom line, however, based on my experience, I wouldn't suggest giving up the 4x5 and shooting 8x10 exclusively. But, that's only my opinion.

[Daniel Otranto]

for shooting black and white, i say, if im gonna lug all this gear around, i might as well go that extra little step and take on an 8x10

i think its wholly more useable than 4x5 in that its still somewhat affordable, and you can contact print...now when you go see an elargement even of like a 4x5 to a 8x10 to 16x20, you can still tell a world of difference in the quality of the photo.

the extra ground glass is also great in that you can compose a little better with such a big picture in front of you.

[John Kasaian]

I shoot 8x10 far more than 4x5. Aside from the obvious, here are some differences to consider:

8x10---color film is prohibitivlely expensive (for me anyway)
8x10---a suitable tripod will be the most awkward part of your kit.
8x10---hiking with a selection of lenses and a dozen film holders is a no-go

These drawbacks don't bother me. I'm happy working in b&w. For hiking and sking I'll use a lighter Ries 200 and leave the head at home. For hiking I'll limit myself to one or two lenses max. The wide I take will be an itty bitty bantam wieght 240 G-Claron or 159 WollyWA.

Once you look at the aerial image on an 8x10gg I think you'll agree the limitations are worth it.

Cheers!

[Scott Davis]

If you are thinking about alternative processes, you really do need to look into 8x10. While you can enlarge digitally and make new negatives in whatever size you want, you're better off with in-camera originals. While some folks feel that 4x5 is too small for contact prints, I would disagree- I have done a fair bit of pt/pd printing with 4x5 negs to keep the cost of my learning curve down, and I've made quite a few images that I really like in that size.

Perhaps an intermediate size to think about is 5x7 - find an 8x10 camera with a 5x7 reducing back. 5x7 makes a very nice contact print, without costing as much or weighing as much as 8x10.

[j.e.simmons]

I sometimes contact print my 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 negatives. To look good, it requires the right negative, though. I like close up, more abstract images than I usually shoot with 8x10. At work, I have a couple of framed 4x5 contact prints that look just fine to me.

Of course everyone else seems to think that bigger is better. And my camera club has a rule that anything submitted for competition or exhibit has to be 80-square inches of image area. An 8x10 contact print is only 72.
juan

[Robert Skeoch]

This is my two cents worth.... and it's worth every cent you paid for it.
I shot 4x5 for years and always wanted to jump to 8x10 and make contact prints. I finally did it, and haven't regretted it most days. I still have a couple 4x5's but I haven't shot with them since I bought the 8x10 three years ago. I would sell them off but use them as loaners instead.
Once I started making contact prints I realized two things, 8x10's look great in a room of other 8x10's but look small if you have other 16x20's and larger in the same room. So I started considering a 7x17. However I didn't really like contact printing because of dust that I could never get off.
Fortunately I bought a used 8x10 enlarger .... this solved my contact printing issue and now I don't need a larger camera.
I think switching to 8x10 was the best move I've made in years, 4x5 does start to look small, but 8x10 is heavy.... I've replaced almost all of my 8x10 gear at least once since switching as I'm constantly trying to lighten up and simplify my bag. I think I'm getting where I want to be now.
It's an itch that you just can't scratch until you try it.
And unless your getting younger it will never be easier to carry the gear than right now.
-Rob Skeoch

[SAShruby]

Yes it is,

I started 35mm and been there for 15 years, then moved to 6x6 just only for one year, skipped 4x5 and went straight to 8x10. After two years of doing research and hunting gear down and doing only 10 pictures so far, I already think about 8x20, no... 16x20 (i don't want to be restricted to do only one size - horizontal, I also wanna do 8x20 vertical). Hmm. It would definitely get expensive, I would say you invested 2000 Dollars into solid 4x5? Quadruple it for 8x10, another double or tripple for 16x20.

So, if you have a budget, my advice, go for it. If you can afford it.

[Ben Calwell]

I agree with an earlier poster, who recommended shooting 5x7. In my opinion, that is an excellent size for contacts. Get an 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back, and you'll have the best of both worlds.

[Capocheny]

Gary,

I've been shooting 4x5 (strictly for studio monorail) for the past 5 or so years and have enjoyed it immensely. Back about a year and a half ago I developed the itch to go slightly larger. I wanted a piece of film which I could have contact printed rather than enlarge. Secondly, I wanted to be able to take it out into the field. So, off I went in search of a larger format. :|

I ended up with a restored 5x7 Deardorff with 4x5 reducing back. This gave me the best of both worlds and one of the nice things about this camera is the size. It's small and light enough so that it's not too, too unmanageable for field work. :)

However, these days, I'm tossing the idea of going even larger. [John K. did warn me to go 8x10 initally! :)] So, in spite of the higher costs involved in film and processing, I'm now on the prowl for an 8x10 Dorff! :>o

My suggestion for you is to consider an 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back. As Ralph has suggested, on those occassions where you don't want to bother with taking a larger camera out... you still have your 4x5!

:) Will it EVER cease???

Good luck on the decision.

Cheers

[Ole Tjugen]

I've shot 4x5" and 5x7", along with 6.5x9cm, 9x12cm, 13x18cm, 18x24cm, 24x30cm and 30x40cm....

4x5" is (mostly) to small, 30x40cm (12x16") to cumbersome. 90% of all my shots are on 5x7" or 13x18cm, which is very close to being exactly the same size. I haul out the 18x24cm once in a while, but if I'm dragging a big camera around I might just as well use the 24x30cm one. I hope my new 4x5" will be used more often than the old one - I've bought a Carbon Infinity and sold a Linhof Color...

Except for a slightly better availability of films, I see no great advantages to 8x10". At least not compared to 24x30cm (9.5x12")!

[Richard Kelham]

Yes of course Bigger is Better. It's also Heavier and more Expensive.

You have to shop around – I managed to get a serviceable Kodak 2D, a decent modern lens (nikkor-W 300mm) and a few DDS for under 500 GBP (900 USD). Can't find any way of reducing the film costs though....



Richard

[Bruce Watson]

All these people seem to be saying "go for it." You need a devil's advocate. I'm it.

I say, don't do it. If you ever intend to hike, stay with 5x4. If you ever intend to shoot color, stay with 5x4. If you are worried about availability of film, even today you get your greatest variety in 5x4. If your "hit rate" is low, stay with 5x4.

Everything about 10x8 is heavier and more expensive than 5x4. Save your money for film, and use it to take more shots. The more you shoot, the better you should become. If you spend all your money on 10x8 equipment and find you aren't willing to take but a few dozen shots a year for fear of "wasting" your money on questionable shots, what have you accomplished?

If you are going for some serious enlargements (bigger than say 150 cm long) or contact prints, then 10x8 wins. Anything else and 5x4 wins. Of course, the decision is yours, and YMMV. But I've been shooting 5x4 for almost five years now and never been tempted by a larger format. I can do everything I want with 5x4. Everything.

There - was that "devil's advocate" enough for you?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Wow, you asked for some advice and you got a lot of very good advice, but here is my two cents worth anyway.

I think you need to figure out what style of photographer you are and get a camera that compliments what you are trying to express.

For example, I often like to photograph abstract details and the more square format of the 4X5 camera is well suited to this, it fits my vision better. Also, I often like to hike and here again the 4X5 fits my needs well. I agree with Bruce that the cost of film is also a large consideration, I like to put A LOT of film through my camera and will often work an idea with different compostions so the 4X5 is again a better choice. This format just suits my personailty and vision better than does a larger camera.

I have made very nice contact prints from my 4x5 negs and really enjoy the small image size for some subjects, so if you already have a 4X5 outfit don't let that stop you from trying and learning alternative processes. Remember, MANY very well known photographers use the 4X5 as the primary format.

But it is really about you as an artist and how/what you want to communicate. I don't think bigger is really better, it all depends on how you want to use it. I have seen as many bad images made by big cameras as those made by small.

[Ralph Barker]

. . . I hope my new 4x5" will be used more often than the old one - I've bought a Carbon Infinity and sold a Linhof Color...
If you're not sure about that Carbon Infinity, Ole, I'd be glad to "test" it for you, and then give my opinion of whether it's right for you. ;)

[Patrik Roseen]

Hello, This question is something we all face after a while...especially after reading all the enthusiasm on this forum (Great!) I remember a thread recently where someone said "Welcome to LF4x5...we will have you shooting 8x10 in less than a year." And this is very likely to happen.
Now I have not stepped up to 8x10 since I started doing 4x5 about a year ago and I always said to myself to wait, when suddenly I found myself bidding on a Cambo 8x10 on ebay...fortunately I lost this time. Why do I say that? Well simply because I think 4x5 has so much to offer that I still have not experienced...Think about it, do you not wish to have the main dish and then go for the dessert? Why the rush if you like me hope to stay healthy and hopefully be able to do 8x10 later. 4x5 for me brings the joy of swing,tilt,shift and raise, added tonal values etc really to distinguish itself from 35mm and 6x6 format.
As for contact prints and enlargements...I have done nice contacts from 4x5. For enlargements I set up my Linhof gear in the bathroom. It's a bit primitive but it works. And I must say that I have grown out of the 4x5 to 8x10 enlargements and am now looking to enlarge bigger than this...To enlarge bigger than 8x10 from an 8x10 negative really requires another bathroom.
As for portability...I started doing handheld with my 4x5 recently as a way to go out and do photography more often. (Ole Tjugen is probably one of the few to do handheld with even larger formats.) It's not only about the weight and size of the gear...I simply do not have the time to handle the logistics of the larger format right now. So, I'm happy shooting 4x5 and hope to do 8x10 in the future...I have just started enjoying the meal. Kind regards, Patrik

[Gregory Gomez]

I agree with Eric Biggerstaff.

Bigger is not necessarily better, and likewise smaller is not necessarily better.

If you were a wildlife or sports photographer, for example, your camera of choice would be the 35mm. If you were a wedding photographer, you might be highly inclined to chose the 6x6cm medium format camera. If you were a studio photographer with a large clientele, you might choose a medium format or 4x5 monorail camera with a digital back. If you wanted to do Edward Weston style photography, you might choose an 8x10 or 11x14 view camera and make only contact prints. If you wanted to emulated Ansel Adams, you might own a variety of cameras from 35mm to 8x10. If you wanted to make big enlargements of sweeping landscapes and you wanted only to make contact prints, then you might use a 16x20 or 18x22 camera.

The point is what type of photography do you want to do and what do you intend to do with your images?

If you need maximum depth of field but good image quality, the 4x5 delivers an optimal solution in allowing you to make up to 11x14-inch prints. But in your case, you have no darkroom, which I understand to mean that you have no option now for making enlargements. Will this situation continue indefinitely? If so, then maybe you will end up choosing the 8x10 camera and making contact prints. If you choose this option, keep in mind that a typical light 8x10 outfit will range in weight between 35 and 50 pounds. If you are in good shape and are using a good backpack, you can hike several miles with this gear with no problem, until you reach old age that is.

Good Luck!

[Brian Vuillemenot]

"If you need maximum depth of field but good image quality, the 4x5 delivers an optimal solution in allowing you to make up to 11x14-inch prints." ???

You can make a print FAR bigger than 11X14 from a 4X5 negative/transparency without any loss of resolution as compared to one from an 8X10- at least up to 24X30 or 30X40, with all else being equal. Although photographers in general, and most of the people who chime in on this forum, are caught up with the "sexiness" of using the bigger camera, I suggest who seriously consider your reasons for photographing and what types of prints you want to make. 8X10 really only gets an edge over 4X5 if you want to make contact prints or huge enlargements. I recently aquired an 8X10, and the few times I've used it, I wished I had my 4X5 instead (although I do shoot only color transparency film).
One big drawback that hasn't been emphasized yet in this thread is the lack of depth of field with larger and larger cameras. You have to stop down more to get the same depth of field with a lens that has the same angle of view (300 mm on 8X10 vs. 150 mm on 4X5), and then you lose out to diffraction. In addition, the camera is slower and more unwieldy to operate in the field, and you're more likely to get camera shake due to wind, etc. Also, there are no quickloads or readyloads in 8X10! For me, 4X5 is the "sweet spot" between usability, portability, affordability, availability of film and lenses, film/processing costs, and depth of field.
In summary, if you can live with these limitations and an 8X10 fits your needs, go for it. Just don't do it because it's cool, sexy, or you feel a need to keep up with the Joneses.

[Daniel Otranto]

I disagree, I think there is a very noticeable difference between an enlargement made with a 4x5 to 16x20 and one made with a 8x10 to 16x20, it is more apparent with black and white vs. color, but I think 8x10 enlarged to 16x20 stands up much better. Most of the people here do calculated work as well, something that is just as easy to do on a 8x10 than a 4x5. I have been working with an 8x10 for about 3 months now and feel very comfortable shooting not so calculated and un spontaneous...it took a couple boxes of film but its achievable...to see how far someone can take an unwieldy 8x10, check out nick nixons pictures, they almost look like hes using a hand held and still gets that wonderful quality of a large negative

[Gregory Gomez]

Sorry Brian but I agree with Daniel.

When shooting black and white, going more than three times the linear dimensions of the film plane causes the image to begin to break down in terms of sharpness, resolution, tonality, and sometimes critical focus.

In my company we have three 16x20 prints created by William Neill (URL:http://www.williamneill.com/homepage.html), who used 4x5 Velvia film. While these images are quite good, on close inspection grain is evident, and color saturation seems a little thin. Also the resolution of the three images is not as crisp as it would be in a smaller print size.

If one were shooting T-Max 100 or Delta 100, then 11x14 prints from a 4x5 negative are really nice and show no grain whatsoever. When shooting Tri-X, the grain can become evident even in 11x14 prints, depending upon how the negative was developed. And 16x20-inch prints from an 8x10 will always show finer grain, more detail, and higher resolution than those made from a 4x5, assuming, of course, the same film has been used and excellent camera and darkroom technique has been employed.

But, the 8x10 has limited depth of field compared to a 4x5. Correct me if I am wrong but as the focal length of the lens doubles, the depth of field is reduced by a factor of four, requiring two additional f-stops to obtain the same depth of sharp focus. Thus, if f22 were required to obtain sharp focus with a 150mm lens on a 4x5 camera, then f45 would be required for a 300mm lens on an 8x10. In this case, the additional f-stops may not be a big problem, but if f45 were used for the 150mm lens, then f90 would be required for the 300mm optic. In this situation, defraction could be a problem if a sizeable enlargement was being considered.

It's my guess that the 8x10 is really good for anyone wishing to make reasonably large contact prints or prints 16x20 or larger. If one is not compelled to make contact prints and the biggest enlargement will be about 11x14 inches, then the 4x5 should work very well indeed.

[John O'Connell]

You have a 4x5 outfit. I'd skip 8x10 because it doesn't offer a serious advantage over 4x5. If you really want to contact print, pick up a 7x17 or 11x14 and a lens that covers it.

I moved from 4x5 to 8x10 because I didn't feel like setting up a darkroom for 4x5 work. 8x10 is bigger, bulkier, and more expensive, but doesn't give you really big negatives. Prints look small, regardless of how wonderfully printed they are. If I had it to do over again, I'd have gone straight to 11x14.

[Gregory Gomez]

You know John, you're right about 8x10 contact prints appearing small, especially for big landscapes. I agree: the 11x14 is the way to go for many kinds of subjects. The only problem with the 11x14 is the size, weight, and bulk of the camera. Now if I were a former NFL lineman, it would be no problem at all.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 contacts do seem intimate to my eye. When I want huge I either enlarge on an elderly Elwood or call up the big gun---12x20 and blast away. 11x14 is a very attractive format. I had a B&J and it was a fine camera but the cost of film holders was a killer 10 used 8x10 holders for the price of 1 11x14---Aye Carumba!

One alternative might be to get an old 4x5 with a 5x7 back. 5x7 is a nice size for contact printing and proportionately is similar to 11x14. Its alot easier to waddle around with one than an 8x10 or 11x14

Nah! Get the 8x10! You know you want one---go for it! ;-)

Cheers!

[raucousimages]

Go for 8x10 but don't sell your 4x5. I started with a 45AII then added a toyo rail camera for the studio then found an elwood 8x10 enlarger at a price I could not pass up. I now have an 810G in the studio and an 810M I take to the field. I added a handel to the 810M to carry it. I only go a few hundred yards from the truck with it, if I am backpacking I go 4x5. The 8x10 in the field slows me down and makes me think about composition and exposure. No bracketing like with the 4x5. The 810G is great for fine art portraits in the studio, people feel like they are sitting for an oil painting not a fast photo shoot. When I work for 30 min. for only two exposures and then give them an fine art, old school image it is impressive to the point that they pay well and tell their friends to see me. If you stay with Toyo you can use an adaptor and your 110mm lens boards (with lenses) on the 810M. The 810 has reducing backs for 5x7 and 4x5. I love 8x10 but I out shoot it with 4x5 about 10 to 1. It is just so light and fast compaired to 8x10. I now have 2-8X10's a 5x7 back 7-4x5's (my wife and 3 children shoot also) but bigger is not always beter, their are days I only take the Leica and 50mm lens and just let the grain go.

[Emre Yildirim]

I don't think I can take anyone seriously, who say that the largest "decent" prints that one can obtain from 4x5 is 11x14. I've seen 24x30 inch prints made fom 4x5 that show NO GRAIN at all, even at close inspection. That's true for both color transparencies and B&W film. While contact prints are impressive, I don't think they are impressive enough for me to go from 4x5 to 16x20. You'd be amazed at how much information a modern drum scanner can extract from a negative. Coupled with a high-end printer like the Chromira (that can output 425ppi), you can get amazing results that come very close to a contact print. I doubt your eyes are good enough to see a difference between an 8x10 contact print and a 8x10 print from a drum scanned 4x5 negative, printed using a high-end printer. Maybe if you compare the two with a loupe or a microscope...but who has time for that anyway?

There are professional photographers out there who make 20x30 prints from a 16 megapixel SLR, and you guys are telling me that prints from 4x5 can only go up to 11x14? Come on.

[Frank Petronio]

It's not "you guys" as in multiples...

The way an 8x10 renders a scene compared to the equivilant view captured in 4x5 does show up, even if you are an Epson scanner to Epson printer guy like myself. It's not only the matter of grain and resolution. I'll argue that the choice to use anything larger than a 4x5 comes from a combination of gear lust, performance art, and sheer stubborn doggedness.

If we are going to do digital to film comparisions, it makes sense to use as many "real-world" techniques as useful. If running a Photoshop filter disqualifies a digital image from being considered, then maybe film users should take themselves out of the consideration when someone soups the film in something different than Kodak's official development times and chemistry.

[Gary Nylander]

I enjoy using both 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 cameras, although the 4 x 5 gets used more, because its more practicable to cart around. The 8 x 10 is fun to use, ( when I don' have to pack it too far ! ), When others have looked through my images which are printed with a Epson printer, 9 times out of 10 the viewers have correctly identified the 8 x 10 images because they look "sharper".

[Duane Polcou]

Get a 137" by 219". It took twelve years but I finally found an Apo-Rogaine El-Camino 2000mm F256, which squeaks out just enough coverage for two Scheimphlugs and a partial front Auf Wiederzein. I believe it's a symbiotic Tesla design, but it might be a Hasselhoff.

[Gary Smith]

I want to thank everyone for the numerous and thoughtful replies. I need to think a little bit more, but I am inclined to keep my current setup, and then add a 8x10 or something larger a little later. It just seems like it may be the best route to take.

Thanx Again!

Gary

[Caroline Matthews]

I have an acquaintance who doesn't have a darkroom. He photographs on 4x5 Type 55 film for the negative, scans the negatives, and makes beautiful ink jet prints. He can do all his work in the kitchen and in his "computer lab." For a lot of the reasons given above (carry weight, lens availability, gear cost, film cost, etc.), I'd stick with 4x5 and find alternative ways of printing.

[archivue]

i keep on receiving spam every single day, that say... size does matter ;-)

[Gary Smith]

I have an acquaintance who doesn't have a darkroom. He photographs on 4x5 Type 55 film for the negative, scans the negatives, and makes beautiful ink jet prints. He can do all his work in the kitchen and in his "computer lab." For a lot of the reasons given above (carry weight, lens availability, gear cost, film cost, etc.), I'd stick with 4x5 and find alternative ways of printing.


I am doing that now, except using different types of film. I am really trying to get away from the computer as much as possible. Especially since I have to use it all day for work. Also I really am not fond of the inkjet BW prints I have seen or made. But thank you for the advice!

Gary

[Michael S. Briggs]

Sorry Brian but I agree with Daniel.

............

But, the 8x10 has limited depth of field compared to a 4x5. Correct me if I am wrong but as the focal length of the lens doubles, the depth of field is reduced by a factor of four, requiring two additional f-stops to obtain the same depth of sharp focus. Thus, if f22 were required to obtain sharp focus with a 150mm lens on a 4x5 camera, then f45 would be required for a 300mm lens on an 8x10. In this case, the additional f-stops may not be a big problem, but if f45 were used for the 150mm lens, then f90 would be required for the 300mm optic. In this situation, defraction could be a problem if a sizeable enlargement was being considered.

.........



The diffraction issue has been raised by at least two people. I think the appropriate comparision is identical size prints made by the two different formats. In this case, diffraction is not an issue in going up in formats. It is true that you have to stop down to achieve the same depth of field for the larger format (e.g., X2 for 4x5 --> 8x10) for the longer focal length lens with the same view of the scene. This does make more diffraction blurring on the film. But to get the same size print, less enlargement is needed, which compensates for the increased diffraction on the film. The true cost of stopping down is increased exposure times.

[Frank Petronio]

If you are trying to acheive "maximum quality" however that may be defined, then each scene and situation you photograph will require a different camera set-up. While photographing 1 to 1 flat paintings in a studio setting might use an ULF camera to make contract prints (which is what the ultra large Polaroid cameras were built to do - document paintings) you would hardly expect to use the same set-up outdoors. The wind, depth-of-field, subject movement, diffraction, etc. all come into play.

If you wanted to photograph wildlife or action sports, which would give you a "sharper" better end result? A dSLR with a long, fast telephoto used at realtively high ISOs? Or an equivilant focal length large format camera -- with a ~1600mm lens?

I think the choice of cameras - between 4x5 and larger formats - is more driven by the act of performance (people expect more from a larger camera), and contact printing concerns.

And a large part of it is just showing off!

Note that several higher end fashion photographers are using 8x10s to shoot what could easily be done with a dSLR and a fast 85mm lens... and the magazines hardly care from a quality point of view. But the photographer and the models work differently with the slow LF workflow.

[Gregory Gomez]

Emre Yildirim, my eyes are good enough to tell the difference between the output from a 4x5 and an 8x10, scanned or not. So maybe you have trouble, right?

[Emre Yildirim]

My vision is fine; last time I checked (which was in february of this year) I had 20/20 vision.

If you seriously think that there is a noticable difference between an 8x10 contact print and a 8x10 print from a drum scanned 4x5 negative (that was printed on glossy fuji crystal archive paper using a printer like the Chromira or Fuji Frontier), by all means continue shooting with that giant camera.

But really, I see no advantage in shooting 8x10 unless you plan on making giant prints (100 inches+) or contact prints. 4x5 has the most choices in film, lenses and cameras. The weight and processing costs are much lower, and that means I can take my camera to more places and take more shots for the same cost. In the end, it's just a matter of taste...

[Hugo Zhang]

I used an Arca-Swiss Discovery before I took a Pt/Pd workshop with Kerik a few years ago. For people doing AZO or Platinum, contact printing is the only way to go. Yes, bigger IS better. Generally speaking, for makers of contact prints, enlargement seems less "true", less "real", thus less appealing. My Arca-Swiss is still a beauty to behold and a wonder to use, but it's been sitting in my closet with that incredibly sharp Super Symmar 110mm XL for the last 5 years.

[N Dhananjay]

There are many reasons to consider formats larger than 4x5. I do not know much about the digital end of things and I use 8x10 and 5x7 but have used 4x5 a lot in the past, so read the following with that in mind...

Size of print: Regardless of whether you contact print or enlarge, one of the criteria is the print size you normally work at. This becomes more critical with contact printing, especially if you adopt a style of work that eschews cropping. The best way to decide this is to cur out some paper to the different sizes, tape them to the wall and look at them. For me, somewhere in the 8x10 to 11x14 provided the nicest experience. It encouraged a sort of jockeying back and forth while viewing the print - stepping back a couple of feet and then stepping in closer. So you'd get a very interesting and intimate experience. Smaller than 8x10 does work well for intimate, held-in-hand kind of look, larger than 11x14 seemed to require one to stand back a bit which (to my sensibility) seemed to provoke a certain emotional distance from the print.

Resolution: For reasonable enlargements, I don't think resolution per se becomes a limiting factor for 4x5, at least at 3x or so enlargements. But, I don't think it is easy to duplicate the visual look of a contact print. More on that subsequently. In my own experience (when I tried this exercise a few years ago), at about a 2X-3X enlargement, I found it it difficult to tell a contact print apart form an enlargement on resolution terms. But beyond 3X, I could do it easily. Now maybe I am not the most careful of workers and other, more careful than I, can do much better than 3X.

Look: Like I said, I think contact prints do have a definite look. I have tried contact printing a 4x5 and making a 1:1 enlargement and I could never get the prints looking identical. The contact printing process, by virtue of eliminating another optical system, does seem to provide a somewhat different look - the transfer function (similar to the characteristic curve) does seem different. So, if you want to contact print (either for the look or because you want to use alternative processes), you may prefer larger in-camera negatives. I don't know how digital negs might impact this.

Ease of working: The usual notion here is that the argument favors the smaller format. And perhaps it does when one is considering weight and bulk. But larger formats seem much easier to use in visual terms. Visualization, attention to detail, the act of observing etc certainly seem much easier with the larger camera. To use that terrible term 'ratio of keepers', I find I have far fewer failures of vision with the large camera. I don't think it is to do with the fact that film is more expensive but it has to do with the mechanics of seeing. It is far easier with the large camera, to the extent that I feel the lower weight offered by the small camera is just not worth the extra effort and difficulties in seeing... ;)

Cheers, DJ

[Ron Marshall]

I have a 3# 4x5 Toho for hiking, and a 5x7 for close to the car. I prefer the large ground glass and the aspect ratio of 5x7.

I had the 4x5 first but always considered the possibility of getting a 5x7 so I tried to find lenses that would cover that eventuality. I was lucky and found some good deals, so all of my lenses cover both formats.

[Robert Skeoch]

One of the great things about 8x10 is looking at the photograph on the ground glass.... I can't say the same about looking at the gg on 4x5.
-Rob

[Michael Daily]

Regarding "Bigger/Better"
Yes, BUT think images not size. Photographers make pictures--cameras don't. Let the type of images dictate the camera, not the other way around. As for the "new" stuff, look at E. Weston, A. Adams, W. H. Jackson, and other old guys. Their equipment was not up to modern snuff, but the images are still among the best...

[Gregory Gomez]

N Dhananjay,

What an excellent post! I printed it out and put it on my cubical wall at work.

It seems that your experience and mine are very similar.

If one uses a 4x5 camera, uses a film like T-MAX 100, for example, and creates an 8x10 print with the skill and precision of a John Sexton, then such a print is going to have a contact-print-like appearance, except when compared to some of the most outstanding images done by someone like Edward Weston. But even then the differences are going to be very small indeed. I will even go so far as to say that a very carefully scanned and digitally produced image in an 8x10 size will also have that contact-print-like appearance. Yes, if one were to scrutinize an 8x10 contact print and an 8x10 digital image made with a 4x5, one might be able to see small differences in some circumstances. But I don't think this is how art should be viewed or enjoyed most of the time. Perhaps, we photographers might engage in this type of viewing exercise, but many people who buy our images do not.

However, if one lives for the small differences that only a large contact print can provide, then the 8x10 or a ULF camera will be the only photographic instrument that will satisfy.

For me, I also agree that it's the photographer and his or her vision that makes the image; the camera is only a tool in this process. I have seen wonderful images created with a 35mm and I have also seen wonderful images made with an 8x10 or 11x14 camera as well.

I believe that if one wants to make reasonably large contact prints, then the 8x10 or a ULF camera is the one to use. Or if one wants to make very large prints, then the 8x10 is the way to go.

For me, I'm not interested in making prints bigger than 11x14, nor am I committed to the contact print process. I also need the flexibility of being able to create a detailed, high-resolution image one moment and a pictorial image showing grain the next. That's why I have finally chosen the 4x5 and 35mm cameras as my only photographic tools.

So for me, bigger is not necessarily better. Using larger cameras is just another way of seeing.

[Gregory Gomez]

DJ,

Another reason you may not have been able to get a really close approximation between a contact print and a one-to-one enlargement of the same image is that you may have optimized your image making around the contact print. If you had re-optimized your shooting and developing process for enlarging, the results may have been different. Is that a possibility?

I noticed this phenomena with Morley Bear's photos, a photographer who optimized his shooting and developing process around the 8x10 contact print. Whenever he made a 16x20 enlargement, the differences between the contact print and the enlargement were apparent, especially in terms of print luminosity shadow detail. The enlargement had excellent grain, resolution, and tonality, but it lacked the magic of the smaller print. On the other hand, the enlargement had impact and grandeur that the more intimate contact print lacked.

Interesting.

[N Dhananjay]

DJ,

Another reason you may not have been able to get a really close approximation between a contact print and a one-to-one enlargement of the same image is that you may have optimized your image making around the contact print. If you had re-optimized your shooting and developing process for enlarging, the results may have been different. Is that a possibility?

I noticed this phenomena with Morley Bear's photos, a photographer who optimized his shooting and developing process around the 8x10 contact print. Whenever he made a 16x20 enlargement, the differences between the contact print and the enlargement were apparent, especially in terms of print luminosity shadow detail. The enlargement had excellent grain, resolution, and tonality, but it lacked the magic of the smaller print. On the other hand, the enlargement had impact and grandeur that the more intimate contact print lacked.

Interesting.


Actually, this was an exercise I tried when I was using 4x5 and was trying to decide whether to move to a contact printing setup. So all my negatives were tailored for enlarging and not contact printing. I took one of these negatives, and tried getting contact prints and 1:1 enlargements looking the same and could not do it. Keep in mind that I'm not saying the enlargement was bad, just that it was different from the contact print and I could not get them to match up - I will leave judgments of which one any individual likes to the individual. Maybe printers possessing more skill than I could manage making enlargements and contact prints look similar - heck, hopefully my printing skills have improved over the years and I could do it if I tried it again, but I feel getting a good print is easier with a contact printing setup. And once you start enlarging, the small details do start going bad a little faster than most people would suggest. By the time I was at a 3X enlargement (11x14 from a 4x5 neg), the differences in microgradation and local contrast had started becoming apparent, at least to me. Cheers, DJ

[Capocheny]

DJ,

Nicely stated in your posting (#41.) :)

Cheers

[Daniel Otranto]

I actually think that a 16x20 enlargement when done right is the ideal size for black and white 8x10 film, its true that some resolution is lost but I think its still something that you may have to look for with a loupe to really notice. When the print is enlarged 2 times the negative (like an 4x5 to an 8x10, which is ideal as well) the print gets a chance to breath a bit and some large areas wind up actually opening up and become more clear.

now color film is a different thing, I have seen 20x24 c-print enlargements from 4x5 160 speed film I swore were 8x10 in clarity. Its much harder to get nitpicky about color enlargements in my opinion...any of you in boston should check out laura mcphees exhibition at the MFA, her color 8x10 negative pictures are like 6x8 feet and amazingly sharp, you really have to get close to notice the grain on them...its such a shame color 8x10 film is so ridonkulously expensive (although I have noticed b and h drop their price for a box from around 90 dollars for 10 to about 70 dollars for 10 recently)

[Quentin Bargate]

After nearly abadoning LF altogether as I mainly shoot digital capture, I replaced my 4x5 Wista VX with a Tachihara 8x10. I don't contact print, and never set foot in a darkroom these days, but use the 8x10 with Provia as a data capture device for later drum scanning and printing on my wide format printer.

Its not too difficult to backpack with a light-ish 8x10 field camera like the Tachihara. A bigger limtation might be that few really wide lenses cover 8x10. I use just one lens, a Schneider 240mm F5.6 Symmar-S, an excellent lens.

Quentin

[phil sweeney]

[QUOTE=Frank Petronio]
And a large part of it is just showing off!
QUOTE]
Hi Frank,

I hope you really do not believe that! I rarely see people when I photograph, so it would not be a good opportunity to show off!

Other photographers have all stated good reasons for or against using 8 x 10. I use the 8 x 10 for 2 reasons. I am more comfortable with the larger camera and from start to finish it is a easier (and more enjoyable for me) process making a contact print. I did a 5 week trip a year and a half back and ended up using my 7 x 17 more than the 8 x 10. I have not exposed a 7 x 17 since. Its just a tool. I would not sell my 4 x 5 but I also have not used in a while. You trade one thing for another. I think I understand the tradeoffs!

best

phil

[Daniel Otranto]

i hate showing off the camera...i think its better to ask the person about taking their picture first then get the camera from the car so their not so intimidated

[David Crossley]

It’s precisely about what Michael Daily had to say. When all of the key elements of a photograph combine @ the peak “decisive moment”, debate over format size is moot. Irrelevant.


David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

[David Crossley]

It’s precisely about what Michael Daily had to say. When all of the key elements of a photograph combine @ the peak “decisive moment”, debate over format size is moot. Irrelevant.


David Crossley/Crossley Photography....

[Phong]

... any of you in boston should check out laura mcphees exhibition at the MFA, her color 8x10 negative pictures are like 6x8 feet and amazingly sharp, you really have to get close to notice the grain on them...

My discovery of Laura McPhee was quite serendipitous; a few years ago I stumbled on her work at the lab I have been using (Color Services, Inc. in Needham). I have been a fan since. Check out http://www.lauramcphee.com, especially "Family Portraits". I am planning to see the current exhibition at the MFA.

- phong

[N Dhananjay]

Re color vs. B&W, the eye perceives more information from the color. I suspect that you can actually have lower resolution in a color photograph and it might still look subjectively as sharp as a B&W photograph with higher resolution because the eye-brain system perceives more information in the color.

With regards to the fact that enlarging opens up details: It does, but that is irrelevant in contact printing because if you looked at an equal sized image on the ground glass, you already made the necessary decisions about how different areas of the photograph should appear. 'Opening up areas' is really saying that the local contrast and microgradation change as you enlarge. And sure, that can sometimes lead to better prints (and as often not lead to better prints). And like I said, if one was attentive at the time of tripping the shutter, the image on the GG already has been evaluated for such issues. That is part of what I meant by saying that 'seeing' was easier with a contact printing setup - you are not worrying about what degree of enlargement provides the correct local contrast etc.

Cheers, DJ

[Eric Leppanen]

There is so much good information in this post already, but I'll add my $0.02 anyway. I do some contact printing but mostly enlarge from both chromes (digitally) and B&W negs (traditional).

IMHO the question of 4x5 versus 8x10 largely comes down to what your photographic objectives are, and how much you are willing to suffer for your art. A lightweight 4x5 field kit with Quickloads/Readyloads (no changing film holders, no dust problems) is awfully convenient, easy to travel with, and can be hiked with for miles. For many subjects, particularly those where texture and fine detail are not defining aspects, 4x5 is all you need; I have seen 24x30" color digital prints (drummed scanned and Lightjet/Chromira printed) made from 4x5 where I could not imagine any more detail or saturation being possible.

But if you shoot primarily landscapes or other subjects where the presence of fine detail (distant vegetation, pine trees, rock texture, etc.) significantly enhances the perceived sharpness of the shot, 8x10 will start producing significantly superior prints at print sizes above 16x20". This is particularly true when shooting color. I occasionally like to make 30x40" digital color prints, and found that at such print sizes 4x5 just runs out of gas: pine needles and distant vegetation turn into blobs, overall tonality suffers, and the print lacks some of the three-dimensionality one normally associates with LF. All of these factors are resolved when working with 8x10. And I strongly agree with the posters saying that composition is easier with the larger ground glass; you really get to look at your composition in far clearer detail and can evaluate it more critically. Ironically the depth-of-field limitations of the larger format actually can improve compositional decisions: which portions of the composition truly define the shot? Which portions can I do without? What is the composition really all about? 4x5 has enough depth-of-field that I could sometimes get away with sloppy compositional craftsmanship, but with 8x10 you rarely have that luxury and have to carefully prioritize what you want to accomplish. This requisite discipline has resulted in my becoming a better photographer, which of course will benefit me regardless of what photographic medium I subsequently use.

Without a doubt, handling 8x10 in the field is a bear. The gear is large and heavy, the film is expensive, and many times you'll say to yourself what was I thinking when I got into this stuff?. But then you look at your processed film, and immediately know why. Personally I was never completely happy with my landscape work until I moved up into the larger format. Now I feel my work is fully realized.

Of course, there will be many situations where 8x10 is not practical and a smaller format is required. And for someone just getting started in LF, 4x5 is a far more cost-effective learning tool. But in the right situation, bigger is clearly better in the LF world.

[John Kasaian]

I don't think an 8x10 field camera (one thats designed to take afield---like a KMV, Century Universal,'dorff, etc...) is all that difficult to take afield. Taking a tripod that'll handle an 8x10 and dozen 8x10 holders afield on a hike----now thats a difficult task!

Others have done it....heck, even I've done it....but it takes some thought and planning. Vittorio Sella took much larger cameras with glass plates mountain climbing!
If you want to shoot 8x10 afield, you'll figure out a way to do it (but realize that you won't be breaking any speed limits on the trail!)

[Juergen Sattler]

I have both, a lightweight Canham 4x5 and an 8x10 Wehman. First off, as others have said, keep the 4x5 because 8x10 is such a different ball game. I shoot both color and B&W in both formats. I do have a darkroom (though very small these days) and I do enlarge my 4x5s. For hiking I use mostly the 4x5 - even though the Wehman is very light compared to most 8x10s, but with film holders it gets heavy real fast. If you want to take more than 3 film holders with you, you need an additional bag (at least I do). If I would only be allowed one camera, it would be the Canham 4x5 - no doubt. I would shoot far less with the 8x10 only!

[Ken Lee]

Cameras are instruments, like musical instruments. Should a violinist switch to the Cello ? Should a Trumpet player switch to the French Horn ?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

You have to try one for yourself. I did, for a year.

[BrianShaw]

Cameras are instruments, like musical instruments. Should a violinist switch to the Cello ? Should a Trumpet player switch to the French Horn ?

Maybe yes, maybe no.

You have to try one for yourself. I did, for a year.

Which did you play: cello or French horn?

[Ken Lee]

After a year with 8x10, I went back to 4x5.

Cropping and sizing each image to its ideal dimensions can't always be done in-camera, but enlarging makes this possible.

The portability, affordability, and availability of 4x5 equipment occupies a "sweet-spot".

The extra depth of field (compared to 8x10) is another plus.

(I played the Trumpet through college years).

[John Kasaian]

Shoot a lot of 8x10 and 4x5 suddenly becomes kind of small. Look at a lot of 8x10 negatives and 4x5 negs get downright claustrophobic.

Not that theres all that much practical difference between any of the large formats IMHO. Its just what you're used to and what you enjoy working with.

I used to carry a Crown Graphic for handheld work, but I couldn't bear to look at the 4x5 gg anymore so I always used the sports finder. Eventually, I moved up to a 5x7 Speed Graphic and like it a lot more (I really like an 8x10 Gowland Aerial for handheld but "infinity" starts at a couple of hundred feet out there at f/9! Since the Gowland dosn't fold it is quite bulky. Lightwieght, but bulky)

YMMV of course!

[Ralph Barker]

John - you could always get a Gowland 8x10 twin-lens reflex. ;)

[John Kasaian]

Ralph,

I understand Peter isn't making them anymore. Besides, after all the hernia and rotator cuff fun last year I don't think I'd be up to it----even shoeing horses takes a lot out of me these days ("what a wimp I sound like" I'm thinking to myself as I'm typing this!). I'll leave the 8x10 TLR to younger guys :-(

[Ed K.]

Yes, bigger IS better!!! But...

So many good thoughts, and, what Eric said. I recently got back from a trip far afield. I took 4x5 and 8x10 rigs with me as well as digital. The biggest problems with the 8x10 were worrying about security for it, and lugging all the holders and cases in and out of the truck every night while the locals inspected my activities.

In many cases, having larger, expensive equipment can be a real ball and chain. As the winds howled, gusting to 60 or so at Windy Point and Punta Gorda, I was so glad to have left the beast at a friend's for the day, and relieved to hike far away from the truck. How much more simple to take only a 4x5 and perhaps two favorite lenses! That day, smaller was way better, as I was at least able to bring some good material home for the effort, with the added benefit of nobody breaking my windows.

Having big equipment means a lot of worry about security, and in my case, added costs to bribe motel clerks into lugging my stuff up the stairs at times. With good cases sturdy enough to allow bouncing around on very rough dirt roads, my complete field kit set weighs about 320 pounds with all lenses, cameras, pods, holders, film cooler, and changing materials suitable for a week of shooting on location. 3/4 of that weight and bulk is devoted to 8x10, however 3/4 of the shooting I do while out uses 1/10th of the equipment and pays me 9/10th's of the job's fees. But, the 25% or less that I do with 8x10 is what gets me the job for the rest of the "coverage", and also what pleases me the most to do. So sometimes there is just no free lunch - it takes what it takes.

I do a lot of "8x10 air photography" when traveling with the 8x10. I look at the scene, decide it isn't just right, and then pass on the shot much more often than with other formats, yet I still have the experience of the place in my mind and notes for a better day or time. This can result in long trips with little to show for them. In other formats, I just work the scene the best I can since I'm already there - at least there will be survey shots and snapshots for the file.

When conditions are right for it, the 8x10 is really the ticket. In addition to composition and movements being more obvious, it puts less demand on scanning quality when doing digital work, and otherwise, it has so much smoothness in tone. The quality of a 30x40 is very pleasing.

Just as there are different types of guns for various uses, the formats come in handy. Digital for wildlife and other critters is a sort of pistol or bb gun, and the 8x10 is more the 32 pounder for the ultimate broadside. When the shot works and everything is as it should be, it's worth all the effort because at last, the quality is good enough for "honest" large prints. Hmmm, anyone know of 8x10 professional sports action shooters?

Most of all though, the more I work with the 8x10, the more I appreciate the really hard work of others who did it or continue to do it well today as well as their spectacular contributions and quality representations of historic moments.

If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well!

[Turner Reich]

If bigger gets more film stock produced then yes it is. You can always cut film down, except roll film, but you can't stretch it to make it bigger. I love people who stand by their cars to take a photo because the equipment is too heavy to go exploring with. 5x7 and 8x10 makes great contact prints and can be enlarged for great results. The sizes up to 20x24 are getting too far out there. JAO

[archivue]

Considering the size of the GG, the 8x10 is far superior, unless you use a binocular viewer with a 4x5 (it seems that you are IN the image !).
Maybe 5x7 is the good compromise, but there's not a lot of type of color film available...
I have an arca Fline 69c
film is cheaper, the binocular is very good, i can have cheap scan made on a fuji frontier, polaroid test available, all films available, very quick to use and carry around...

i have an arca 4x5
you can swap film type from one shoot to an other
5 times more expensive than 6x7 but still4x cheaper than 8x10
small enought for travel with a motor bike, or hicking
polaroid test available
ready load and quick load available (unfortunately no portra 100T)
RA4 or Lambda print 1x1,20 meter looks correct

i have a 8x10 sinar norma
lens are much bigger if you don't want any compromise (240 apo sironar S, 210XL...)
holders are bigger
tent have to be bigger
tripod head is bigger also
i use the same tripod for all format (Gitzo carbon 1329, that i recommend !)
no polaroid for test (too expensive and cumbersome)
no picture possible in windy condition
lot less dof
but when anything is ok, that's a real thing !

at the end, for me the 4x5 is too close to 6x7 (with top of the range lens all the time !) while it's bulky, cost 5x more, possible problems with dust... but if my goal is a print larger than 50x60cm (x10) i go for it !
if money is no object, i'm shure of the picture i want, and i don't have to go far with the camera then i shoot in 8x10.

If i had to have just one camera, it will be a 4x5, and probably an arca swiss Fline C 140 orbix...


www.giancatarina.com

[John Kasaian]

I'm not meaning to be persnickety, but there are some excellent itsy bitsy lenses out there that do a great job on 8x10 cameras---G-Clarons such as the 210, 240, 270 & 305s dwell in #1 Copals and Prontors. Wollensak WAs and EWAs and Zeiss Protars too.
But the rest of the stuff is bulky and heavy. I don't even bother with a tripod head if I have to hike any great distance anymore.

[Eric Leppanen]

I'm not meaning to be persnickety, but there are some excellent itsy bitsy lenses out there that do a great job on 8x10 cameras---G-Clarons such as the 210, 240, 270 & 305s dwell in #1 Copals and Prontors. Wollensak WAs and EWAs and Zeiss Protars too.

I heartily agree that your 8x10 lens load can sometimes be considerably lightened by matching lenses to your shooting style. A decent lightweight 8x10 kit, for example, can consist of a 159mm Wolly, 240mm C-Glaron or Germinar-W, and 300/450 Fuji-C's. All of these lenses are relatively small and light (none larger than Copal 1), and all cost considerably less than $1K even if purchased new. Of course, there is no such thing as a free lunch, and each one of these lenses poses trade-offs that must be assessed. The Wolly's coverage is limited, and I understand that for color work its contrast is a bit low (I've never used one so I'm relying on anecdotes I've heard). My 240mm Germinar-W (essentially a multi-coated G-Claron) is a wonderful lens, but it must be considerably stopped down to achieve full coverage and is more vulnerable to flare (multi-coating notwithstanding) than my uber-huge, uber-expensive SS210XL. The Fuji-C's work great at or near infinity, but are less sharp at close distances (at least I've experienced this with my 450 and 600, I've never tried the 300). If none of these limitations are relevant to your shooting style, then you can save significant bulk and expense with these smaller lenses.

Unfortunately, for someone like me, who shoots both landscapes and architecture (i.e., needs lots of coverage, especially with wide-angle lenses); color and B&W with lots of sunrise/sunset shots (needs lots of contrast and flare resistance); shoots frequently close up, even with longer focal lengths (needs lenses optimized for roughly 1:5 through infinity); and frequently prints 30x40" enlargements (i.e., needs maximum attainable lens contrast and resolution), I'm pretty much stuck with huge, modern and expensive in order to get the results I want.

[tim atherton]

Absolutley bigger is better! Though in some ways it is a bit of a metaphysical thing.

First, on the small lenses - my normal 8x10 kit only includes one average sized "regular" lens - a 250 6.7 fuji. All the rest are small - 159 wolly, 210 Kowa, 300 and 450 fuji C's

The 165mm Super Angulon only comes along if I know I'm really goign to need it (and/or lives in the car). Same if I want the lovely colour look of the 12" Ektar.

And it is possible to travel reasonably light, though it takes a bit of work to build the kit up.

Lightweight 8x10 (e.g. Phillips Compact II or Explorer)

Light Gitzo 1325 CF tripod + 1lb Markins ballhead (more rigid than the heavier Arca B1)

10 or a dozen or so Mido Holders - much lighter and easier to carry (if a bit more fragile) than regular holders

My regular 8x10 kit really doesn't weigh much more than my 4x5 Technikardan kit - just takes up a bit more room

As for differences - the big ground glass does make a difference - I find for whatever reason, I compose differently from 4x5 to 8x10. I also find that even at enlargements of 16x20, 8x10 definitely has something of a different look and feel - the smoothness etc. Even more noticeable in larger prints

[Michael Kadillak]

There will always be the analytical discussion and debate as to resolution, weight, ease of transportation to and from the field, managing the security of equipment and on and on and that is just fine. Everyone can draw upon their own justification for what format they use that fits their needs and feel comfortable with it however they arrived at their set of conclusions.

After reading many biographies of famous artists and photographers I have come to a divergent set of operating criteria that is refreshing and stimulating at least to me.

As an engineer by degree, it has taken me many years to leave the cognitative part of my brain out of the equation and let the emotional component take over. From my perspective it is not about format or any of the variables that go along with these limitations. Most of the time I find the decision as to format (4x5, 8x10 or larger) self imposed by either costs, fear of the unknown (mobility driven by size and weight) the process (has a reasonable sized darkroom or not) or is into computers in a big way (or not). But at the end of the day the only thing that really matters is the end result - the tonalities of the print. And the absolute top of the mountain as far as I am concerned is the well executed contact print in any form.

For me I have shot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14, 8x20 and 12x20. Through the process of personal experimentation with these formats I have come to the conclusion that there are two divergent types of photographs that continue to jump out at me over and over. Those that are inherently panaromic and those that are inherently rectangular. 8x10 and ooccasionally 11x14 is my rectangular instrument and 8x20 is the panaromic tool of choice for me. Is 8x10 any more "difficult" to focus then 4x5? No. Is a ULF camera and tripod heavy and bulky? Absolutely. But so what? Rather than let limitations drive your process, why not let the process drive your vision?

LF photography is not about convenience. It is about truthfullness and seeing "your" way. If you want to make it convenient and accept the compromise then that is your choice. But don't continue to justify it with deductive reasoning or some other practical conclusion because IMHO practical and LF are not mutually inclusive.

I find that it is about what you are willing to do to attain your vision and finding the time and resources to attain your objective. When I head into the field it takes time to load the truck and get my act together. Similarly when I go into the darkroom I am forced to manage my already busy schedule to allocate several concurrent hours to either develop negatives or print. I find this self imposed procedure a very good thing because if forces accountability to the end result. I spent a year building a basement and a darkroom for this purpose. No hitting the scanner or the print button before I duck out to a movie. LF for me represents the pinnacle of real commitment uncompromised and singularly focused on the end product.

Passion is the driver. Honesty about your vision is the goal. Accepting the challenge is how we both differentiate ourselves and define who we really are. Or as the motto from a German gun maker goes - "In A World Of Compromise - Some Don't"

Onward!

[Robert Skeoch]

I enjoy a great looking print as much as the next guy.... but for me LF isn't about the print. It's about the experience of taking the photo. If I get a great negative, then a great print out of the deal, well that's just a bonus.
I just love to go out with the camera and find a photo. If I have a great shooting experience, then I'm confident a great negative and print will follow.
I must be getting old but for me it's becoming about the zen of large format photography.

That said, I still think I'll drop down to 5x7 when age doesn't allow me to lug the 8x10 around any longer.
-Rob

[Gary Smith]

Well, after toying around with the idea for a few months, and a nice bonus at work. I bought an enlarger a couple of months ago. Then a few days ago, I fell into what I felt was a great deal. A Tachihara Triple Extension 8x10, a Fujinon 300mm and 450mm lens, all essentially new and unused with 5 film holders. The owner of the camera suddenly passed away several, and his wife knew I liked it called and asked if I was interested. So I got the whole thing for 800US.

All I need is a new tripod to support this monster. I hope I can get out and try using it soon.

I guess I will find out soon if bigger really is better.

Thanx Again.

Gary

[Ralph Barker]

That's an excellent deal, Gary. Welcome to the realm of 8x10.

[Robert Skeoch]

that's a great deal, you can't go wrong, I hope you love it as much as I do.
rob skeoch
www.bigcameraworkshops.com

[Steve Barber]

Long thread, so if someone has said this already and I missed it, I apologize.

I keep seeing this debate for one format vs. another and I don't understand it. Enlarged or contact printed, I only use one criterion for deciding what format I will use to take a picture.

I only use a larger format when the lens that gives the detail I want won't fit the scene onto a smaller negative. A 300mm lens on an 8x10 isn't going to have any advantage over a 300mm lens on a 4x5, except for the additional real estate. Trying to use a 150mm lens, at the same distance on a 4x5, and enlarge the image will not give the same level of detail.

It seems to me that using a larger format camera than necessary for the level of detail you want is a waste of time, effort and money. What am I missing?

[BrianShaw]

It seems to me that using a larger format camera than necessary for the level of detail you want is a waste of time, effort and money. What am I missing?
Perhaps all that you are missing is the acceptance of the fact that some folks have time, effort, and money to waste.:)

[Gary Smith]

Long thread, so if someone has said this already and I missed it, I apologize.

I keep seeing this debate for one format vs. another and I don't understand it. Enlarged or contact printed, I only use one criterion for deciding what format I will use to take a picture.

I only use a larger format when the lens that gives the detail I want won't fit the scene onto a smaller negative. A 300mm lens on an 8x10 isn't going to have any advantage over a 300mm lens on a 4x5, except for the additional real estate. Trying to use a 150mm lens, at the same distance on a 4x5, and enlarge the image will not give the same level of detail.

It seems to me that using a larger format camera than necessary for the level of detail you want is a waste of time, effort and money. What am I missing?

In addition to enlarging, I have wanted to try alternative processes such as Pt/Pd and 4x5 was a little too small. I will continue using 4x5, am very very happy with it. Just not for alternative processes.

Gary

[JW Dewdney]

In addition to enlarging, I have wanted to try alternative processes such as Pt/Pd and 4x5 was a little too small. I will continue using 4x5, am very very happy with it. Just not for alternative processes.

Gary

Why not just make an interneg or something of larger size. Pt and Pd tend to result in VERY low resoluton prints anyway - from the ones I'VE seen - maybe 1 lp/mm at BEST. A digital neg (a la Burkholder, if that's the name) would be cool.

[Michael Graves]

Many have already articulated quite nicely a simple fact. An image is as unique as the individual who takes it. Some pictures make magnificant murals adorning huge walls. Others make exquisitely intimate prints for hanging in an office or living room. I have one print that was shot on 5x7 that, while it enlarges quite well...just doesn't view as well as the contact print. I entered that shot in a couple of competitions enlarged to 11x14 and never got a passing notice. This summer I entered a matted and framed contact print from that same negative and took first place. Part of it was no doubt the judges, but I think another part was that the particular image was a string quartet and not a symphony.

[depso]

My vision is fine; last time I checked (which was in february of this year) I had 20/20 vision.

If you seriously think that there is a noticable difference between an 8x10 contact print and a 8x10 print from a drum scanned 4x5 negative (that was printed on glossy fuji crystal archive paper using a printer like the Chromira or Fuji Frontier), by all means continue shooting with that giant camera.

But really, I see no advantage in shooting 8x10 unless you plan on making giant prints (100 inches+) or contact prints. 4x5 has the most choices in film, lenses and cameras. The weight and processing costs are much lower, and that means I can take my camera to more places and take more shots for the same cost. In the end, it's just a matter of taste...


I'm diving into this a little late but i don't think photography or art is always a matter of sheer economics,
I just get better results with my 8x10 than my 4x5, infact i find the 4x5 ground glass too small and the film a little too cheap i find myself shooting it as if it were rollfilm- that's a big distraction right there!!!
you bang away and end up with a bunch of crap instead of ending up with two images you love!
That's what matters in the end (for me anyway), what counts is whether i like what i make or not
ImHO
Njelle

[depso]

Is a ULF camera and tripod heavy and bulky? Absolutely. But so what? Rather than let limitations drive your process, why not let the process drive your vision?

LF photography is not about convenience. It is about truthfullness and seeing "your" way. If you want to make it convenient and accept the compromise then that is your choice. But don't continue to justify it with deductive reasoning or some other practical conclusion because IMHO practical and LF are not mutually inclusive.


I couldn't agree more!

[TheDeardorffGuy]

Since this thread started in '06 I have no idea whom I'm replying to. But my story is
4x5,6x6 + enlarge to up to 20x24. For about ten years. Then 8x10 Deardorff camera and contact print. All I had was an 8x10 print. Then a 11x14 Deardorff and still just a 11x14 print. Then I rebuilt a 14x17 Rochester Optical camera. Now I had something that had more size and I could make some nice prints. But then we bought a PT cruiser and my beloved Minivan went to Minivan Hill in the auto recyclers and my space for photo stuff went away. But a good thing happened. I was invited to a customers studio to see if I could align his Fotar enlarger. I brought a known negative along and went to work. A couple hours later I had his enlarger set up and was hooked on enlarging 8x10 negs. Back to my V8 and a cheap (read giveaway) Fotar enlarger and building a new darkroom. I was pleased at the lack of grain of a 20x24.
So find an old elwood and make a LED lighthead. You can do it!!

[prado333]

if 8x10 is good for Raymond Depardon , Joel Sternfeld, Joel Meyerowitz, Richard Misrach, Mitch Epstein, Alec Soth, Greg Miller and more in no particular order it is good
for me.

[Brian Ellis]

If you have no way to enlarge your 8x10 negatives but can enlarge your 4x5s then I wouldn't view an 8x10 camera as a substitute for 4x5. 8x10 contact prints are beautiful and I found 8x10 gear very satisfying to use but many photographs, at least the kind I make, cry out to be printed bigger than 8x10. And it's very frustrating to have an 8x10 contact print that you know would be better larger but have no way of printing it larger (I never used a lab, never will, maybe for people who use labs that would be a solution). At least I was very frustrated until scanning and digital printing became feasible and allowed me to enlarge some of my 8x10 negatives.

[Jon Wilson]

Get yourself an 8x10 enlarger and build your darkroom around it. I am still learning the ropes, but that is what I did. If you are in the neighborhood, look me up and you are welcome to try it out. Jon

[atlcruiser]

I met Clyde Butcher last spring at his gallery and we chatted a while. I was about to make the jump to 45 from all of my MF stuff. He suggessted to forget 45 and go straight to 810 as i will anyway...he was right!

I ended up with a deardorff 810 and a linhof kardan 45. The linhof was sold off as too much of a hassle for my use and I got a crown graphic.

For me nothing compares to the 810...but i have yet to shoot a 20x24 :) My 45 I use all the time and use it as a great tool for learning how better to use the 810. I hope to soon be able to concentrate more and use the 45 as more of a camera and less of a learning tool but then I get the 810 out and all thoguhts of the 45 go away.

It is more expensive especially with color of e6 film but the B+W is not all that bad. I average 10 frames a week of 810 and have had great luck with the arista edu film at a great price.

I see a savings in time as I shoot fewer frames, less time to develope, less time to scan, store etc.... overall the process is easier for me than 45 and much easier than MF.

Contact printing rocks.....there is no real downside for me. If and when I want to get bigger prints i can have them professionally scanned and printed.


I would suggest a decent, cheaper 810 to see if you like it and how well it works for you and keep the 45 kit for now.

Later this month I get to use a 8 x 20 and a 20 x 24..I cant wait and I have a feeling that my money will soon be gone after that experience!

[Steve M Hostetter]

i'd go read the thread, why do you shoot 8x10