8x10s to rule the world!

[John Kasaian]

Have you noticed how many posts the are recently on 8x10 cameras and lenses? Its all making me rather giddy:D

[Mark Stahlke]

One look at an 8x10 ground glass is all it takes to get hooked. I can't afford to look at an 11x14 GG.

[Leigh]

I shoot 8x10 when I can, which means when I have a suitable lens.

I have 240mm through 450mm for that camera, which is about a 2:1 FL range.

By contrast, for the 4x5 I have 65mm through 450mm, almost a 7:1 range.

I love the look of 8x10 films, both B&W negatives and color transparencies. :D

- Leigh

[James Morris]

8x10 is the best thing in photography :-)

[MIke Sherck]

What do you mean, "to" rule the world? I thought it already did? ;)

Mike

[Brian C. Miller]

8x10 is what 80Mp wants to be when it grows up! :p

[Michael E]

Recently I bought my first 8x10", because, apparently, it rules the world. A couple of weeks ago I got lucky on ebay and bought a 30x40cm Reisekamera. Oh boy, the 8x10" looks so tiny standing next to the big guy.

This weekend, I took my first serious portraits/group shots with the 8x10 and a barrel lens. I messed up a lot. Looks like after all those years of shooting 4x5 and 5x7 it will take some time to get adjusted to 8x10.

Michael

[cdholden]

I can't afford to look at an 11x14 GG.

Sure you can. Glass is cheap.
It's the camera, lenses and film that can be expensive. :)

[mat4226]

8x10 upside-down and backwards is the only way I view the world now! I learned on 8x10, and plan on shooting this brilliant, large size until my wallet can afford a 12x20. :D

[Michael Clark]

Try 5x7,half the grain at 1/4 the price.


Mike

[Vaughn]

8x10 upside-down and backwards is the only way I view the world now! ...

Is it really backwards? My answer is...maybe. It all depends on how one mentally flips the GG image to be right-side up.

If one just rotates the image 180 degrees, keeping the image on the same plane, then it is only upside down -- not backwards. This is the equivilent of looking at the negative from the non-emulsion side.

If one mentally spins it 180 degrees on a horizontal axis that is on the same plane as the film and passes thru the center of the image, then it is backwards. This is the equivilent of looking at the negative from the emulsion side. This is how I do it as my final image is backwards, so I compose for it (single transfer carbon print).

After a little 11x14 work, the 8x10 seems so small and manageable!

Vaughn

[E. von Hoegh]

Is it really backwards? My answer is...maybe. It all depends on how one mentally flips the GG image to be right-side up.

If one just rotates the image 180 degrees, keeping the image on the same plane, then it is only upside down -- not backwards. This is the equivilent of looking at the negative from the non-emulsion side.

If one mentally spins it 180 degrees on a horizontal axis that is on the same plane as the film and passes thru the center of the image, then it is backwards. This is the equivilent of looking at the negative from the emulsion side. This is how I do it as my final image is backwards, so I compose for it (single transfer carbon print).

After a little 11x14 work, the 8x10 seems so small and manageable!

Vaughn

Actually I don't notice it any more. I don't know if this is good or bad.:)

[Vaughn]

I think we do it without thinking...;)

I just make the mental effort to flip the image so I am seeing it right side up and "backwards" (compared to the original scene) as that is how it will be printed. I suppose most folks don't think/worry about it and naturally mentally flip the image to match the scene in front of them.

I do remember early on in my 4x5 use spending a long time under the darkcloth for a particular image and being momentarily confused when I came out from under the darkcloth -- the world seemed upside down!

Vaughn

[mat4226]

Is it really backwards? My answer is...maybe. It all depends on how one mentally flips the GG image to be right-side up.

If one just rotates the image 180 degrees, keeping the image on the same plane, then it is only upside down -- not backwards. This is the equivilent of looking at the negative from the non-emulsion side.

Vaughn

You are correct, it's 180 degrees, I'm just so used to explaining it to passers by as "upside down and backwards" that I just always say it that way. Maybe I should change the phrase to

"The whole world takes a 180 under the darkcloth!"

...and then there's the whole backwards/forwards issue with carbon printing (single transfer). Sometimes I like it backwards!

[Scott Walker]

"The whole world takes a 180 under the darkcloth!"


:D

[Vaughn]

an 180...:D

[John Conway]

Since I am a person returning to large format photography,most recently 8X10, I wanted to share something here. I went through the usual stages of photography right up to 8X10.I also dipped into digital and enjoy using digital as well, but on a limited basis. All my experience with photography has been my own. I am a working class guy and ten to twelve hours a day are spent on a construction site. Try to find someone on a construction site to share thoughts about large format photography. But when I have shown people an 8X10 contact, instead of the usual cell phone image, they are blown away. Just like I was when I first looked at an 8X10 contact. There are 16X20 black and white prints of my son hanging on the walls of my home, all made with an 8X10 camera as he grew, that people stop and go into a deep stare while looking at each print. They don't know why they are so moved by the images, but they know something is very special about them. I, of course know, that it is the unique magic of the 8X10. I'm glad to be back behind the ground glass of my 8X10.

[Drew Wiley]

Why make this subject so complicated? As I recall from chapter CXVIII of View Camera
Technique, the whole point of viewing the image upside down is that if you took your
shot in the northern hemisphere, it was intended to be displayed in the southern hemisphere, and visa versa.

[eddie]

Wait a minute! It is upside down and backwards? No way.

810 is great

[Richard K.]

10x12 is 50% better...:D

[E. von Hoegh]

Why make this subject so complicated? As I recall from chapter CXVIII of View Camera
Technique, the whole point of viewing the image upside down is that if you took your
shot in the northern hemisphere, it was intended to be displayed in the southern hemisphere, and visa versa.

The next time someone asks why it's upsidedown (they don't always get that it's also backwards) I'll just say "coriolis effect".:)

[Drew Wiley]

It's the left to right viewing problem that gets confusing, even more than the upside
down thing. That's why you have to explain about the Greenwich Meridian. I don't know how folks in Britain get used to this problem, since moving your tripod a little too
far to the right or left might switch the image orientation, or possibly divide it in half.
I think that's why they invented lensboards with cluster lenses; and it is almost certainly the basis for shift on the front and rear standards.

[E. von Hoegh]

It's the left to right viewing problem that gets confusing, even more than the upside
down thing. That's why you have to explain about the Greenwich Meridian. I don't know how folks in Britain get used to this problem, since moving your tripod a little too
far to the right or left might switch the image orientation, or possibly divide it in half.
I think that's why they invented lensboards with cluster lenses; and it is almost certainly the basis for shift on the front and rear standards.
The Prime Meridian (Greenwich) is longitude. East and West. Also introduces a temporal uncertainty. A photo taken where the Prime Meridian crosses the Equator.... who knows???:eek:

So if the rise movements are for the coriolis effect, and the shifts for the use of the camera upon the Prime Meridian. Then the swings are for.....

[Drew Wiley]

I think that a lot of the diziness and insanity among early photographers which was
blamed on mercury fumes was actually due to the coreolis force and verito lenses.
But the problem of practical photography along the equator itself was not solved until
the development of the split-image rangefinder, mounted directly onto the lensboard
itself. When you add all these technological advances together, plus multi-coating,
you begin to understand some of the altered psychological states which became
common in the 1960's.

[E. von Hoegh]

So what will digital cameras bring us? And, what will happen when 80+ MP backs become affordable for hobby photographers?

[Ben Syverson]

Film vs Digital... GO!

No wait, I meant STOP!

[E. von Hoegh]

Film vs Digital... GO!

No wait, I meant STOP!
No no. Please no debates. Digital will, I'm sure, bring us only badness. It is the work of Lucifer, after all. No room for a debate here. Besides, it'll be ages before there is a terapixel back for your 8x10.

But as Drew said, think how many lives were altered (and not always for the good!) by the combination of Petzvals and coriolis effect. We need warning.

[Michael E]

So if the rise movements are for the coriolis effect, and the shifts for the use of the camera upon the Prime Meridian. Then the swings are for.....

Sexual orientation. Everybody knows that.

Michael

[Drew Wiley]

Oh .. they have already engineered all of these variables and problems out of digital
capture already. In other words, digital photography will be just as boring in the southern hemisphere as in the northen, etc.

[cyrus]

Sadly no sooner are you looking at an 8x10 gg than you start to wonder about 11x14, it it is all downhill from there to really really big cameras.

[E. von Hoegh]

Sadly no sooner are you looking at an 8x10 gg than you start to wonder about 11x14, it it is all downhill from there to really really big cameras.

Exactly. The only thing to surpass an 8x10 contact print is a bigger contact print.:)

[domaz]

And, what will happen when 80+ MP backs become affordable for hobby photographers?

Then we will put them on our 8x10/4x5/5x7 whatever cameras. There wasn't that simple?

[Maris Rusis]

So what will digital cameras bring us? And, what will happen when 80+ MP backs become affordable for hobby photographers?

The hobby photographers won't want them. They'll be lusting after the million dollar 5 Terapixel 3D Holographic backs the pros are using. 80 megapixels will look so cheap, so nasty in comparison.

[Brian C. Miller]

Then we will put them on our 8x10/4x5/5x7 whatever cameras. There wasn't that simple?

That's a MF back. Sure, 5-10 years down the line the current 80Mp back will be on the used market for cheap. But it's still a MF back, and unless you have bag bellows, you certaintly won't be able to use it on an 8x10, and without geared movements you won't like using it on a 4x5. How about the lenses? You'll have to get something for that back.

It's just reality.

Uff-da, I just tried finding depreciation information. There's section 179, which gives a hefty deduction on newly purchased equipment, so that $40,000 back would be $26,000 (calculator (http://www.crestcapital.com/tax_deduction_calculator)). If I've read other stuff correctly (Brian Ellis, isn't this your territory?) a normal 20% depreciation over five years puts that $40,000 back at $13,107.20. (No idea what the eBay price will be) And I'd still need digital MF lenses, too. There don't seem to be dramatic leaps and bounds at the top end of the digital capture devices, so in five years there may not be anything radically better than the current 80Mp back on the market.

Right now, all told, I have less than $3,000 in 8x10 equipment. And I expect that it will still be going strong years into the future. Nah, I just can't work up a need to switch.

[Gary Tarbert]

my 8x10 Cost less than the most basic DSLR aint life grand:)

[Roger Cole]

There are 16X20 black and white prints of my son hanging on the walls of my home, all made with an 8X10 camera as he grew, that people stop and go into a deep stare while looking at each print. They don't know why they are so moved by the images, but they know something is very special about them. I, of course know, that it is the unique magic of the 8X10.

Really? I mean, not to question that they're remarkable prints or that people really notice them, but is there really a "unique magic" about 8x10? I can accept that a contact print is something special and often more beautiful than an enlargement. I can print 4x5s from 35mm that show absolutely no visible grain yet my 4x5 contact prints have a certain look about them that looks better than the 35mm 4x enlargements. But once you get into enlarging - is there really a very noticeable difference between a 2x enlargement of 8x10 to 16x20 and a 4x enlargement of 4x5 to 16x20?

I'm not saying that there isn't; I'm sincerely asking. I may or may not have seen 16x20 or 20x24 prints from 8x10 as I did see some Ansel Adams prints once, in a small exhibition that was at a local (very small, amazing they got it) college museum in southwest VA when I lived in east TN, but they weren't labeled as to original negative size. Other than possibly those I'm not aware of ever having seen prints from 8x10 negatives.

I don't doubt these photos astound people who are only accustomed to digital originals or perhaps 35mm. The better question would be if they would notice them any less if they were from 4x5 originals.

I'm not currently equipped in my darkroom to print larger than 11x14 but am feeling the need to set up for 16x20. My 11x14s from 4x5 are absolutely gorgeous. I can tell a clear difference from my 120 negs (which if printed 11x14 will be cropped from something like 6x4 or 4.whatever of my 6x6 originals.) My 6x6 negs printed that size blow away 35mm and get maybe 80% of the way to the quality I get from 4x5, but that last bit is still impressive.

The topic was 8x10 though, among the weird hemispheric hallucinations. ;) How do you enlarge these 8x10s? The difficulty of enlarging them is another thing that has dissuaded me from getting into 8x10. As beautiful as contact prints can be, they will still be limited to 8x10 and the only way to crop is to cut them smaller. Most 8x10 enlargers are prohibitively large and heavy, albeit often available for a song if you can get to and move the #$%^% things. A Zone VI is ship-able but not cheap nor easy to find and can't do color. A Beseler can do color via filters (never had a color head and don't feel it's more than "nice to have" for color) but again, not that commonly found. Scanning is easily possible now with a V700/750 but it's a shame bordering on crime to shoot an 8x10 negative and then be able to print it only digitally.

[ic-racer]

my 8x10 Cost less than the most basic DSLR aint life grand:)

My 8x10 enlarger cost less than the most basic large format scanner and printer... life is even better :D

[Kimberly Anderson]

How do you enlarge these 8x10s? The difficulty of enlarging them is another thing that has dissuaded me from getting into 8x10. As beautiful as contact prints can be, they will still be limited to 8x10 and the only way to crop is to cut them smaller. Most 8x10 enlargers are prohibitively large and heavy, albeit often available for a song if you can get to and move the #$%^% things. A Zone VI is ship-able but not cheap nor easy to find and can't do color. A Beseler can do color via filters (never had a color head and don't feel it's more than "nice to have" for color) but again, not that commonly found. Scanning is easily possible now with a V700/750 but it's a shame bordering on crime to shoot an 8x10 negative and then be able to print it only digitally.

How do you enlarge them? Read about my ongoing adventure here... (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=82477)

[Bob McCarthy]

I was at a art exhibit last week. Black and white, mixed contact and enlargement, wet processed prints. Was held in Ft Worth at the main public library and the artists were JB and Susan Harlin.

To the point, on one wall were 2 8x20 prints side by side. One was a contact print, the other a 2x enlargemant from a 4x10 negative.

In Isolation both were equal, just amazing printing, tone texture, sharpness. The best of the best. Side by side I could barely detect any difference. I had to stand in the same spot are repeatily look back and forth and maybe the difference while very subtile was "maybe" just apparent. A real testimony to the printer who used the enlarger.

4X i can tell every time in a similar circumstance, but 2X in the hands of a accomplished printer is damn near contact quality.

In my own work, I've been trying to create digital contact prints. I scan at 720 dpi and print 1:1 to exact size from large negatives. Not there yet, but over the years its getting better. printers and papers are constantly improving. I'm concidering trying the Cone setup,

But there is no better printing than what I saw last weekend.

bob

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

I have been looking at 4X10 cameras. Does that mean I can only rule the Northern Hemisphere? I hope I don't have to rule the Southern Hemisphere. It is too damn hot down there.

Truth be told, I will be shooting 4X5 until I manage to win the lottery. No ruling for me.

[John Kasaian]

I have been looking at 4X10 cameras. Does that mean I can only rule the Northern Hemisphere? I hope I don't have to rule the Southern Hemisphere. It is too damn hot down there.

Truth be told, I will be shooting 4X5 until I manage to win the lottery. No ruling for me.

A Deardorff, Century or Ansco with sliders on the back will put two 4x10 images on one sheet of 8x10 film! :D

[Roger Cole]

How do you enlarge them? Read about my ongoing adventure here... (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=82477)

Thanks, I read the first post and will read through the rest as time permits as it sounds like an interesting read.

But even if I found one in Atlanta, I don't see myself buying an enlarger for which I have to rent a U Haul to get it home and as for very far away, forgetaboutit. There's also the fact that we probably don't plan to stay in this house more than 4-6 years, and then I'd have to move the monstrosity again.

Back to a Zone VI or Beseler, the "real" 8x10 enlargers just aren't practical for me or many other people.

[atlcruiser]

I am not sure if 810 will rule the world but it sure rules my world. I have fallen hard for the big GG. 45 looks just TINY!

[John Kasaian]

I am not sure if 810 will rule the world but it sure rules my world. I have fallen hard for the big GG. 45 looks just TINY!

Just wait until your 8x10 contacts start to look intimate!:D

[atlcruiser]

I have now gotten and gotten rid of 2 11x14s. I know what will happen :)

I spent an afternoon with an 8x20. Barry @ deardorff will have NEW 12 x20 and 8 x 20 next year. They will be $$$$ but one will be mine even if I need to sell my liver

[Greg Blank]

If you need a bigger drum for that, I only will need your other kidney :D


I have now gotten and gotten rid of 2 11x14s. I know what will happen :)

I spent an afternoon with an 8x20. Bary @ deardorff will have NEW 12 x20 and 8 x 20 next year. They will be $$$$ but one will be mine even if I need to sell my liver