Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

[Michael Gaillard]

Hello again everyone,

A few days ago I posted a question regarding 8x10 camera choices. Now, after some fairly disappointing internet searching, I am starting to think it might not be worth it.

After thinking about it, I realize that there are so many more expenses that I had been blind to in my quest for a cool camera and lens... Namely, film cost, scanning cost (no more Imacon scanning, have to outsource drum scanning which, as you all know, is insanely expensive), etc, etc...

Of course, there is always the argument that there is nothing like an 8x10 negative, and there probably won't be a digital equivalent that is even remotely near my financial capability for some time.

Any thoughts on the longevity of 8x10 photography, film, and the merits of jumping in at this point when I've long since been immersed in a 4x5-exclusive practice would be greatly appreciated.

Maybe just renting whenever I need to shoot could suffice.

Thanks for humoring me and my ramblings.

[Vaughn]

Its a tool.

If it does the job you want done, then it is a sound investment.

I contact print in alt processes, thus it is the perfect tool for me. You have to decide what tools best fit your vision and needs.

Yes, there will be B&W 8x10 film into the foreseeable future. Color? I do not know what choices will remain.

[Pawlowski6132]

You don't mention it but, I assume you're already shooting film whether it's 35mm, MF or LF. I don't think ou incremental costs will be that much. You're already scanning your 4x5 (or something) right? So now your scanning 8x10 instead. Film? It's not that much more for 8x10.

[Michael Gaillard]

I am shooting film. Generally color. Then scanning on an imacon. I often print very large, and thus the 8x10's detail makes sense. The film is at least 4x as expensive per sheet, I believe... and the scanning difference is in the fact that I can rent use of an Imacon by the hour and get at least 10-15 scans done in that time for about 75 bucks. With a drum scan, if scanning for a 6 foot print, it can cost upwards of 400 per sheet of film. But perhaps I'm wrong. I had a sense that the incidental costs of an 8x10 practice far exceed those of a 4x5 practice.

[BarryS]

At this point, it falls into the realm of philosophical questions, since no one *needs* to shoot 8x10. Sure is fun, though. It's better look at it as a new medium and figure out how you might make it work, than a simple scaling up of everything you do in 4x5.

[Jay DeFehr]

If I didn't already have an 8x10 outfit (or two), I don't think I'd make the investment under current market conditions. There are almost always many paths to any destination, and sometimes the most direct, is not the most wise.

Even if you want to make large contact prints, you might be better off using a smaller capture format and making an enlarged negative, either digitally, or in the darkroom.

Using an in-camera negative to make a contact print is a very direct, and straightforward process, and I can't deny the appeal, but it imposes certain limitations, like any approach. I think Vaughn was right when he said, "You have to decide what tools best fit your vision and needs.", but I understand that can be difficult to do without hands on experience with the tools under consideration.

If there's any way you can test drive 8x10 without going to all the trouble of deciding what's best for you in the long term, I think it would answer many of your questions. I don't know where you're located, but if you're near Seattle, PM me, and we can work something out.

Good luck!

[Zaitz]

I certainly feel it is worth it. The size and weight is not an issue for me. The cost of the camera is the same. Lenses can be more expensive but there are deals to be had. What makes it all worth it for me is just how insanely big the 8x10 negative is. The gap between 8x10 and my dslr is gigantic. Since I do not care about the size/weight I like to use the largest camera I can. The troubles of 8x10 compared to 4x5 are nearly the same for me. My pack will end up weighing almost the same. The development is the same. And scanning is the same. The difference ends up being how insanely awesome the 8x10 negatives are and for not much more trouble - for me. The gap between my dslr and 4x5 is obviously there, just not close to the extent of 8x10.

Film costs are the only thing that bother me but I don't shoot enough to really care about that - 4x5 or 8x10.

[Sizam]

I went to the 8x10 mountain a year ago after having shot 4x5 off and on and I ultimately went back to 4x5 (sold all the 8x10 gear) because the cost in money and time per shot wasn't worth it for my desired output, its a hobby for me.

If, on the other hand, I were shooting professionally w/a 4x5 and planned on printing 6'+ prints I'd go to 8x10 in a heartbeat. I wouldn't shoot _everything_ in 8x10 though, I'd use a 8x10 and carry around a 4x5 reducing back, if the shot is worth it use 8x10 :) Just scann the 8x10s on your flatbed for reference and if you're printing big get it drum scanned, its not $400, dannyburk does 8x10 at 2000dpi (1.7GB) for $160 (if you do your own spotting).

http://www.dannyburk.com/drum_scanning.htm

[Michael Gaillard]

Well, I am in New York City, so I certainly can find some cameras to try, I'm sure. If anyone knows anyone who might have one lying around collecting dust in my vicinity, I would be infinitely grateful and willing to pay a fee, just not the 125/day fee that most rental outfits charge.

I am meticulous and careful with all my equipment, and would happily sign a waiver.

[Brian Ellis]

A digital equivalent "remotely near" your financial capability depends on what size print you want to make. If you're thinking in terms of multiples of feet - like 4, 5, or 6 foot prints you're right. But if you're talking about more normal size prints - e.g. 16x20, up to maybe 20x30 - a 21mpx digital camera used to maximize image quality (e.g. on a tripod, with cable release and mirror lock-up, excellent lens, etc.) certainly can do better than "remotely near." Not as good but closer than "remotely near."

I used 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 cameras for quite a long time and have used an excellent digital camera as well. For me 8x10 was "worth it" for more normal size prints only because it was a wonderfully enjoyable format to use. But if one doesn't get great pleasure simply from using it then IMHO 8x10 is pretty much a waste of time, money, and energy for normal size prints. The image quality from smaller formats is the same or so close the difference isn't worth talking about and it's obtained with far less time, money, and energy.

[jp]

If you want to use 8x10 just for better image quality over 4x5, it's probably an tough call based on diminishing returns. Good technique, film, and lenses on 4x5 could do a equal or better to compared to casually executed 8x10 shots.

I don't do 8x10 for image detail. I develop it at home and scan it on an epson v700 or contact print onto silver or alt-process materials (where it wouldn't matter if I was using 100 speed film or 3200 speed film.) I chose to have 8x10 gear along with 4x5 in order to use big old lenses that don't fit 4x5 cameras, and also to use big old cameras in a manner close to how they'd originally have been used.

It also fun to have some big negatives for contact printing. I suppose eventually, I'll make big digital negatives from 4x5, but for now, it's easier to spend the extra 15 minutes setting up a bigger camera than to deal with my inkjet printer, two computers, and scanner.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yup... and it's no trouble.

[Roger Cole]

With very few exceptions, nothing is really worth the trouble. Do it anyway. If we didn't, we wouldn't get out of bed. ;)

I've mulled over the same question, actually. For me, it isn't an imminent decision because I don't have my 4x5 and MF (or even 35mm but that's not so expensive to complete) gear to where I want it to be. Once I round out those kits...maybe.

Since my main interest would be black and white, and I'd probably NEVER spend the money to shoot 8x10 color even supposing it's an alternative by then, I'm not too concerned about film costs. It's expensive, but given the speed of shooting a few sheets not prohibitively so for me. In my case the problem is optically enlarging the negatives. As awesome as 8x10 contact prints undeniably can be, they are still just 8x10s. I can make exquisite 16x20s from my 4x5 negs and if I wanted to go bigger all I need is a larger easel and some trays or pans big enough for the paper (and the paper.) I'm not really interested in scanning and outputting digitally, or maybe I should say I'm not very interested. It's handy, but this is a hobby for me and it's not really something that interests me enough to be doing it a lot for fun, though I will probably get a V700 or V750. That's fine for the sizes I'd want to print, but not for your 6' prints.

If I stumble on a Beseler or Zone VI enlarger with the 8x10 heads at the right price, that would be more likely to drive me to jump to 8x10 than deciding to go 8x10 then making contact prints while looking for those. Things like Elmwood enlargers are give away items, but are just too big to move and install - and I expect to sell the house and move in maybe 4-5 years and don't want to move a beast like that nor leave it for someone, even supposing I found one locally and could get it here.

It just seems that it's a huge jump in complications and hassle factor and not much jump in quality for my "up to 16x20" printing. But it sure is appealing just the same! :D

[John Kasaian]

just do it.

[John Conway]

Just do it. If you enjoy 4x5 then I think you will like 8x10 as well. The attraction for me was the look of 8x10, mainly black and white portraiture. To me there is nothing like it,even 4x5, no matter how good the equipment, has a different look. My first 8x10 images were portrait shots of my son. When I picked up the contacts from the lab, I was blown away. And of course that big ground glass is such a pleasure compared to 4x5. Go for it.

[Drew Wiley]

Think of 8x10 as a marriage rather than a fling. If you are committed to it, it can be
tremendously rewarding. View cameras are view cameras, and transferring 4x5 technique to 8x10 is technically easy. But you will look at things differently, and that
is where the magic is. Film and scanning expense will obviously go way up - just comes
with the territory. Certain films will cease to exist, but it is probable that some high
quality chrome as well as color neg offering will be around for awhile. Black and white film, no problem. No risk, no gain. If you can't dive all the way in, I'd recommend 4X5.

[Scott Walker]

8x10 means big and heavy, and expensive, and difficult and expensive to travel with, and requires a bigger heavier tripod, and it sucks so much to pack one up the side of a mountain, and the film is more difficult to handle, and the film holders are big and heavy and take up way too much room, and once you set the camera up and have a look through the ground glass, none of that matters. :D

Your costs in time, effort, and money in capturing an image are substantial and developing the film is more difficult, costly, and in turn, more stressful than with smaller formats, but once you hold that developed negative in your hands, none of that matters. :D

Weather you get your negatives scanned or you equip a darkroom for enlarging 8x10 negatives it is more expensive than for smaller formats. If you never plan on printing anything larger than 11x14 it might be difficult to outweigh the cons, but if you are.....

[John Kasaian]

8x10 means big and heavy, and expensive, and difficult and expensive to travel with, and requires a bigger heavier tripod, and it sucks so much to pack one up the side of a mountain, and the film is more difficult to handle, and the film holders are big and heavy and take up way too much room, and once you set the camera up and have a look through the ground glass, none of that matters. :D

Your costs in time, effort, and money in capturing an image are substantial and developing the film is more difficult, costly, and in turn, more stressful than with smaller formats, but once you hold that developed negative in your hands, none of that matters. :D

Weather you get your negatives scanned or you equip a darkroom for enlarging 8x10 negatives it is more expensive than for smaller formats. If you never plan on printing anything larger than 11x14 it might be difficult to outweigh the cons, but if you are.....

There are pretty light 8x10s out there (considering they are 8x10s) Film holders are bigger and heavier but a changing bag is not (and you'll get very good at not wasting film if you shoot 8x10, so the numbers of film holders you'll need will diminish) An 8x10 field camera isn't all that much slower than a 4x5 to set up and if you really want speed, what would you be doing messing with a field camera anyway? True, the tripod needs to be heavier to support an 8x10, I'll give you that, and film is more expensive as well as the chemicals, but Arista .eduUltra is about $2/sheet the last time I looked, x-ray film around .60 cents (?) Process your film in a prcessor and you chemical useage goes way down even if you do a "one shot" method. Print chemicals are little different in volume than 4x5---you're filling 11x14 trays instead of 8x10 or 5x7 trays---big deal.
You can even find old Elwood enlargers for not much loot or... built one! Ansel Adams could do it, then so can you. Thats part of the fun of 8x10!
Look, you've already establshed that you are interested enough to give the jump up in size serious thought. Just do it.

[jeroldharter]

Just do it. I think if you are the sort of person wondering about making prints that large, and thinking about maximizing detail, then you are exactly the kind of person who should try 8x10.

I don't agree complately that it is so expensive. For 8x10, i have a narrower array of lenses than 4x5 so the cost for lenses is about the same. My camera (Wehman) costs less than half of my 4x5 (Arca Swiss). Add ~$250 for a larger tripod and head. Film holders are expensive but i use half as many. Film costs 4x as much as 4x5 but i shoot about 1/3 as much film so that tends to even out also. For me, the costs are roughly the same as 4x5.

Also, if you are spending $400 just to scan a negative, the cost of the kit and film will round off to zero eventually.

[Drew Wiley]

It's a relative. Someone shooting a 16x20 or 20X24 camera would probably consider
8x10 inexpensive and highly portable. And relative to 4x5, 8x10 is expensive, esp in
color. Once you start printing yourself, an 8x10 color enlarger is a lot more expensive
proposition than something suited just for b&w. And 8x10 drum scans can cost a lot
more. But just how many shots does one need to print??

[Michael Gaillard]

Just do it!! Many bits of sage advice above, folks. I was certainly leaning toward diving in, and the hesitation was the same hesitation I feel when I'm about to make any substantial purchase, regardless of the pleasure and enrichment that often follows... and this particular instance I am certain will result in much of that. I remember the first time I stood behind the ground glass in 4x5, and it is why I still stand there. I'm sure when I'm behind my very own 8x10 window, I will feel something akin to that initial thrill.

Love to hear more thoughts, but for now, I've decided to do it. Why not?

[Drew Bedo]

Is it worth the trouble? Only you can answer that question. If you have to ask—you won't understand.

Diving in—I am on my third 8x10 camera now. Bought an Empire in the ninties, Swapped/traded/bought an Ansco a few years later and now own a Kodak 2-D. Lense(s)? Have had a few; some with shutters, some without. I now have an adapter lensboard that allows me to swap some of the lenses I use on my 4x5 onto the 2-D. Film holders . . .pretty much the same story. Started out with a 4x5 reducing back till I got a couple of worn-out 8x10s. Now Ive got 5 prestine film holders, enought to empty a box of film. Currently, I'm on the lookout for glass plate holders so I can do some ambrotypes.

But DIVING in? do what you can—ungtill you can do what you want, then do that.

Best wishes in whatever you choose to do . . .let us know how it turns out.

[Michael Gaillard]

DIVING IN!!! thank you everyone. My hesitation was more a matter of my incapacity to make large purchases than any real anxiety of a disappointment to follow. You have all helped me to realize that.

[Mark Woods]

I have a 1967 Deardorff and a Besler 8x10 enlarger. I absolutely love them. I also have a Chaimoix 11x14 that I really really like. It doesn't go off the property. The Deardorff lives in a back pack with lenses and the stuff needed to make an exposure. I only shoot B&W. And only print photo chemically. Much easier and more satisfying to me. And cheaper than the digital stuff. I teach these workflows for motion pictures, but am not interested in doing this for stills. Lately I've been split toning and having my digital friends asking me, "What the heck are you doing?????"

[r.e.]

Well, I am in New York City, so I certainly can find some cameras to try, I'm sure. If anyone knows anyone who might have one lying around collecting dust in my vicinity, I would be infinitely grateful and willing to pay a fee, just not the 125/day fee that most rental outfits charge.

I am meticulous and careful with all my equipment, and would happily sign a waiver.

Given that you're in New York, if you want to try an Arca 8x10, no sweat, send me a personal message. It's an F-line Classic, happy to let you give it a whirl.

[Alan Gales]

Wow! :eek: Take r.e. up on his offer. The Arca Swiss F-line Classic is one of the greatest cameras ever made!!!

[urs0polar]

Sounds like you want to go digital with scanning. So, get an Epson V700/V750 and use that for scans, only send the important ones to be drum scanned.

I got into 8x10, and yeah, it's a whole new experience. And it is more expensive, no question.

I'm an amateur in every sense of the word with this stuff, so please take the following with a grain of salt, but it's been my experience.

As for practical resolution considerations, unless you are willing to spend big bucks, I think it can be difficult to realize the full advantage of 8x10, so in my opinion, it's best not to move to the format solely for that reason.

Personally, I have a Nikon 9000 and an Epson V700. I have my 4 "high-res" film cameras: Mamiya 7, Linhof Tech V 4x5, Linhof Kardan GT 4x5, and Sinar P2 8x10.

The Nikon 9000 can only handle the Mamiya 7 of this lineup and produces ~4000 ppi. The Epson V700, with a betterscanning holder, can handle the 4x5 and 8x10. With 4x5, I can use the better scan lens of the V700, so I can get the full ~2400 ppi that the scanner is capable of. For 8x10, it has to use the other scan lens of the V700, giving me 1600 ppi tops.

So, in practical terms with my setup, and it's obvious from the scans, the Mamiya 7 scans have more resolution than the 4x5. The 8x10 is still better, but not by as much as you'd think because the lenses I can afford for 8x10 don't have a ton of resolution to begin with, and even if they did, the scanner is the limit. It's really an eye-opener how much better of a scanner the Nikon 9000 is compared to anything that normal people can afford to scan 8x10 on. The V700 is very good, but it's not an Imacon. My friend JohnNYC gets incredibly nice scans with his V700/V750 setup, but I'm not sure if he would do 6 foot prints from them (though I haven't asked him this specifically).

In reality, if I were ready to throw all of my non-existent funds into this (instead of just *most* of them lol), I would be saving up for an IQSmart 3 as that's really the best bet without buying a drum scanner, which will not fit into my NYC apartment -- and to be honest, drum scanning takes a ton of time, smelly liquid, and steep learning curve. A working, reliable IQSmart 3, maybe a bulb replacement, etc etc, is starting to take a decent chunk out of the cost of that digital back. And whatever you use as a capture-to-digital process (scanning or digi back), the camera itself is the cheapest part of the chain in the long (and often short) run.

In my roundabout way, all I'm trying to say is that chasing the resolution fairy is going to be very expensive no matter which route you take: analog, scanning, digital capture, whatever. It's 4x the price per shot, but is probably more than 4x the cost to get 4x the performance you are seeing now with 4x5/Imacon. I will admit that resolution is why I was first interested in LF -- that thought of "Hey, I'm pretty smart: I can use LF film and a scanner and blow away all those DSLR weenies, and since this is a hobby, who cares if I have to scan first" (I convinced myself that resolution wasn't primarily what I was after, but let's be honest...). Then as I got into it, I realized that in reality, LF has the movements, the big ground glass, and the grainless look from film, and 8x10 definitely has that special look to it, and it's just cool to have this massive contraption with wheels and levers and stuff. I love it, but it's GAS. lol.

I realize you would like to print to 6 feet or whatever, so if that's really your goal, I would try to make a giant print like that with what you have now. Not just think about it and pixel peep on your monitor, but actually do it. If you already have, and you found that you absolutely need more than what you have now to do what you do, then by all means, you really have no choice if that's your desired result and you can't afford an IQ180.

If you in reality just want to try 8x10 and see if it's a cool way of working, then jump in as everyone is suggesting! I don't regret it at all even though it wasn't exactly as I thought initially -- and that's an understatement.

Another thing: I have one of the heaviest / most awkward 8x10 setups there is, but it's WAAY bigger than the 4x5 stuff. The camera is 20 pounds without a lens. It gets minimally disassembled and put in a large pelican case (I have the 1640). Overall, with everything (Metering back, 2 lenses (one a 360/4.5), dark cloth, 3 film holders, Sinar Probe, etc) , I just weighed it, it's 66.4 pounds. Yeah, I weighed it again, still the same. And that's without the tripod which I carry in a separate soft case. Obviously, a 8x10 field camera is much much lighter. But to get a good one (Wehman, for instance), it's more expensive, and approaching the cost of a used very nice scanner that can handle 4x5 (IQSmart, Imacon, etc).

To sum up, after this wild and magical journey, my advice is, if you want lots of resolution cheaply, get a Mamiya 7 :) But then again, you're never going to know about 8x10 unless you try it, so go for it!

Good luck!

[r.e.]

For me, the whole point of 8x10 is to do contact prints and thereby get away from enlargers and scanning/Photoshop except in cases where there is a compelling reason to make a larger print than 8x10.

I agree that the Mamiya 7 is a great camera, and I own one, but it leads directly back to the scanning/Photoshop business.

[Allen in Montreal]

......., I am starting to think it might not be worth it.

.

8x10 is a classic love hate relationship if ever there was one! :) :)

[urs0polar]

For me, the whole point of 8x10 is to do contact prints and thereby get away from enlargers and scanning/Photoshop except in cases where there is a compelling reason to make a larger print than 8x10.

I agree that the Mamiya 7 is a great camera, and I own one, but it leads directly back to the scanning/Photoshop business.

R.E.,

I think you are absolutely right. Scanning is awful -- time consuming and nitpicky. My Mamiya 7 suggestion is a little tongue-in-cheek, but if you are going the scanning route, it really is the price/performance king IMO, which is funny to me in a way.

[Ben Syverson]

If you're never going to print an image, then shoot with a cellphone. Seriously, they're great now. I sell a pretty good app, and it costs 1/3 the price of one sheet of 8x10 Portra.

If you want to print, you face some real questions. I think it's sad that 8x10 is considered "out of the question" for many, when it's often exactly what is required.

Mamiya 7? I have some nice prints from it, but I wouldn't go way larger than 16x20 in color. Even then, it's at my personal limit.

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots. But in color, I wouldn't push it much past 20x24. In general, you can't enlarge 4x5 as much as Mamiya shots, because of the lenses.

If you want to go larger than 20x24 (on a large wall, 20x24 can look absolutely tiny), 8x10 starts to make a lot of sense... Given that you can pick up a workable 8x10 setup for under $500, you should just try it.

You don't need a drum scanner, you don't need the BEST camera. Get a beater 8x10, slap your negative on an Epson, scan at 1200 DPI, and you have a fantastically sharp 115 MP image with no grain. Seize the day, have some fun, and shoot a ton of color film while you still can.

[timparkin]

If you're never going to print an image, then shoot with a cellphone. Seriously, they're great now. I sell a pretty good app, and it costs 1/3 the price of one sheet of 8x10 Portra.

If you want to print, you face some real questions. I think it's sad that 8x10 is considered "out of the question" for many, when it's often exactly what is required.

Mamiya 7? I have some nice prints from it, but I wouldn't go way larger than 16x20 in color. Even then, it's at my personal limit.

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots. But in color, I wouldn't push it much past 20x24. In general, you can't enlarge 4x5 as much as Mamiya shots, because of the lenses.

If you want to go larger than 20x24 (on a large wall, 20x24 can look absolutely tiny), 8x10 starts to make a lot of sense... Given that you can pick up a workable 8x10 setup for under $500, you should just try it.

You don't need a drum scanner, you don't need the BEST camera. Get a beater 8x10, slap your negative on an Epson, scan at 1200 DPI, and you have a fantastically sharp 115 MP image with no grain. Seize the day, have some fun, and shoot a ton of color film while you still can.

Agreed - I've drum scanned neg on an epson v750 and can't tell the difference in resolution between that and my drum scanner. And using neg film, it's difficult to tell the difference in tonality too (although there is a difference). So shooting 8x10 will mean having a cheaper and quicker scanner.

4x5 on an Epson is fine although chromes won't be as nice to scan (halation, lack of dmax etc), negatives scan very well though.

I've recently run a big test comparing 8x10, 4x5, medium format, IQ180 digital etc and the interesting finding was that if you use the equivalent of f/32 on 4x5 and f/64 on 8x10 you get the same depth of field but because of diffraction the resolution increase for 8x10 is not much at all, maybe 10-15%. It is only when you shoot 10x8 at f/16 or thereabouts that the extra resolution really shows (which is the depth of field equivalent of f/2 on a 35mm camera).

All of that said, I own an 8x10 and a 4x5 and use both. The 4x5 is the workhorse though..

Tim

[mortensen]

There is also an in-between road called stitching - it won't give you the feel of handling an 8x10 (something I have yet to experience), but it will give you some of the resolution. Any monorail and even some of the Ebony's + lenses with large image circles (Rodenstock Grandagon/Sironar-S ranges and Schneider's XL-range) will let you do 5x8" or even 4x10" stitches. You get all the benefits of 4x5", but it of course requires a more or less all digital workflow. The drawback is you don't get the whole picture on your ground glass and thus have rely on a slightly crippled framing experience. I only use this method occasionally with my 4x5, but it is sure nice to have the ability.

I personally also have the desire to try 8x10, though (which is why its nice to read this thread)

[Riccis]

Dive in!!! I have only been shooting 8x10 for less than a year but I am in love with the negatives and I am getting ready to start printing big.

Yes, it is heavy but as already stated once you get your negs, you forget all about the weight. I have already taken mine on some of my international trips and will continue doing this.

Another benefit, IMHO, is the completely different approach to shooting 135 or 120. Everything slows down and I find the experience very enjoyable.

Expensive? I actually don't feel it is that much more $. Yes, I am paying $150 for a drum scan but I am only scanning the absolute best images I can make and my portrait sessions are usually less than 4 shots, but 4 or less very satisfying shots... Less is always more for me.

I can't wait to print all of these images... It's all about the print folks, it is our job to ensure the photographic print does not become a thing of the past and what better way to show this than through images shot on 8x10.

http://www.riccisblog.com/images/content/augusta.jpg

http://www.riccisblog.com/images/content/luisa-deardorff-contact.jpg

http://www.riccisblog.com/images/content/josefina.jpg

http://www.riccisblog.com/images/content/Poor-Penny-Carson-Portrait.jpg

Cheers,

[Bill_1856]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

[Ben Syverson]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

That's complete nonsense, but believe what you like. Film is the ultimate origination medium, whether you're printing digitally or traditionally.

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

Why?

[willwilson]

I too have toiled over this question. I love 4x5 and like you was always tempted by 8x10. I was convinced that I needed to be shooting 8x10. I mean why shoot anything but the best right? Well after purchasing the gear and an enlarger. I am officially cold on 8x10. Contact prints are great, but 8x10 is a small print. Enlargements are also great but I must say not significantly better than 4x5. You really need a top flight setup to produce a negative that is superior to 4x5 in a way that justifies the added expense and trouble of 8x10.

That said, I still have my 8x10 gear and have been thinking cranking it back up. You can't beat the simplicity of contact printing. My suggestion would be to give it a go or it will always bother you, especially if you want to print big.

[Riccis]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

I will respectfully disagree with this statement, but of course, we are all entitled to our own opinions.

Cheers!

[John NYC]

If you're going to scan and print digitally, it simply doesn't make any sense to shoot film, no matter what size.

It does for me. I want the pictures to have the smooth color tonality of 8x10, but to be able to use a digital post production workflow. And I want to be able to print much larger than I could with any digital camera than I can afford.

[mortensen]

It does for me. I want the pictures to have the smooth color tonality of 8x10, but to be able to use a digital post production workflow. And I want to be able to print much larger than I could with any digital camera than I can afford.

+1... and thats precisely why a lot of us went from digital to film: The best of both worlds, please :)

[tgtaylor]

... I am officially cold on 8x10. Contact prints are great, but 8x10 is a small print.

I use to think the same thing until I went to an Ed Weston exhibition where more than a hundred were on display with the correct lighting. They they didn't seem so small to me and in fact appeared to be the perfect size for display on a wall. With the correct lighting you can step back and really enjoy them even if you don't particularly care for the image

Thomas

[Jim Galli]

Why does someone get into a Model A Ford and drive 7500 miles? There are certainly many many more efficient alternatives to a 1931 Ford. No one does that without some amount of romantic inclination that they are going to experience something on a different plane than what everyone else is experiencing. Someone may force themselves to tolerate 48 mph, poor brakes, grease jobs every 500 miles, oil changes every 1500, mechanical failures, laughable headlights, uncomfortable seating, vibrations, noise, no cabin heat etc. Why??

The parallel is obvious. Why would you bother with an 8X10 if 24 megapixels is going to satisfy your customer?

From my perspective up in the cheap seats what an 8X10 can provide that 24 mp cannot is brute force through antique lenses that have depth of field and sharpness ~ through soft glowing highlight, ie. signature that can ONLY be obtained by that troublesome combination.

If all I was after was sharp detailed documents, I wouldn't waste 1 minute on 8X10.

Color? From an 8X10??? fuggedaboudit

[eddie]

Why does someone get into a Model A Ford and drive 7500 miles?

to come visit me?!?!??:eek: :p

when will you arrive?



to the OP: get the 8x10 already....i got some cool lenses u can play with....come on up.

[gary mulder]

Is 8x10 worth the trouble???

YES

[John NYC]

The parallel is obvious. Why would you bother with an 8X10 if 24 megapixels is going to satisfy your customer?

Color? From an 8X10??? fuggedaboudit

You wouldn't use 8x10 if you only want 24 megapixels. But you get somewhere north of 100MP (effectively) with a scanned 8x10 film, and yes, I mean color. It's pretty easy, too.

[Jim Galli]

You wouldn't use 8x10 if you only want 24 megapixels. But you get somewhere north of 100MP (effectively) with a scanned 8x10 film, and yes, I mean color. It's pretty easy, too.

Blarney. Like comparing 625 horsepower to 1100. Who cares.

[urs0polar]

Blarney. Like comparing 625 horsepower to 1100. Who cares.

he who needs/wants a higher top speed cares.

[cdholden]

Blarney. Like comparing 625 horsepower to 1100. Who cares.

the person with the car that "only" has 550hp

[Brian C. Miller]

Blarney. Like comparing 625 horsepower to 1100. Who cares.


the person with the car that "only" has 550hp

So is ULF like the Avenger (http://www.avengerracing.com/) monster truck?

DRIVER: Jim Koehler
BODY: 1957 Chevy Bel Air
CHASSIS: Custom built by Avenger Racing in 2008
ENGINE: Blown 575 Chevrolet Big Block
HORSEPOWER: 1,800
HEIGHT: 12 feet wide, 10 feet tall
WEIGHT: 9,500 pounds
TIRES: 66 Inch GoodYear 6 Ply Terra Tire
SHOCKS: Nitrogen Charged Stage 2, Front 26" and Rears 26"
TRANSMISSION: Coan/Bewick Turbo 400 transmission
TRANSFER CASE: Profab Quick Change
WHEELBASE: 138"
WHEELS: Allen Pezo racing wheels
AXLES: Custom fabrication Rockwell F-106s

Back on topic, why 8x10? Because it's fabulous. My avatar image comes from clouds reflected in an old window. The image, on Ilford Delta 100, is less than 1/2 the size of a Minox negative, from an 8x10 sheet. The lens used is a Wollensak 6-1/4 (159mm), made in the mid-1930s. I can literally count grass blades in the picture. Yes, it's bigger. It makes a 4x5 seem so dainty and manageable. Yes, I have to use a big tripod, and I haul it on a small cart. But for me, it's definitely worth it.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 & contacts is my current modus. I do have an elderly Elwood enlarger in storage. For B&W stuff it is all I need for 95% of what I do and I must say that I really enjoy working with the 8x10. YMMV of course,but if you've got the itch to shoot 8x10, the only way you'll know for sure if its for you is to try it out.
Go for it!

[Jim Andrada]

Funny - For some strange reason I tend to operate on a "bigger camera=smaller print" basis

I started in LF 40 years ago with a Linhof 5 x 7 that I still have and recently got a 4x5 outfit AND an 8 x 10. For me I think it boils down to seeing differently with different cameras and doing different kinds of photos and different sized prints. I happily make 16 x 20 from my Canon 5D digital but with the big cameras I really don't print very large - because I'm after different effects with the big cameras. With the bigger cameras I tend to want to explore textures and tonalities and with the 5D I look more for the dramatic. Different ways of seeing, different ways of working, different objective with the prints.

[John NYC]

Blarney. Like comparing 625 horsepower to 1100. Who cares.

Then why don't you just hook up a 3" petzval to a medium format camera yourself and stop taking LF and ULF pictures? I sense a bit of trolling here -- you use 8x10 for your own reasons. Yet you want to say those are the only valid ones?

[John Kasaian]

Then why don't you just hook up a 3" petzval to a medium format camera yourself and stop taking LF and ULF pictures? I sense a bit of trolling here -- you use 8x10 for your own reasons. Yet you want to say those are the only valid ones?
Huh?
I don't think thats what Jim was saying.:confused:

[Jim Galli]

Don't need to get all bent out of shape and call me a troll John. I guess I'm entitled to my opinions. I'm simply saying if I had a customer that required standard sharp color photographs, 8X10 would not be the tool I'd pick.

[Roger Cole]

Why? Because you want to and you CAN! If both those are true, go for it.

[Brian C. Miller]

I'm simply saying if I had a customer that required standard sharp color photographs, 8X10 would not be the tool I'd pick.

Hey! Don't tell that to the boxes of 8x10 color that I just bought! You could hurt their feelings!

How about this:
You: This is an 8x10. This is what an 8x10 does.
Customer: Cool! I want that in color.

OK, now what?

[Jim Galli]

OK, now what?

I'll tell them there's a nut in Washington that's doing that, and send 'em up. :D

[John Kasaian]

I think 8x10 defies modernity. Reason enough?

[Darin Boville]

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots.

My favorite line in this thread. :)

--Darin

[Robert Jonathan]

I personally don't flatbed scan anything, and don't own a flatbed. I just save the good ones for pro drum scanning, and I know that 4x5 chromes made with good lenses at "sharp" apertures, drum scanned, can make bigger, better prints than a Mamiya 7. :)

But other than that, Ben is right.

If you want to do it all at home, from neg to digital, and you want pretty freakin' awesome digital files from your flatbed, you're going to enjoy shooting 8x10.

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.


If you're never going to print an image, then shoot with a cellphone. Seriously, they're great now. I sell a pretty good app, and it costs 1/3 the price of one sheet of 8x10 Portra.

If you want to print, you face some real questions. I think it's sad that 8x10 is considered "out of the question" for many, when it's often exactly what is required.

Mamiya 7? I have some nice prints from it, but I wouldn't go way larger than 16x20 in color. Even then, it's at my personal limit.

4x5 is a fun format, ideal for snapshots. But in color, I wouldn't push it much past 20x24. In general, you can't enlarge 4x5 as much as Mamiya shots, because of the lenses.

If you want to go larger than 20x24 (on a large wall, 20x24 can look absolutely tiny), 8x10 starts to make a lot of sense... Given that you can pick up a workable 8x10 setup for under $500, you should just try it.

You don't need a drum scanner, you don't need the BEST camera. Get a beater 8x10, slap your negative on an Epson, scan at 1200 DPI, and you have a fantastically sharp 115 MP image with no grain. Seize the day, have some fun, and shoot a ton of color film while you still can.

[James Morris]

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.

Mike Stacey's are pretty amazing.

[georgl]

Yes, 8x10 is several times more expensive than 4x5
Yes, 8x10 is heavier and more difficult to push to it's limits (stability, diffraction...)

Nevertheless, I decided for 8x10!

Why? Because there are systems which are far more convenient, cheaper, faster and versatile than 4x5 or even medium format. 8x10 is unique - that's the point for me. I take 99% of my images digital or with 35mm - when I want to deal with the problems of sheet film I want to get really big slides and negatives in reward!

I wonder why there are so few 100% crops on the net? Recently I made my first 8x10 slides and tested my scanner:
Sinar F + Schneider 150XL @ f22 and 4s with Provia 100F scanned dry with an Eversmart ProII @ 2000ppi (that's over 300MP - after that, OXYgen and my Mac collapses...) The tiny red box on the left-hand-side shows the position of the right 100% crop.

I had a hard time focusing (the screen is extremely dim), it was windy and the Sinar isn't a very rigid camera (cheap plastic front) - nevertheless, IMHO I don't think it's difficult getting sharp results from a 300MP-scan - grain, film flatness or diffraction? No serious issue at this level of enlargement (but an Eversmart even below 2000ppi is in fact much cleaner, contrastier and sharper than any Epson at any resolution, though).

[federico9001]

It does worth for sure

[Leigh]

I think it is, otherwise I wouldn't shoot it.

I have a full range of systems at my disposal from Nikon 35mm through 4x5 and 8x10 (studio and field).

The 8x10 format is my go-to when I want absolutely best quality, no excuses, no fudging.

- Leigh

[Richard Rau]

I shoot multiple formats and usually take them all when I go out for a couple of weeks at a time: 2 1/4, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. A photographer friend once asked me, "how do you know what format to choose for what subject?" Since I shoot mostly B&W landscapes, I thought that was a pretty darn good question and kind of left me stumped for a logical answer. I suppose 90% of the time I like to shoot 5x7. It's almost twice as large as 4x5, a wee bit less than half the size of 8x10, and anything blown up to 20x24 looks awesome. Plus it is about half the cost or more than 8x10 film. If there is a scene with a lot of weather, atmosphere, awesome light, something that is just screaming for a big neg, I'll grab the 8x10 ... if it just feels "right!" Those moments are very rare indeed for me. Yet, if things (the weather, clouds, and light) are happening really fast and I can't react fast enough, I'll grab the Hasse and get it on 2 1/4, rather than let something get away. Ansel's "Moon over Halfdome" was captured on 2 1/4 with a Hasse, and it's one of his most compelling images. For detail studies of rocks, trees and water, general landscape scenes, I suppose the larger you can shoot with, the less compromises you have with quality, no mater whether you just contact print, or make really big prints. It's a very subjective question, and for me, in those very rare instances, 8x10 is definitely worth it.

[John Kasaian]

Sure is.

[dsphotog]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

[E. von Hoegh]

I shoot multiple formats and usually take them all when I go out for a couple of weeks at a time: 2 1/4, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. A photographer friend once asked me, "how do you know what format to choose for what subject?" Since I shoot mostly B&W landscapes, I thought that was a pretty darn good question and kind of left me stumped for a logical answer. I suppose 90% of the time I like to shoot 5x7. It's almost twice as large as 4x5, a wee bit less than half the size of 8x10, and anything blown up to 20x24 looks awesome. Plus it is about half the cost or more than 8x10 film. If there is a scene with a lot of weather, atmosphere, awesome light, something that is just screaming for a big neg, I'll grab the 8x10 ... if it just feels "right!" Those moments are very rare indeed for me. Yet, if things (the weather, clouds, and light) are happening really fast and I can't react fast enough, I'll grab the Hasse and get it on 2 1/4, rather than let something get away. Ansel's "Moon over Halfdome" was captured on 2 1/4 with a Hasse, and it's one of his most compelling images. For detail studies of rocks, trees and water, general landscape scenes, I suppose the larger you can shoot with, the less compromises you have with quality, no mater whether you just contact print, or make really big prints. It's a very subjective question, and for me, in those very rare instances, 8x10 is definitely worth it.

Really?

[Ben Syverson]

Ben, I've seen some of your full-size shots on Flickr, and I think you have the best 8x10 flatbed scans on Flickr, and possibly, on the ENTIRE interweb (seriously). And those are only like, 20MP, probably because you can't post the full-size to Flickr, but I haven't seen anyone else with the same quality as yours.
Thanks, Robert! Somehow I missed this in January. I'm not doing anything unusual in my scanning, so I'm sure my scans are merely some of the biggest, not the best. :) You should check out John NYC's Flickr stream for some truly epic 8x10 scans.

One of the best things about 8x10 is how easy it is to scan. With MF or 35mm, you need a very well controlled workflow, because any mistakes are magnified so much. 4x5 is much easier, and 8x10 is four times easier than 4x5!

[John Kasaian]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.
:D

[Scott Walker]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

So true :D :D

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Yet, if things (the weather, clouds, and light) are happening really fast and I can't react fast enough, I'll grab the Hasse and get it on 2 1/4, rather than let something get away. Ansel's "Moon over Halfdome" was captured on 2 1/4 with a Hasse, and it's one of his most compelling images.

I find Clearing Winter Storm, which was shot on 8X10 with a Cooke Convertible, to be far more compelling than Moon Over Halfdome. I have never seen a print of Moon Over Halfdome but the books, posters and web images I have seen are drab and dull by comparison.

[federico9001]

personally I found out that the 11x14" format is really something special: transportability + amazing spatiality and 3d look (even much more than the 8x10" format)

[sethlatimer]

I think moonrise hernandez what shot with 8x10.
http://www.anseladams.com/Articles.asp?ID=145
Seth

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Chick magnet for me is my 14x17! I love my 8x10. I shoot nothing but 8x10 and up so the 8x10 is like a point and shoot. An 8x10 contact print is beautiful. Nicely printed, framed and presented I think they look great. My most used format.

[Michael Kadillak]

Chick magnet for me is my 14x17! I love my 8x10. I shoot nothing but 8x10 and up so the 8x10 is like a point and shoot. An 8x10 contact print is beautiful. Nicely printed, framed and presented I think they look great. My most used format.

Absolutely well stated. My experience mirrors yours exactly. Many will find the description of 8x10 as a point and shoot camera as whacky but all you have to do is spend a week working with ULF and that is the conclusion you inherently arrive at.

Great format with excellent optics available along with sheet film.

[Richard Rau]

Well, E. von Hoegh, you caught me at the quick, had my heart racing when you punctuated my quote in extreme large fonts for all to see, (oh oh, I could be wrong, I'm only human after all, and I do make mistakes. so no problem really!) And yet, I think you missed the whole point of what I was trying to convey. If the subject matter is strong enough, and you capture the image with a camera and the print is well executed, and the result is compelling, and you recognize that at that moment, and at the time, you know you captured something fairly significant, does it matter what large format you used, as long as you executed it perfectly? I personally don't think it does, as long as you got THE shot! That is not to take away from the fact that as I think most of us agree, 8x10 is worth it.


Non the less, Michael Adams does explains how Ansel photographed "Moon over Half Dome" in this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vzIYQkE0_E

[dsphotog]

I just bought an 11x14 'cause 8x10 wasn't enough trouble.

[Darin Boville]

Consider stitching with a digital DSLR. Seriously. People here will pout but consider:

The resolution is very high, can easily exceed 8x10.

It is far less costly.

The slowness of the shooting is in a way akin to 4x5/8x10 and rewards thinking about a potential image rather than just pointing and shooting.

99% of what LF photographers shoot is static and is easily photographed via stitching.

Almost ever time I start to shoot a project with a 4x5/8x10 I end up switching to digital stitching.

--Darin

[Brian C. Miller]

Consider stitching with a digital DSLR. Seriously.

But the perspective is sooooo far off, it isn't funny! Try a wide lens on an 8x10, like a 160mm or shorter, and then do the same scene on a stitched image. It is so different, it's just not funny. Or maybe it is funny, depending on your sense of humor.

There are so many things that can change the course of operating a scanning back, let alone a massive capture for stitching, that I'll always go for 8x10.

[Ben Syverson]

I have a GigaPan, and it's true that it can absolutely blow 8x10 out of the water. If you change the projection to rectilinear, it can look just like a wide angle shot from any format.

However, you need to choose the right subject. Anything that moves, even slowly, can cause problems in stitching. I've had problems with a shot that included slow moving clouds. Another shot has ghosting in the leaves of a tree, even though there was no wind.

The #1 ideal scenario for the GigaPan is a nighttime architectural interior. However, it's actually faster to shoot a sheet of 4x5, and much easier to work with. It's rare that you need a 2 gigapixel image for any reason other than novelty.

[goamules]

Consider stitching with a digital DSLR. ...
Almost ever time I start to shoot a project with a 4x5/8x10 I end up switching to digital stitching.

--Darin

Almost every time I think about switching to digital stitching, I smash one of my family's digital cameras with an 1870s ball peen hammer. The "trouble" of shooting 8x10 or wetplate or anything the traditional way is a major part of the experience.

[Brian Ellis]

But the perspective is sooooo far off, it isn't funny! Try a wide lens on an 8x10, like a 160mm or shorter, and then do the same scene on a stitched image. It is so different, it's just not funny. Or maybe it is funny, depending on your sense of humor.

There are so many things that can change the course of operating a scanning back, let alone a massive capture for stitching, that I'll always go for 8x10.

I don't know how you're using the term "perspective" here but it's certainly not inherently impossible to duplicate an image made with a wide angle lens on an 8x10 camera with a stitched image. In fact as a general proposition it's quite easy. What exactly are you talking about when you say "the perspective is sooooo far off it isn't funny?"

[Brian C. Miller]

The perspective is that of a rotating panoramic camera, not a rectilinear lens.

[poliweb]

I have been making stitched photos using digital on and off. You certainly can stitch to create a rectilinear image, the same as, say, a 165 SA on 8x10. I do this routinely. The problem for me isn't one of perspective, it's one of creativity in composition.

With stitching I have found it hard to compose the final image when I am taking the shots. So I have the irresistible urge to capture more than I need and deal with framing and composition later. And while I'm about it I might as well bracket all the shots and have the option to use HDR later too.

The problem for me is that it becomes an exercise in capturing as much data at the scene as possible, on the basis that there's "a nice picture in there somewhere", and then trying to extract the final image later. With large format I am forced to think about the image at the time I make it. I become much more connected with scene and as a result the final image has a much closer relation to what I was trying to convey at the time. As an example my stitched images have a tendency to be expansive and have a sameness about them - creating something intimate seems harder.

I'm not going to give up stitching, but I intend to be more disciplined about composition while I am at the scene.

Richard

[Helcio J Tagliolatto]

I just bought an 11x14 'cause 8x10 wasn't enough trouble.

:) well done!

[Ben Syverson]

Brian,

Most panorama apps create images with cylindrical or spherical projection, but you can convert them to rectilinear. The perspective is then 100% identical to a single-shoot wide angle lens.

[Brian C. Miller]

With stitching I have found it hard to compose the final image when I am taking the shots.

You might try using a composition card, just a black card with a rectangle cut out, and a string with knots for the focal lengths.

When I'm composing a wide-angle image, I'm either trying to throw the background away from the front, or else I'm doing something with the corners.

[georgl]

An 8x10 camera is a chick magnet.

It is? I'll sell my 35mm and digital... :-)

[Mark Woods]

What Richard says about data capture as opposed to careful composition with a film camera is what is going on in the motion picture industry. With electronic capture, the camera rolls forever with as many angles as possible. With film, the approach is more deliberate. It seems the nature of the beast. BTW, I have an 11x14 and the only response I've had in public is, "How many mega pixels is that thing!?"

[rdenney]

What Richard says about data capture as opposed to careful composition with a film camera is what is going on in the motion picture industry. With electronic capture, the camera rolls forever with as many angles as possible. With film, the approach is more deliberate. It seems the nature of the beast. BTW, I have an 11x14 and the only response I've had in public is, "How many mega pixels is that thing!?"

Even in film, the trend has been towards film everything and make art later during editing. I think I heard somewhere that a major motion picture might use up a couple million feet of film to make what will end up being maybe 12,000 feet of a movie film (on 35mm). A hallmark of the old, low-budget horror movies and the like is that they edited in camera and could make a movie using maybe 50,000 feet of film.

Turns out the actors, lighting, equipment, director, slaves, native bearers, and assorted other chattel costs more per minute than the film and editing does.

Rick "pitying the editor" Denney

[Mark Woods]

Bill Fraker told me that when he shot Heaven Can Wait, based on Here Comes Mr. Jordan, he shot 600,000' of film, the original shot 60,000', they shot in 11 days, and he shot in 11 months. And the original was better.

I know the trend, but with electronic capture, it's much worse. BTW, when there's that much material, it's a bunch of editors' assistants with a few supervisors.

[Chris Strobel]

Well I'll chime in here.For me the problem with stitching has been not so much perspective, but depth of field.I've been experimenting with stitching over two years now.Have two Nodal Ninja heads, and use Auto Pano Giga.I have tried stitching with everything from my Canon A640 up to my 5dMkII.I made a hard decision this week and sold both my 5DII and 550D dslr's.Below is an image I made with the smaller APS-C sensor.The problem is depth of field with near/far relationships.For this image I shot 20 frames to stitch, but for each of those 20 frames I had to shoot another 10 frames each for focus stacking in Helicon focus.So a total of 200 shots, and more time processing than it takes me to tray develop and scan my 8x10 negs..The light was dancing in and out of the clouds which made the ice plant very difficult to deal with.When I was all done I had spent 45 min trying to get the light even, and again a ton of time focus blending and stitching.I think the image ended up not bad, but that's just a ludicrous amount of time and effort, for me at least.With the 5DII being full frame its the same thing but a little worse DOF, so I finally said the hell with this and sold everything I have on the Canon forums.Its just so much easier to set my 8x10 up, adjust my tilts for DOF, and get the shot in one frame.My 8x10 negs scanned on my 4990 yield 16x20 prints just as technically good as the 5DII, and I have the latitude to drum scan and print huge if I want.

To the OP if your still reading, I also have a Shen-Hao 4x5, and I find it much easier working with my C-1 8x10.The knobs are bigger, movements less fiddly, I drop things less, can compose easier, can make high quality prints from my consumer flat bed, and can pretend I'm brett Weston :D Give it a try and if you don't like it you can recoup your hardware cost easily.MHO

Chris

http://www.pbase.com/cloudswimmer/image/141411683/original.jpg


But the perspective is sooooo far off, it isn't funny! Try a wide lens on an 8x10, like a 160mm or shorter, and then do the same scene on a stitched image. It is so different, it's just not funny. Or maybe it is funny, depending on your sense of humor.

There are so many things that can change the course of operating a scanning back, let alone a massive capture for stitching, that I'll always go for 8x10.

[JBAphoto]

Yes, definitely worth it,

I came to 10x8" the wrong way round - I needed a new 5x4" enlarger and the best on offer in WA was a 10x8" DeVere 5108E with a complete Rodenstock and a complete Schneider lens set and all the fruit down to 35mm for less money than I could find a good 5x4" enlarger for - In the end the builder's fees for building a turret on my darkroom came to more than the enlarger

Next I was offered a set of 10x8" hangers for $20.00

Then came the two cameras

If I had gone through the normal camera and lenses route first I would never have gone so big

Following this is a set of ply roll print troughs for 42 inch wide rolls of paper

Now I have gone this far I am very glad and have gone up to 36x45 inch prints for my 2014 exhibition

John

[John Kasaian]

There is a simplicity to shooting B&W 8x10 & contact printing which I personally find gratifying. The equipment is basic, the challenges often present interesting problems solved by thinking things out rather than investing in technology, and the results both honest and stunning at the same time (as they used to say on that old tv show The "A" Team: "I love it when a plan comes together.")
Its not for everyone.

[cjbroadbent]

Depends on the effort one takes to set up the shot.
After all the trouble getting things to fit together somehow one feels it's worth the biggest piece of film available. Presumably it's the same after climbing up a mountain.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-jgHU_oxyXTE/TXTN2FkxN9I/AAAAAAAAHqw/FQimAond6mw/s800/brides7.jpg

[John NYC]

Depends on the effort one takes to set up the shot.
After all the trouble getting things to fit together somehow one feels it's worth the biggest piece of film available. Presumably it's the same after climbing up a mountain.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-jgHU_oxyXTE/TXTN2FkxN9I/AAAAAAAAHqw/FQimAond6mw/s800/brides7.jpg

Fabulous. Is that still just one light?

[John NYC]

The equipment is basic, the challenges often present interesting problems solved by thinking things out rather than investing in technology, and the results both honest and stunning at the same time

I think you have best summed up on one sentence the way I feel about just 8x10 *shooting* also. Even though I have an elaborate hybrid process after shooting, the die is set from this highly manual, compromise-driven process on the front end that allows for extraordinary results when done well.