PDA

View Full Version : dumping 8x10 and sticking with 4x5. anyone regret?



Daniel_Buck
28-Oct-2010, 09:56
So I imagine I'm probably not the first person to think about doing this. I know specifically Frank Petronio here has gotten rid of 8x10, has anyone else recently done so? Do you regret it?

I enjoy using 8x10 when I'm shooting, but the rest of the process is alot more of a hassle than 4x5. Carrying my things out, to only being able to hold so much film, and for developing and scanning at least with my small setup and no dark room (having to use a tent and day-light tubes) it's alot easier for me to develop and scan 4x5's than it is 8x10's, and faster too. For my scans and prints, 4x5 is plenty in terms of resolution and quality. So I know my work won't "suffer", but I'm guessing I'll miss the fun of looking at the 8x10 GG.

My 8x10 has been sitting on the shelf not getting much use, while my 4x5 has been getting the most use. Which is fine, because I can always take the 8x10 if i want to. But if I get rid of the 8x10, I won't be able to grab it when I want it (which is less and less lately) So I'm debating selling my 8x10 camera or not, and the holders, and a few of the lenses that I only use for 8x10. Either just saving the $, or putting it towards a leica range finder that I've always wanted.

Anyone regret doing this?

Eric Woodbury
28-Oct-2010, 10:27
Daniel, I tried 8x10 twice. Once for field work with a Deardorff and once for portrait work with a Kodak 2D. It didn't inspire me. I don't enlarge prints to much bigger than 11x14 and I don't do contacts or alt processes. I found 8x10 to be "two handed" -- everything took two hands and two trips. I still use 5x7, 4x5, and 6x7. 4x5 is a nice size neg and one can do a lot of different things with it. When that is just impossible, I take the 6x7. If I'm not far from the car, I use the 5x7. No regrets.

evan clarke
28-Oct-2010, 10:41
If you are making prints you like better with your 4x5, there should be no regrets...EC

Frank Petronio
28-Oct-2010, 11:00
I know I can always go back to 8x10 or 5x7, I swap my stuff around to keep the neurons firing and to cover my traffic tickets, lawsuits, and bribes. I have little doubt I'll shoot more 8x10 again, but I like doing it for a stretch and switching gears - I get a new run of good pix every time.

From a practical point of view, I don't print that large and the few 30x40s I've done look wonderful from 4x5. Unless you are the sort of critical person who tests lenses and runs comparisons between techniques and materials, 4x5 with average gear and simple technique is still going to look fantastic, especially compared to most people's digital work.

So... the reason I like the larger formats isn't image quality or perfection... its the user experience. Working from a larger ground glass is joyful, and if you photograph people they respond that much more to the larger cameras. I think it is a lot of fun to set up a 50 lb camera/tripod that feels like a precision tool and takes a little muscle to use.

If I were a backpacker I'd feel differently, but when you think about it, anyone who is backpacking 8x10 is f-ing nuts and probably way to serious about image quality at the expense of getting good pictures because they are bogged down. It's really kind of insane when you think of people packing an 8x10 but then skimping on holders because they are too heavy.

We're consumers, we grew up in a society that values material goods. I decided to embrace it and I enjoy getting "new" (to me) cameras and they help inspire me to shoot new work. I've tried the other way too, where you use one camera for years and years and it becomes a familiar attachment, and it is a valid way to be. But I found this compulsive shopping and gear whoring works better for me.

Gem Singer
28-Oct-2010, 11:37
Having reached the age of eighty, I recently sold and traded off my Canham Traditional 8x10 outfit. It became too bulky and heavy for me to tote out into the field.

I now use a Canham all metal 5x7 camera with a 4x5 reducing back.

5x7 when working close to my vehicle. 4x5 when there is trecking involved.

I develop my film in a darkroom and scan and print the negatives digitally in a lightroom.

Much easier for this old geezer.

However, I do miss that huge 8x10 ground glass.

Gary Beasley
28-Oct-2010, 14:22
I sold my 8x10 Korona a couple of years ago for pretty much the same reason. It wasn't getting much use because of the weight, hassle of use and processing. I found I was getting better images from my 4x5 gear than I was with the 8x10 too so that was a deciding factor.

Ken Lee
28-Oct-2010, 15:05
If I were ever to do a real landscape project, I would use 8x10 in a heartbeat.

I've noticed often with 5x7 - and almost always with 8x10 - that sharpening in Photoshop does nothing but degrade image quality.

To me, that's telling.

Daniel_Buck
28-Oct-2010, 15:15
Thanks for all the feedback :-)



If I were ever to do a real landscape project, I would use 8x10 in a heartbeat.

I've noticed often with 5x7 - and almost always with 8x10 - that sharpening in Photoshop does nothing but degrade image quality.

To me, that's telling.

for me and my images, 4x5 does just fine, in final prints, I don't notice much difference, I only sharpen once it's at print resolution anyway. But then again my usual print size is 8x10 and 11x14. For those sizes, my 8x10 doesn't really give me any noticably more detail, just a bit of difference in the look of the grain if I'm using a faster film. If I were comparing a contact print 8x10 versus the digital print 4x5, I have no doubt the 8x10 would be far superior in terms of detail, but I don't contact print.

That's one of the reasons I'm contemplating selling the 8x10 setup, since my images don't really gain much from it, and I usually grab my 4x5 for ease of use and processing.

Peter De Smidt
28-Oct-2010, 15:21
While I still have some of my 8x10 cameras, I haven't used them in a long time. 4x5 is a great size, especially considering some of the outstanding fine-grained films we have available, such as Acros. For me, the issues with 8x10 were bulk and weight, susceptibility to camera shake due to wind, and subject movement, mostly branches and foliage, at the long times required for F45-F64.

sergiob
28-Oct-2010, 15:24
I am fully in love with 8x10. I want to make my snapshots with it. It is pure joy to just look thru the huge GG and to compose on it. I agree with Frank, its the user experience and how it motivates creativity and the urge to go shoot some sheet what really counts.

John NYC
28-Oct-2010, 16:13
There is nothing like an 8x10 slide on a light table.

I recently took some people's advice when I sold my 4x5, and that was to get Bruce Wehman to make me a 4x5 back for my 8x10. I have that now. I have not used it once because every time I go out, I want to have 8x10 loaded up and adding the extra stuff for the 4x5 just complicates everything.

But then again, I am concentrating on detail-oriented urban landscapes at the moment. If I were shooting atmospheric, long exposure beach scenes as I might one day, I probably wouldn't care as much. I think it really amounts to picking the right tool for whatever your purpose is.

Curt
28-Oct-2010, 17:14
I'm considering the possibilities right now so this is timely, I have three 8x10 cameras, and the conclusion I've drawn is they are too much, the right 8x10 might be a Bruce Wehman or a Richard Ritter model camera. That said it's going to be some serious cash at a time when the economy is bad and I'm on a fairly permanent income.

The nag in the entire scheme is that I started to do carbon and need a large negative, life is never simple, if it were not for that the large format 8x10s would be gone and I'd reinvest in a new medium format camera like the Mamiya 7II. I have one RB, two Mamiya 645s, a Busch 23 and a Nikon F3hp, none of which I want to take on trips overseas. I've taken the Mamiya 645 to Europe and it worked out so a 7II seems like the best pick. I have a Shen Hao 4x5 but the kit gets big quickly.

If carbon wasn't an issue I'd down size from 8x10 to 4x5 and medium format and occasionally use the 5x7. That's the bottom line right now. If I could obtain a Richard Ritter carbon fiber model I'd be in heaven. I have a bad back and with the retirement years arriving sooner than expected I could still carry a Ritter camera to places I would want to go.

Curt

Peter De Smidt
28-Oct-2010, 18:00
Curt, how about making digital negatives for your carbon prints?

Robert Crigan
28-Oct-2010, 18:22
I like it simple. For me, I used 810 for the very occassional client who appreciated it. Those needed transparencies. Otherwise I only used it for B&W that was going to contact printed. They very nice but always a bit of an indulgence.
When I'm being practical I use 45 because I have a 45 enlarger and 45 scanner. If we're honest with ourselves, there aren't many photos you can make with 810 that you could not have made jsut as well with 45.
As another poster said, we'd benefit from getting out there and just taking photos.
Good luck
Robert

So I imagine I'm probably not the first person to think about doing this. I know specifically Frank Petronio here has gotten rid of 8x10, has anyone else recently done so? Do you regret it?

I enjoy using 8x10 when I'm shooting, but the rest of the process is alot more of a hassle than 4x5. Carrying my things out, to only being able to hold so much film, and for developing and scanning at least with my small setup and no dark room (having to use a tent and day-light tubes) it's alot easier for me to develop and scan 4x5's than it is 8x10's, and faster too. For my scans and prints, 4x5 is plenty in terms of resolution and quality. So I know my work won't "suffer", but I'm guessing I'll miss the fun of looking at the 8x10 GG.

My 8x10 has been sitting on the shelf not getting much use, while my 4x5 has been getting the most use. Which is fine, because I can always take the 8x10 if i want to. But if I get rid of the 8x10, I won't be able to grab it when I want it (which is less and less lately) So I'm debating selling my 8x10 camera or not, and the holders, and a few of the lenses that I only use for 8x10. Either just saving the $, or putting it towards a leica range finder that I've always wanted.

Anyone regret doing this?

Renato Tonelli
28-Oct-2010, 18:29
life is never simple
Curt

Ain't that the truth!

After much deliberation and hand-wringing I bought an 8x10 but I've shot barely 20 sheets in more than a year.

I've come to the realization that 4x5, and especially 5x7 is more my speed.

Live and learn...

cyrus
28-Oct-2010, 20:09
5x7 is usually the compromise point between 8x10 and 4x5 because you can still do decent contact prints.

patrickjames
28-Oct-2010, 21:14
I say sell it and get the Leica. You won't have any problem carrying that around! I have had an 8x10 before and just never used it because it is such a hassle to take it anywhere. If it wasn't roadkill I didn't shoot it. 4x5 is more than big enough to do just about anything 8x10 can do but it is easier to use and you can do more of it. I don't miss 8x10 at all even when I go back and look at the negs. It is a hell of a lot cheaper to shoot 4x5 too.

I know this may not be a popular view in a forum obsessed with size, but it is how I see it. You will probably have more fun with the Leica than you ever had with the 8x10. I might be a little biased though since I shoot with Leicas and 4x5s, exactly what you are planning to do. It works great I might add.

jeroldharter
28-Oct-2010, 21:29
I think the Wehman with a reducing back is a good way to split the middle. You can get reduction backs inexpensively from 4x5 upward. For 4x5, you can use 90mm lenses (tightly) all the way to 600 with that camera which weighs just 8 pounds. I love my Arca 4x5, but just price out the setup for use with a 600 mm lens. Of course, it is a dream on the wide to 300 mm range.

eddie
29-Oct-2010, 03:33
of course i use my 45 more. it is a small, very light, and easy to pack and carry. i love taking it on trips. it is no problem for airplane travel...allowing me to shoot LF overseas.

i love 810. i would never stop using it. i like the bigger longer lenses so the 6x6 lens boards of the 810 are better for this. sometimes i shoot 57 with the camera just to use the bigger faster lenses. many 57 cameras have smaller boards.

i prefer 810 for portraits over the 45.

similarly i have not used my 1114 cameras in a loooooong time. the 1114 field camera is going to get the ax this week as a matter of fact.

eddie

Peter Gomena
29-Oct-2010, 11:53
I ditched my 8x10 several years ago. It was overkill for anything I wanted to do, and I just didn't take to the format. I now own a whole plate-size film camera and love both the aspect ratio and the fact that it weighs about half what my 8x10 did. I also own a 4x5. I find both of the smaller camera formats much more to my liking.

Peter Gomena

Ben Syverson
29-Oct-2010, 14:21
I love the results from 4x5, but I don't like shooting it. It feels very fiddly to me. The GG is too small to get my loupe into the corners, and it feels like I need to be more careful with focus than 8x10 (since it will be blown up twice as much).

8x10 by contrast makes it much easier for me to judge focus and composition. And I love the fact that it scans to a cleaner file than 4x5 on my Epson.

Henry Ambrose
29-Oct-2010, 16:02
I do miss my 8x10 but the 4x5 is lots easier to manage. The big camera was always a real production to carry around and set up.

John Brady
29-Oct-2010, 16:30
I love 8x10! Yeah, it's a pain to lug around but once set up it is a pure joy. My eyes could never see super wide lenses on my 4x5 very well, on my 8x10 I don't even need a loupe, just reading glasses. So for focusing and composition for me it's no contest.

And then there is always the occasional great image (emphasis on occasional) and getting it on a large sheet that can be printed to almost any size makes me glad I make the extra effort.

When I load a piece of 8x10 I take extra care to make sure the shot is worth it and that everything is set up perfect, that extra care i think has improved my photography.

As far as being crazy about perfect images and quality, isn't that why we are using large format in the first place?

www.timeandlight.com

Greg Blank
29-Oct-2010, 17:18
Once you make a 24x30 from a good 8x10 negative you never want to make another 16x20 print from 4x5 :) I have an 8x10 enlarger, so I doubt I will get rid of the camera. I would actually like to go bigger like 12x20. But I have been considering modifying or having the back of my camera modified to 4x10 that way I can scan the negatives for color, and print 16x40's optically from B&W negatives.

That stated its a lot easier to focus the 4x5 plane than the 8x10 one.

rguinter
29-Oct-2010, 17:28
I got into 4x5 in the mid 1990s when my father brought me a 4x5 monorail kit he had bought at auction for a song. To that time I had been doing 6x17 and 6x9 with Fuji rangefinder cameras.

Following that LF introduction I also bought a well-used 8x10 field camera and used it for a short while. I took a few shots with it and, like other posters here mentioned, I really enjoyed the look of the image on the ground glass and the stunning results when I got a good one. Just something about the 8x10 that really inspires a desire to use it.

But that doesn't solve the problems others also mentioned about transport, setup, and costs of film and developing. For me the real reason I abandoned it back then in favor of 4x5 was the trouble of loading and carrying film around on my sojourns using a glove bag. I'm a part-time (i.e., amateur) photographer during off-hours on my frequent business trips. And handling 8x10 in a glove bag in hotels on business trips is quite a troublesome piece of business.

So about a year or so later I sold the camera and focused on MF and 4x5 almost exclusively.

But now being much closer to retirement... I know I will be looking to get back into 8x10 again some day down the road. Not for the day-to-day photo work I may do at that time. But just to have it as an option when I really want to see that big image on the gg screen or on the film.

Cheers

Bob G.

Daniel_Buck
29-Oct-2010, 17:30
Once you make a 24x30 from a good 8x10 negative you never want to make another 16x20 print from 4x5 :) I have an 8x10 enlarger, so I doubt I will get rid of the camera. I would actually like to go bigger like 12x20. But I have been considering modifying or having the back of my camera modified to 4x10 that way I can scan the negatives for color, and print 16x40's optically from B&W negatives.

That stated its a lot easier to focus the 4x5 plane than the 8x10 one.

my usual print size is 8x10 and 11x14. I've occasionally done some a bit larger, but not very often. I dont doubt larger prints 8x10 negatives would be much better! :)

Ben Syverson
29-Oct-2010, 17:40
my usual print size is 8x10 and 11x14. I've occasionally done some a bit larger, but not very often. I dont doubt larger prints 8x10 negatives would be much better! :)
There's an almost contact-print quality to those kinds of small enlargements that I love. I used to "blow up" FP4+ 35mm to little 3x4.5 prints on 4x5 paper, and you really can't see the grain or any lack of sharpness.

Daniel_Buck
29-Oct-2010, 17:44
There's an almost contact-print quality to those kinds of small enlargements that I love. I used to "blow up" FP4+ 35mm to little 3x4.5 prints on 4x5 paper, and you really can't see the grain or any lack of sharpness.

indeed :) And any larger than 11x14, and it's difficult to keep a bunch of prints around, I like 8x10 prints, nice and easy to handle and deal with, but big enough to see the photo decently :)

argos33
29-Oct-2010, 18:38
Try some contact prints with it first! How can you not be making contact prints?! I really enjoy it - there is something rewarding about the process to me. Maybe because it is so simple but done right they just look amazingly life-like.

Granted a 4x5 enlargement is pretty darned close, but I seem to be addicted to making 8x10 contact prints. Go take a portrait of your loved one(s), make some contact prints, and there they are - staring back at you from the print!

Frank Petronio
29-Oct-2010, 19:25
FWIW, I make ~11x14 inkjets for print portfolios from Epson scans and I can tell which were 8x10 and which were 4x5s, maybe it isn't even the grain or resolution but it's really the depth and presence that are different.

Ken Lee
29-Oct-2010, 20:33
I agree - the difference is there - and my printer only goes to 13 x 19.

Even small prints show the difference. You can see it with many Edward Weston photos, even when they are reproduced in books, smaller than 8x10.

This thread has inspired me to keep my 5x7 and maybe go back to 8x10 !


FWIW, I make ~11x14 inkjets for print portfolios from Epson scans and I can tell which were 8x10 and which were 4x5s, maybe it isn't even the grain or resolution but it's really the depth and presence that are different.

Andrew O'Neill
29-Oct-2010, 21:19
I rarely shoot 4x5 expecially since I'm mainly an alt printer. It's 8x10 all the way, and very soon, 14x17.

Daniel_Buck
29-Oct-2010, 22:33
Even small prints show the difference.

you can see a difference at a small print like 8x10? I cannot, from what I've seen of my own prints, comparing 8x10 and 4x5, when printing at 8x10 from digital scans. Drum scans maybe the grain is resolved a bit better, but when you are only printing at 300dpi, I cannot tell the difference between a 4x5 and an 8x10 once it's gone through the digitizing process. Wet prints, you probably have something there, but digital prints like I do, I cannot tell the difference. And I'm someone who looks at images all day long, not just at images, but pixels zoomed in that get blown up to big cinema and imax frames.

For me, the difference between 8x10 and 4x5 is the experience when shooting (if you are only printing small, digitally), for that, 8x10 is so much more enjoyable. But that's the only part I enjoy more with 8x10, the few minutes I spend actually shooting. hah :-) And that's where I am right now, hardly ever shooting 8x10 anymore because the only part I enjoy better with it is the few minutes I spend looking at the ground glass. The rest of the process I wish I would have brought my 4x5 instead, hah!


I rarely shoot 4x5 expecially since I'm mainly an alt printer. It's 8x10 all the way, and very soon, 14x17.

Indeed! Unfortunately, I do not have the time or space to do alternate printing things, and also because my skill set is in the digital realm, I scan my negatives and print digitally.

Frank Petronio
29-Oct-2010, 22:50
I think it probably has as much to do with the lenses as the size, the out of focus transition and separation. Maybe if I used the same lens for 4x5 and 8x10 then it would be a horse race?

Daniel_Buck
29-Oct-2010, 23:01
indeed, there are some lenses that I have for my 8x10 which give a look that I do not have the ability to reproduce in 4x5. at least not with the lenses that I own.

Curt
30-Oct-2010, 00:26
Maybe a point and shoot ulf is what's needed, 11x14 etc.? An older guys or gals get out there camera.

cjbroadbent
30-Oct-2010, 00:54
ogulf ?

BetterSense
30-Oct-2010, 07:36
The physics of the big camera are just different. An 8x10 negative isn't just like a 4x5 negative enlarged less. It's not surprising you can see a difference even outside of grain and sharpness.

jp
30-Oct-2010, 08:30
I can see how Buck would not have much use for an 8x10 without a darkroom.

I have an 8x10 (actually more than 1) in large part so that I can do contact prints. Alt process and silver. I'm jonesing for something 14x17 for xray film for contact printing, but don't have the time/money right now. 8x10 does scan real nice too on my epson, but it's serious overkill for medium res scans. I have some big lenses I am working on putting on the second 8x10 camera which would be the wrong perspective on 4x5, but I am awaiting a 4x5 back just to have more options.

4x5 is what I mostly shoot though for B&W. Speed graphic. It's relatively inexpensive to operate, and I can scan AND do optical enlargements. And I can process a bunch of sheets at a time in my combiplan tank or mod reel. It's a lightweight system I can take anywhere. Quality is all I could ask for.

Ken Lee
30-Oct-2010, 08:36
you can see a difference at a small print like 8x10?


Have a look at some Edward Weston books that are nicely printed. I've looked online for some of the same images, but they are sized too small to serve as examples.

Steven Nestler
31-Oct-2010, 18:42
I gave up 8X10 years ago, in favor of 4X5. For me, it was more a matter of my vision, my way of seeing. A friend pointed out to me that with the 8X10, due to weight, difficulty, and expense, I was taking fewer visual risks, and looking for what I knew would be a good contact print. I switched back to 4X5, and I have, indeed, seen the growth in my vision.
Steven

Brian Ellis
1-Nov-2010, 07:34
I've had a love-hate relationship with 8x10 cameras. I love using them, I don't like the limitations their size and weight and limited number of film holders I could carry imposed on the kind of photographs I made with them.

So I'd buy one, use it while love was ascendant, then when hate took over I'd sell it. Then I'd regret the sale and a year or so later buy another one and repeat the process. I did that 4 different times in about a 10 year period (2 Deardorffs, 2 Kodak 2Ds). I presently am still in the hate stage from my last one which I sold several years ago so I don't own an 8x10 camera at the moment.

I also owned a 5x7 (Agfa-Ansco) and sold it fairly quickly. For the kind of thing I do the contact prints were too small and I didn't own a 5x7 enlarger (this was before I got out of the fume room and switched to printing digitally).

Noah B
1-Nov-2010, 21:19
I've shot both 4x5 and 8x10 and found the GG on the 4x5 too small for me. 8x10 is large enough to really get involved in the decision you make for a negative. I enjoy the process of the equipment a lot more than 4x5. I always despised enlarging so making 8x10 contact prints is perfect for me. Just really depends on whether a camera gets use, when I have one that doesn't get used I just sell it off. Cheers

Cor
2-Nov-2010, 05:37
Interesting and worthwhile thread!

Some 8 years ago I thought I wanted a 8*10 both for contact prints and alt. processes. I bought a nice Toyo Field 810M but for the reasons mentioned above it was used much less then anticipated.

That is until 2 years ago I jumped into the wet plate world and I now use the Toyo frequently, but still mostly in the house, despite being a field camera, the total system weights a lot I transport either by car or by bakfiets (http://bakfiets.nl/nl/).

For outdoor wet plate work I recently switched to an old folding whole plate camera, giving the same size as my modified 8*10 standard holder I use in the Toyo..it's amazing how much smaller and lighter the whole plate set up is (no option for those huge Petzvals, but outside I use those small rapid recliners, no problem.)

I still enjoy the rigid and precise Toyo, it's a nice camera, and I am not planning to sell it, for outdoor work I use mainly my 4*5 Tech III from 1954, and enlarge in my darkroom. I did have the privilege to print one of my 8*10 negatives in the darkroom of a friend, and there is a certain edge above a print from 4*5 (this one was 50*60cm), but a 8*10 enlarger is beyond the space of my tiny darkroom

Best,

Cor

Jim Galli
2-Nov-2010, 07:45
Probly not gonna happen at our house on my watch. The old 2D seems easier to me than the Cham 4X5

Ken Lee
2-Nov-2010, 08:02
Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/still5.html) is a landscape image I made on 8x10.

The JPG file might not reveal the advantage of 8x10 when shooting landscape images - because of JPG artifacts - but the 12x15 print does.

Bob McCarthy
2-Nov-2010, 09:15
I use both the 8x10 and 4x5 for my work.

I would suggest subject matter and workflow have a impact of the decision to dump 8x10 for 4x5.

I would also add: if you have a hybrid workflow (film/scan/inkjet print) then a 4x5 shot on very fine grain film (ie TMax 100), scanned on a high end scanner (ie my Cezanne) printed on Byrata paper with a RIP is the complete equal of 8x10 film processed and printed up to a large print (24 x 36).

To ME: Shooting 8x10 is purely for the joy of that large groundglass. Personally speaking, I just see better on the larger GG.

bob

Frank Petronio
2-Nov-2010, 09:28
I think there was a scuttlebutt a few years ago when Edward Burtynsky went from 8x10 to 4x5 for his highly detailed large format environmental pictures... bottom line was that a rigid 4x5 like a Technika, used with the best modern lenses and film, scanned high-end, produced very detailed giant prints that suited him.

It certainly makes sense from a logistics standpoint, going to China with 8x10 would be a lot harder.

I wonder how much of a difference really maxing out your gear to be optimal would make? A rigid Linhof (not some wooden thing), a sturdy CF tripod, the latest Schneider lenses, 100-ISO film....?

Daniel_Buck
3-Nov-2010, 12:59
I think there was a scuttlebutt a few years ago when Edward Burtynsky went from 8x10 to 4x5 for his highly detailed large format environmental pictures... bottom line was that a rigid 4x5 like a Technika, used with the best modern lenses and film, scanned high-end, produced very detailed giant prints that suited him.

It certainly makes sense from a logistics standpoint, going to China with 8x10 would be a lot harder.

I wonder how much of a difference really maxing out your gear to be optimal would make? A rigid Linhof (not some wooden thing), a sturdy CF tripod, the latest Schneider lenses, 100-ISO film....?

Well for one thing, I don't think I hold the same standards for my images that some big photographers might. I'm perfectly happy with the quality images I get from my 4x5. :) Which is why my 8x10 usually stays home :o

mdd99
4-Nov-2010, 07:39
Whatever your choice, regret it not. It's the image that counts, and life is short.

Jim Galli
4-Nov-2010, 09:00
Well for one thing, I don't think I hold the same standards for my images that some big photographers might. I'm perfectly happy with the quality images I get from my 4x5. :) Which is why my 8x10 usually stays home :o

Interesting thought and certainly it's not line pairs per mm that keeps the 8X10 at my house. The quality that I am unwilling to lose is the brute force aspect. Tonality and depth of focus choices. 16 inch f4 is impossible to duplicate with 4X5. Anybody got an 8 inch f2 lens for me to try? I'll grant you that some of the best of the projection lenses like f2.4 165mm get close on 4X5.

Daniel_Buck
4-Nov-2010, 13:35
16" f4 is impossible for me to duplicate on 8x10 too, since I don't own a lens like that :D

I've been enjoying my smaller petzvals on the speedgraphic, like the projection lens I got from you (it's an f2.0 I believe, at 150mm?) What I really like about it, is that I can shoot it broad daylight wide open on the speedgraphic, with 1/1000th shutterspeed :D Enjoying it so much so that I dropped the persuit of a big petzval for my 8x10 :)

Understand your point though, there's alot of neat lenses that don't have counterparts on 4x5. I've got some neat lenses for 4x5 to though, enough to keep me happy I think :-) I still haven't had a chance to try my 8" f2.9 Pentac, just been so busy!

Brian Ellis
4-Nov-2010, 15:02
FWIW, I make ~11x14 inkjets for print portfolios from Epson scans and I can tell which were 8x10 and which were 4x5s, maybe it isn't even the grain or resolution but it's really the depth and presence that are different.

Since you made the photographs that isn't surprising. But can anyone else do that? Try putting say 20 prints, some from each size negative, in front of a few people and see if they can beat the statistical average. I once did something like that with 11x14 prints from 6x7 and 4x5 cameras, nobody could consistently spot which came from which size negatives. I'm not of course arguing with you or suggesting that nobody else could see the difference, just suggesting that a better test would be with people who didn't already know which was which.

Curt
4-Nov-2010, 15:58
I've given it some thought since this thread was originally posted and I'm keeping the 8x10s. I'll use the bulky, heavy Calumet at home and use the Kodak 2D and Seneca outside. I'm actually keeping it all, what the hey they're all good.

Findingmyway4ever
25-Nov-2010, 02:52
Here (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/still5.html) is a landscape image I made on 8x10.

The JPG file might not reveal the advantage of 8x10 when shooting landscape images - because of JPG artifacts - but the 12x15 print does.

And people complaining about the weight and/or not getting any difference in quality;).

How do you think the 5X7 stacks up to the 8X10?:)

Findingmyway4ever
25-Nov-2010, 03:27
If you can get back decent cash for the 810 outfit and you still want to use LF for some reason=only thing I can think of over roll film is having movements, I'd do this:

1) Get a 6X9 bellows based cam like the Arca Swiss where you can use different types of roll film. If you don't need movements, get a light fotoman/other type cam that can accept a roll film back. This way, you can shoot quite large roll film in some camera dependent cases, but have a super light rig. You can also learn to acheive that effect 8X10 provides by finding the fast lenses out there that will get you close enough. It won't be easy, but I'm sure there is a way.

2) Make enough cash back from the sale of your 810 setup AND Epson scanner so you can have enough or maybe put in a tad bit more for the smaller format setup. With this smaller setup, you can buy a much nicer dedicated film scanner and best what you can do with 4X5 and probably even 8X10. I'm sure many would argue there's no way a 6X7-6X9 can look as good as 810, but for the print sizes you are after, there should be absolutely zero grain and all the rest including detail/sharpness/etc. should all be there, but even nicer since the digitization process of the film will be handled far superior to what the Epson scanners can do.


If you didn't have much of anything worth of value in your 810 setup, I'd say keep it and get a cheap $100-$200 4X5 cam and use both, even if it's only once a year with the 810. But I'm pretty sure you have an 810 setup worth quite a lot of re-sale value and to me, this means go smaller and get a proper scanner to get a far cleaner image through to photoshop and onto the 8X10/11X14 sized printing paper.

Only my .02 since I know you will tell the difference in a better scanner with even much smaller film much the same as you will tell the difference between an Epson scanned 8X10 neg and a well done contact 8X10 print.

P.S. Forgot, you aren't super focused on the print quality and analytical jargon of it all so the Epson may well suit you fine since again, you are so used to it. As they say, why break it if it worky worky just fine;)

Noah A
26-Nov-2010, 11:48
I dumped my 8x10 kit a few years ago and have never regretted it.

I actually went to digital and then 6x7 and now back to 4x5, but I don't see myself shooting 8x10 again. I may pick up (or build) a handheld 4x5 for aerial work.

I travel a lot and while it's certainly possible to travel with 8x10 and larger formats, it doesn't suit the kind of travel and documentary work I do. I can shoot more with the 4x5 (I actually like LF because it limits my shooting volume and makes me think more, but if I'm spending months researching a project and going halfway around the world I like to overshoot a bit for insurance).

The smaller 4x5 format makes it easier to deal with shooting in marginal light, high wind, etc. I like a lot of depth of field so that's easier to obtain with 4x5. My main 150mm lens folds right up into my Wista VX and the entire package is small, tough and easy to set up.

There is certainly something magical about an 8x10 color negative printed large. But 4x5 strikes a good balance in terms of quality and versatility.

I have a Howtek 8000 drum scanner, and the 4x5 negs allow me to be more productive since I can mount four at a time. And the drum-scanned 4x5's print beautifully to very, very large sizes.

Ken Lee
26-Nov-2010, 12:33
And people complaining about the weight and/or not getting any difference in quality;).

How do you think the 5X7 stacks up to the 8X10?:)

Here's a fun look at a 5x7 negative (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.html) with enlarged detail shown in the corner.

Here's one made from an 8x10 negative (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10Detail.html). You can see the difference.

I think there's a difference between all formats. Some photos reveal the difference better than others. It's... subjective.

In the end I stick with Ansel who said "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'".

Bill Kumpf
26-Nov-2010, 17:14
Ken,

Can you add a 4x5 negative with enlarged detail also? It provides a good comparison.

Thanks

Ken Lee
26-Nov-2010, 18:01
Can you add a 4x5 negative with enlarged detail also? It provides a good comparison.

Here's one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/4x5Detail.html) I made a while back.

The scanner is different: my old Microtek 2500 got closer to the claimed resolution than the Epsons do. So you're just starting to see the grain in this one.

Ben Syverson
26-Nov-2010, 18:34
There are obviously sharpness differences between 8x10 and 4x5 if you print large enough. How large is subjective, but ultimately we all know 8x10 can go larger.

However, the bigger difference for me is in tonality. If I enlarge 4x5 beyond about 16x20, I can begin to see grain. At large sizes, grain can really creep in.

By contrast, 8x10 needs to be really pushed to gigantic sizes to start showing off grain. That alone is enough to answer the 4x5 vs 8x10 question for me.

ImSoNegative
26-Nov-2010, 18:35
Here's one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/4x5Detail.html) I made a while back.

The scanner is different: my old Microtek 2500 got closer to the claimed resolution than the Epsons do. So you're just starting to see the grain in this one.

thanks for the comparisons, all three formats are great, i have an 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5. my 8x10 is a beastly cambo legend, which i never use anymore, my 4x5 i use more than any other format i have. thanks again for the format comparisons

Jordan
26-Nov-2010, 18:36
I have recently returned to 4x5 simply because I needed to make more pictures in order to be a better artist I feel. The 8x10 process is more time consuming for me and also pricier which kept me from really exploring photography while using it. I will most likely go back to it eventually, but not use it exclusively like I had for a few years.

NicolasArg
26-Nov-2010, 19:09
Thank you Ken, the comparisons are very usefull.

CP Goerz
26-Nov-2010, 19:50
For me 4x5 is handy for backpacking or exploring a 'new' area, but if I 'know' an area and have a specific shot I want to grab then its 8x10. I find it easier to read the ground glass on 8x10 as compared a 4x5, when its stopped down to check DOF everything looks sharp with 4x5 but the easel under the enlarger tells a different story. Too many re-shoots under my belt to stick with just a 4x5.

Anyway, need I say that 8x10 and up are Men's cameras? ;-)

Bruce Barlow
27-Nov-2010, 06:09
We just got four students up and running on 8x10 in a weekend. One with a 7x17.

Richard Ritter thinks it would be easier to learn LF with 8x10 than 4x5. We haven't tested that, yet (and not sure how we would), but he makes a good case. In many ways, says he, it's simpler.

I love all the formats I use from 35 to 4x5 to 5x7 to 8x10 for different reasons. I'm even thinking of a Holga, just for kicks. Can't imagine giving any of them up, and rather, I like to figure out when to use each one for the situations in which I find myself. I like the challenge of learning what each lens sees in each format, and learning to find pictures tuned to a particular format-lens combination. I think I get better by doing so.

In the process of "standardizing" my darkroom setup, so that contact printing will be easier and more efficient. That will help my head, too.

JamesFromSydney
27-Nov-2010, 07:08
CP Goerz:

Tell that to Sally Mann, Elsa Dorfman etc.

CP Goerz
27-Nov-2010, 10:09
Those are 'real' women :-)

Ken Lee
27-Nov-2010, 12:11
Here's another (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10DetailB.html) 8x10 with detail. Sorry, it's just too much fun not to do these. The magnification is equivalent to a 4x5 foot print.

mandoman7
27-Nov-2010, 13:40
Why does it have to be either/or?
As Galli suggests, there are looks that you can't get without an 8x10. But at $3/sheet, it will cramp your style if you're in the mood to shoot freely and explore crazy ideas. I just bought a Kodak 2D with lens for $300, about what I've spent on average for my 4x5 lenses. Doesn't seem like that big of an investment, such that it will limit my 4x5 gear budget.

I'd rather have both systems available for whatever impulses arise.

JoeV
27-Nov-2010, 14:02
Paper negatives are a good alternative to more expensive sheet film, if one wants to stick with exploring the possibilities of 8x10. Contact prints from preflashed graded RC paper negatives can look pretty good.

~Joe

Noah A
28-Nov-2010, 09:36
Wow, $3 a sheet for 8x10 would be great. I shoot color neg, and it was costing me about $16 a sheet with film and processing. 4x5 costs me about $6, so it's a big difference.

Of course 8x10 has better tonality and more detail than 4x5, that should go without saying. But for some photographers 4x5 is a good compromise between portability, cost and image quality, which is still outstanding.

I think learning on 8x10 can make sense. In some ways it's more forgiving.

I will add that I'd rather have a drum-scanned 4x5 over an epson-scanned 8x10.

Ben Syverson
28-Nov-2010, 11:44
$16 vs $6 is an insignificant difference if you're going to be making a large print...

I have some 4x5s that I wish were 8x10s. At the time I took the 4x5s, I was thinking of saving money. I would gladly hand over that money now.

jp
28-Nov-2010, 13:36
Wow, $3 a sheet for 8x10 would be great. I shoot color neg, and it was costing me about $16 a sheet with film and processing. 4x5 costs me about $6, so it's a big difference.

Of course 8x10 has better tonality and more detail than 4x5, that should go without saying. But for some photographers 4x5 is a good compromise between portability, cost and image quality, which is still outstanding.

I think learning on 8x10 can make sense. In some ways it's more forgiving.

I will add that I'd rather have a drum-scanned 4x5 over an epson-scanned 8x10.

I'm slowly going through a box of Fomapan 100 8x10 film at just under $3/sheet for a box of 50. You can get arista-edu for $2/sheet, or $4/sheet for Ilford, or $6ish for Kodak (perhaps because of the smaller quantity).

An epson scanned 8x10 is pretty nice; nicer of course than an epson scanned 4x5 and probably has more detail than an 8x10 contact print.

I mostly use 4x5 or smaller, but a used 8x10 setup wasn't very expensive.

swmcl
28-Nov-2010, 15:34
I look at flickr and photo.net. I reckon 98% of the images taken on this earth are with 35mm format or smaller. Each format is good for certain tasks. As the format size increases, that list of tasks gets smaller. That means a more restricted photographic 'realm'. As format increases so too it becomes harder to tote around. I simply cannot photograph certain types of image (because my format is too large) and some of me feels that loss.

Some search for pixel perfection - a one metre camera wouldn't do! Some want funky effects (like a 170mm f2 swirly lens) - there is a massive Aero Ektar for sale in Germany for that ...

I am not wanting to limit my photographic realm too much and I stopped going up in size at the 5x7 which also has a reducing back for 4x5, 6x12 or 6x17. Enough is enough.

I shall possibly get a DSLR for my collection of Nikon lenses when they get good enough!

Noah A
28-Nov-2010, 15:55
$16 vs $6 is an insignificant difference if you're going to be making a large print...

I have some 4x5s that I wish were 8x10s. At the time I took the 4x5s, I was thinking of saving money. I would gladly hand over that money now.

I know what you're saying in theory. I wish I shot 4x5 instead of 6x7 on my last project. But while I can't speak for anyone else's budget, it's most certainly a big deal for me and the way I shoot.

I'm a documentary photographer, and most of my work involves traveling overseas.

Say I go on a trip and shoot 200 sheets. That seems about right for me. I generally shoot two frames of each shot and keep them separate, have them processed at different times, etc. It's cheap insurance (but would be more costly with a larger format).

I'll probably scan around 80 images to send to my agency and archive. And, obviously this varies, but maybe 10 would someday see a gallery wall as a large 40x50 in. inkjet print.

I do my own drum scanning and print at a local non-profit rental lab. A 40x50 costs me around $100 in rental time, ink and paper.

So we've got $1000 in printing.

For 8x10, 16x200=$3200 or $4200 with printing

For 4x5 6x200=$1200 or $2200 with printing

For me, that's enough to pay for the travel expenses of another whole trip:D .

I understand that perhaps cost isn't the most important factor to some photographers. In fact for me the main advantage of 4x5 is portability. But cost is a real issue. I shoot large format in part because it slows me down and makes me think more about what I'm shooting. But there's a fine balance. With 8x10 I may just be TOO careful since each frame costs so much.

Ken Lee
28-Nov-2010, 16:19
This is the kind of subject where I wish I had an 8x10, instead of only a 5x7.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/img408t.jpg

John Bowen
28-Nov-2010, 17:13
Purchased my 1st 4x5 camera in 1981. Purchased my 1st 8x10 in 2004. I've shot 100 x more 8x10 film than 4x5 film since 2004......'nuff said!

zenny
29-Nov-2010, 00:43
This thread was extremely useful for a newbie to 8x10! :-)

I found Ken Lee's examples quite useful visuals to understand what has been discussed in text. Thanks Ken.

zenny

*** Support http://www.thehumanape.org ***

Cor
29-Nov-2010, 07:22
Hi Ken,

Thanks for posting these interesting comparisons, but I can't help wondering: would these differences as noticeable when you would have printed these negatives instead of scanned? (guess it is kinda hard were to draw the line: enlarge all the negatives with the same factor? etc..)

Best,

Cor

Lynn Jones
29-Nov-2010, 10:01
My 8x10 film has been in the freezer for 7 or 8 years, I don't know when I'll use it again for my 8x10 B&J. I still have a large Toyo 4x5 monorail, a 4x5 Calumet (original) CC402 WF view camera (my personal invention), and one of my all time favorites, the Galvin 23 using 2.25"x3.25" roll film (my 3.25x4.25 Graflex is permanentlymounted on a 23 roll holder also).

Lynn

Ken Lee
29-Nov-2010, 10:11
guess it is kinda hard were to draw the line

That's why this thread can go on forever: It's subjective. :)

Brian C. Miller
29-Nov-2010, 11:13
And also the problem of having an 8x10 enlarger that can get up there on the humongous sizes.

Cor, consider this: When I did a calibration test on my Super Graphic, with a loupe I could see bicycle spokes two blocks away. The only time those spokes showed up on a print was at 16x20, a 4x enlargement. For the same physical space on the negative, an 8x10 would need to be enlarged to 32x40. Mind you, the key words are "showed up." This means that I could see the spokes on the print with a loupe. Was there grain? Well, I used Techpan, so, no, there wasn't any grain at 16x20. Some see grain at 16x20, but they don't say which film they were using.

John NYC
29-Nov-2010, 11:36
For the same physical space on the negative, an 8x10 would need to be enlarged to 32x40.

Huh?

Brian C. Miller
29-Nov-2010, 12:30
Consider: given a 1/4-inch space on both a 4x5 and 8x10 negative. I don't mean subject matter, I mean a spot on the negative. I'm talking about the enlargement ratio, not the absolute print size.

To enlarge the negatives to the same proportion, i.e., X times, the resulting enlargement will be a different size. A 4x enlargement for 4x5 = 16x20, a 4x enlargement for 8x10 = 32x40.

If the comparison is final print size, then 16x20 would be 4x for 4x5, and only 2x for 8x10.

The 1/4-inch space would be 1-inch, given a 4x enlargement. If the enlargement is to a fixed size of 16x20, then it would be 1-inch from a 4x5 negative, and enlarged to be 1/2-inch from a 8x10 negative.

Consider if I grabbed my 8x10, a Fujinon 300mm lens, a 4x5 reducing back, Efke 25, and strode outside and made two exposures, one on 8x10 and one on 4x5. The magnification is the same. The 4x5 is of course a crop of the 8x10. The enlargement to the same paper size will be less for the 8x10.

Now consider if the 8x10 image is shot with a 300mm lens, and the 4x5 is shot with a 150mm lens. While the scenes on the negatives will be similar, the 8x10 will of course have more information on the negative.

John Kasaian
29-Nov-2010, 17:42
I've got an excellent 4x5(Graphic View 2) and two very fine 5x7s(Speed Graphic & Agfa Ansco) and they spend a lot of time in the cabinet. 8x10 is where it's at for me. The smaller formats have their uses, but everytime I compose on the 8x10 gg or look at an 8x10 negative on the lightbox I say to myself:"WOW!"

John NYC
29-Nov-2010, 18:39
Consider: given a 1/4-inch space on both a 4x5 and 8x10 negative. I don't mean subject matter, I mean a spot on the negative. I'm talking about the enlargement ratio, not the absolute print size.

To enlarge the negatives to the same proportion, i.e., X times, the resulting enlargement will be a different size. A 4x enlargement for 4x5 = 16x20, a 4x enlargement for 8x10 = 32x40.

If the comparison is final print size, then 16x20 would be 4x for 4x5, and only 2x for 8x10.

The 1/4-inch space would be 1-inch, given a 4x enlargement. If the enlargement is to a fixed size of 16x20, then it would be 1-inch from a 4x5 negative, and enlarged to be 1/2-inch from a 8x10 negative.

Consider if I grabbed my 8x10, a Fujinon 300mm lens, a 4x5 reducing back, Efke 25, and strode outside and made two exposures, one on 8x10 and one on 4x5. The magnification is the same. The 4x5 is of course a crop of the 8x10. The enlargement to the same paper size will be less for the 8x10.

Now consider if the 8x10 image is shot with a 300mm lens, and the 4x5 is shot with a 150mm lens. While the scenes on the negatives will be similar, the 8x10 will of course have more information on the negative.

The thing that gives 8x10 its advantage is more film per square inch for a given field of view, as you said in your last sentence. I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at in the other comparisons in terms of the value difference between the two formats.

Ben Syverson
29-Nov-2010, 21:13
Yeah, I'm with John -- It's pretty simple. To make a 40x50" print from 4x5, it's a 10X enlargement. It's only 5X for 8x10.

Cor
30-Nov-2010, 03:12
thanks for the elaborate answers on my -hard to answer anyway- question;

if going the complete analogue route assuming a nice 8*10 enlarger (which I don't, I have "only" a nice Laborator 1200 for 4*5) and printing max. 50*60cm prints it would still be nice to compare a 4*5 negative to a 8*10 negative (again assuming the same film, and quality wise comparable 150 and 300 mm lenses, keeping DOF the same) of the same scene. Essentially you are than comparing (if the rest of the enlarging process is with quality equipment) enlargement ratio for 4*5 of 5 versus 8*10 at 2.5.

I wonder if, from a normal viewing distance there will be clear differences, I guess there are when looking up close though

Best,

Cor

Brian C. Miller
30-Nov-2010, 12:35
Well, I was using Techpan, and it was grainless at 16x20 (20x50cm), and I needed a magnifying glass to see the bicycle spokes. Therefore, I don't think that an 8x10 would be substantially different at that enlargement. Now, if I was using a film like Tri-X or Tmax 400, then I bet there would be a difference.

Frank Petronio
30-Nov-2010, 17:56
I've been scanning a bunch of old stuff from my earliest years doing photography. And while I did plenty of good small format work, I know that no matter what else I do, I will edit and scan the big film first. I'll do the 8x10s, then the 5x7s, then the 4x5s, then the 6x9s and so on....

The good big film is the stuff I'd grab in a fire situation....

Findingmyway4ever
30-Nov-2010, 19:57
Here's a fun look at a 5x7 negative (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/RangerDetail.html) with enlarged detail shown in the corner.

Here's one made from an 8x10 negative (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/tech/8x10Detail.html). You can see the difference.

I think there's a difference between all formats. Some photos reveal the difference better than others. It's... subjective.

In the end I stick with Ansel who said "When asked what camera I use, I reply 'The heaviest one I can carry'".

Ahhhhh...you just had to didn't ya?:)) I'm happy I had a look at the 4X5 shot because while the 8X10 shot is clearly the winner here, it's not that much more superior to the 5X7 shot as is the 5X7 shot is to the 4X5 one. In other words, 5X7 looks a lot closer to 8X10 tonally/grain wise and sharpness wise where the 4X5 is really left behind quite a bit. But all in all, the 8X10 is definitely a bit cleaner, sharper, etc. than the 5X7.

I think I may just have to pick up a cheapo 8X10 for basic shots while I attempt to work with a 5X8 and 4X5 reduction back that I will be posting up soon for some discussion;)

Ken Lee
2-Dec-2010, 10:41
There's no rocket science here:

5x7 is around 150% the size of 4x5, and all things being equal (they never are) there is that much more information, whether you can see it or not at a given print size.

8x10 is 200% the size of 4x5 and all things being equal (they never are) there is that much more information, whether you can see it or not at a given print size.

Bob McCarthy
2-Dec-2010, 12:17
There's no rocket science here:

5x7 is around 150% the size of 4x5, and all things being equal (they never are) there is that much more information, whether you can see it or not at a given print size.

8x10 is 200% the size of 4x5 and all things being equal (they never are) there is that much more information, whether you can see it or not at a given print size.

Ken, i would think of the information as being 4 times as large.

20 sq inches vs 80 sq inches of information for 8x10 (400%)

and

20 sq inches vs. 35 sq inches for 5x7. (175%)

I just have fallen for 8x10 over the past year,

take care,

bob

Ken Lee
2-Dec-2010, 13:02
Yes - You're certainly right.

Depending on how we look, the difference is either 2x or 4x. For example, the diagonal is twice as long, as are corresponding focal lengths. Length and width are twice as long. The surface area is 4x. The compensation for depth of field is 4x, or 2 f/stops.

That much we know. The rest is... subjective. :)

Bob McCarthy
2-Dec-2010, 13:34
Content is a function of area,...... resolution is a function of length.

Think in term that 4 sheets of 4x5 cover 1 sheet of 8x10. area = length x width

resolution of 40 lpmm is a function of mm (one dimension or length)

George and I keep playing phone tag, btw

bob

Fred L
2-Dec-2010, 13:46
How much detail do we really need to see ? I'll admit to getting up close to a print on a gallery wall but it's just curiosity. I'd rather look at a photograph with creative content and composition over a mediocre work that is technically stunning in it's detail and resolution. Would Burtynsky's work be any better if he shot with an 8x10 ?

Brian C. Miller
2-Dec-2010, 14:04
Fred, do you mean Edward Burtynsky, up in Canada? I just did some searching, and rumor has it that he's been using an 8x10 since 1990 (link (http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/004ZHb)).

Fred L
2-Dec-2010, 14:29
One and the same. He used 4x5 on his ship wrecking photos as he used Type 55 for some of the photos at least that I've seen. His aerial work in the oil sands is digital understandably,fwiw.

I think travelling with 8x10 has become extremely difficult in some places mainly due to the carry on restrictions imposed by airlines and they're rather strict about it. If it doesn't go under, you don't go on kinda thing.

I'd love to bring my 8x10 or 7x17 on my next trip to China but dread the hassles.

I guess for my experience I don't see that much of an edge of 8x10 over 4x5. Speaking for myself, it's less about the print quality and more about the actual shooting experience for me while working behind the larger camera that I appreciate.

Bob McCarthy
2-Dec-2010, 15:01
Fred, after 30 years of 4x5 and 2 years of 8x10,

I would offer it really makes a difference when you print small and really large.

Nothing like a contact print, for my old eyes (63) 4x5 is too small.

Easy to see difference when printing large

And the subject matters. I doubt I would want to do a close up exam (nose to paper)of a enviornmental shot vs a pristine landscape or urban landscape. One is about impact and the other is about details.

bob

Ben Syverson
2-Dec-2010, 16:03
Would Burtynsky's work be any better if he shot with an 8x10 ?
Yes. I think he prints 4x5 too large.

If he does use 8x10, he definitely also uses 4x5. The recent-ish documentary on him shows him shooting 4x5 exclusively. I can't imagine going to all of that trouble and expense to set up a shoot and then burning 4x5 rather than 8x10. It's not like he has to backpack the camera!

Of course, his prints look fine, but they would look that much better (400% to be exact) if he ditched 4x5.

Fred L
2-Dec-2010, 19:17
I dunno. I've seen his prints up close and they look fine to me. Of course, I've been using my Mamiya 6's more since I haven't been as motivated to haul out the big toys lately. But yeah, a 4x5 contact pales beside an 8x10 or 7x17 :)

Noah A
3-Dec-2010, 07:05
I think Burtynsky's prints look very good, I've seen them a few times.

A few years ago I saw a show by an established master of 8x10 color photography, and many of the 32x40-ish prints were just ever-so-slightly soft. They were optical c-prints so it's possible that the softness was due to the enlarging process, but I doubt it since a photographer of that stature can surely have access to the best printers. I'd rather not name the photographer, but the show was at a large, established Chelsea gallery.

Despite the softness of some of the prints, the photographs were still beautiful and interesting. Same for Burtynsky's. While grain can creep in at his huge prints from 4x5, to me it doesn't detract one bit if the photograph is interesting to begin with.

I guess a lot of people around here wouldn't like my 32x40in prints from 6x7. Sure, they show some grain, but there is an incredible amount of detail and a nice tonality.

I feel like this thread has gotten off topic a bit. The OP asked if anyone regretted dumping 8x10 for 4x5...not which format was higher quality. Clearly 8x10 offers more technical quality, but it also has downsides (relevant to some of us) of cost, size (not just the camera but you need a bigger tripod, huge film holders, etc.), depth-of-field/shutter speed issues, etc.

Fred L
3-Dec-2010, 09:04
I was actually considering leaving 8x10 and sticking with 4x5 and 7x17 but see no rush to do so. I really do love working with the 8x10 and if I had the funds right now, would get a Ritter with backs for 8x10 and 7x17.