PDA

View Full Version : 4x5 or 8x10



Pawlowski6132
27-Apr-2010, 19:57
So, I've really taken to the 4x5 format.

I've sold my digital camera. I've sold my MF outfit. I'm keeping my 35mm SLR.

I'm starting to wonder now if I should concentrate on the 4x5 or put that behind me and focus on 8x10. As I see it, the issue I need to resolve is, does the benefit of being able to enlarge 4x5 negatives vs. only being able to contact print an 8x10 negative outweigh the detail I can get in 8x10?

I shoot almost primarly portrait photographs.

What other issues am I missing that need to be considered?

Lachlan 717
27-Apr-2010, 20:01
Price and availability of film.

jp
27-Apr-2010, 20:16
Lens price is a biggy. Lenses suitable for 8x10 cost about 2-3x more on the used market.

Longer lens focal lengths for bigger formats will mean less DOF. This could require a smaller aperture use, and thus a more powerful flash (or longer exposures if naturally lit). You could be on the verge of a flash system upgrade depending on how you light your subjects.

Cameras are cheap for both systems.

I don't think you'll see all the detail in an 8x10 simply by contact printing it. It will be a very nice contact print of course.

You can scan both sizes with an epson v700/v750.

Pawlowski6132
27-Apr-2010, 20:16
Thanx Lachlan 617. I like your tag line.

Can't I always buy 8x10 film at, say, B&H? Are you talkking about long term viability?

Frank Petronio
27-Apr-2010, 20:48
There is plenty of 8x10 and customers to buy it, but it isn't cheap. B&H has tons of it.

Pawlowski6132
27-Apr-2010, 21:43
Longer lens focal lengths for bigger formats will mean less DOF. This could require a smaller aperture use, and thus a more powerful flash (or longer exposures if naturally lit). You could be on the verge of a flash system upgrade depending on how you light your subjects.

I don't think you'll see all the detail in an 8x10 simply by contact printing it. It will be a very nice contact print of course.



Ahh, something I didn't think of. I guess I can pull the charts and/or do the math but I usually like about 4 to 5 inches DOF for my portraits. Hmmm...

I really prefer natural lights. 400 ISO??


Also, If I can't see all the detail in an 8x10 contact, I would have to enlarge to appreciate the detail? I don't have to buy another enlarger do I????

:o

Mark Woods
27-Apr-2010, 22:09
I think that the scan is a judgment call. I get wonderful prints from 8x10s both in contact and enlargements (I do own an 8x10 enlarger). I haven't found the lenses to be particularly expensive, but I think that's a relative issue tied to ones income/resources. That said, I shoot most of my 8x10s with a TR triple convertible or a 210mm Repro Claron. The TR is usually in the 12" configuration. I just purchased a Chamnoix 11x14. What I've discovered is that each format has a "feel" for the subject. Some compositions are right for 4x5 while others are 8x10. Most of the lenses I use on 4x5 are multi coated. Most of the shots I do on the 8x10 are not coated. It's a different look. I have yet to work with the 11x14, but I'm sure it will have it's own personality. I still shoot with my dad's 2 1/4 x 2 3/4 Crown Graphic with a 120 roll film back. Non coated lens and a very particular look. When I shoot 35mm, I don't use my modern Pentaxes, but a 1938 Leica IIIa with an uncoated 50mm Tessar lens. I love the old feeling of the images. Finally, if you're going to do alternative processing, and do it in the traditional manner (i.e., no digital interface) you generally need a bigger negative. That said, I have some lovely 4x5 Platinum/Palladium prints that are little jewels. Per Volquartz mentioned to me that he was at a photography exhibit of all the dead lions of photography and the image that stole everyone's heart was a contact print that Stieglitz shot of Georgia O'Keeffe. Shoot what's right for you and don't sweat the small stuff!

jeroldharter
27-Apr-2010, 22:43
The lenses for 8x10 are somewhat more expensive, but often you don't use as many lenses which partially offsets the premium.

For portraits, the big issue is less depth of field, the need for more light to compensate for stopping down, and the expense of film. TMY2 is about $5 per sheet. Make you wish people never blinked.

I have spent the last year getting set up in 8x10 and I am still working at it. On paper, it is just a large 4x5 but everything weighs 4x as much and takes up 4x more space which is easy to understand but not so easy deal with at times (e.g. travel). If you are not going to enlarge 8x10's, then you are left with contact printing which is much different. I don't find contact printing as enjoyable and don't like being limited to 8x10 prints.

If I were you, I would stick with 4x5 but consider buying a beater 8x10 with a single lens for portraits. You might try renting a kit for a weekend if you live in a big city or borrowing/practicing with someone from the forum if you live in the vicinity.

Pawlowski6132
27-Apr-2010, 22:54
The lenses for 8x10 are somewhat more expensive, but often you don't use as many lenses which partially offsets the premium.

For portraits, the big issue is less depth of field, the need for more light to compensate for stopping down, and the expense of film. TMY2 is about $5 per sheet. Make you wish people never blinked.

I have spent the last year getting set up in 8x10 and I am still working at it. On paper, it is just a large 4x5 but everything weighs 4x as much and takes up 4x more space which is easy to understand but not so easy deal with at times (e.g. travel). If you are not going to enlarge 8x10's, then you are left with contact printing which is much different. I don't find contact printing as enjoyable and don't like being limited to 8x10 prints.

If I were you, I would stick with 4x5 but consider buying a beater 8x10 with a single lens for portraits. You might try renting a kit for a weekend if you live in a big city or borrowing/practicing with someone from the forum if you live in the vicinity.



How far is Stevens Point from South Bend??

;)

aduncanson
28-Apr-2010, 06:24
Consider how many lenses you might want to own and how far you will want to carry them. Many 8x10 lenses are large and heavy.

David de Gruyl
28-Apr-2010, 06:51
If your portrait work is in a studio, buy the cheapest Calumet 8x10. (A heavy beast that I own). Otherwise you are looking for something light.

The trouble with 8x10 is portability. A nice / modern 240-310mm lens is not expensive, nor particularly big (it will have a Copal 3, but not a long barrel or anything like that), but for portraits you are probably going to be looking for the perfect petzal. Long Petzals can get expensive if they are in good condition and have all the pieces. They also weigh as much as the rest of the camera.

Your tripod and head may need replacing. Probably with the heaviest duty geared head. (I have one rated over 100 lbs, but it is only geared in one plane and is ... very heavy). Or you may need to find an extension arm for your camera, depending on which camera you choose and how it balances on the tripod.

For me, if it was one or the other, I would stick with 4x5. You can always make a larger negative digitally or with the enlarger. It won't be the same as a real 8x10 negative, but it will probably be so close no one will know. (It is not "one or the other" for me, and I have both. I do not have an 8x10 enlarger, and can't fit one in my apartment.)

Every problem you have with 4x5 is magnified with larger film: film bowing, big heavy camera, expense of consumables, time to set up, etc. On the other hand, there is nothing like an almost 1:1 (size) portrait on film, and the depth of field is ... narrow.

John Kasaian
28-Apr-2010, 07:52
For formal portraiture I'd opt for 11x14 (if I was incredibly wealthy) but your question is about 4x5 vs 8x10 so consider if you will...
1. You can certainly enlarge 8x10 negatives if you wish, either digitally or with a big enlarger (Elwoods aren't very expensive if you can find one!)
2. Color 8x10 is absurdly expensive IMHO. If you want to shoot color, well, there you go!
3. You can put a 4x5 back on an 8x10 camera, not vice-versa.
4. 8x10 gear is bulky and heavy compared to 4x5...hand held 4x5 is an option while hand held 8x10 is problematic.
5. If you're doing an alternative process like palladium, 8x10 negatives are neccesary, if not the only advantage would be contact print vs enlargements. I don't think most patrons would appreciate the difference, which is minimal but while the detail in an 8x10 negative tends to "pop" but so also do any defects!.
6. Most 8x10 lenses for portraiture are niether rare or incredibly expensive. Big soft lenses are very pricey right now, but most of the big expensive softies that cover 8x10 require the support of a behemoth of a studio camera. That leaves you excellent lenses such as the Commercial Ektar, Dagor, convertable Symmar, Velostigmats etc...
7. Film & chemicals are more costly for 8x10, but not prohibitivly so considering the rewards.
8. Not to complicate matters but have you considered 5x7 format? The rectagular image (like 11x14) lends its self wonderfully to portraiture, IMHO.

Darryl Baird
28-Apr-2010, 08:39
3. You can put a 4x5 back on an 8x10 camera, not vice-versa.


I have a small quibble here... can't you attach an 8x10 back to Cambo, Sinar, etc. with a 4x5 front end? I do this frequently with a Sinar P.

Rory_5244
28-Apr-2010, 08:41
Well focusing sure is easier on an 8x10 ground glass!

Mark Woods
28-Apr-2010, 08:57
Hello Darryl, for the Sinar you need the 8x10 rear standard to support the weight, and the 8x10 bellows in order not to vignette the image.

Tom Monego
28-Apr-2010, 09:43
I used an 8x10 for a couple or years, i found i didn't like the darkroom work processing film that was involved. You almost have to process the sheets one by one, even if you have a Jobo, I was tray developing with desensitizer and found it an absolute chore. Went through a couple MF cameras but came back to 4x5, have to say an old Nikor tank.
My film isn't exposed for exacting individual developing so this works fine with me. I still have local E-6, while 4x5 color expensive it is not as prohibitive as 8x10 color, unless you are getting paid for 8x10, then that size color is real sweet.

Tom

Mark Woods
28-Apr-2010, 10:28
I use hangers and deep tank. It's quick and I can do at least 8 sheets with no problem. I love it. I know the 11x14 is going to be tray developed. That's going to be interesting. :-)

jeroldharter
28-Apr-2010, 10:29
How far is Stevens Point from South Bend??

;)

South Bend, Indiana? About 7 hours driving. I have family in Fort Wayne but I don't have plans to visit any time soon.

Larry Gebhardt
28-Apr-2010, 10:37
With portraits and 8x10 you are getting closer to macro photography with more bellows factor compensation along with needing longer bellows. Just one more thing to keep in mind.

J Ney
28-Apr-2010, 12:07
I really prefer natural lights. 400 ISO??



I would certainly suggest moving to 400... I just made the transition about a month ago and I was planning on sticking with FP4+ @ 50 which is what I've been doing for 4x5 but I just can't tolerate the ridulously long exposures (mainly low light landscapes).

I've just made the switch HP5+ and the extra speed is very nice (though I've got to say I've found the speed is somewhere between 166 & 200). Regardless, though, for 8x10 I think a faster film is a necessity.

Just another quick note, I've noticed that Ilford 8x10 film is drastically cheaper than Kodak (at least through B&H). Not sure the reason, though.

-J

lukeforeman
30-Apr-2010, 05:05
So, I've really taken to the 4x5 format.

I've sold my digital camera. I've sold my MF outfit. I'm keeping my 35mm SLR.

I'm starting to wonder now if I should concentrate on the 4x5 or put that behind me and focus on 8x10. As I see it, the issue I need to resolve is, does the benefit of being able to enlarge 4x5 negatives vs. only being able to contact print an 8x10 negative outweigh the detail I can get in 8x10?

I shoot almost primarly portrait photographs.

What other issues am I missing that need to be considered?


Hi,

I've been a pro for the last 18 yrs.. If your a portrait photographer you need to be able to shoot on medium format to deliver what the general public want.. Large format for portraits shows too much info for most people to like.. I use it for my private work only..

If you are serious about making money from your photography then the only way today unfortunatly is to shoot digital - Commercially.. I personally dont like digital but 95 percent of my clients want it..

Best Regards,
Luke
www.lukeforeman.com

John Kasaian
30-Apr-2010, 06:43
I have a small quibble here... can't you attach an 8x10 back to Cambo, Sinar, etc. with a 4x5 front end? I do this frequently with a Sinar P.

Alas, I don't know anything about modern cameras like Sinar and Cambo, Darryl---only the old cameras built from dead men's furniture:o