Am I crazy think of 8x10 for this...

[Former Member 8144]

Hi guys,

A probably impossible question to answer here but..

For my two new projects I am looking at shooting 8x10 instead of 4x5 simply for the extra IQ for large prints upto 150 cm wide. (lambda prints from drum scans of colour film with longish exposures up to 30 seconds.)

The kit will be a one lens set up..camera + 240mm lens + say three darkslides at most on shoot.

Fair enough you say, but some of these shoots will involve walks up and down steep mountain sides and across slushy snow for up to an hour and a half or so. (Then again some will be just five minutes from the car).

Am I crazy to trek to these kind of shot locations with a heavy 8x10 set up and will I see a big difference in the print quality at the sizes I mention?

I have shot 4x5 for years and love it, and am generally happy with the print quality I get but know that 8x10 will give me even more.

So, crazy...just do it...not worth it...?

Cheers,

Marc

[lenser]

Were Adams and Weston crazy to do the same thing?

[Frank Petronio]

Ansel had a mule and Edward had Charis... but if you are in shape why not? Or seriously, get a young assistant and share the load.

I'll let other people talk about resolution, but I (think) can tell the difference between 4x5 and 8x10 even in my small desktop inkjets. Plus there seems to be more of a 3-D look the larger in format you go, albeit with technical challenges (wind and depth of field can play a factor).

[Marko]

The worst that can happen if you try it is to find out it's not for you.

If you don't try it, you'll always wonder about it.

[Former Member 8144]

I'm fit enough (I think!) to do it myself..it's really wether at these print sizes, once I factor in tripod stability, wind movement, long exposures, etc, etc wether I'll see the differences.


I know this is not really a topic with any definitive answer..just good to put it out there sometimes.

Marc

[Oren Grad]

Obviously it's going to depend in large part on your tolerance for weight. But if you're only going to need a compact 240 and three film holders, and if you have an 8x10 camera at the lightweight end of the available range, it should be readily doable.

My standard 8x10 kit is a Phillips 8x10, one or two lenses, three holders and BTZS hood in the f64 large backpack, plus a 3-series aluminum Gitzo. If I want to go a really long way I can leave the Copal 3 lenses at home and take my 240 Germinar W. Some would also substitute a carbon fiber tripod to save a few pounds more. Many 4x5 users take outfits that are a lot heavier than this into the field.

[Bruce Watson]

Are you crazy? No. You should of course do what you want. Nothing wrong with that. There are many reasons to do what you propose and a few of them have to do with image quality.

Where you'll gain the most perhaps is in tonality. All things being as equal as you can make them, the same scene shot the same way with 5x4 and 10x8, detail in the 5x4 shot will have 4x the film area with 10x8.

Sharpness, not so much, because for the same DOF you'll be shooting about 2 stops smaller apertures with 10x8, so most of your photographs will likely be diffraction limited. But you'll be enlarging only half as much for the same print size so you'll see less of the diffraction softening than you might at first think.

The real problem for the backpacker comes from the extra weight. Not only the camera, but the bigger tripod, the much bigger film holders, etc. People commonly carry fewer film holders when packing 10x8 because of this, which can limit your options.

The compromise position is of course 7x5, which should do just fine at 150 cm. A 10x enlargement from 5x7 (6.75 inches of image) is about 170 cm. You can do 12x to get to 200 cm, which a film like TMY-2 can easily handle. But for color work I try to stay below 10x.

The only way to really know if 10x8 is going to do what you want is to try it and see. But you knew that already, yes? :eek:

[eric black]

I have pushed 4x5 work up to 150 cm or 60 inch prints, but would certainly consider that size print from a 4x5 piece of film pushing the limits. If the subject matter is extremely detail oriented, Id haul the 8x10 or find a mule to haul it. I usually have scouted an area prior to hauling a large setup so I know exactly what lens I going to use and can keep the weight Im carrying to a minimum.

[Miguel Curbelo]

My 8x10 Shen Hao is only 3.4 Kg. The weight of the 240 G Claron is negligible. Tripod and tripod head are another 3.5 Kg. Three film holders, a lightmeter a black T-shirt, etc should bring everything to about 9 Kg maximum. That's not too bad really.

[Brian Ellis]

You're talking about a 12x mag factor with 4x5 film enlarged to 5 feet on the long side. That's roughly the same as an 18 inch print on the long side from 35mm film. I didn't like 35mm beyond 10 inches on the long side and even that was pushing it by my standards (not necessarily by yours or others). So I wouldn't enlarge 4x5 film to 5 feet myself.

I'd go so far as to say that after going to the kind of trouble it sounds like you'll be going to for some of your photographs, you'd be crazy not to use 8x10. If money isn't a major consideration you can assemble an 8x10 outfit that doesn't weigh all that much more than some 4x5 outfits.

[shadow images]

My 8x10 Shen Hao is only 3.4 Kg. The weight of the 240 G Claron is negligible. Tripod and tripod head are another 3.5 Kg. Three film holders, a lightmeter a black T-shirt, etc should bring everything to about 9 Kg maximum. That's not too bad really.

Wish mine was that light. My kit- Deardorff, two lenses, 5 holders , dark cloth, misc and tripod. I don't want to know the weight.

[j.e.simmons]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?
juan

[Former Member 8144]

You're talking about a 12x mag factor with 4x5 film enlarged to 5 feet on the long side. That's roughly the same as an 18 inch print on the long side from 35mm film. I didn't like 35mm beyond 10 inches on the long side and even that was pushing it by my standards (not necessarily by yours or others). So I wouldn't enlarge 4x5 film to 5 feet myself.

I'd go so far as to say that after going to the kind of trouble it sounds like you'll be going to for some of your photographs, you'd be crazy not to use 8x10. If money isn't a major consideration you can assemble an 8x10 outfit that doesn't weigh all that much more than some 4x5 outfits.

That is what it's all about in the end..if I'll see a higher iq that is worthwhile at my print sizes then I'll do it.
Money for this fine art kit is quite limited right now (any spare cash ploughed into the commercial right now) but luckily the shots with lots of hiking are not until mid next year...so I can look to pick up a 'cheap' monorail for now, if need be, and then change it for a lighter model (shen / chamonix, etc) later on.

Cheers,

Marc

[jnantz]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?
juan

maybe you are thinking of john kasaian ... he has a mule ...

[willwilson]

A monorail 8x10 will let you experience the format. It is very different than 4x5. 4x5 seems like a toy compared to 8x10.

I would shoot more 8x10 if I had the money for a nice vc head for my Elwood. But if you are scanning and printing digitally I see nothing to stop you.

You will either love it or hate it. Bottom line, if you are thinking about it this much you have to try it.

[csant]

Wasn't there someone on this list at one time who used llamas?

Stephen Willard uses llamas.

[kev curry]

A ''baby jogger'' is cheaper than a llama and probably doesn't eat as much. Seriously though theres a few people here using ''baby joggers'' to cart there gear around, a search here brings up plenty on there use. Heres a start...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=35243&highlight=baby+joggers

[Eric Leppanen]

Particularly when shooting color, I shoot 8x10 whenever I can, 4x5 when I must. When shooting detail intensive landscape subjects suitable for 8x10, I start seeing differences between 4x5 and 8x10 at a 16x20 inch print size (with drum scanning and digital printing). I agree that most of the initial differences are those of tonality, but this contributes to the three dimensional appearance of the print. For the enlargement sizes you are talking about, there will be a substantial benefit of shooting 8x10 if your subjects are suitable for the format (see below).

The weight of the lens kit is not much greater than 4x5 if you don't mind shooting mostly f/9 lenses (an f/5.6 SS150XL plus f/9 210, 240, 300, 360, 450, etc. are popular 8x10 lenses that I see folks using in the field; the even lighter/cheaper Wolly 159mm can replace the SS150XL if you don't mind dimmer focusing, reduced coverage, some loss of resolution at the edges, etc.). Of course, when shooting in dim light (alpenglow, etc.), focusing at f/9 is extremely difficult and there is no substitute for an f/5.6 lens.

There are relatively lightweight cameras 8x10 cameras available, although some like the Phillips (which I think is either in its last production run or is no longer made) are quite expensive on the used market. Chamonix makes a Phillips inspired 8x10, and Richard Ritter makes a very light weight foldable 8x10.

Film holders are a limiting factor. Aside from rare Mido holders (no longer made, and idiosyncratic to use), there's not much you can do to reduce weight/bulk here. The Chamonix holders might be a little lighter than the commonly available Fidelity/Lisco holders (?), but they are expensive. Each one of my Fidelity/Lisco 8x10 holders weighs about 1.3 pounds, so weight can really pile up fast here. If you shoot subjects with difficult lighting where calculating exposure can be challenging, you may want to consider shooting color neg film for its additional latitude, as carrying enough holders for exposure bracketing is not viable.

IMHO the biggest challenge shooting 8x10 versus 4x5 is its reduced depth of field and slower shutter speeds. My understanding is that theoretically 8x10 requires stopping down four more stops for a given depth of field than 4x5, though in practice I find this difference not quite as severe (maybe 2-3 stops when movements can be applied). However, if you find yourself shooting 8x10 at f/64 all the time just to get the depth of field you need, then its incremental IQ is so much reduced (due to diffraction, subject motion due to slow shutter speed, etc.) that you're often better off shooting 4x5. If your typical subjects can be shot at f/32 or f/45, then 8x10 is worthwhile from an IQ perspective.

Of course, shooting fast film helps offset some of the shutter speed issues, and with the large 8x10 neg you don't have to worry about film grain. I got quickly introduced to Portra 400NC (and HP5+ and TMY) when I started shooting 8x10; I still use slower speed chrome films where feasible, but there are often occasions where the faster Portra is the only way to get the shot in color.

You can also significantly reduce weight by optimizing other elements of your kit. If you currently use traditional photo backpacks like the Lowepro, then you can save several pounds by going to the Photobackpacker system (www.photobackpacker.com). As already mentioned, a carbon fiber tripod is also a good weight reducing solution.

I strongly suggest renting or buying an inexpensive 8x10 system just to verify that the format works for you. You can always then trade up to a lighter system.

Good luck!

[Phil Hudson]

I was just in Zion NP and looked in on Michael Fatali's gallery nearby. Without getting into the aesthetics of the images themselves, I certainly thought I could see the difference in IQ that 8x10 transparency film makes with Ciba prints of even less than 150cm wide.

As others have pointed out there are measurable limitations in terms of depth of field, resolution, vibration, wind, etc - but these results were still quite impressive. Up close there are areas of less sharpness (Insufficient DOF for movements applied? Diffraction maybe?) but there was an overall smoothness and saturation that I have not seen from 4x5.

Perhaps not the best example but I think 8x10 might be worth exploring.

[Former Member 8144]

Thanks Eric, and hi Phil,

I'll be shooting with the slowest film I can at slowish shutter speeds (1/2 second to 15 or 30 seconds) but can use nd's where necessary so diffraction should not cause too much of a problem.
Although with these slower shutter speeds necessary I do worry about the wind effects on a 8x10 over a 4x5 taking away the extra IQ.

Choice of film is tricky for 8x10. I need colour film that can work with long exposures up to 30 seconds or so tranny (I believe) is better but over here 8x10 colour film is really neg based not tranny based. But that works for the more neutral film that is better for scanning and gives as you rightly say more exposure latitude...But the slower the better with the shutter speeds wanted to it may need to be velvia 50 anyway just to help there...I can always neutralise the colours a bit once scanned. I'm going to have to research what is available to me more..where i can buy from abroad without really expensive shipping).

it will be just the one lens and my tripod is already a nice gitzo cf one with a manfrotto 410 geared head so good there.

Currently use a dakine sequence backpack but not sure the 8x10 will fit into that so will have to look into backpacks again.

And yes I'll be going the cheap camera route to start with anyway.

Cheers,

Marc

[domaz]

If you aren't actually staying the night and you can haul an overnight pack- then it's not unreasonable. Of course you can take steps to lighten your 8x10 kit considerably as others have said. Staying the night with a heavy 8x10 and your overnight gear in Fall or Winter Mountain weather- that might be crazy.

[Ed Richards]

Why would you want the slowest film? As others have pointed out, a major limitation on 8x10 is shutter speeds, both because of subject movement (wind blows clouds and trees) and camera movement (wind blows it as well).

If you are scanning, negative film is much better on all counts. Are you are pretty accomplished 4x5 photographer - if not, be prepared to shoot a lot of sheets of 8x10 before you head to the mountains. It is not the place to learn. You also cannot carry enough holders to do much backup shooting to cover errors.

If you are just getting started, then you might get a lot better results with 4x5 and shooting 20 shots each hike, rather than 4 or really pushing it and doing 6 in 8x10. All those theoretical advantages of 8x10 depend on flawless technique. The real world trade-offs can eat you up fast. Just the luxury of shooting an extra sheet at f45 or with a different filter or exposure is great in 4x5. You do not have the luxury with 8x10 when you are hiking.

[Eric Leppanen]

Choice of film is tricky for 8x10. I need colour film that can work with long exposures up to 30 seconds or so tranny (I believe) is better but over here 8x10 colour film is really neg based not tranny based. But that works for the more neutral film that is better for scanning and gives as you rightly say more exposure latitude...This is definitely going to be tricky if you go the color neg route. Officially Fuji only recommends Pro 160C for exposures as long as 30 seconds, and only after applying an additional 1 stop of exposure for reciprocity (i.e., total actual exposure time of one minute for a measured 30 second exposure). Alas, Pro160C is not cut in 8x10! Pro160S is available in 8x10, but again "officially" Fuji does not recommend using exposures longer than 4 seconds with that film. The latest Kodak Portra emulsions are even worse: one test I have seen reported a required reciprocity correction of 1 1/2 stops for a 30 second measured exposure with Portra 160NC (I assume the remaining Portras will require similar corrections). I have not seen any reciprocity data for the latest version of Portra 400NC.

Tranny film would be much better from a reciprocity perspective (my trusty Provia 100F does not require any correction up to a 128 second measured exposure), but of course now you're back to exposure latitude concerns.

You may need to do some long exposure tests with 35mm film stock to verify whether one of these 8x10 color neg emulsions will work for you.

[Drew Wiley]

I've hauled the 8x10 up many,many steep mountain sides, and hope I can keep doing it another decade at least (I'm 60 now). But as others have mentioned, you really have to conserve film - not much room for error. I really enjoy shooting and printing
8x10, but when out for several days I revert to 4x5. Just not enough room in the pack.

[shadowleaves]

Hi guys,

A probably impossible question to answer here but..

For my two new projects I am looking at shooting 8x10 instead of 4x5 simply for the extra IQ for large prints upto 150 cm wide. (lambda prints from drum scans of colour film with longish exposures up to 30 seconds.)

The kit will be a one lens set up..camera + 240mm lens + say three darkslides at most on shoot.

Fair enough you say, but some of these shoots will involve walks up and down steep mountain sides and across slushy snow for up to an hour and a half or so. (Then again some will be just five minutes from the car).

Am I crazy to trek to these kind of shot locations with a heavy 8x10 set up and will I see a big difference in the print quality at the sizes I mention?

I have shot 4x5 for years and love it, and am generally happy with the print quality I get but know that 8x10 will give me even more.

So, crazy...just do it...not worth it...?

Cheers,

Marc

150cm is around 60 inch (59.06"). For human eyes 300dpi is about the upper limit of appreciating prints; and for Provia film 4000dpi is about the grain resolution. Therefore

60 inch * 300 dpi / 4000 dpi = 4.5 inch, meaning you'll be making very fine 150cm-wide prints by using 4.5" wide film. 4x5" therefore will be more than enough for you; 8x10 is an overkill in terms of resolution. I won't go 8x10 unless I want to reduce the grains in the prints.

Correction:
My initial calculation above is wrong. I forget the lense resolution. LF lense resolution is around 60-80 l/mm, that converts to around 1800dpi. that way the desirable film format wide will be 60 * 300 / 1800 = 10 inch, so 8x10 seems perfect...

[Former Member 8144]

Why would you want the slowest film? As others have pointed out, a major limitation on 8x10 is shutter speeds, both because of subject movement (wind blows clouds and trees) and camera movement (wind blows it as well).

If you are scanning, negative film is much better on all counts. Are you are pretty accomplished 4x5 photographer - if not, be prepared to shoot a lot of sheets of 8x10 before you head to the mountains. It is not the place to learn. You also cannot carry enough holders to do much backup shooting to cover errors.

If you are just getting started, then you might get a lot better results with 4x5 and shooting 20 shots each hike, rather than 4 or really pushing it and doing 6 in 8x10. All those theoretical advantages of 8x10 depend on flawless technique. The real world trade-offs can eat you up fast. Just the luxury of shooting an extra sheet at f45 or with a different filter or exposure is great in 4x5. You do not have the luxury with 8x10 when you are hiking.

The projects I am shooting involve slow shutter speeds to show the movements you talk about...hence slow film to allow these slower shutter speeds without having to bump up aperture to get them...huge of depth of filed is not a prime concern. An added bonus of course is the finer grain for the size of prints I have discussed.

I've shot 5x4 for many years so no problems there.

One of my concerns with 8x10 is due to the nature of the shots required, and the slow shutter speeds involved, will the possible effect of wind leading to camera movement be so magnified on the 8x10 over the 4x5 be so much as to negate any advantages?
Under these shooting conditions perhaps a sturdy 4x5 monorail is the better way to go?

As for film, I'll work that bit out in terms of exposure latitude, scanning suitability, etc, etc

Marc

[Frank Petronio]

Whenever I think of long exposures w 8x10 I remember a commercial car shoot set-up I saw, they were doing post-sunset shots in the desert and the camera was mounted on the heaviest Gitzo and then the tripod was sandbagged.

So the likely combination of an 8x10 field camera on a smaller, packable tripod seems a step down from that. Not that you wouldn't get beautiful photos, but you probably wouldn't want to compare results between the two types of set-ups....

Somehow Misrach did all this, long exposures, 8x10 color neg, out in the wind, with his obsolete equipment a good 25 years ago....

[John O'Connell]

Somehow Misrach did all this, long exposures, 8x10 color neg, out in the wind, with his obsolete equipment a good 25 years ago....

I've seen Misach's desert prints in a gallery. Those prints are what I thought of immediately when I saw this post.

Misrach's work is intersting and visually arresting in the sizes he prints in, but not terribly sharp up close. Personally, I doubt much is to be gained from using 8x10 for such a project rather than 4x5. (And I shoot 8x10, not 4x5.)

[John Jarosz]

Most people contact print from 8x10. As a result, almost any lens will give enough resolution for a fine print. When you enlarge he neg as you describe, you will need very good lenses so that the image will not break down on enlargement. Wind, vibration, and lens resolution all factor-in with the objective you describe.

[Former Member 8144]

So factoring in just wind vibration on a normal day...at what shutter speeds does the 8x10 lose its advantage over the 45 format? (all other factors such as weight, film, etc can be overcome)

[Frank Petronio]

I don't think there is a particular speed. It is more a factor of the wind buffeting the larger surface area of your bellows on a top heavy tripod situation. And every camera/shutter/tripod/ground situation is going to be different -- but as luck may have it, you may just find that worst case vibration frequency at the best moment....

Unless you are willing to test both a 4x5 and 8x10 in the same the situations, we'll never know for sure. I wonder if any of the experts here have ever done that for their own satisfaction?

[Drew Wiley]

The bigger the bellows the bigger the "kite effect". But the heavier the camera and
tripod, the better the stability. Etc. I've used both 4x5 and 8x10 for long exp in windy
conditions. It's all in the timing. I particularly like my Phillips 8x10 - rarely get a blurred
shot - and yes, I do expect my work to be much,much sharper than Misrach's. But as
I've mentioned many times before, I avoid no 3 or larger shutter whenever possible, and I don't use tripod heads at all for large format.

[Former Member 8144]

But as
I've mentioned many times before, I avoid no 3 or larger shutter whenever possible, and I don't use tripod heads at all for large format.

I'm assuming here the larger the shutter the larger the vibration it causes, as opposed to just its physically larger size and weight.

I particularly ask as I have the opportunity to pick up a nikkor 240mm W F5.6 for a good price here in the UK. No good for my lightweight needs but that is ok for starters...the hiking shots will come in March onwards...but perhaps not the best option if large shutters / vibration can cause issues.

Marc

[Frank Petronio]

Yeah you can feel a Copal 3 vibrate significantly more than your smaller Copals. But some larger shutters, like the old Compounds and Acmes, are very smooth.

If you wanted to carry this to the extreme, figuring that you want to do long exposures and infinity focus... you could build a wooden box camera with a shutterless lens. Like a pinhole camera with a good lens. It could well be the ultimate in sharpness for this situation. You'd save a lot of money too!

[Robert A. Zeichner]

The ability to shoulder the weight of this outfit would depend to a degree on what sort of backpack you get. I have a friend (in his 60's) who has an old aluminum frame backpack in which he carries an 8x10, 7 holders, 4 lenses, filters, digital spotmeter, a small digital p&s plus other odds and ends and he hikes all day long without a problem. The weight is mostly on his hips and he hand carries his carbon fiber tripod which he uses as a hiking stick when necessary. That said, his camera is a very rare Anba ikeda 8x10 which is very light in weight (7 or 8 lbs). Its bellows draw is limited, but not too short for his 450mm Nikkor M, so for someone wanting to shoot with a 240mm, a camera like this would be ideal. Good luck finding one though. I have never seen another like it. There are other lightweights though and I'm sure you will find something lighter than a Deardorff or some of the older Kodaks.

I can't help thinking of a story a late friend of mine related to me some time ago. He knew a shooter out west who carried with one arm, a Calumet C-1 mounted on a Majestic tripod resting on his shoulder. With his other arm he carried a case with some crazy number of lenses and film holders and he made 25 or 30 exposures a day. The guy was only 5' 6" or something like that and he never had a problem schlepping this stuff around in the mountains. That had to be over 50 lbs of equipment!

Go for it. Good luck with your project.

[Former Member 8144]

Here's thought for myself...5x7.
More film size than 4x5 so better for bigger print sizes.
Less weight and size than 8x10 so better for trecking and better wind resistance?

Possible issues:
Hardly any colour film available that I can find in stock (and no neg to speak of)...but can cut down 8x10..is that really easy to do?
Lenses around the 150 to 175 range...not much choice in not too heavy with good image circle?
Cameras...harder to get hold of?

I like the idea of 8x10 for the challenges in puts in the way...but don't want those challenges to effect the shots due to technical issue such as wind / diffraction, etc.

Is 5x7 perhaps the sweet spot for prints of this size?

Marc

[eddie]

i still do not understand why you need such long shutter speeds. if you are trying to capture movement you can do that at slower speeds as well....if you are trying to capture motion then why worry about minimal camera shake. it will just add to the feel.

what exactly are you photographing and at what time of day and where in the world?

also, at those long exposures there is no need to use a shutter. just a lens cap or a dark slide. so there is no worries about copal 3 shutters banging away.

[Former Member 8144]

Hi Eddie,

Shutter speeds will vary over these two projects from normal quicker speeds to about 1/4 to 1 seconds for some shots on one project, and then the longer 1 - 15 seconds or so on the second project. It's not about time of day or ambient light at all but subject led.

These shots will involve a mixture of objects, buildings that need to be stationary and so sharp and other areas of the images where the movement is going to be captured.

So camera shake is not an added effect that I want.
For the longer exposures yes I can use just the dark slide etc.


Marc

[eddie]

keep us posted on what you find.

eddie

[Former Member 8144]

will do.

Marc

[Bruce A Cahn]

If it is not too heavy for you, take the 810. Ansel had a mule? I thought he drove a Cadillac.