8X10--Why do we love it? An LF Valentine!

[John Kasaian]

Why? I've been trying to answer that question.

4x5 is certainly more portable, affordable and has more emulsions and modern lenses going for it.

5X7 ins't far behind and has a decent size negative for contact prints to boot.

11x14 quite literally blows everything away when it comes to portraits and is, to my eyes anyway a more appealing format for the grand landscape.

When it comes to mind blowing aerial images on the ground glass ULFs like 12x20 are...well... "Heroic" (I don't know any other way to describe it!) To experience a sharp 12x20 contact print is pretty darn rear sensory overload!

So why am I (and maybe you too) so taken with the 8x10? What is it that makes this format so loveable? What do you think?

[Jim Galli]

Let me count the ways.........

I'm with you. I have the other formats so why when I'm on a dead run out the door do I always grab an old 8X10 and throw it in to cart along? Is it the best of all trade-offs with size, weight, resolution, accessories, portability, availability and cost? Yes.

It just always seems to be ready to get the job done.

[Juergen Sattler]

A color slide on a lighttable answers the question better than I ever could - it is just absolutely beautiful to look at. I have a hard time turning off the light when I look at an 8x10. I just took a close-up of a sunflower in a vase on Kodak 100G and it blows me away - no 35mm or even medium sized macro shot will even come close to the clarity and the detail.

[Gary Smith]

A color slide on a lighttable answers the question better than I ever could - it is just absolutely beautiful to look at. I have a hard time turning off the light when I look at an 8x10. I just took a close-up of a sunflower in a vase on Kodak 100G and it blows me away - no 35mm or even medium sized macro shot will even come close to the clarity and the detail.


I agree! I just developed my first 8x10 color slides and was completely blown away. The detail is just incredible, I recently compared some scans I took. They were the exact same shot one on 8x10 the other one 645 using the same film (veliva 100). The 8x10s are just mind blowing.


Gary

[Ash]

my 10x8 experience is limited to about 5 negs, but wow. 4x5 is definitely more convenient, but there's a reason 10x8 paper, both photographic and the slightly different A4 (general use paper size here) is so popular. It's an easy size, you can fit loads on it, and when it comes to photography, those negs look brilliant.

[Ole Tjugen]

I haven't shot 8x10" yet...

But I have shot a little 18x24cm,which is a bit narrower. Really nice, but nowhere near as nice as 24x30cm! :p

[N Dhananjay]

I find 8x10/11x14 prints to be special in the sense that they encourage simultaneously seeing both the overall pattern and the details. Smaller and viewing the print is a somewhat intimate experience. Much larger prints tend to hold you at a distance so you don't lose the overall gestalt. And 8x0 is a world more manageable than 11x14. Oddly enough, I also find working with 8x10 considerably easier than smaller formats. Cheers, DJ

[John O'Connell]

How do I love thee, 8x10? Let me count the ways . . .

The groundglass is usefully big but not so big you have to stand back to evaluate it.

You can get away with a 3x loupe for focusing.

For most shots, you can still reach the front standard to perform tilts.

Closeups are easy and work wonderfully; I get better results from 8x10 macro than I do from 4x5 macro.

Contact printing works really well for fine textures, like textiles and skin.

The big wart with 8x10 is that the contact prints are still fairly small. I'm waiting for a cheap 11x14 to come along to fix that problem though.

[tim atherton]

As Stephen Shore (I think) said - there are really only two formats - 35mm and 8x10 - everything else is a variation on those two :-)

And as has been mentioned, viewing and composing on the GG is just right with the 8x10 (it's basically the size of a small monitor) - you aren't squinting at it all the time like you do with 4x5. But you can still see the whole view more easily than you can with 11x14 and bigger.

It's not quite too big to carry around easily and use. 11x14 is already over the top. A decent 8x10 kit can weigh not too much more than an average 4x5 kit - the main difference is it's a bit bulkier.

Finally, it's just in the right spot for the quality of image it produces.

Unless you are using the best of modern super/XL/apo/HM lenses, once you get to around 16x20 prints, the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 starts to show. And it's not necessarily just about sharpness, but also smoothness and transition of tones. even in an 11x14 print (in fact, often in a magazine reproduction) I can see the subtle differences between an image made with 4x5 and 8x10. Once the prints are a bit bigger, it is quite noticeable. There is usually an overall difference in "feel" to the image.

Again, going up to 11x14 is overkill (and you are either limited to small contact prints or owning a mammoth enlarger - from which you will routinely need to make 40" prints to seriously notice the difference!)

[Eric Leppanen]

When its use is feasible, the 8x10 is the only camera system I have that enables me to get exactly the type of photographs I want without the image quality compromises of smaller systems:

- I can make color prints at virtually any size without signs of overenlargement. So far I have made Chromira prints as large as 30x40", and at the Photo LA show I saw an enormous, mural sized Lightjet print made from 8x10 that had incredible detail and zero grain. For my taste, the 4x5 runs out of gas at around a 20x24" print size, and even at that size I can see a noticeable difference in tonality versus 8x10.
- Shooting 8x10 B&W gives me the option of making 16x20" silver prints with all the tonal and dmax advantages of traditional printing, without sacrificing resolution as compared to digital prints. They may not have quite the "snap" of B&W contact prints -- I will grant ULF shooters that -- but they are still awfully good in my book. With the 4x5, 16x20" digital prints are noticeably sharper than traditional, even though I frequently don't like the tonality or dmax as much.
- 8x10 shares a similar or identical aspect ratio with my 4x5 or the 6x7 I used to own, so I can occasionally rotate wall-mounted images without replacing frames or mattes.

Of course, there are plenty of situations where using the 8x10 beast is not feasible (too heavy/bulky, insufficient depth of field, etc.), and for these situations I use my 4x5 or small format systems. But when out shooting landscape or architecture, my first question always is: will the 8x10 work here?

[Rob_5419]

8x10...why do we love it?

We don't. At least I don't.

My 8x10" developing tanks and stainless steel neg holders are languishing unused.


Professionally there is such a small market for such high quality work, and even platinum printing with such a small format isn't exactly impressive when 20x24" seems more apt.

Historically, I find the full-plate size more attractive, although that is probably a conditioned perspective.

As John has mentioned, n terms of emulsions, there are so few going, it's hard not to feel that it's a shrinking market left for enthusiasts and a deluded fragment of the fine art posse who have never used ISO25 film in 5x4" due to its non-availability in their area.

Living with an 8x10" field camera is less than a blessing, particularly going uphill against pulsing rain. 5x4" is bearable, although the darkslide management of the 8x10" DDS is enough to give any photographer post-traumatic stress disorder.

In terms of its format, it holds nothing unique: the 8x10" ratio is identical to the 5x4" ratio. Now an 8x8" format would be surprising...and original ;)

Perhaps I'm being a little harsh with this year's Valentine who needs to trim down a size, or perhaps aspire to be bigger than she already is ;)

[Brian Ellis]

I've had a love-hate relationship with 8x10. I loved using it - composing on that big bright ground glass was sheer joy, I liked handling the big film holders and lenses - but I hated carrying it around. Sometimes the love part has been in the ascendancy and then I'd buy an 8x10, sometimes the hate part has been in the ascendancy and then I'd sell the 8x10. I guess that's why I've owned three different 8x10s and sold them all. At the moment I'm still in the hate phase but I'm sure that will pass.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

I have to agree--I don't love 8x10--but I do use it whenever I can't get myself to drag the 11x14 out. Personally, I find the ratio of 4x5 and 8x10 to be a bit dull; 5x7, 11x14, and the old plate sizes are much more interesting.

[Oren Grad]

We don't.

It's too square, and either too big or too small, depending on the application. IMO 6.5x8.5, 7x11 and 11x14 are all more fun, each in its own way.

What 8x10 has going for it, in spades, is convenience. Because it's still a standard format, there's a much wider choice of film, including color if you want it, and it's easier to get compared to the "odd" formats. And of course there's also a much wider choice of cameras, both classic and modern, so if you have special needs or preferences it's much easier to find something that suits without going to the hassle and expense of custom work.

I reach for 8x10 when I have a task where I want as big a negative as possible with minimum hassle. For all other purposes I use other formats.

[Mark Sawyer]

I've been on 8x10 for almost thirty years, and have an 11x14 on loan for a few months. I love them both...

I'm with Jim Galli; for large format, it's a "point of diminishing returns" phenomenon. Going from 4x5 or 5x7 to 8x10 isn't outrageous in terms of equipment or film cost, and the weight and availability of what-you-need isn't outrageous. Once you go to 11x14, the film-holders alone are ten times as much in cost (new or used), (and hard to find at that), and the weight and bulk become prohibitive for hiking. I don't hesitate on the odd shot at $3 a sheet for 8x10, but at $6 for 11x14, I get hesitant, and do a bit less work.

Also, on 8x10, I can see the whole ground glass while composing; on 11x14, I bob my head around under the dark cloth, looking here and there, but having a hard time perceiving the whole. (as N Dhananjay noted, for images larger than 8x10, we view at a distance. That isn't an option under a dark cloth...)

[Justin Cormack]

Now an 8x8" format would be surprising...and original ;)

My 8x8 has been on order for a while, looking forward to its arrival.

[Maris Rusis]

In the sequence of increasing film size the 8x10 contact photograph is the smallest to have real presence. It represents the first opportunity to see a full size preview of the final picture on the ground glass.

The size of a photograph is an important contributing factor in its appreciation. Baby portraits should not be three feet square and grand landscapes don't work at 4x5. For me the 8x10 (or 10x8) is always right for what it does because if it didn't look right on the ground glass I didn't go "click". Saves money too! My expenses always run higher when I shoot roll-film compared to visually edited 8x10.

[David Louis]

I chose to work in 8x10 because it was (and still is) the largest format with readily available film, and because it was (and still is) the largest format easily accommodated by analog enlargement.

[Dave Parker]

I chose to work in 8x10 because it was (and still is) the largest format with readily available film, and because it was (and still is) the largest format easily accommodated by analog enlargement.

Boy David,

Don't tell my customers that!!! :p My ULF glass is going crazy the last 6 months!

Dave

:D

[cobalt]

For those of you who don't love 8x10: I feel your pain. Please, take my address, give me all your 8x10 equipment. I will sacrifice myself to end your suffering. Yeah, I'm a helluva guy.:D

[Jack Flesher]

I think Jim Galli summed the main points up perfectly... But I'll add a few of my own comments, sure to be unpopular with many here...

Given the advantages Jim already expressed: 1) Time is perhaps my most valuable -- or rather least available -- commodity when heading out shooting; 2) 8x10 film is still relatively inexpensive when compared to my time constraints; 3) I have a complete selection of Color neg, Color tranny, B&W and even IR emulsions avaialable.

Hence, using the camera, lenses, film and holders I already own, I can justify cropping a *full* sheet of 8x10 to 4x10, 5x10, 6.7x10, 7.5x10, 8x8 or even down to 5x7 and still have a significant negative to work with.

~~~

As respects its disadvantages to ULF formats for alternative process applications: Aside from Polaroid, ULF film is now limited pretty much to a few B&W emulsions only. I can scan any of the above captures and generate a digital B&W negative of remarkable quality in any of the standard ULF emulsion sizes, and thus create an equally remarkable alternative print in just about any size I want.

(I do however grant that there is a certain "fun" factor of using ULF that is not present in the 8x10 experience.)

Okay, I can definitely feel the heat building now :D,

[Rob_5419]

My 8x8 has been on order for a while, looking forward to its arrival.

Justin - you are kidding?? Err, nothing really. Just really jealous, that's all.

Would you use standard 8x10" holders and somehow have the lens mounted to shoot square in the middle of the 8x10" film and then crop?

Off topic, but if Ebony made a 4x4" - camera, not SUV please....

[Justin Cormack]

Justin - you are kidding?? Err, nothing really. Just really jealous, that's all.

Would you use standard 8x10" holders and somehow have the lens mounted to shoot square in the middle of the 8x10" film and then crop?

Off topic, but if Ebony made a 4x4" - camera, not SUV please....

8x8 holders - Argentum make square wood holders to fit their cameras. It will have a 5x7 back too, for non square days.

The only square large format I know of is 9.5x9.5 - I have (part of) an old set of nested plate holders that includes that size.