Why do you shoot 8x10?

[Noah B]

A few months ago I sold off all of my film cameras and focused on digital for half a year. I was finding out that my results weren't coming out like I wanted and knew I always wanted to work with an 8x10. One day I bought all of the chemicals and went back to work with the darkroom. To this day I still question why I moved up to the 8x10. Part of me knows that I made the move so I could take myself in a more serious manner and encroach upon a new level of commitment to my own work I had never reached before. Sometimes I think about selling off my gear and buying a 4x5 but the screen was too small :P So I challenge you fellow 8x10 shooters, why do you work with this camera?

[Michael Wynd]

It suits me. Plus it weighs so damn much that I really have to think if a shot is worth the time and effort of taking the backpack off and getting the beast set up, take the shot and then pack it away and put the backpack back on. I've been pretty happy with the shots I've taken since I started using 8x10 and this is the reason why for me.
Mike

[Peter Galea]

Composing on the screen is like looking through a bay window.
The negative quality is beyond compare.

[William Whitaker]

There are several reasons I use 8x10, some more rational than others. The biggest reason for me is that the lenses for 8x10 fall into a range where the depth of field characteristics are most pleasing to my eye. With smaller formats, quite often there is more in focus than I want. With larger formats, depth of field is too shallow. 8x10 is at an optically sweet spot. Of course, there are always exceptions depending on the subject matter. But generally speaking I find it at a nice balance point for the way that I see the world.

[DJG]

I don't have a real darkroom, so I'm pretty much limited to contact prints. 4x5 was too small, so that's why I jumped to 8x10! Now, I'm looking at going bigger, either with a ULF camera, or going the route of digital negatives. I really like printing, even though I still have a ton to learn.

[Dennis]

It is large enough to contact print. Though to me still a bit smallish. The great equalizer in print quality is the enlarger. If you are going to put your film in an enlarger and make moderate enlargements you lose a lot of the value of the larger neg. I can make 11x14 enlargements from 120 film that are right there in optical quality with the same enlargement from a 4x5 neg. The only reasons to use 4x5 vs 120 are the perspective and focus adjustments and the contemplative nature of looking at an upside down image with your head under a cloth.
So it depends on the end result you are after. A 4x5 is too small for contact prints IMO and an 8x10 is just barely large enough.
If you are using a scanner in your process then my experience/opinion is not relevant.
Dennis

[John Kasaian]

It's fun.
I enjoy working with film and graded paper and making big beautiful contact prints and the gear is ever so funky---spartan yet at the same time cumbersome---shooting 8x10is a little like working out at a gym which has an ISO rating.
Nearly everything about setting up a shot is intuitive---the only "instructions" are what I feel like I should be doing. No instruction manual came with my 'dorff.
Sometimes I get to meet nice people who are attracted by or curious about my camera, and when they ask if it's a Hasselblad, well that nearly always always makes me smile.
Its not just a camera, nor is it just about the print, but rather the whole physical experience from loading the holders, to the logistics of shooting, to seeing an image magically appear in the tray.
Its sort of like a combo plate at Tomasita's in Santa Fe or the Whoa Nellie Deli in Lee Vining.
And I never, ever have to worry about batteries.

[Gem Singer]

IMHO, the 8x10 negative is the ideal size for making contact prints large enough for viewing.

8x10 B&W film is easy to obtain and relatively inexpensive. Also, an 8x10 negative is the largest size that I can use with my scanner.

Gave up the 8x10 format when I was no longer comfortable carrying a heavy camera outfit. Especially with several 8x10 film holders.

The largest format I now use is 5x7. Seems to be more practical. Comfortable to carry, scans very easily on my Epson V750 scanner, and makes nice 16x20 B&W prints on my Epson 3880 printer.

For color, either a DSLR or a MF roll film camera is the better choice when it comes to film availability, cost, and ease of processing.

[Brian Ellis]

I don't at the moment but have in the past and will again some day. I liked it because it was such a pleasure to compose on the 8x10 ground glass. I also liked the size of the camera and holders. They obviously were harder to carry around but they made me feel like a real old-time photographer. Today it's my back that makes me feel that way.

[Leigh]

To prove that I have no sense whatsoever.

I have all formats here, from half-frame 35mm through 8x10. I use the 8x10 when I want to do serious work, something that (in my mind at least) constitutes "art" in a photographic sense, as opposed to documentary or advertising work.

Like most here, I only shoot b&w in LF. The smaller formats are mostly color.

- Leigh

[John Kasaian]

Oh yeah, unless I really need to use a light meter, there is only one button---the one on the end of the cable release!:D

[jp]

I shoot a bunch of common sizes up to and including 8x10. I'd do bigger but I can't afford a 14x17 camera and don't have time to fabricate it myself.

There are certain lenses that don't work on a 4x5 camera due to lensboard size, bellows length, etc... They work great on an 8x10, and while you can use an 8x10 back, you can also use a 4x5 back if you want to use lots of film or want a smaller contact print.

8x10 is the biggest I can scan; lots of detail if that's what I'm after.

I like alt process contact prints, and 8x10's from 8x10 negatives are far easier than 8x10s from other sized negatives, not having to make digital negatives or film positives.

I shoot more 4x5 and MF than 8x10, but it has it's place. I'd shoot 8x10 more if the cameras were as portable and tough as my speed graphic and film was as quick and easy to process as 4x5 in a combiplan. (I am prone to scratch my 8x10 film if I do more than 2 sheets at a time in a tray).

[dsim]

Ground Glass addiction.

Contact Printing.

And just a love of the process :)

[Walter Calahan]

Why not?

[EdWorkman]

Trying to slow down and take a real photo instead of a point and shoot.
In looking back at my 120 and 6x17 I see that i had periods when my eye wasn't so bad, and other periods of What-Were-You-Thinking? I have a lot of those negs.
When you're hot you're hot, and not/not
Actuarially, even some of those not too bad ones won't get printed in my lifetime.
So I figured to shoot bigger/slower/carefuller=fewer&better, also figuring that film itself might crap out about the time I do.
I have solved the quantity problem- no pics at all in the almost last year.
But that means I have NO graphic sense left- not what i planned.

[Vaughn]

Because I do not have an 11x14 yet? ;) (but working on it!) I use a modified darkslide to get two 4x10 on 8x10, and I'll will do the same with the 11x14 to get two 5.5 x 14.

The processes I use are contact print only, and my interests lie in using camera negatives.

John -- love it! An 8x10 is a gym with an ISO rating! And agree that it is the entire experience which makes it worthwhile.

Vaughn

[John Bowen]

Because life is too damn short to compromise!

[Jay DeFehr]

I bought an 8x10 out of curiosity, and I use it because I have it.

[cosmicexplosion]

an 8x10 was pretty much the first film camera i have owned and used.

i am a painter, so the images i make are usually 1 meter by two meters.

so i have spent my life looking at paint on canvass, which being real, is full of detail.

most enlarged photo's i saw annoyed me as they were flat and blurry representations of something else.

so when i decided to go on a photographic journey, i realised i had to have the best available to get a large print that i was happy with.

being some one who works with his hands and does not really like digital, i decided to get an 8x10 because it was the best.

it is really easy to produce paper negs and contact prints, well i am learning still, but i can not stand the pain of trying to make a computer tell a printer to print and then it does not work, and then wanting to throw the computer out the window.

with analogue its just a simple variable in your modus operandi.

i only need 4 trays and a light bulb to make 8x10 prints.

it is really simple; just focus, set shutter and click. (one button, no menus)

i also like the modular lens options. how amazing to be able to use a 100 year old lens, it sort of embodies the ultimate invention, like an open source program, or a communal way of life, unlike the instant redundancy of digital being a capitalists dream, i feel a real contentment knowing i will never need to up grade,
like our forefathers must have felt when they owned something for life. QUALITY!


genius!

[Maris Rusis]

There is an attractive and persuasive integrity in an 8x10 photograph made by contact exposure with a 8x10 negative. The size stays the same from the initial seeing, to the exposure, to the making, and finally the looking. And the size is always right. If it isn't right the price of 8x10 film tells you not to make the shot.

[Armin Seeholzer]

There are several reasons I use 8x10, some more rational than others. The biggest reason for me is that the lenses for 8x10 fall into a range where the depth of field characteristics are most pleasing to my eye. With smaller formats, quite often there is more in focus than I want. With larger formats, depth of field is too shallow. 8x10 is at an optically sweet spot. Of course, there are always exceptions depending on the subject matter. But generally speaking I find it at a nice balance point for the way that I see the world.

I could't say it better then Will Whitaker!

Cheers Armin

[DrTang]

I put together a set when I bought a whole stack of 8x10 color polaroid film


after I shot that all up - I sold the outfit


I'm tempted to get back into it with film though as a lot of my lenses for my 5x7 would cover

[Jim Noel]

A few months ago I sold off all of my film cameras and focused on digital for half a year. I was finding out that my results weren't coming out like I wanted and knew I always wanted to work with an 8x10. One day I bought all of the chemicals and went back to work with the darkroom. To this day I still question why I moved up to the 8x10. Part of me knows that I made the move so I could take myself in a more serious manner and encroach upon a new level of commitment to my own work I had never reached before. Sometimes I think about selling off my gear and buying a 4x5 but the screen was too small :P So I challenge you fellow 8x10 shooters, why do you work with this camera?

Because sometimes I don't feel like carrying my bigger cameras.

[Richard M. Coda]

Because life is too damn short to compromise!

Of all the replies, this one struck me the most. A LOT of what I see today is "compromise"... and it's always followed by an explanation... you shouldn't have to explain yourself. If you do, you already know you have compromised.

That said, I shoot 4x5 for color, 8x10 and 11x14 for B&W. I have enlarged 4x5 and 8x10 to 16x20, but there is nothing like a contact print!

[engl]

Then why don't you shoot a 24x20 or 16x20 camera :) ?

[Steve M Hostetter]

I shot a lot of 8x10" polaroid film.. Nothing quite like it
For me the perfect format would be 11x14" which is two 8x10's and some change..
In my mind, an 11x14" contact print is the perfect size for what I do..

I shoot mostly 4x5 & 8x10 due to logistics

[Randy]

While I shoot digital, 35mm, medium and large format, I just get more pleasure out of the "process" of shooting with large format. Sure, I believe the quality of the final print is superior, but form me, the act of finding the scene, setting up, composing and focusing, tripping the shutter, and everything in between, gives me much more pleasure than raising my Nikon D200 to my eye.

I got rid of my 4X5 gear because I preferred composing on my 8X10. No sooner had I done that, that I went to order more 8X10 film - $$$ - and immediately regretted selling my 4X5 gear.

I have discovered the perfect alternative to size, weight, and cost of 8X10, and the portability of 4X5 - it's called 5X7. Since I don't make darkroom prints (at the moment) I scan on my Epson 4990, and I seldom go larger than 13X19 with ink-jet prints, 5X7 is perfect for me. I can carry my 5X7 gear almost as easily as I could my 4X5 gear.

[Scott Walker]

I started out with 35mm film and fell in love with the medium of silver printing but knew I needed the freedom of a view camera and sheet film so I went to 4x5 before shooting 50 rolls of film. I found the 4x5 format to be too small and always wanted to try the 8x10 format. Now that I am using 8x10 it just feels right.

[Zaitz]

8x10 and 4x5 are a whole experience compared to digital, for me. The whole process is enjoyable. Composing on the ground glass is just a joy, and I've yet to do any landscapes! I even enjoy developing my photos. But once I make a photo I think is great and get it printed very large I think I'll be even more emphatic about my choice in delving into 8x10. Still yet to print one.

[Richard M. Coda]

Then why don't you shoot a 24x20 or 16x20 camera :) ?

Too cumbersome... oh, and I'm married! :)

[cjbroadbent]

I don't have an enlarger.

[David Lobato]

I'm pleased to note not much, if anything, has been said of capturing more detail for larger enlargements. I've faced misconceptions that 8x10 is a further step up (like 120 to 4x5) in the quest for more resolution. Most people don't understand my reasons for loving the 8x10 format. Two years ago I got my first 8x10 and it was a new freedom. Little else compares to viewing a ground glass at that size. But chiefly for me, 8x10 captures an atmosphere, something intangible, not even with 4x5. And an 8x10 negative in the hand is something substantial, something with gravitas.

[prado333]

i donn´t no why , but i always return to 8x10 after shoot with 4x5 and medium format. i like to see in the ground glass, i like to watch the negative in the light table again and again ,

Carry the equipment with 5 holders and a big tripod is a real pain, but i like.

[ic-racer]

Because I can...

[Drew Wiley]

David - one thing I do use 8x10 for, among other reasons, is that it is indeed a step up
in terms of detailed content, better resolution in big prints, better tonality and saturation, etc. The trade off is tricker depth of field, so a little different way of
selecting images than 4x5. I shoot both, depending on the logistics, but 8x10 unquestionably holds a distinct edge in enlargements. "Resolution" is a more involved term, and gets tangled up with lens MTF, film grain, etc. "Maximum detail" would be a
better way of expressing it.

[John Kasaian]

David - one thing I do use 8x10 for, among other reasons, is that it is indeed a step up
in terms of detailed content, better resolution in big prints, better tonality and saturation, etc. The trade off is tricker depth of field, so a little different way of
selecting images than 4x5. I shoot both, depending on the logistics, but 8x10 unquestionably holds a distinct edge in enlargements. "Resolution" is a more involved term, and gets tangled up with lens MTF, film grain, etc. "Maximum detail" would be a
better way of expressing it.
IMHO a contact print of a trailhead gives the viewer the impression that he could walk right into it:)

[Drew Wiley]

Hi John - what has been fun on rainy days in past months is taking some of my older 8X10 B&W negs and reprinting them both moderately large and as contacts.
Different feel entirely, and I don't know what I like best; but in either case, the
advantage of 8X10 over smaller formats is obvious. With color, I might print even
bigger still. Have you been up the hill yet? I'd imagine Kaiser Pass is finally open
by now.

[David Lobato]

Drew, I didn't intend to diminish the increased capacity for detail, just that it was nice to read many other reasons why we like the 8x10 format. I feel that if my technique can be excellent overall, extreme sharpness will certainly be included. It is nice to peek at minute details on a negative and know very high resolution is contained within. However since it's unlikely I'll enlarge an 8x10 negative to really large prints (more than 4X enlargement), I place more emphasis on ultra smooth tones and apparent realism as described above by John K. This format is gratifying and rewarding to quite a few of us for many great reasons.

[sully75]

I would do it for the contact printability. But I shoot 5x7 and don't contact print that...so, lately I shoot 4x5.

[ic-racer]

I don't have an enlarger.

Because I do have an enlarger (8x10) :D

[sully75]

Too bad you couldn't see the Nick Nixon exhibit that was at the MFA...almost all 8x10 contact prints and truly amazing.

[atlcruiser]

I have moved into bigger and bigger formats over the years. I love MF for its speed and quality to PITA ratio.

I played around a bit with 45 then I took a workshop with Michael and Paula and suddenly realised 810 was the goal for me. I still love looking through the GG on my deadorff.

A big part of the fun for me is big camera, big lens, big tripod, big film etc.....all of it is large and rather easy to use. I get to slow down and think about what i am doing and why I am doign it.

I learned more in the 4 months so far of being a 810 shooter than I did in years of shooting MF and 35.

[Jim Galli]

Wow, 44 posts. I'll comment and then go back and read some of them.

Why 8X10?

Tonality and unique lens characteristics.

Tonality is simply brute force. More real estate of film to spread what the lens is doing around.

Lens characteristic. If you like shallow depth of field and lovely bokeh (look at my web pages and it will be obvious, I do) even the base line 300mm f5.6 that people sell all day long for less than the value of the shutter if they threw the lens elements away gives a depth and bokeh that you can only begin to approach by paying $2500 for an f2.8 Xenotar in 4X5. That threshold is just the jumping off spot. Beyond that there are antique soft focus lenses and old petzval's etc. that can just blow away anything you can do with a 4X5. D3, 5DII, Photoshop, don't make me laugh.

So, to sum up, tonality and style, and an endless quest of more pretty old glass and seeing what it can do.

[jmooney]

I don't right now but this thread is giving me the 8x10 shakes again....

Saw an Edward Weston exhibit last year, if that doesn't make you want to shoot 8x10 nothing will....

[John Kasaian]

Hi John - what has been fun on rainy days in past months is taking some of my older 8X10 B&W negs and reprinting them both moderately large and as contacts.
Different feel entirely, and I don't know what I like best; but in either case, the
advantage of 8X10 over smaller formats is obvious. With color, I might print even
bigger still. Have you been up the hill yet? I'd imagine Kaiser Pass is finally open
by now.


I haven't been to Kaiser yet, but I did get to spend a few days at Camp Chawanakee (Shaver Lake) with Boy Scout Troop 223:D . I heard the mosqutos at Dinky are going to be memorable this year! :eek:

[cjbroadbent]

Another try.
I prefer reducing (yes reducing) things with a 10" lens rather than a 1" lens.
It's not the film. It's the big long lens that does the trick, you just need a piece of film behind the lens more or less equal to it's focal length to fit the whole scene in.

[Ari]

My wife made me; she says I don't spend enough on camera equipment.

[Michael Wynd]

"My wife made me; she says I don't spend enough on camera equipment."

Yeah right! I really can't imagine any woman saying that. It'd be nice if they did, but nah, never gonna happen. Mine already tells me I should change to digital because it's cheaper. And that's never gonna happen either.
Mike

[John Jarosz]

8x10 (and larger) forces the photographer to see better. Even if it's a subconscious effect, the amount of work required to do 8x10 forces the photographer to filter out the poor images. Even so, I still toss a lot of stuff out.

I believe it was AA who said if you can get 12 good images in a year you are doing well. I believe 8x10 helps that along.

4x5 is small enough that those using that format tend to make more exposures than they need with the intent to filter out the bad ones after the fact.

All photographers need to see better. The comments so far tend to support this, especially the comments on how the 8x10 ground glass is a wonderful tool to use.

John

[Daniel Stone]

An 8x10 g/g allows me to see fine details that I might not have noticed on a 4x5 screen. "Filling the frame" is something I've learned too, with contact printing b/w. Now, working in color, a bigger screen helps me frame things, and even with good eyesight, an 8x10 screen is much easier to focus an image on than a 4x5 screen

-Dan

[Steve M Hostetter]

I think just the act of shooting the 8x10" camera leads to slowed, labored and less production more then anything else..!
Jury is still out on whether or not it makes me a better photographer, could be that it's costing be great shots..?
Shame we can't all shoot like Richard Avadon and blow through hundreds of 8x10" exposures in a day..
Needless to say I get less exposures with the 11x14" camera..
steve

[Photojeep]

For me, 8x10 represents a stronger commitment to the image.

And besides, looking at an image on that big-ass piece of glass is just cool!

[Jim Fitzgerald]

My 8x10 is my most used camera. It is light and easy to set up and I "see" with this format. I contact print in carbon transfer and 8x10 gives me a great contact print size. If I wish to go bigger, and frequently do, I take out the 11x14, 8x20 and 14x17 all which I built myself. Very rewarding bringing back images with the camera you've made. Also, the great lenses out there for these formats make it ideal and x-ray film is cheap!!!

[Jim Graves]

I like 8x10 ... and it does slow me down and make me more critical of what I'm shooting. BUT ... and I think it's a big BUT ... I miss shots that I would have taken with 4x5 because of the weight/size/cost. And, because I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, I cannot really crop or adapt the photos ... so I still think I'm much better off with a 4x5.

BUT ... yup, another BUT ... I also like to print in carbon so ... I'm sort of stuck with 8x10 for carbon printing ........ so I adapt.

All that being said ... all the thinking and adapting that is required definitely makes me a better photographer. Oh yeah, and I just bought a 1/2 interest in an 11x14 ... so I should become really smart and creative ......... yeah, RIGHT!!!

[Greg Blank]

I hate the rectangularity 810, I have one and admire the image sharpness when good I have printed 24x30, but a longer image appeals to me. Toying with selling what currenly I have. Tachihara!

[andreios]

Greg, you may try using 18x24cm film holders in your 8x10 camera. I believe the outer dimensions of the standard film holders are the same.

As for myself - I am currently jumping into this (18x24) format - because in these parts it is easier to get 18x24cm light-sensitive material than 8x10inch. And the reason are of course contact prints - cyano, gum and hopefully carbon some time soon as well.

[Brian C. Miller]

Greg, why not crop to a format that you like? It's not like you're running out of area.

Myself, I like my Calumet C-3 8x10 monorail because it's just so versatile! Huge negative, fabulous movements, reducing back, and under 20lbs. This is the start of camera sizes that invoke awe!

[Ole Tjugen]

Because my 24x30cm camera needs new bellows.

90% of the enlargements I make, from every film size from 35mm to 5x7", end up as 24x30cm prints. 8x10" is just a little bit too small - I sometimes think that 5x7" may actually work better as contact prints than 8x10". But 8x10" is a great size, there's no denying that. If only I get around to getting new bellows for the 24x30cm one..

[baronvonaaron]

it sounds like the logistics and the time it takes to make an image, and perhaps nostalgia for earlier eras, is the dealbreaker (i shoot 4x5, but it's the same for me too).

but i'm wondering if there is any other reason other than the photographer's personal enjoyment in the process that really give it value?

when people ask me why i go to the trouble, it's hard for me to give them any answer other than "why not?". which is enough for me. i don't really know why i've opted for large format...

[baronvonaaron]

i guess i'm looking for a more conceptual basis for my hobby

[Joe Forks]

Yes, you really only have to answer to yourself. "Because I want to" is perfectly acceptable, as is every other reason posted in this thread.

Your significant other may demand more justification, but we won't :) Luckily mine is fine with with "because I want to, it's fun, and I like it".




when people ask me why i go to the trouble, it's hard for me to give them any answer other than "why not?". which is enough for me. i don't really know why i've opted for large format...

[Thom Bennett]

There are other formats?

[John NYC]

Your significant other may demand more justification, but we won't :)

No one who loves you should ever make you give up your dreams in life, don't you think?

[Joe Forks]

No one who loves you should ever make you give up your dreams in life, don't you think?

Yes, absolutely! I'm just not taking anything for granted :)

[Kimberly Anderson]

I shot 8x10 today because I want the final print size to be 8x10. I am contact printing portraits of WWII vets shot in paper-negatives.

[depso]

I shoot 8x10 because people always ask, is that thing from the 1900s?
and i go oh no! its the latest technology with an 8x10 inch live view screen, and one time i let someone peep under the dark cloth and she exclaimed wow! and it's HD!!
fun times!
well that plus 4x5 ground glass is just too small i really suck at composing with a 4x5 i found.
cheers

[sully75]

I don't but it would be nice to make amazing contact prints. It's in the back of my head.

I've been really annoyed with how long it takes to scan roll film these days. 35mm is super annoying. 120 is ok but still frustrating. 4x5 is pretty doable. 5x7 is a breeze. So I might go back to using my long-in-the-teeth 5D for whatever I'd use my Leica for, and maybe just shoot 5x7 and/or 8x10. I don't know.

I think there might be an inverse relationship between amount of cameras you have and quality of your pictures. I'm getting up there in cameras. I really don't need 7 or whatever it is I have.

[Drew Bedo]

why do I shoot with an 8x10?

I am visually impaired (20/200 at best) and the large composing area is what I can use.

Aside friom that; For me, creating an image in Large Format is a process. Chosing a subject and walking around in a scene for a bit then setting up the gear and choosing a lens. composing, focusing (movements?) then setteling on an exposure—all before tripping the shutter.

I have gotten a few really great shots with the family Nikon D-60 and kit zoom . . .but it always leaves me flat. I feel out of the loop (Did I do that?)

Thats pretty much why I shoot in 8x10.

[Andrew O'Neill]

For contact printing.

[Dave Wooten]

Because a simple pepper made a profound impression on me.

[BradS]

...because it brings me joy.

[Zaitz]

it sounds like the logistics and the time it takes to make an image, and perhaps nostalgia for earlier eras, is the dealbreaker (i shoot 4x5, but it's the same for me too).

but i'm wondering if there is any other reason other than the photographer's personal enjoyment in the process that really give it value?

when people ask me why i go to the trouble, it's hard for me to give them any answer other than "why not?". which is enough for me. i don't really know why i've opted for large format...
Dynamic range
Tonality
Large print quality
Movements

[mat4226]

Because contact printing is cake, and being able to enlarge 8x10 is icing on said cake. ^__^

[Tony Karnezis]

My wife made me; she says I don't spend enough on camera equipment.

Does she have a sister? Is she available? :D


Because a simple pepper made a profound impression on me.

That print had a profound influence on me as well. I essentially stopped shooting color, bought an 8x10 Kodak Master View and took up B&W.

I continue to shoot 8x10 because it fits me like a good pair of shoes. I have bought and sold several 4x5 cameras, but once I bought my KMV, I have shot with it almost exclusively for many of the same reasons others have stated.

I enjoy the process of shooting 8x10. 4x5 has always been more difficult for me to shoot with. It's easier for me to compose and focus on the larger ground glass, and I like that I can step back while under the dark cloth and still see the image well from a normal viewing distance. Also, it feels less claustrophobic under the dark cloth. Though smaller formats also make nice contact prints, I initially wanted to print larger than 4x5 without enlarging. In addition, I think the pleasure I derive from using the camera itself contributes to my desire to shoot the format. The KMV is such a wonderful, simple camera; I use it far more than my Sinar P. If someone made a 4x5 KMV, I might shoot more 4x5.

[RichardRitter]

After working for hours at a time in the darkroom testing paper for Zone VI and making enlargements that were not quite the quality I was looking for . The 8 x 10 was the answer. Plus I have grown to hate the darkroom. 8 x 10 contact prints are so quick and easy to make and better looking. Plus I can use the same negative to print platinum prints.

[msk2193]

Because Susan made me!