5x7 vs 4x5 format [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

mark e mark

2-Jul-2009, 12:58

Sorry for this dull question but I would like your thoughts. I have just purchased a De vere 507 enlarger (need a little work), so was thinking of getting a 5x7 camera. I have a 4x5 MPP VII and was wondering 'is it worth getting a 5x7'. I have 2 lens which will just cover 5x7 to start me off, and have seen a second hand 5x7 which I quite like. However, apart from doing 5x7 contact - more impressive than 4x5, is the larger format noticable in prints up to 16x20? (the maximum I plan to do). What about 12x16? prints, and smaller.

I know I should just do it, but your thoughts experiences please.

BrianShaw

2-Jul-2009, 13:01

I keep having the same thoughts. What slows me down is the fact that 4x5 is more available, and comes in many more emulsions.

Gem Singer

2-Jul-2009, 13:34

I only shoot B&W with my Canham Traditional. The camera has both 4X5 and 5X7 backs. Haven't used the 4X5 back in over a year.

I like the 5X7 aspect ratio. The negatives are much larger, but the film cost is not unreasonable. I am able to develop either 4X5 or 5X7 negatives in the same 2 liter tanks, using the proper size film hangers.

Don't have a 5X7 enlarger. However, 5X7 B&W negatives scan very nicely when wet mounted onto the glass of my flatbed scanner.

Your enlarger can handle a 5X7 negative. Go for it!

Arthur Nichols

2-Jul-2009, 13:59

If I had to pick one format it would be 5x7. I really like the ratio and feel at home when using it. I also find that there is a substantial improvement in enlargements made from 5x7 over 4x5. 24x30 enlargments from fast 5x7 film show virtually no grain. All that being said film choices for 4x5 are greater than 5x7. I think ultimately it is a matter of personal taste. Paul Caponigro prefers 5x7 while John Sexton regularly uses 4x5. Both seem to get good results regardless of the difference in format. I seem to get a high percentage of keepers with the 5x7.
Art

Pete Watkins

2-Jul-2009, 14:41

Mark,
I've got two 5x7's with 4x5 reducing backs (the cameras are NOT fot sale). It's weird with me, when I use the 5x7 backs I only really use two lenses, a 150 G-Claron and a 203 Ektar and these work for me. I've got an old MPP 5x7 enlarger which I need to work on but 5x7 is a nice size for contact prints as well. The big problem over here in The U.K. is that 5x7 holders are as rare as unicorn crap. Half plate holders are fairly plentiful but half plate film ain't. Only one company in the depths of south London have had it listed recently (and that was out of date, you had to phone them to discover this fact).
I bought both my 5x7's from members of this forum and the prices were so reasonable that it was worth importing the cameras from the U.S. One is a B&J and the other is an Ansco (built not made) from some time between 1906 and 1926. U.K custome are all decended from Dick Turpin so be prepared for the hidden costs but I have no regrets.
Best wishes,
Pete

Richard K.

2-Jul-2009, 14:54

I know I should just do it....

Words to live by! :)

I don't have either format now but I've had both and my feeling is...definitely 5x7! Film is available enough and 5x7 is almost twice the area of 4x5 and 4 times the fun! :D

Archphoto

2-Jul-2009, 15:02

Forgive me, but after having seen 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 slides side by side: it is 4x5 and 8x10 for me.

With my Sinar P2 I could get a 8x10 to 5x7 reduction back.......
I have seen prints 30x40 inches from 4x5 inch slides onto CibaChrome and never had the urge to get the "inbetween format" aswell.

Peter

John Kasaian

2-Jul-2009, 22:09

I really like 5x7 and if you've got an enlarger to handle it, why not? Several older 4x5 woodies will accomodate 5x7 backs and 4x5 lenses will often cover the 5x7 format quite nicely. The downside of course is that less emulsions are available and 5x7 film holders often aren't found very inexpensive.

You can easily stay with your 4x5 and get great enlargements, but if 5x7 will be a new and exotic beast to tame----what more reason do you need?

Turner Reich

2-Jul-2009, 22:31

There is no better time in history to go with 5x7, it's a great format, the cameras are not that much heavier but the negative size is a huge step up. Go for it, I have several 5x7 cameras and even a 5x7 back for my Calumet C1 8x10. It took some time to get 25 near new holders, tanks and hangers but you could do fine with a half dozen holders and tray processing, I did that for a while and it was easy to do. You can contact print while working on the enlarger so you can start right away making pictures.

Robert A. Zeichner

2-Jul-2009, 22:35

I use both. I sometimes go with 4x5 on trips where I fly, to save weight and volume (5x7 holders are much heavier and bigger). When I drive, I have the luxury to use 5x7. Most of my lenses cover both formats and I have both backs for the Deardorff. The aspect ratio of 5x7 can be rather liberating, but one can always make a cropped print from the larger sized negative. Film is another story, but still, there are enough emulsions available in 5x7 to make it possible.

Capocheny

2-Jul-2009, 22:46

Mark,

Another member here in the 5x7 camp. Like some of the other members have commented... GREAT aspect ratio!

As for film... yes, fewer choices available but I'm sure you'll find an emulsion from the current stock that you'll be happy with. View Camera Magazine has (or, use to) a survey on their website of what is currently available.

FP4+, HP5+, TMax, is what I use for B&W
Provia, Velvia, and Ektachrome are what I've used for color

(There are others available.)

Good luck in the decision! :)

Cheers

Paul O

3-Jul-2009, 00:42

As one Welshman to another ... get yourself a 5x7 bach! :D

I've been toying with a range of (standard) formats over the years - 5x4, 6x17, 10x8 and 5x7. Each has its merits, its advantages and disadvantages and in the right hands can produce superb images. In 5x7 I now appear to have found my preferred format. I was concerned regarding availabilty of film and film holders but all is not doom and gloom - especially if you're based in the UK! At first glance 5x7 film holders appear scarce - not as scarce as "unicorn crap" though ... we've bucketloads of the stuff in the Brecon Beacons ;)

Sources of black and white 5x7 film include: Robert White (FP4 PLus), Morco (FP4 and HP5 PLus), Retrophotographic (numerous Eastern European makes), Silverprint (FP4 and HP5 Plus).

Sources of (new) 5x7 film holders include: Mike Walker (Walker Cameras) - imports them from US at a good price. Used 5x7 film holders do appear on Ebay but other sources for used include Teamwork, Peter Walnes, Mr Cad and MXV.

If colour is your thing then there is the option of importing from Japan - might be an idea to try and arrange a "group" order or cutting down 10x8 film - apparently not difficult to do but not tried it myself.

5x7 is a wonderful format - so much bigger than 5x4 but with equipemnt still light enough to lug around without breaking your back!

Processing can be done (in daylight) easily and with little fuss in a Paterson Orbital Processor ( 2 sheets of 5x7 in about 200ml of chemistry).

Have you looked at the UK forum for LF? We can be found at www.lf-photo.org.uk. I am in the process of organising an October 2009 workshop (free of charge) in Wales so it might be an opportunity to chew the fat!

Regards

Paul

Bruce Watson

3-Jul-2009, 04:33

Looks like I'll be nearly the lone nay-sayer in the group. Ah well.

Stick with 5 x 4. If you're committed to a max print size of 20 x 16 inches, it's just a 4x enlargement. I doubt very seriously if you'll see any improvement in image quality by going to 7 x 5 at this low enlargement level.

Weight is also a concern. The 7 x 5 film holders are considerably heavier than the 5 x 4 holders, so you can carry more 5 x 4 holders with you for the same weight.

Aspect ratio is a concern. While some like the 7 x 5 ratio better, it means that you'll be cropping if you are really going to print 20 x 16 inches. Either cropping the film, or cropping the print down to 20 x 14.3 inches. With 5 x 4 you get an aspect ratio match between film and print, so no cropping. Said another way, you get more WYSIWYG on the ground glass.

Then there's the cost of film and processing.

Finally, DOF is a concern. The bigger the format, the longer the lenses, the shallower your DOF. So you'll be using smaller apertures and get into diffraction limiting sooner. Which in turn means some softening of detail on your film.

But it all comes down to final print size for me. If you aren't going to go any bigger than 20 x 16 inches, I don't see any reason to go up in format size. But it's a very personal choice so clearly YMMV.

AJ Edmondson

3-Jul-2009, 06:06

I have to agree with Bruce... I have used 4x5 and 8x10 for years and I thought I would switch to 5x7 as a "compromise" - more portable than 8x10, larger than 4x5. Somehow I just couldn't adapt to the aspect ratio though there are those who love it! In fairness I have to admit that I cannot switch easily to other sizes or formats - it just seems to require an ability which I don't have and can't seem to acquire.

Gem Singer

3-Jul-2009, 06:17

5X7 is a similar aspect ratio to 35mm, 645, 6x9, and the newer flat HD television screens.

Seems more natural to my eyes than the squarer formats.

Ken Lee

3-Jul-2009, 07:35

Aspect ratio is an important factor, often overlooked, or brushed aside as inconsequential.

Once you become sensitized to it, aspect ratio becomes just as important as the other factors. You might even say it becomes the primary factor, like the foundation of a building, or the land on which it sits. It is analogous to the mode, or key signature, in a piece of music: it "sets the tone".

mark e mark

3-Jul-2009, 09:39

Thanks for the comments. Aspect ratio, hummm. I will come clean and say I like using my 6x12 back on the 4x5, I in the future could use a 6x17 (Canham, any others?) back on a 5x7. I would like to try 8x10, but after seeing the Devere 5010 in the flesh, it is too big for my house. Horizonatal enlargers are rare and still BIG. I thought Ilford did delta 100 in 5x7, but can't find it on the Silverprint site or retrophotographic site. Do Kodak still do the TMax 100 in the UK? Paul I will check the web site out, thanks for the link.

Jim Noel

3-Jul-2009, 10:38

let me start by saying, I probably have too many cameras. I have 35mm cameras, which I rarely use, 120 cameras because sometimes use, but only develop and print the film from the panoramic camera's, and sheet film cameras from 2 /4 by 3 1/4 inches, to 7 x 17 inches. I probably use my 5x7 camera twice as often as all others combined. The negative is large enough to give me a decent contact print in any of the alternative processes, but small enough to be enlarged if I choose to do so.
during the many years have had this 5 x 7 Deardorff I have had a variety of four or five and they became cameras, including Deardorff's. But I keep coming back to this old standby, and it is the camera that is always ready to go if a friend happens to drop by and say let's go make pictures.

Jim Noel

3-Jul-2009, 10:41

Correction.
I see my voice recognition program went wild again.
The first sentence of the last paragraph should read:
During the many years I have had this 5x7 Deardorff I have had a variety of 4x5 and 8x10 cameras, including Deardorffs.

Sal Santamaura

3-Jul-2009, 12:33

...I thought Ilford did delta 100 in 5x7, but can't find it on the Silverprint site or retrophotographic site. Do Kodak still do the TMax 100 in the UK?...Both in stock and ready for purchase:

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=1995

http://www.badgergraphic.com/store/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=653

Ed Richards

3-Jul-2009, 18:33

I thought about this very hard as well, but I ended up agreeing with Bruce - If you are not making big prints, why bother. As for Ken's comment, I do agree about the effects of aspect ratio, but you can do that in a second with a little gaffer tape on the GG.

Eric Leppanen

3-Jul-2009, 19:06

I shoot 4x5 and 8x10. When making 16x20" optical enlargements, I see some difference in resolution between 4x5 and 8x10 with certain detail-intensive subjects. I doubt you will see any difference between 4x5 and 5x7, particularly if you are cropping the 5x7 negative to fit a 16x20" print size.

So unless you really like 5x7 contact prints, I don't see a justification for a 5x7 camera based on the criteria you have provided.

mandoman7

3-Jul-2009, 20:22

Kirk Fry

3-Jul-2009, 21:16

If you do color in 5X7 the number of commercial labs that will process it is rapidly headed toward zero. I only know 3 places left in San Francisco that will do 4X5. If you do it yourself you have to deal with the toxic chemical shipping and disposal. With B&W it is not really a problem to do it yourself. KFry

Wade D

4-Jul-2009, 02:25

I had an old Elwood 5x7 enlarger that I sold to a friend so I could buy a Beseler 45MCRX. The cameras, holders and other equipment to do 5x7 didn't seem worth it to me. Perhaps jumping to 8x10 would be viable as there are many more products available for that format.

Paul O

4-Jul-2009, 04:15

I don't imagine many using 5x7 do so for the increase in image quality - as there is little visible difference between 5x4 and 5x7. However for me, 5x7 is a much more natural format to compose in as opposed to the squarer 5x4 and equipment is lighter than 10x8 - a better comprimise? The other optio that I hope to explore is contact printing and here 5x7 apparently excels compared to 5x4 - okay not as impressive as 10x8 but getting there! I can also make use of the 6x17 format (a favourite of mine) by either cropping the 5x7 format or using a Canham 6x17 film back. I'm also able to use the 5x4 format with a reducing back if the need arises; so to my mind a more flexible format than 5x4.

Ken Lee

4-Jul-2009, 07:02

IMHO
Not all subject matter fits into one aspect ratio. The idea of going into the field with a pre-ordained aspect ratio seems limiting to me. I might start out looking for something, but it seems like the good shots happen when I'm letting the circumstances have their influence. Maybe its a Murphy's Law thing; the more insistent you are about a given approach, the more likely that great shots will come along that aren't suited for it.

That's a great insight, and you're certainly right.

But even when we overlook them (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/forum/30s.html), certain basics of human perception are present. There appears to be a small set of ratios which appear abundantly in Nature - including our own physiology - which the eye and ear naturally prefer. It's an old (http://www.intmath.com/Numbers/mathOfBeauty.php) idea. Lately, I have been experimenting, to see if it's easier to work within those ratios, and let them have their influence first.

Don Hutton

4-Jul-2009, 07:47

I'd agree with Ken - having some constraints (like aspect ratios and even focal lenghs) can be very liberating. For two years I shot an 8x10 with a 450mm lens and nothing else for producing contact prints and never missed anything...

Jerry Bodine

4-Jul-2009, 10:37

I much prefer the 5x7 aspect ratio aesthetically, but yes there are times when the landscape subject cries out for the 4x5 ratio. So, I’ve chosen to work with my 5x7 Norma and have the 4x5 reducing back handy; that means carrying holders for both formats. The ratio of the two different size holders would, of course, evolve over time for each photographer. I recall a comment somewhere by AA that using the 5x7 for 4x5 work has the benefit of less CAMERA flare because the bellows is farther from the film. Extending this concept to the use of 8x10 for 4x5 work would probably cause Paul Bunyan to hesitate before implementing.

Ivan J. Eberle

6-Jul-2009, 08:54

Anything that improves the viewing and composing can have tremendous payoff in better imaging. It was a wonderful improvement going from a couple of decades of 35mm-only to 645 with a bigger GG. I've also experienced going in the other direction with the constrained finders on my Nikon D300 with an APS-C sized sensor, mirror, prism and screen. (APC-S does have the effect once in a great while of producing an image better than you remembered, however!)

Consequently I was expecting vastly improved viewing when moving up to 4x5 but it instead threw me for a loupe...

I was forgetting that the eye relief through the prism systems of SLRs is roughly about 30", with built in diopter correction (on upper tier bodies, at least). So it was very challenging for me to read the 4x5 GG with these half-century old eyes of mine, at least until I bought a $15 pair of Dean Edells's in 2.5X strength. Now I'm loving it.

Long-winded way of saying that I'd think that the larger 5x7 GG would be reason enough for some with even greater challenges to vision to prefer the format, without apologies or regret.

What else hasn't been mentioned yet is that 6x17 with camera moves mostly has to be done via a rollfilm back on a 5x7. My question is, were there Universal/Graflok backs on any of the technical folders (Technikas? Rittreck) and modern 6x17 roll film holders to fit them (hopefully not limited to an astoundingly expensive proprietary solution)?

BILL3075

6-Jul-2009, 11:32

A 5x7 camera w/ 72xl, 110, 305 Schneiders + 180 Sironar S Rodenstock = Nirvana !

redrockcoulee

6-Jul-2009, 11:50

Interesting the difference in comments between this thread and the one on Hasselblad as a back up system. Between can never have enough systems to keep it simple with one system :) I have had a 5X7 with a 4X5 reducing back for more than a decade and only recently bought 5X7 film as was given a dozen or so film holders. When a Whole Plate camera came up on sale here we bought it after debating and cutting out paper of the difference sizes. The Whole Plate to us (wife and I) just seems better porportions and a better size. of course right after buying the WP was given a 5X7 enlarger. For me the Hasselblad has become my main camera, mostly replacing digital and 35mm. For others square is ugly but then there is no counting for good taste. Take some 5X7 and 8X10 prints and see which format appeals most to you. If the 8X10 is the strong favourite pass on the 5X7. If it depends on the image or are even close take advantage of the larger negative and go with getting the 5X7.

Nobody can tell you what is best for you but all the other posters sure give one things to ponder and ideas that one does not come up with themselves all the time. I am hoping to sell the 5X7 some time in the future but I have an opposite problem to most on the list, my wife does not mind me buying photographic equipment but I need her 'permission' to sell it as she may sometime want to use it.

Michael Alpert

6-Jul-2009, 12:05

I have found that working with a 5x7 camera is more enjoyable than working in 4x5. Film proportion may have something to do with it, but that's not the whole story. It's the size of the screen, the size of the camera itself, and the size of the film negatives that seem so congenial. As far as I am concerned, a person can work best when a person feels comfortable. And no amount of rationalization can overcome discomfort. For someone else, 4x5 might be perfect. In any case, to have the freedom to worry about film size and proportion is to live a life of amazing privilege.

Acheron Photography

6-Jul-2009, 13:33

... As far as I am concerned, a person can work best when a person feels comfortable. And no amount of rationalization can overcome discomfort. For someone else, 4x5 might be perfect.

This really is a good point. You _can_ make pictures with a lot of thing. You can even make LF images using many, many different set ups. But the one you will make the best images with, mostly, I think, is the one that you are comfortable with. It's worth paying for something that feels right.

ki6mf

6-Jul-2009, 16:10

I am taking a contrary position. If you are only doing 16X20 or 20X24 There is little to be gained by going to the larger format. 4X5 will works just fine. I shoot 4X5 and think the extra expense of getting set up is not worth the cost for me. The biggest obstacle for most people is the cost of the camera and darkroom. Your situation is different you have the gear and it will cost very little to begin. So is it worth it? gratification says yes technical improvement, yes with the caveat that you may not see much improvement over 4X5

sdwfx

8-Jul-2009, 09:51

Another +1 for 5x7.

I bit the bullet and went ahead searching for bargain priced 5x7, got an old Seneca for cheap, tried it and came face to face with a grand case of light-leak. Defeated, but not yet beaten down, I gave it another try. This time landed a battered B&J with a humongous 12'' Wollensak lens. And this time I scored.

5x7 is so much more fun to shoot than 4x5. And the cameras are not that much bigger than 4x5, nor are they heavier. I rarely even need a darkcloth to focus because the ground glass is quite a bit bigger. That and the wollensak opens up to f/4.5.

As far as film goes, B&W is all I need, I don't aspire to DIY nor pay the price of color developments. And there few but good selection for B&W. At this size, how you develop and print plays more role than which emulsion to choose. I think.

Especially if you like to or would envision doing alternative printing processes. 5x7 negatives are awesome to behold and easy to work with.

Now I just need to salvage the 210mm lens from the leaky Seneca and use it on the B&J. It looks like a peanut compared to the huge Wollensak :)

mark e mark

10-Jul-2009, 15:40

Well, I have decided to bite the bullet and have ordered the 5x7 camera (a 4x5 back is thrown in). I will tell you what it is when it arrives. 5X7 pain in the bum to find, so I have ordered them from one of the 2 places in the UK which can get them. Now to get film (again not easy, seems to be special order), Plan to use delta 100 or TMax 100. But if this proves a pain to get will have to use Ilford FP4plus or HP5plus which seems more readily available.

Jiri Vasina

15-Jul-2009, 00:15

Michael and Alpert have nailed it (at least for me) - the most suitable camera is the one you enjoy using most (yes, there are technical concerns too, LF and sports/fast action for example, but let's put them aside). I love my 5×8" (5×7") and have used the 4×5" only very occasionally since I got the larger one.

As per film, you surely know that the outside dimension of 5×7" and 13×18cm holders is the same - and since you're in Europe, it might be easier to get also 13×18cm film - or at least it may widen your film choice. I would suggest getting some 13×18cm holders too...

Also, I'd suggest, don't discount the Adox and Foma films. I use both (Adox CHS 25 cut to 5×8" and Fomapan 100 in 13×18cm) and like them very much. They are priced lower than Ilford films (and way lower than Kodak), so you might want to try them...

Jiri

David Stephenson

15-Jul-2009, 01:10

I use both as well as 8x10, and it really depends on print size. Up to 16x20 you won't see a major difference if you are careful with 4x5, if you print bigger you will. While I have travelled with 8x10 and 5x7, 4x5 is a lot more convenient and allows you to use quickloads. One thing to keep in mind is that the bigger the camera, all things being equal, the more wind becomes a problem for sharpness (that's why Jackson, Muybridge and Watkins with their 18x22 mammoth plates tended to shoot very early or very late in the day before the wind came up). Camera rigidity also is a factor of course, and metal cameras like a Linhof Technika are less affected by wind than wooden field cameras.
Cheers, David

David Stephenson

15-Jul-2009, 01:13

For film go online to Badger Graphics or B&H and you find a big selection, usually you get it the next week.

David Stephenson

15-Jul-2009, 01:15

For film go online to Badger Graphics or B&H and you find a big selection, usually you get it the next week.

David Stephenson

15-Jul-2009, 01:20

For film go online to Badger Graphics or B&H and you find a big selection, usually you get it the next week. I have dozens of spare 5x7 holders but probably not worth the cost of shipping them from Australia.....

mark e mark

15-Jul-2009, 11:29

Donald Miller

15-Jul-2009, 13:01

Jiri Vasina

16-Jul-2009, 01:00

David, I will get back to you on your film holders after I get the camera. (I will hopefully receive it this weekend). Have heard from Silver print (in the UK) that Kodak film can be a long wait, it they don't have it in stock. I have been offered 1/2 plate film slides, but I think the 5x7 film size easier to get. Jiri, we are in Europe BUT still like our imperial measurements (what do you mean there is a law against it:rolleyes: ). So 13cmx18cm film will be harder to get than 1/2 plate in the UK. - I would have to orderr it from main land europe:( .

Mark, I know that you Englishmen are very stubborn, but The Channel is not so broad as to hamper your purchases. It probably is more difficult to buy 13x18cm in UK proper, but ordering from the mainland. Well, I have done it several times the other way round - finding what I was looking for on your side of the Channel... :D

(and yes, the HalfPlate film would be even more difficult to get than 13x18cm, although for example Foma do offer it on their [local Czech version] web and I have bought some recently, no problem. Only they advertise it as metric sized 12x16.5cm, a label no sane person would look for).

Jiri

Paul O

16-Jul-2009, 01:36

Jiri go and wash your mouth out!! We are WELSH a totally different breed to the English :D

Mark, you might be interested to learn that there will soon be a new kid on the block in the UK in the form of Ag Photographic (Birmingham). They should be up and running in the next few weeks and will offer film in all formats imaginable :)

I would stick to 5x7 as there are a couple of films readily available - 13x18 is more popular with our continental cousins and film is easily shipped to the UK, however, 13x18 holders are also hard to come by - a vicious circle!!

Viri is right about Foma film too - I got hold of some 5x7 Fomapan 100 (from Germany!!!) and it is a lovely film!

Jimi

16-Jul-2009, 01:45

I have been asking Fomafoto.com in Norway if they could stock the halfplate(12x16.5 cm) size but no luck so far...

Jiri Vasina

16-Jul-2009, 02:01

Jiri go and wash your mouth out!! We are WELSH a totally different breed to the English :D

:D Yes, but to the Americans, we are all Europeans... It depends on the scale you consider, and the distance you look from :D

We have similar attitudes (and differences) among the inhabitants of different parts of the Country here in the Czech Republic, too (and I don't mean Gypsies now), but to the outsiders, we're simply the Czechs ;)

And now on more serious note:

Foma is very strange in it's marketing: it's very difficult for me here in the Czech Republic to get imperial sized Fomapan 100 (4x5, 5x7) and even harder to get Fomapan 200 in sheets (this one they only cut in inch-sizes, not metric ones AFAIK). As Jimi has noted, abroad it may be difficult to get some of the metric sizes, on the other hand... Quite strange...

But anyway I think Fomapan films are very well worth trying (Rodinal is a great developer for them, or ID-11 my brother is using too)

Jiri

Jimi

16-Jul-2009, 02:18

Well, almost as soon as I had hit the send button on my last mail to Fomafoto.com, I got a reply that they are getting new material (film) next month, so if anyone is interested in halfplate sized film, it may be possible to get it. But they don't stock it.

I replied that if the price is close enough to 13x18, I'll get some.

Very nice indeed. That's customer service. :)

ljsegil

16-Jul-2009, 03:23

Efke/Adox 25 is lovely in 5x7 if you can be patient during the exposures (and get everything like the leaves to hold still), I get mine from Freestyle in the US, though I'm sure there must be a Continental or UK source. I shoot it at ISO 25, and if you care to send it to Dr5 for reversal processing the results can be stunning (if I haven't screwed things up myself), though turnaround is slow (but worth it IMHO). Scans very well.
Larry

mark e mark

17-Jul-2009, 12:25

So 13cmx18cm film will be harder to get than 1/2 plate in the UK.
Something I have just discovered-
Ag Photographic (Birmingham)..
I have contacted Martin at Ag after discovering he does Ilford FP4 plus + HP5plus in 5X7 (so does Sliverprint, Morco etc.) but he lists Delta 100 in 13cm*18cm, after I have ordered my new 5x7 dark slide (groan). Were can I get 13cm *17cm dark slides from folks?

Retrophotographic used to list interesting sheet film but they seem to be in limbo at the moment.

Jiri I have ordered one or two things from the USA and Europe, but can get stung with customs duties, and if there is a problem, its harder to complain.

Jiri Vasina

17-Jul-2009, 12:55

Mark, you should have no problems with duties if you order from withing EU - there are no duties at all - that's the raison d'etre for the Union, to ease business... (You will have to pay taxes if you buy in regular shops, though).

As to where to get 13x18cm holders (darkslides): look at the german eBay at www.ebay.de - here is a direct link to the "Großbildformat" section (http://foto.shop.ebay.de/items/Grosbildformat_?_catref=1&_sacat=8277) - look for something like Planfilmkassette. There are not that many at the moment, but if you're patient...

Or the F/S section here sometimes helps, too... (you might even post you "WTB: " - want to buy - thread. Helpful members with too much inventory on their hands usually appear quite soon :) ).

Hope this helps...

Jiri

Findingmyway4ever

23-Jul-2009, 00:38

I don't find 5X7 holders to be much heavier at all. I also don't think carrying the same number of holders is as important or relevant. Cutting down 8X10 sheet film gives you as many emulsions as 4X5 film (not sure why film is mentioned as being an issue). One can easily shoot 4X5 inside the 5X7 holder OR have a 4X5 back to use. Contact prints are a possibility where a 4X5 print is really like a baby by comparison. Enlargements are superior.

The cons I find with 5X7 vs. 4X5 is the DOF (though this can also be advantageous depending on shooting style) and the lens choices for wide angles becomes a little tougher to figure out and going telephoto really means paying the price for the lighter weight lenses to keep the bulk down (though with 4X5, one would be using the same light lenses for a light kit).

I'd have a 5X7 w/45 reducer as a primary kit, then a very cheap whole plate/8X10/7X11 etc. cam w/one cheap and fine lens strictly for contact prints and fun;).

Lee Crump

25-Jul-2009, 21:58

Sorry for this dull question...

Thanks. I had the same dull question. Looks like I'm in the market for a 5x7 and a 4x5 reducing back for my first LF camera.

jnantz

25-Jul-2009, 23:03

enjoy your new camera,
5x7 is a great format!
seems that everything
looks nice in that rectangle ...
( i agree with ken wholeheartedly! )

ki6mf

26-Jul-2009, 05:54

I'm a 4x5 shooter and you have the single most vexing problem solved the Enlarger! Go for it! I don't scan so wont make any digital related comments!

Ed Richards

26-Jul-2009, 17:55

I do not get the aspect ratio issue - unless you are making contact prints, there is nothing to prevent you from cropping. I frequently compose images on 4x5 that I anticipate cropping to a more rectangular aspect ratio. One could even put some lines on the back of GG for different ratios as a reminder that images can have different shapes.

Nana Sousa Dias

29-Jul-2009, 15:58

Yes, there is a diference between 4x5 and 5x7! I own a Durst 139G (5x7") with the CLS 301 Durst colorhead.
First time I enlarged a 5x7" negative I was not expecting such a diference between 45 and 5x7, this was a 16x20" enlargement. I don't have (yet) a dedicated 5x7 camera, I use a Cambo Legend 8x10 with a step down 5x7" back, wich is not a simple kit to use outdoors so, I don't shoot much 5x7 film, however, it's in my plans, because I enjoy a lot the 5x7 format.
An advise to you:

If you plan to shoot 5x7, you should start makin a good stock of 5x7" film, I believe it will be out of production in a few years. I recomend Fomapan 100, wich is a marvelous film and it's very cheap.

Sal Santamaura

29-Jul-2009, 18:33

...If you plan to shoot 5x7, you should start makin a good stock of 5x7" film, I believe it will be out of production in a few years...I disagree completely. Availability of black and white 5x7 film is stable and has not decreased for quite some time. Interest in the format seems to be increasing which, if those buying cameras also purchase film, means 5x7 film sales should also be increasing.

Anyone getting into 5x7 for black and white will likely have ample choices many years into the future.

Nana Sousa Dias

29-Jul-2009, 18:50

I disagree completely. Availability of black and white 5x7 film is stable and has not decreased for quite some time. Interest in the format seems to be increasing which, if those buying cameras also purchase film, means 5x7 film sales should also be increasing.

Anyone getting into 5x7 for black and white will likely have ample choices many years into the future.

I completely hope you're right and I'm wrong!!!! ;-)