PDA

View Full Version : 5x8 format



Bruce Watson
25-Apr-2008, 08:01
Was the 5x8 format ever used? If so, who made cameras in this size? And film holders? Anyone making this format today? And film holders?

It's just an interesting size -- very close to the golden ratio, and you can get film for it by a single cut of 10x8 film to two sheets of 5x8, so there is some practical advantage also.

Oren Grad
25-Apr-2008, 08:11
Yes, at least in the plate era. See, for example:

http://www.fiberq.com/cam/anthony/amchampe.htm

John Brady
25-Apr-2008, 08:22
Hi Bruce, Chamonix is building a 5x8 and making beautiful holders.
Here is some new work I have done with mine. One of the cool things other then 8x10 film availability is that I do my own processing with a jobo cpp2 and You can use the 30010 pro drum and the 5x8 fits perfectly five sheets at a time.
______________________
www.timeandlight.com

Bruce Watson
25-Apr-2008, 08:37
Hi Bruce, Chamonix is building a 5x8 and making beautiful holders.

Here is some new work I have done with mine. One of the cool things other then 8x10 film availability is that I do my own processing with a jobo cpp2 and you can use the 3010 pro drum and the 5x8 fits perfectly five sheets at a time.

Does Chamonix have a website? Where can I get specs and pics? I can't find a website for them. Sigh... addicted to the web.

And 5x8 will actually fit a 3010 drum? And the little ridge that the film has to cover (so you could put two 4x5 sheets in the drum) in that orientation doesn't mean anything then -- at least not according to your examples which are quite nice BTW. Happy thought that, I was thinking I'd have to buy another drum.

Does it take a single cut of 8x10 film, or is the film a little smaller and need to be trimmed?

And just out of curiosity, how much does the camera weigh?

Ken Lee
25-Apr-2008, 08:49
Another thing you can do, is turn a 5x7 into a corresponding "golden ratio" camera.

You only really get 6.75 inches of useable space due to the holder.

0.6180339 x 6.75 = 4.17 inches, or around 4.25. If you apply a mask on your ground glass of around 3/8 inch, you end up with 4 and 1/4 by 6 and 3/4. You're.... golden. :rolleyes:

John Brady
25-Apr-2008, 09:04
Hi Bruce, I will do my best with your questions but our resident expert is Hugo Zhang, he is the Chamonix distributor in the us. He is very knowledgeable and provides great customer service.

1)Does Chamonix have a website? Where can I get specs and pics? I can't find a website for them. Sigh... addicted to the web.
I don't think they have a web site in the us yet

2)And 5x8 will actually fit a 3010 drum? And the little ridge that the film has to cover (so you could put two 4x5 sheets in the drum) in that orientation doesn't mean anything then -- at least not according to your examples which are quite nice BTW. Happy thought that, I was thinking I'd have to buy another drum.
The 3010 drum works great, you just line up the two ends of the film with one of the ridges and let the non emulsion side span the other one.

3)Does it take a single cut of 8x10 film, or is the film a little smaller and need to be trimmed?
8x10 cut in half fits perfectly, no excess or extra trimming.

4)And just out of curiosity, how much does the camera weigh?
Film: Half of standard 8x10 film(recut the 8x10 film in darkroom)
See the info below, this is for the non rotating back model. The specs are a little different for the rotating model which is the one I have.

Wood: oiled Walnut,Metal:aluminium magnesium alloys.

Lensboard: Technika style.

Front axis tilt: Limited only by the bellows.

Front swing: Limited only by the bellows.

Front rise and fall: 60mm.

Front shift: 70mm.

Back swing: 10°;u+

Bellows draw extension from 70mm to 460mm.

Weight: 2.28kg.

Dimensions: 310mmx210mmx110mm in close position.
___________________
www.timeandlight.com

wfwhitaker
25-Apr-2008, 09:45
Oh, great! Now I feel like Lucy Ricardo in a hat store...

jetcode
25-Apr-2008, 10:06
Another thing you can do, is turn a 5x7 into a corresponding "golden ratio" camera.

You only really get 6.75 inches of useable space due to the holder.

0.6180339 x 6.75 = 4.17 inches, or around 4.25. If you apply a mask on your ground glass of around 3/8 inch, you end up with 4 and 1/4 by 6 and 3/4. You're.... golden. :rolleyes:

what I enjoy about 4x10 is that I am not limited to 4x10: 4x4, 4x5, 4x6, 4x7, 4x8, 4x9, I usually try to fill the frame but the subject truly dictates the format

Bruce Watson
25-Apr-2008, 16:52
Another thing you can do, is turn a 5x7 into a corresponding "golden ratio" camera.

You only really get 6.75 inches of useable space due to the holder.

0.6180339 x 6.75 = 4.17 inches, or around 4.25. If you apply a mask on your ground glass of around 3/8 inch, you end up with 4 and 1/4 by 6 and 3/4. You're.... golden. :rolleyes:

Actually I'm looking at three "primary" formats. Something squarish like 4:3, something golden as in 1:618:1, and something panish like 2.5:1. I'm thinking that 5x8 would be about right for what I want, but 5x7 is only two inches longer than 4x5. And 5x8 gives you a single cut from 8x10 film, where 5x7 (which is getting very hard to find) requires two cuts from 8x10, which is double the opportunity for dirt, scratches, and fingerprints.

Else I could go with 4x10 as Jetcode suggests. But that means more waste when I want a squarer format. It probably, maybe, means more weight in the pack as well. I'm still trying to get some info from suppliers on that and other things.

Songyun
25-Apr-2008, 17:16
Does Chamonix have a website? Where can I get specs and pics? I can't find a website for them. Sigh... addicted to the web.

And 5x8 will actually fit a 3010 drum? And the little ridge that the film has to cover (so you could put two 4x5 sheets in the drum) in that orientation doesn't mean anything then -- at least not according to your examples which are quite nice BTW. Happy thought that, I was thinking I'd have to buy another drum.

Does it take a single cut of 8x10 film, or is the film a little smaller and need to be trimmed?

And just out of curiosity, how much does the camera weigh?
There are two 5X8 Chamonix camera available. One is horizontal only, the other is interchangeable. It looks just like the 8X10. I did post it once here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=28593).

I think 5X8 is a nice format, if someone comes up with a device that automatically cuts 8X10 into 2 5X8, that will be very nice.

audioexcels
25-Apr-2008, 17:33
Hi Bruce, Chamonix is building a 5x8 and making beautiful holders.
Here is some new work I have done with mine. One of the cool things other then 8x10 film availability is that I do my own processing with a jobo cpp2 and You can use the 30010 pro drum and the 5x8 fits perfectly five sheets at a time.
______________________
www.timeandlight.com

Is this the 72XL in action or what? Such a super wide view especially on the first two images. Curious what lens was used for the first two and then the third shot.

Also, what is the total image area you get from the holders? In other words, take away the film holder rails/and cut off of the sheet loaded into the holder and what do you end up with?

Last thing...have you made any contact prints and what's your impression of them?

Thanks for these images. Super!!!

P.S. 8/5=1.6...golden ratio no?...well, take the exposed film and I think you are a little bit longer than the 1.6...probably around 1.62 or something rather.

Songyun
25-Apr-2008, 17:54
P.S. 8/5=1.6...golden ratio no?...well, take the exposed film and I think you are a little bit longer than the 1.6...probably around 1.62 or something rather.

Golden ratio is (\sqrt{5} +1)/2 =1.6180

audioexcels
25-Apr-2008, 19:05
Golden ratio is (\sqrt{5} +1)/2 =1.6180

So 5X8 exposed is likely right at the golden ratio then;):).

Jiri Vasina
25-Apr-2008, 22:59
Here is (http://www.vasina.net/?p=94) a little description of my Chamonix 5×8" reversible back camera. I use it mainly to shoot 13×18cm and only sometimes (for the shots that require it compositionaly) do I use 5×8".

The camera is excellent to handle.

Nick_3536
26-Apr-2008, 00:20
Actually I'm looking at three "primary" formats. Something squarish like 4:3, something golden as in 1:618:1, and something panish like 2.5:1.

With my 8x10 I got a 4x10 and a 5x7 back.

Bruce Watson
26-Apr-2008, 04:35
Here is (http://www.vasina.net/?p=94) a little description of my Chamonix 58" reversible back camera. I use it mainly to shoot 1318cm and only sometimes (for the shots that require it compositionaly) do I use 58".

The camera is excellent to handle.

Thanks for the link to the pictures. It seems to show that this is a 10x8 camera fitted with an 8x5 reducing back. Or at least it's based on the 10x8 -- the bellows at the rear standard looks to be about 10" square. Is that a fair assessment?

Jiri Vasina
26-Apr-2008, 05:34
No. It is not a 8x10 with a reduction back. The back is 8x8" square. In fact, at one time I was thinking it would also be possible to shoot 6 1/2 x 8 1/2" (whole plate) with it, but the opening in the back is too small (the rear bellows opening will not allow 8 1/2").

I have compared it directly to my brother's ShenHao FCL57A, and the Chamonix is only about 1" larger. (And a bit lighter :) ).

Bruce Watson
26-Apr-2008, 05:40
Get an old Deardorff and use splitters on the back of the 8x10. A lot easier than buying everything new.

That's not a bad thought. But I'm weight conscious -- like to backpack up the mountains with this stuff on my back. So I'm looking for a camera made specifically for this format. I'm thinking, rightly or wrongly, that a camera made for this format will be a little smaller and therefore a little lighter. Perhaps. Maybe.

Jiri Vasina
26-Apr-2008, 05:50
Weight is not always proportional to size. There are some very light 8x10 camera, there are some (relatively) heavy 5x7 cameras. Chamonix 5x8 would go into the light/very light 5x7(8) camera group.

redrockcoulee
26-Apr-2008, 07:11
Were the 5X8 film holders standardized? I have a 5X8 Rochester Universal http://www.fiberq.com/cam/roc/univ.htm (http://http://www.fiberq.com/cam/roc/univ.htm) but no film holders. I am thinking of starting to look for a couple of holders and shoot paper negatives. Or are they are outrageous in price as 5X7s. I should not complain as sold a set of brand new 5X7 holders for about 4X what I thought I would get.
I know next to nothing about the 5X8 format hence the question. My Rochester is smaller and lighter than the 5X7 Seneca Improved but with a smaller lensboard and no movements. Just need the film holders and to get around and fix the small pinholes in the bellows (done that before on the Seneca)

Bruce Watson
26-Apr-2008, 08:05
Were the 5X8 film holders standardized?


An excellent question. I wish to know that as well. Anyone?

I know that holders are available from Chamonix, but have no idea if they are "standard" holders or if they are specific to Chamonix.

Ken Lee
26-Apr-2008, 08:12
Golden ratio is (\sqrt{5} +1)/2 =1.6180

The Golden Ratio is an irrational number, and like Pi, can only be approximated to any number of decimal places, such as 1.6180339...

It is, according to mathematicians, the most irrational of all numbers. There are many web sites dedicated to it, and to the Fibonacci series.

1:2, 2:3, 3:5, 5:8, 8:13.. all of these are "Fibonacci" whole-number approximations. The further you go in the series, the closer you approach the Golden Mean, but you never get there. It reminds me of... taking photographs. :rolleyes:

Please overlook my preoccupation with this subject, but my "avatar" image is the Greek letter Phi, which has been used traditionally, to denote the Golden Mean, in honor of Phidias, an ancient Greek sculptor who was reputed to possess exclusive knowledge of the true form of the gods.

Speaking of Chinese cameras, students of Chinese language will also recognize the character, as the first of two which spell the name of their country: a rather subtle and lofty principle on which to found a nation. It also is the first letter in the word Photography.

GPS
26-Apr-2008, 10:10
That's not a bad thought. But I'm weight conscious -- like to backpack up the mountains with this stuff on my back. So I'm looking for a camera made specifically for this format. I'm thinking, rightly or wrongly, that a camera made for this format will be a little smaller and therefore a little lighter. Perhaps. Maybe.

When you compare the weight of 8x10 and 5x8 Chamonix cameras you see that you save about 1.600 g on the smaller format. But! You get double the number of pictures for half of the number of film holders with the 8x10 format. And the weight advantage starts to be irrelevant after a number of the film holders, even getting in the opposite direction with a certain number of the film holders. Plus you proportionally save also the space for them...

sanking
26-Apr-2008, 11:16
An excellent question. I wish to know that as well. Anyone?

I know that holders are available from Chamonix, but have no idea if they are "standard" holders or if they are specific to Chamonix.


Bruce,

In that there is no such thing as a standard 5X8 film holder I am very certain that the ones available from Chamonix are specific to Chamonix cameras. 5X8 is a format that was used in the past, though more in Asia than in the US it seems. I base that comment simply on the fact that in a big LF store I visited in Beijing last fall there were several 5X8 cameras for sale. They looked to be of English type design, but I was told they were made in India.

Sandy King

Bruce Watson
26-Apr-2008, 14:21
Bruce,

In that there is no such thing as a standard 5X8 film holder I am very certain that the ones available from Chamonix are specific to Chamonix cameras. 5X8 is a format that was used in the past, though more in Asia than in the US it seems. I base that comment simply on the fact that in a big LF store I visited in Beijing last fall there were several 5X8 cameras for sale. They looked to be of English type design, but I was told they were made in India.

Sandy King

You were in China, and they were selling cameras made in India? Now isn't that interesting. :eek:

sanking
26-Apr-2008, 15:01
You were in China, and they were selling cameras made in India? Now isn't that interesting. :eek:

They were vintage 5X8 cameras, not new ones!

Sandy

audioexcels
26-Apr-2008, 16:16
They were vintage 5X8 cameras, not new ones!

Sandy

Brittish-India-Asia...Rob has the history of all this somewhere, but Brittain is where all the odd-ball formats came about. I think the only India based "modern" cam is the Deardorff take off.

Bruce Watson
26-Apr-2008, 17:06
They were vintage 5X8 cameras, not new ones!

Sandy

Ah. Of course.

I've been sanding sheet rock mud much of the day. Must have snorted a little too much of that gypsum dust.

No, really -- think of it as the "other white powder," the one that won't get you high, but only gets you (really) tired. And messy. But fear not, this is in a completely different part of the house than the darkroom!

audioexcels
2-Aug-2008, 21:34
Another thing you can do, is turn a 5x7 into a corresponding "golden ratio" camera.

You only really get 6.75 inches of useable space due to the holder.

0.6180339 x 6.75 = 4.17 inches, or around 4.25. If you apply a mask on your ground glass of around 3/8 inch, you end up with 4 and 1/4 by 6 and 3/4. You're.... golden. :rolleyes:

I kinda like 4X6.75 myself...though isn't the 6.75" side actually 6.625?

audioexcels
2-Aug-2008, 21:54
When you compare the weight of 8x10 and 5x8 Chamonix cameras you see that you save about 1.600 g on the smaller format. But! You get double the number of pictures for half of the number of film holders with the 8x10 format. And the weight advantage starts to be irrelevant after a number of the film holders, even getting in the opposite direction with a certain number of the film holders. Plus you proportionally save also the space for them...

Good points, but also a bit plausible:

1) 5X8 gives you 2 shots. With 8X10, you can mask it for two shots, but it doesn't sound so easy to do and masking can burden the shot, at least according to Canham it can.

2) If you are a wide angle shooter, you have a lot more choices available unless your end goal with 8X10 is a contact print where a cheap piece of glass will do the job ok.

3) Weight of the 5X8 holders is something close to 60% the weight of an 8X10 holder. A 5X8 holder is also a more horizontally based holder vs. a squarer 8X10 holder making it much more compact for storage.

4) 5X8 is an entirely different look than 8X10. If you like cropping 8X10 down to say, 6X10 or even 6.5X10, then you have a nice looking piece of film/ratio.

5) 8X10 is for contact printing only "or" if one absolutely has to have that amount of surface area for huge blowups. Otherwise, a nice 5X8 shot enlarged 2X via well done scanning/post-processing/etc. will smoke an 8X10 w/exception that you are extremely good in the darkroom working on the 8X10 contact print.


Just my own two cents...not to say 8X10 doesn't make sense. It make plenty of sense for a person doing contacts and one that prefers the larger ground glass. but it has limitations especially if you want similar aspect ratios, take into consideration how much film you are wasting to get the similar aspect ratio, "and", how exactly you are still shooting with a similar aspect ratio with the film dead centered on the ground glass (i.e. makes much more sense to cut 8X10 holders to 6X10 if that's the aspect you prefer and use it as a reduction back).

One thing about 5X8 is the holders are way too expensive. It's not to say Chamonix or other holder makers are overpriced, but is to say that you can get a Chamonix 8X10holder for only $40 more while being able to shoot with 2X more surface area. There is a person that makes wooden 5X7 holders on Ebay, but they won't make any other sizes! They sell for $73 each and I'm sure a 5X8 would sell for $83 or maybe even $87...whatever...it would surely be a lot cheaper than other maker's pricing. Holders is truly the one deficit of this format=you either dedicate yourself to it and throw down the money or take into consideration the fact that holders, if say you wanted to have 10 of them for trips or whatever, is going to buy you one nice used 8X10 cam w/holders...

GPS
3-Aug-2008, 01:58
Audio, you missed my point which was not comparing 8x10 and 5x8 in general. I was speaking about the advantage of halving the 8x10 film holders to take 5x8 pictures (4 of them on one film holder) as compared to having 2 5x8 holders - the same number of pics but 20% more weight (based on your weight difference indication) on the film holders. Etc...

Ken Lee
3-Aug-2008, 05:43
Classical European composers wrote within certain standard forms: symphony, concerto, cantata, etc. It seems to me that film formats are analogous to these musical forms. Each format has its own feeling, and you compose within it, whether you are aware of it or not. Lenses are like musical instruments: each has its own properties and personality - or lack thereof.

I taped up my 5x7 Sinar ground glass, and for the past several months, have been shooting only in the "golden" format. It has taken a while to adjust to seeing this way, but I am slowly getting the hang of it.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img305.jpg

Jiri Vasina
3-Aug-2008, 10:08
Yes, it takes some time to adjust your seeing. But you can make any format sing (I think Ken's image might be as beautiful if accordingly composed for 5x7)...

Ken Lee
3-Aug-2008, 11:23
You may be right, but I have masked off the viewfinder of my little Sony digital camera as well, and now shoot all my photos in that ratio. I'm... hooked.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/RyderAndBobby.jpg

audioexcels
3-Aug-2008, 22:06
Audio, you missed my point which was not comparing 8x10 and 5x8 in general. I was speaking about the advantage of halving the 8x10 film holders to take 5x8 pictures (4 of them on one film holder) as compared to having 2 5x8 holders - the same number of pics but 20% more weight (based on your weight difference indication) on the film holders. Etc...

I understood your point, but how do you do accurate movements "and" take advantage of the full range of movements when your sheet of film is situated on the top and bottom portion of the frame or left/right portion of the frame?

In other words, with 5X7 or 5X8 situated in the dead center, you have full control over the perspective, movements, etc. whereas when you are shooting sheets inside a holder, you do not have anything centered and you have 8"'s of your sheet stuck to one part of the bellows/back with no room on that side to move that image. Hard to explain.

audioexcels
3-Aug-2008, 22:24
Classical European composers wrote within certain standard forms: symphony, concerto, cantata, etc. It seems to me that film formats are analogous to these musical forms. Each format has its own feeling, and you compose within it, whether you are aware of it or not. Lenses are like musical instruments: each has its own properties and personality - or lack thereof.

I taped up my 5x7 Sinar ground glass, and for the past several months, have been shooting only in the "golden" format. It has taken a while to adjust to seeing this way, but I am slowly getting the hang of it.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img305.jpg

Nice image and the digital one is cute.

My problem is how one can take advantage of the full range of movements one has access to shooting a film in its native format.

With something like 5X7 and one wants to mask for say, 4X7, I can see how one could shift their vision over and still use movements just fine.

But take a squarer format like 4X5/8X10 and if you are shooting 5X8 or 4X10 inside this format, you are shooting with the back end of the bellows. Lets take a scene where we need to get the foreground and background of a 5X8 shot in and we need to use some very extreme rise/fall, shift, etc...how does one pull this off without getting vignetting or some sort of issue due to the physics of the bellows being in the way? A straight shot or one with minimal movements, no problem IMHO...but getting into the potential movements possible/"necessary" for the shot wouldn't work...at least I just don't see how it would work.

GPS
3-Aug-2008, 22:28
I understood your point, but how do you do accurate movements "and" take advantage of the full range of movements when your sheet of film is situated on the top and bottom portion of the frame or left/right portion of the frame?

In other words, with 5X7 or 5X8 situated in the dead center, you have full control over the perspective, movements, etc. whereas when you are shooting sheets inside a holder, you do not have anything centered and you have 8"'s of your sheet stuck to one part of the bellows/back with no room on that side to move that image. Hard to explain.

If you want to have the 5x8 format centered, of course you would need to use 2.5 in (or 1,5 depending on the side) of rise or fall on the front standard or mixed front and back movements, that's what LF cameras do, some better than others. That it is a certain compromise is another point than that originally discussed.

Jiri Vasina
3-Aug-2008, 23:17
I think that the movements issue (8x10 in half vs. 5x8) is being given too much credit. Use of movements while composing breaks down in those categories:

1) no movements required (or exactly centered required) - I think most 8x10 cameras warrant those 1.5/2.5" of movements for centering.

2) rise or fall is required - if you are composing for the top half of the 8x10 sheet, and run out of rise, you can simply rotate the back 180°, so the image is composed for the bottom half - and then you should have enough rise to execute your shot (if you still don't, chance is no 5x8 camera would help you either). Similarly the other way round, with fall.

3) lateral shift with vertically oriented image - there might be a problem, the cameras having either no provision for shift, or less amount of shift than rise. But indirect movements can solve this limitation. And then it would be same as rise/fall (2).

So movements are not important for decision whether to use 5x8 or 8x10-in-half approach. I think it's much more important to answer questions like: do I want to haul a larger camera? (will it fit in my bag? will I have a new bag?) Do I mind cutting the film in darkroom? Will I always want to develop both shots (on 8x10 negative film) exactly the same? (or will I have separate holders for N, N+1, whatever development?). IMO those are the questions that need to be answered, movements are secondary.

But this is only my opinion.

audioexcels
3-Aug-2008, 23:36
Audio, you missed my point which was not comparing 8x10 and 5x8 in general. I was speaking about the advantage of halving the 8x10 film holders to take 5x8 pictures (4 of them on one film holder) as compared to having 2 5x8 holders - the same number of pics but 20% more weight (based on your weight difference indication) on the film holders. Etc...

So how do you achieve 4 different shots with the two 8X10 holders? I.E. 4-5X8 shots, all different compositions, using only one 8X10 holder?

Thanks for the clarification and I think Jiri solved the rest of the technical stuff.

GPS
4-Aug-2008, 00:20
So how do you achieve 4 different shots with the two 8X10 holders? I.E. 4-5X8 shots, all different compositions, using only one 8X10 holder?

Thanks for the clarification and I think Jiri solved the rest of the technical stuff.

4 shots with 2 (?) 8x10 film holders? or 4 shots on one 8x10 holder? What's your question?
Make your maths...

Kevin Klazek
4-Aug-2008, 06:52
Four 5x8 shots with one 8x10 holder is done with splitters in the camera back.The splitter creates a 5x8 opening on half the film. By moving the splitter and rotating the back you can expose the other half of the film.You end up with two 8x10 sheets with 2images on each sheet.

Ken Lee
4-Aug-2008, 07:17
I tried that a while back, but ended up making double exposures by accident.

I confess: I am... "challenged".

GPS
4-Aug-2008, 07:44
I tried that a while back, but ended up making double exposures by accident.

I confess: I am... "challenged".

Nothing to boast about, I managed to make a double exposure even with a non split film holder...:)

Jiri Vasina
4-Aug-2008, 11:01
That is precisely my fear - taking double exposures, forgetting what was shot and what not. In some thinks I'm precise, but here I think I'd be too chaotic. So I opted for 5x8 instead...

Jiri

Ken Lee
4-Aug-2008, 11:25
Jiri - If you ever get tired of that 5x8 camera, let me know. :cool:

Jiri Vasina
4-Aug-2008, 12:07
Ken, when I was "window-shopping" for my new LF camera, either 5x7 or 5x8, I justified the expense (too high) that it is my last camera :) Only under such assumption could I buy the Chamonix 5x8. (even though deep inside I must have known it's not true :( ). So I really have to use this camera for some time. Even if I did not tell my wife (a bad idea, she has keen eyes on my equipment), I have to keep my word with me. At least for a while.

(the Chamonix 5x8 is actually only my second factory-new camera ever. The other being a digital Minolta A200. All the rest are second-hands. And since my self-promise, I have already bought a Graflex Super D 3x4, which arrived today)

But Ken, I'll keep it in mind :D

Jiri

Ken Lee
4-Aug-2008, 17:11
Is there a way I could build a mask which would allow me to use my 5x7 camera and holders, but automatically crop everything ?

The mask would have to sit behind the rear of the bellows, and in front of the film holder.

Colin Graham
4-Aug-2008, 19:35
You'd get a fairly soft (and possibly wide) penumbra unless the mask was right at the film plane. Cutting a big u shaped notch in a extra darkslide works very well for the relative effort. I did this for 4x5 and made corresponding marks on the ground glass. I made separate ones for the golden ratio and one for 2.4:1, etc...

I have a hard time simply cropping to these formats for whatever reason!

Ken Lee
5-Aug-2008, 02:41
That makes good sense: the mask has to be right up against the film, or not at all. Thanks !

I had become so used to seeing and feeling in 4x5, that even 5x7 required adjustment at first. To get acquainted with 1:1.618, I have carried around a viewing rectangle in that format for a while. It's good to start over again, as a beginner. I have also gone over some of my older images, and experimented with cropping them in the new format. Sometimes, the new image is an improvement...


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/RosesG.jpg

Perhaps another musical analogy is appropriate. Each format is like a key signature in music. Each has its own subtle feeling. That's why you hear that a particular piece is written in A Minor, or C Major, etc. In European music, there are 12 modes, each with its own name in Greek, and each with its own sensibility or "color", like the Blues. In Indian music, there are countless Ragas, each with its own Rasa or "taste". Given that musical notes and colors are all just numbers in relationship - or ratio - to one another, it's no surprise.

audioexcels
5-Aug-2008, 04:03
4 shots with 2 (?) 8x10 film holders? or 4 shots on one 8x10 holder? What's your question?
Make your maths...

Sorry...meant 4 shots with 1 holder...4 entirely different shots with 1 8X10 holder.

audioexcels
5-Aug-2008, 04:06
Four 5x8 shots with one 8x10 holder is done with splitters in the camera back.The splitter creates a 5x8 opening on half the film. By moving the splitter and rotating the back you can expose the other half of the film.You end up with two 8x10 sheets with 2images on each sheet.

How easy is this to do and do the images turn out exactly as one would if shooting the entire sheet (meaning, taking movements and the splitter, etc. all into account), you get 4 uniquely nice shots with one film holder? If so, I have to definitely re-think 8X10...

And yeah...for GPS, my math has been terrible...

audioexcels
5-Aug-2008, 04:09
That makes good sense: the mask has to be right up against the film, or not at all. Thanks !

I had become so used to seeing and feeling in 4x5, that even 5x7 required adjustment at first. To get acquainted with 1:1.618, I have carried around a viewing rectangle in that format for a while. It's good to start over again, as a beginner. I have also gone over some of my older images, and experimented with cropping them in the new format. Sometimes, the new image is an improvement...


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/RosesG.jpg

Perhaps another musical analogy is appropriate. Each format is like a key signature in music. Each has its own subtle feeling. That's why you hear that a particular piece is written in A Minor, or C Major, etc. In European music, there are 12 modes, each with its own name in Greek, and each with its own sensibility or "color", like the Blues. In Indian music, there are countless Ragas, each with its own Rasa or "taste". Given that musical notes and colors are all just numbers in relationship - or ratio - to one another, it's no surprise.


I love this shot a lot...it's truly gorgeous. I should quote it 100X over so I can see it all over this thread and the LF photos threads:):):)

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 09:05
Sorry...meant 4 shots with 1 holder...4 entirely different shots with 1 8X10 holder.

It happens... I didn't think you didn't know the split method. You know it now. :)

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 09:09
How easy is this to do and do the images turn out exactly as one would if shooting the entire sheet (meaning, taking movements and the splitter, etc. all into account), you get 4 uniquely nice shots with one film holder? If so, I have to definitely re-think 8X10...

And yeah...for GPS, my math has been terrible...

Unless there is not a firm decision to limit oneself to the 5x8 format only, the 8x10 makes definitely sens, especially with the weight saved on the film holders (eventually). In such a case the 8x10 film holder almost seems like a Quick pack...:)

Kevin Klazek
5-Aug-2008, 09:23
Using a splitter is very easy to do ( I have a 5x8 and a 4x10 splitter with my Dorff). The hardest part is remembering which half of the film you have exposed and which side of the holder you used. You do end up with 4 unique exposures with no overlap. Since I do mostly landscapes, movements are minimal and no issues when a splitter is in use. The back has to be designed to operate with the splitters, so I don't think every 8x10 back is set up for it. I can only relate my experience with a Dorff.

Bruce Watson
5-Aug-2008, 09:29
Unless there is not a firm decision to limit oneself to the 5x8 format only, the 8x10 makes definitely sens, especially with the weight saved on the film holders (eventually). In such a case the 8x10 film holder almost seems like a Quick pack...:)

I'm the OP for this thread. All I was asking about was whether or not the 5x8 format was ever used and if so, what camera manufacturers, film holders, etc.

What I've learned from this thread and other research is that it's pretty much an orphaned format. A little use, but never very popular for some reason. No standards for film holders etc. which makes it difficult for a camera builder to even make a 5x8. So there's only Chamonix now making both cameras and film holders. And the film holders are expensive.

I personally would rather have a dedicated 5x8 and not use an 8x10 for this duty. But I'll bite -- how do you propose to use a dark slide splitter with an 8x10 to get two 5x8 exposures on one sheet of 8x10 film? I can see how it would work with 4x10, but not 5x8. What am I missing here?

Jiri Vasina
5-Aug-2008, 09:57
You'd have to have 2 splitter darkslides - one for the image half at the flap, second one for the other half... At least this is how I imagine it would work...

And yes, the Chamonix 5x8 holders are expensive. If they were not included with the camera, I'd not choose the 5x8 camera at all. There were 2 of them included. For the current going price of the holders, I'm way too hesitant to buy more of them. Instead I adapted the camera back so I can use standard 13x18cm holders and have 8 of these. Here you also see why so many of my pictures are 13x18cm and so few 5x8...

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 10:29
I'm the OP for this thread..
-snip-
But I'll bite -- how do you propose to use a dark slide splitter with an 8x10 to get two 5x8 exposures on one sheet of 8x10 film? I can see how it would work with 4x10, but not 5x8. What am I missing here?


Four 5x8 shots with one 8x10 holder is done with splitters in the camera back.The splitter creates a 5x8 opening on half the film. By moving the splitter and rotating the back you can expose the other half of the film.You end up with two 8x10 sheets with 2images on each sheet.

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 10:33
Wonders of the lateral thinking - 8x10 /2 on the shorter side = 4x10. 8x10 /2 on the longer side = 8x5 = 5x8. It's all the fault of the British users...

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 10:44
You'd have to have 2 splitter darkslides - one for the image half at the flap, second one for the other half... At least this is how I imagine it would work...
-snip-
.

Eventually, you could use only one splitter dark slide - the other one (for the image near the flap) you could just draw out the normal dark slide a half way...:)

Ken Lee
5-Aug-2008, 10:47
"And the film holders are expensive."

I imagine that talented craftsmen could make adapters and backs for their cameras - or even make a 5x8 camera (as Colin has done with his 5x12) - or even a 4.3 x 7 camera.

It's the holders and their expense that keeps me from considering it any further.

Bruce Watson
5-Aug-2008, 10:58
So I have to open up the camera back in the field (where the dirt and dust is) and move something that's supposed to be just in front of the film. Back and forth as I (try to) work. Oy. Sounds painful.

I think I'll stick with my search for a 5x8 camera. Which, after all, is what this thread is about in the first place.

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 10:59
"And the film holders are expensive."

I imagine that talented craftsmen could make adapters and backs for their cameras - or even make a 5x8 camera (as Colin has done with his 5x12) - or even a 4.3 x 7 camera.

It's the holders and their expense that keeps me from considering it any further.

Now it's me who will bite it - what would be the advantage of a 4.3 x7 camera over a 5x7 camera? Wouldn't it be easier to just cut the 5x7 image with a dark slide? What am I missing here?

Bruce Watson
5-Aug-2008, 11:02
Now it's me who will bite it - what would be the advantage of a 4.3 x7 camera over a 5x7 camera? Wouldn't it be easier to just cut the 5x7 image with a dark slide? What am I missing here?

Same aspect ratio as 5x8.

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 11:04
So I have to open up the camera back in the field (where the dirt and dust is) and move something that's supposed to be just in front of the film. Back and forth as I (try to) work. Oy. Sounds painful.

I think I'll stick with my search for a 5x8 camera. Which, after all, is what this thread is about in the first place.

Hold on your search! yet! It's not more painful than moving back and forth a normal dark slide...

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 11:05
Same aspect ratio as 5x8.

But this ratio you can easily get by narrowing a normal 5x7 image too.

Bruce Watson
5-Aug-2008, 11:07
Hold on your search! yet! It's not more painful than moving back and forth a normal dark slide...

Which I don't want to do either. Sorry GPS, I just want a 5x8. Don't take it personally.

GPS
5-Aug-2008, 11:08
Which I don't want to do either. Sorry GPS, I just want a 5x8. Don't take it personally.

I don't. But how do you want to use a 5x8 camera without moving out (back and forth) a dark slide??

Ken Lee
5-Aug-2008, 12:51
There is something quite - harmonious - about using tools designed purely for the task at hand. It can become hard to draw the line where the equipment ends, and the artistry begins. As musicians, craftsmen, athletes... we have all experienced this at one time or another. And we know how disruptive it can be, when the equipment is working against us.

When I use one of my 1950's folding cameras that shoots 6x6, I compose in a square format, and forget all about everything else. The whole world becomes... Square. When I shoot 6x9, my awareness shifts accordingly.

So I suspect that Bruce simply wants that feeling of harmony with... 5x8 ;)

Bruce Watson
5-Aug-2008, 14:34
There is something quite - harmonious - about using tools designed purely for the task at hand. It can become hard to draw the line where the equipment ends, and the artistry begins. As musicians, craftsmen, athletes... we have all experienced this at one time or another. And we know how disruptive it can be, when the equipment is working against us.

When I use one of my 1950's folding cameras that shoots 6x6, I compose in a square format, and forget all about everything else. The whole world becomes... Square. When I shoot 6x9, my awareness shifts accordingly.

So I suspect that Bruce simply wants that feeling of harmony with... 5x8 ;)

Nicely said.

Struan Gray
6-Aug-2008, 04:16
Is there a way I could build a mask which would allow me to use my 5x7 camera and holders, but automatically crop everything ?

The mask would have to sit behind the rear of the bellows, and in front of the film holder.

Ken, am I right in thinking you use a Sinar?

If so, take a look inside the 5x7 format frame. On my Norma, and I think on more modern format frames I have seen, there is a slot cut in the inside surface of the frame. Various Norma-era accessories have slides that engage in this slot for extra holding power: examples include the 5x7-4x5 reducing back, and the regular Norma 5x7 back. If your format frames have this groove, it would be an ideal place to secure a mask without getting in the way of either the bellows or back attachments. How close you get it to your groundglass is largely a question of how accurately you make it, but since it would be fixed to the standard it would not need adjusting once in place.

Ken Lee
6-Aug-2008, 06:07
Struan -

I am away from the camera, but I will look as soon as I can.

THANKS !

Kevin Klazek
8-Aug-2008, 07:08
I have been away from the computer the last few days so the response is a bit late. Bruce, the splitters are in the camera back, not in the film holder. There are slots around the inside of the back frame that the splitters fit into and slide in. You use regular film holders and dark slides. Also, removing the back in the field is pretty normal . Even without splitters, to move from horizontal to vertical formats involves removing the back. Changing a lens opens up the camera. I would generally agree purpose built is always better, but I think it is pretty cool how variable a LF camera can be by changing backs and using splitters to change formats. From a cost perspective, utilizing the variability to gain a specific format versus buying a purpose built format with purpose built holders makes a lot of sense. As always, there are trade-offs and pros and cons for either approach.

Robert Fisher
8-Aug-2008, 07:24
Ken, Sinar sold/sells a "format dividing mask" (#439.18) to divide the 810/1824 back.

OR, Sinar suggests that "you can cut the masks yourself" OR that the user can cut "fancy masks for trick effects".

This applies to all formats.

Sinar sold/sells a four lens unit (#586.16) with four 125 f8 Radionar's with a 4 image format divide (#558.16) to produce four images on one 810. Pretty cool!

I LOVE, LOVE my Normas!!!

Ken Lee
8-Aug-2008, 07:52
I have a Sinar P, from which I am away until the weekend - which hasn't arrived in my time zone yet.

Does this feature apply only to the Norma ?

Robert Fisher
8-Aug-2008, 08:06
Ken, applies to all including your P.