PDA

View Full Version : Sanity check, is 8x10 too small? Advanced GAS syndrom?



Tim k
31-Jul-2010, 15:56
For some time now, for no logical reason, I have been lusting after an 8x10.

Until a few weeks ago I really had no good reason for this lust. So now I'm thinking about trying out some alt. process contact printing. I'm really happy as a clam with my enlarged 4x5. But there is still this lust thing.

I do most of my print workup on 8x10 paper, and have never framed anything that small. If I get something I like I usually print on 11x14 paper and they look nice on the wall, but 16x20 looks better. You get the idea where I'm going.

So, all you guys that have been down the road, what do you think? Should I just get some point and shoot and some therapy?

Thx

Scott Davis
31-Jul-2010, 16:35
I'd say look into 6.5 x 8.5 (whole plate) as a reasonable compromise. It's ALMOST as big as an 8x10 image-wise, ALMOST as small as a 5x7 camera-wise. If you want to get into alt processes, working with ULF is an experience in itself - EVERYTHING takes on several orders of magnitude greater difficulty, AND cost. Lens availability for ULF is limited, and as you go up in size, becomes ever more limited. Film is somewhere between very and extremely expensive, and very limited in variety - Ilford and Efke are the two main suppliers. Anything from Ilford bigger than 11x14 must be purchased on a once-a-year basis from their special order run (there is a little bit of Kodak film drifting around out there in various ULF sizes, but they don't make it regularly).

I recently acquired a 14x17 - I love the camera, but taking it out shooting is an ordeal, and the logistics (not to mention the cost!) of shooting and printing negatives from it make handling an 8x10 seem like childs' play. Even my 11x14 feels small in comparison. If I were you, I'd try to go out with someone who has something bigger than 8x10 and try working with it. Working bigger than 8x10 is a joy, and a challenge. You've got to get a feel for if it's something you can commit to. If you have the chance, pop on over to the View Camera Store and see if Fred Newman has any ULF toys in the shop you can take for a spin.

Dave Wooten
31-Jul-2010, 17:04
5 x 7 enlargers pop up from time to time at give away prices. Enlarge some 5 x 7 negs to 16 x 20 plus and you just might be cured. If on the other hand you just have to have a large contact print then a larger format is in order. What Scott says is true about the ulf formats. You can t have the same mindset that you have on 4 x 5 or 8 x 10. All is relative. Go on a shooting session with an 11 x 14, 14 x 17 or 20 x 24 and do the prep and follow up work. 8 x 10 will not at all feel like a large camera.

I enlarge 4 x 5 and 5 x 7. I like contact prints from my 8 x 10 and 14 x 17. If I had an 8 x 10 enlarger, i would enlarge those also. All hunting is different one gun will not suffice.

Richard M. Coda
31-Jul-2010, 17:18
A year and a half ago I would have answered this question "no". That was before I got my 11x14". I love my 8x10 and it is my workhorse camera for B&W, but the more I use the 11x14, the more I want to go even bigger. The 4x5 has been relegated to mostly color these days.

Dave Wooten
31-Jul-2010, 17:33
A year and a half ago I would have answered this question "no". That was before I got my 11x14". I love my 8x10 and it is my workhorse camera for B&W, but the more I use the 11x14, the more I want to go even bigger. The 4x5 has been relegated to mostly color these days.

:) :) :) :) : !

evan clarke
31-Jul-2010, 18:20
So it goes, I am happy as a clam with 16x20 enlargements from 4x5 but since getting my nice light 11x14 things have changed a lot. My 8x10 is really tiny looking to me now and I have lust for a 16x20 camera...Evan Clarke

Tim k
31-Jul-2010, 18:38
Scott, thanks The View Camera Store is in Phoenix as I recall. Do they have a showroom where I could do that?

Dave, I am happy with my current enlarged prints from 4x5, I dont think 5x7 would be significantly different, and not solve the contact issue. You do make the 8x10 seem a little more attractive. And I would love to go out with someone with a big rig. Most of my friends are shooting lil electric jobs, and I'm the oddball.

Richard, thanks. Its like quicksand. Not very long ago I thought 4x5 was a big rig. You say your 8x10 is your workhorse. How do you do usually do your prints.

Thanks guys

Tim k
31-Jul-2010, 18:40
Evan, see 8x10, tiny looking??

Richard M. Coda
31-Jul-2010, 19:01
Richard, thanks. Its like quicksand. Not very long ago I thought 4x5 was a big rig. You say your 8x10 is your workhorse. How do you do usually do your prints.

Mostly contact prints, but I do have an 8x10 enlarger. Occasionally I will scan a neg to make a really large inkjet print.

jp
31-Jul-2010, 19:02
I too am happy with 16x20 prints from 4x5. I also have an 8x10 and contact printing and alt process stuff (Cyanotype, van dyke) is easy. I think it would be fun to have the option of bigger film, but it's not practical or portable enough. It's sort of a necessity to do contact printing as my options for 8x10 are contact print or scan. 4x5 is easy to enlarge, contact print, or scan.

I'm thinking a banquet camera would be pretty cool, but I'm not in the market for that unless I happened to be at a lawnsale or something, which isn't likely as I don't like to rise too early on saturday.

The next step for me is to get some pictorico clear film for my epson printer. I don't consider using the computer cheating. I'll scan some negatives in from 4x5 and 8x10, adjust the size, contrast, and density the way I want and print a negative for the contact printing frame. I'll need to make a bigger contact printing frame too.

Tim k
31-Jul-2010, 19:41
Richard,
Sounds like you've got the bases covered. Do you think of your 8x10 prints as small?

evan clarke
1-Aug-2010, 08:29
Evan, see 8x10, tiny looking??

The camera is tiny looking to me now compared to my 11x14, not print size. I actually make a few 5x7 contact prints and really like them as well as bigger ones...EC

Brian Ellis
1-Aug-2010, 08:52
Having been down that road, and having gotten into 8x10 from 4x5 for the exact same reason as you mention (alt processes), I'll make a couple observations.

First, much as you'd like to justify an 8x10 camera on the basis that a 16x20 print would look better if made from an 8x10 negative than a 4x5, it won't. Unless your eyes are a whole lot better than mine or anyone else's I know who's made the comparison (and I do know several others who have), you won't see a difference between a 2x and a 4x enlargement except with a loupe and then not very much.

Second, you should plan on having a way to at least occasionally enlarge your prints beyond 8x10 because every now and then you'll almost certainly make photographs that will clearly work better in a bigger print. So you should recognize that eventually you'll want an 8x10 enlarger or you'll have to use a lab (expensive and for me something I never want to do since I think making the print is as much a part of photography as making the photograph) or you'll need to learn how to scan and print digitally (the best choice IMHO but maybe not in yours since that involves a major commitment of time and effort to learn how to do it well assuming you don't presently print that way).

Third, 8x10 is a great format, for me a more enjoyable format to work in than 4x5. I'm not sure why, probably mostly just the sheer pleasure of composing on an 8x10 screen. But I just really enjoyed everything about 8x10 except carrying it around. I also found myself photographing differently with 8x10 than I did with 4x5 and that was kind of cool too.

Four, and last, in my experience when you really itch for some piece of camera equipment there's no real cure other than to scratch the itch. So despite my first two observations (and because of the third), I'd suggest you give it a try.

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 08:58
evan,

Do you find you dont use the 8x10 much after getting the 11x14?

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 09:19
Brian,
I had not given a thought to enlarging 8x10. But your right, sooner or later I might shoot something worthwhile, and want it big. I was however thinking mainly for use in the alt. processes, where I would just choose a size equal to my largest print size. But perhaps my thinking is flawed. This is getting more complicated. Thanks.

Hows the weather in Bend. Is it still winter. I laughed when I read your descriptions of the four seasons. I grew up over the hill in the valley, and we usually vacationed down by the lakes south of you. Its always been one of my favorite places. Your lucky to live there.

Ken Lee
1-Aug-2010, 10:00
Just 3 words: Depth of Field.

D. Bryant
1-Aug-2010, 10:06
Dave, I am happy with my current enlarged prints from 4x5, I dont think 5x7 would be significantly different,



Oh no,no,no! 5x7 enlargements look significantly different. 35 sq. inches vs 20. Almost 100% larger!

To me 5x7, 5x8 or whole plate are the best options when considering down sizing from 8x10.

ULF cameras are fun if you can afford the luxury of time, money, weight, and space (bulk). As an alternative 4x10 and 5x12 become interesting smaller options. I wish I could own them both. For now neither.

Don Bryant

Richard M. Coda
1-Aug-2010, 10:07
Richard,
Sounds like you've got the bases covered. Do you think of your 8x10 prints as small?

No... I like 8x10 contact prints. Some images don't look good enlarged. Others look good only enlarged. Even rarer, some look good both ways. FYI, I do not do any ALT processes... just doesn't float my boat.

evan clarke
1-Aug-2010, 10:12
evan,

Do you find you dont use the 8x10 much after getting the 11x14?

No,
I'm using it more. See Ken's post about DOF. It gets more difficult with larger formats. I like 11x14 prints and that's my default size. I have the best modern lenses for my cameras and when making a print of the same exact subject, one11x14 enlarged from 4x5 and a the other a contact print from 11x14, it's tough to see a difference in resolution with a loupe. I have the larger cameras for doing alt process prints, they are sort of cool and I just like to try things. If I have a short window of time and agreat subject I'll use my 4x5 every time...EC

Donald Miller
1-Aug-2010, 10:16
I went from 4X5 to 8X10 for exactly the same reasons that you are contemplating. Then I went to 12X20 and found that to be a pain because everything is more difficult the larger one goes. I finally ended up using 5X7 and find, for me, that the contact prints and enlargements from that format work quite nicely.

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 10:35
Oh no,no,no! 5x7 enlargements look significantly different. 35 sq. inches vs 20. Almost 100% larger!

Don Bryant

I have to admit, that I'm a little surprised to hear that. On a print say 16x20, you could see the difference with the naked eye?

Robert Fisher
1-Aug-2010, 10:44
Tim have you considered a 5x8 Chamonix? Will accept 57 or 58 holders - great aspect ratio - smaller & lighter than an 810 - greater choice of film than a standard 5x7

Good luck!

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 11:10
Robert, no, I was actually thinking in final contact print size.

8x10 on the small end,
11x14 the end of reasonable size range,
up to "have I lost my mind size"

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 11:20
Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

John Jarosz
1-Aug-2010, 11:28
8x10 is great for portraits.

If you are thinking about alt process then you either use in-camera negs or you make enlarged negs for the alt process contact printing.

ULF fundamentally changes the way you practice photography. No exceptions. It's not like 8x10 but bigger.

Wind.

Depth of field

heavy tripods.

Big heavy lenses. No shutters (unless you opt for the pricey new stuff that covers)

Big film costs (but you expose far fewer sheets)

Wind

You'll get a baby stroller or stay close to the truck. (notice I said truck)

But the prints are beautiful. With fine detail. A big contact print is unique.

I've stopped using my 4x5. It is a miniature camera.

John

Ken Lee
1-Aug-2010, 12:10
Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

The standard normal lens for 4x5 is 150mm. We might shoot it at f/16 or f/22 - perhaps f/32 - but after that we are "diffraction limited".

On 8x10 the standard normal lens is 300mm. To get the same depth of field, we need 2 smaller f/stops. So instead of f/16, we use f/32. (Oops, we're diffraction limited). Instead of f/22, we use f/45, and where we might have shot at f/32, we now need f/64.

Given that we enlarge less, who cares that we are diffraction limited ?

With longer lenses, the f/numbers continue to shrink. In terms of magnification, a 450mm lens on an 8x10 camera is similar to a 75mm lens on 35mm, or a 225 on 4x5: a fine length for portraits and many natural subjects. It doesn't really get us much reach for distant scenes, but depth of field starts to get very shallow once we start shooting closer than infinity. We need another f/stop over the 300mm.

When we move up to 11x14, 450mm becomes our standard normal lens. Now we need 600mm to get the same modest reach, and depth of field at that length, continues to demand even smaller apertures and thus even longer exposures.

If our subject is stationary, and the lighting is sufficient, there's no problem with tiny f/stops.

We are not limited to only one format. As Ansel Adams said "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'." With all due respect, we might amend that as follows: The biggest one appropriate for the subject.

Scott Davis
1-Aug-2010, 12:30
I don't know that the View Camera Store has a regular showroom, but look them up (I think they're in Fountain Hills, which is near Phoenix, IIRC). If they don't have a regular retail showroom, just call and make an appointment and they'll be happy to show you what they've got in stock. Fred will talk your ear off, but it's worth it as he has TONS of useful information.

Brian Ellis
1-Aug-2010, 13:02
Brian,
I had not given a thought to enlarging 8x10. But your right, sooner or later I might shoot something worthwhile, and want it big. I was however thinking mainly for use in the alt. processes, where I would just choose a size equal to my largest print size. But perhaps my thinking is flawed. This is getting more complicated. Thanks.

Hows the weather in Bend. Is it still winter. I laughed when I read your descriptions of the four seasons. I grew up over the hill in the valley, and we usually vacationed down by the lakes south of you. Its always been one of my favorite places. Your lucky to live there.

Hi Tim - The weather's been very nice since the last week of June. It stayed kind of chilly before that, a little longer than usual this year. Central Oregon is a great area but I like the Valley too. We always enjoy the contrast between the desert landscape of Central Oregon and the lush green of the Valley.

Brian Ellis
1-Aug-2010, 13:10
Again to be honest, I had not considered the depth of field. I kinda knew it was lurking out there, but I had not really looked at the numbers. I just did that,.......(pause)........oh my.

I didn't find depth of field to be that big a practical problem with 8x10. Tilt and swing help a lot in situations where they're useful. And you can stop down to f64 with 8x10 and not worry about diffraction if you're contact printing or enlarging to reasonable sizes.

Jim Rhoades
1-Aug-2010, 14:46
I have an 8x10 that I made Azo prints from. Then Kodak screwed that. While waiting for Lodima I started printing Pt/Pd. Now I only use the 8x10 for Pt/Pd and with the cost of film and chemicals not so much anymore.

I had been quite happy with my 16x20 prints from 4x5. Until... I got a 5x7 to reduce the cost of Pt/Pd somewhat. How's that for convoluted thinking. Now I'm looking at the 5x7 negs and thinking, wow, this would make some enlargement. For $600 bucks I find a 5x7 Durst with everything, condensers, lenses even a cold light head.

Yes, you can tell the 5x7 from a 4x5 enlargement. The 5x7 is sweet, only a bit bigger than 4x5. It's perfect for silver or Pt/Pd contacts, has a nicer shape and makes really big ass enlargements. Before you drink the Michael Smith Kool-Aide check out a good 5x7 enlargement.

John Powers
1-Aug-2010, 14:54
It is all about mind set. Several years ago I had the pleasure of listening to Andrea Modica lecture, a tiny very attractive woman, who at the time was making a living selling her 8x10 contact platinum prints for $2000 a pop. She said when her husband left her she went out and bought her mid life crises camera, an 11x14.

I think of it as having the best of both worlds. I have an 8x10 that I contact print or enlarge to 20x24, mostly the limitation of my darkroom. I also have 7x17 because I enjoy panoramics. At 70 I push either around in a baby jogger. My 4x5 is for sale. Figure out what you want, do it and enjoy.

John

Tim k
1-Aug-2010, 16:08
Thank you everybody. You all have provided me with some valuable insight that I could only get from trial and error.

I need to give this some more thought, and get out to see some of the big rigs. In the meantime I will just try to convince my self that 4x5 is a big rig.

Thanks again.

Richard M. Coda
1-Aug-2010, 18:34
Before you drink the Michael Smith Kool-Aide check out a good 5x7 enlargement.

:D

Erik Larsen
1-Aug-2010, 19:15
Tim, if I were in your shoes (I was once) I would look around for an 11x14 and a 19" rda and see if it works for you. If you find it's not to your liking I'm sure you could sell the equipment for what you paid and pick up something that works for you. It's a different experience than 4x5 and it makes you think twice about if you really want to set up the tripod. It is a lovely experience when you have nailed a shot and have a beautiful contact print in this size. Give it a shot, you'll either love it or leave it alone:)
regards
erik

Dave Wooten
1-Aug-2010, 20:59
Ti "........ it makes you think twice about if you really want to set up the tripod.
regards
erik

Hear! Hear! Erik that sums it up!

Tim k
2-Aug-2010, 08:30
Erik, you have a good point about selling the equipment, if it gives me heartburn.

Rda, registered dental assistant ?

Scott Davis
2-Aug-2010, 10:29
RDA = Red Dot Artar. There are a number of very good lenses in that approximate focal length that will be a good match for an 11x14. The 19" Red Dot Artar, the Nikkor 450M (which has the advantage of being in a modern Copal 3 shutter), the Fuji 450 (I forget which version of the 450 Fuji is the one with more coverage - C, M, W or A), or a Kodak Ektanon process lens.

If you want something a tad wider, a 355 G-Claron or a 14" Kodak Commercial Ektar would also make good choices. In the 14" focal length there are a LOT of options.

evan clarke
2-Aug-2010, 12:39
If minute technical issues like the difference between a 4x and a 2x enlargement gets more consideration than the actual subject matter then the game is already lost. I have a WONDERFUL print made By Jim Thompson from Grand Rapids, Mi of a lighthouse in winter with wispy icicles which I fell in love with at first sight. Jim explained it was only a proof and I can find a lot of silly little things on it like dust spots because he never intended for or considered it to be the finished print. It's framed, hanging on my wall and I look at it every day and enjoy it...EC A plug for Jim. He has a show at Carnegie Center for the Arts in Three Riverd Michigan

Mel
2-Aug-2010, 13:12
It is all about mind set. Several years ago I had the pleasure of listening to Andrea Modica lecture, a tiny very attractive woman, who at the time was making a living selling her 8x10 contact platinum prints for $2000 a pop. She said when her husband left her she went out and bought her mid life crises camera, an 11x14.


Andrea Modica's work is haunting. Look how she uses shallow DOF to her advantage. Thanks for mentioning her, John.

http://www.andreamodica.com

Mel
2-Aug-2010, 13:13
Cave, Time, cave.;)

Mel
2-Aug-2010, 13:25
This image of Andrea Modica's is among my favorites:

http://www.andreamodica.com/portrait/12.html

Mel
2-Aug-2010, 13:27
QUESTION: (I'm a total newbie so don't laugh.) Do you think she used a Neutral Density filter for that image? Do folks use ND filters with big beasts?

SORRY FOR HIJACKING YOUR THREAD, TIM!

Scott Davis
2-Aug-2010, 14:04
You certainly can use ND filters with ULF cameras, but it's often less necessary than with smaller cameras, not only because of the increased depth of field on small cameras but the film speeds available.

John Powers
2-Aug-2010, 14:24
.... Andrea Modica lecture, a tiny very attractive woman, who at the time was making a living selling her 8x10 contact platinum prints for $2000 a pop.

Figure out what you want, do it and enjoy.

John

Thinking back to the reception after the lecture I remember that a rather tired Andrea was somewhat annoyed at a listener who was shuffling through her $2000 platinum prints, until he posed the idea that nine of them framed in a square would make a lovely collage in his hallway. He recently donated a three room wing to the Cleveland Art Museum, just for photography.

"Figure out what you want, do it and enjoy."

John

Mel
2-Aug-2010, 17:37
"Figure out what you want, do it and enjoy."

John

True words, John.

Thanks for the response, Scott.

Tim k
2-Aug-2010, 19:58
SORRY FOR HIJACKING YOUR THREAD, TIM!

Jack away...:)

Scott Page
4-Aug-2010, 19:02
Would not scanning a 4x5 neg and making 11x14 or 16x20 digital negatives for contact printing or alt processes, be a lower cost option and easier work than shooting with such a monster camera?

New to LF, but curious as to the answer.

John Jarosz
4-Aug-2010, 19:30
It might be cheaper after you get the scanner and the printer with 6 ink cartridges.

You have to learn all the secrets about scanning and ink jet printing the negative.

After all that, enlarged negative will not look the same as an in camera negative. You'll have to look at examples to understand the difference, it's difficult to explain. Besides, the cameras are not that big. :-o

john

Ed Richards
4-Aug-2010, 19:59
Scott,

"Besides, the cameras are not that big. :-o"

It is about obsession, not images. I have nothing against obsession, just do not confuse it with images. The camera you are going to make the best images with is the one you shoot a lot of images with. That might be very different from the camera you have the most fun and satisfaction using. It is like fishing without bait - it has an attraction all its own.