WHy 5x7 and Not 5x8?

[jcoldslabs]

OK, really dumb question, but since we can buy 8x10 sheets of film it makes total sense that you quarter this size to get 4x5. Why then do we not end up with an in between size of 5x8?

(Yes, I did a cursory search for the answer, but if you have a link to another thread I will gladly eat all the crow you dish up.)

Jonathan

[Jim Jones]

Another in-between size? No, thanks! My 5x8 Ansco has seen very little use in over 100 years. The original owner probably moved on to something better after a few shots. If it is typical of that size, that Ansco was another reason.

[IanG]

There was already Whole plate, Walf plate and Quarter plate.

However unfortunately none of the sizes equate to the A starndard of paper sizes where A5 is half A4, A3 is double A4, A2 double A3 and the ratio is always constant.

Ian

[Tim Meisburger]

5x7 mattes in 8x10 with a 1 1/2" border (according to google)

[Tim Meisburger]

I thought it might be because 5x7 is the golden ratio, but it turns out that 5x8 is closer.

[jcoldslabs]

I was wondering if ratio had something to do with it. 5x7 is already a bit long compared to 4x5 or 8x10, and 5x8 would be even more so. Personally I like the idea, but for those who were already used to shooting the "standard" formats it 5x8 might be too much of an adjustment.

Were all three of these formats, or 11x14 for that matter, all introduced at once when sheet film took over from glass plates? Or did the smaller formats (4x5, 5x7) come later as cameras got smaller and lighter?

Jonathan

[Bruce Watson]

Why then do we not end up with an in between size of 5x8?

I too have puzzled over this very question. There seems to be little rhyme or reason to film sizes. That is to say, it's not obvious to the end user why manufacturers chose the sizes they chose. It probably comes down to a) arbitrary choice, b) some savings in manufacturing, or c) "we've always done it this way". Or all three.

Probably heavily relies on c, as it probably derives from earlier glass plates, which were the size they were because that was the state of the art in glass making at the time, and they were making them for use in house windows and that turned out to be the common size. So when it came time to make film...

For me, I've always been perplexed by 5x4 which seems quite square. I would have been happier with something closer to 5x3 (which is again quite close to the golden ratio), so that's what I often shoot when I'm out in the field. I also manage to shoot some 5x2.25 which is a nice pano aspect ratio for me (close to 1 : sqrt(5) which, like the golden ratio, shows up all over nature).

Which brings up the point -- we don't have to choose the same aspect ratio that the film arrives in -- we can use any aspect ratio that we want. Which is surprisingly easier said than done -- there's something interestingly compelling about trying to fill the ground glass even when that's not a ratio that fits the subject. Which in turn brings us full circle to the question of what happened to 8x5?

I wish I had a reasonable answer. I doubt there is one.

[Pete Watkins]

It's weird BUT a 5x7 film holder fits a 5x7 camera, a half plate (6 1/2 x 4 3/4) film holder fits a 5x7 camera and a 13cmx18cm film holder fits a 5x7 camera. Perhaps it's a compromise.
Pete.

[E. von Hoegh]

I've used 8x5 and 4x10, splitter boards in a Deardorff V8. Sometimes it just works. :)

[Peter Gomena]

I think it was an odd format even 100 years ago. When I was digitizing images for the Oregon Historical Society, I came across thousands of 5x7, 8x10, whole plate, and 4x5 images, but very few 5x8.

Yes, it's close to the golden ratio, but it seems a little long to me. I had a friend who used a modern 5x8 for a while. He said composing with the format was "super easy," but didn't like the length of the frame and found it too long for vertical people shots.

Peter Gomena

[unixrevolution]

The question shouldn't be, "Why not 5x8?" but "Why not 5x6?" as 5x6 is closer to the golden image ratio of 4:5 (although it's just a tad closer to square, as 5:6.25 is the actual ratio). However, I think the fact that it mattes from 8x10 explains it handily.

5x8 is actually a little longer than the 2:3 ratio that 6x9cm cameras and full-frame 35mm cameras use. Good for landscapes, perhaps, but as cited above, probably a little too long for vertical portrait shots.

[Doremus Scudder]

I think the real question is: what do the film manufacturers do with all those 1x5-inch pieces of film that they get when they cut 8x10 down to 5x7?

Or maybe they're cutting 11x14 down, so they'd get 1x14-inch strips... or. Hey, maybe they all went to those Viewmasters... Remember those?

It's a mystery.

Doremus

[Drew Wiley]

Rubbermaid has just released a series of 5-inch wide filmholders which you can stretch
to any aspect ratio you wish. Very convenient.

[ROL]

Because it's juuuuuust right.

– Goldilocks

[Michael Alpert]

OK, really dumb question, but since we can buy 8x10 sheets of film it makes total sense that you quarter this size to get 4x5. Why then do we not end up with an in between size of 5x8?

(Yes, I did a cursory search for the answer, but if you have a link to another thread I will gladly eat all the crow you dish up.)

Jonathan

Jonathan,

Your question is an historical question that demands an historically-based answer. Film sizes were developed when negatives were primarily emulsions on glass plates, not film. I suspect that the size has something to do with standard sizes in nineteenth-century glass manufacturing, but I am not sure about this. With cameras made for 5x7 glass plates, it would be logical that the size would carry over into film. The relationship between contemporary sizes of film is somewhat beside the point. In any case, 5x7 is a terrifically enjoyable format.

[Lynn Jones]

The vast majority of 5x7's sold in the US were for split 5x7 (3.5x5) for portraiture. When the RB67 was introduced in the mid 60's, within 2 years, 5x7 disappered here.

Today, most of the new 5x7's are sold in Japan, heaven knows why, of course, most of the Rollei TLR's are also sold in that country, it makes one wonder.

Lynn

[IanG]

It's weird BUT a 5x7 film holder fits a 5x7 camera, a half plate (6 1/2 x 4 3/4) film holder fits a 5x7 camera and a 13cmx18cm film holder fits a 5x7 camera. Perhaps it's a compromise.
Pete.

Only post WWII, prior to that UK half plate cameras were still using book form holders. It was an Internatational Standards Committe that drew up the International back sizes that made holders for the UK Half plate, US 7x5 and German 13x18cm have the same outside dimensions.

Ian

[edp]

The question shouldn't be, "Why not 5x8?" but "Why not 5x6?" as 5x6 is closer to the golden image ratio of 4:5

Who says 4:5 is the golden image ratio? Not the Greeks, and not me either: it's too square. Half-plate is the best.

[goamules]

Why 5x8? Stereo cameras. Most American 5x8 cameras had a provision for shooting basically two images, when a removable septum was inserted and a double lensboard used.

[Ole Tjugen]

The "Plate" sizes are older than glass plates, they refer to printer's plates. Which were nice polished copper, and just perfect for Daguerreotypes.

But these plates came in different sizes in different countries. Britain had their sizes, while France and Germany had different sizes - metric of course. That again transferred to the glass plates when they became available, since the cameras already existed. And then film took over from glass plates, and film sheaths for glass plate holders were made. For the film to fit in a sheath which fit in a plate holder, the film had to be a tiny little bit smaller than the full plate size.

When and why Britain changed from plate sizes to 5x4" / 7x5" / 10x8" I have no idea.

Germany kept their own sizes: 9x12cm, 13x18cm, 18x24cm, 24x30cm and so on.

One of my old German photography books states rather categorically that "13x18cm is the smallest format for serious photography". :)

[rjmeyer314]

I got a pair of 5x8 glass plate holders in a box of assorted film holders several years ago. It always struck me that the format looked slightly "off", not natural like 5x7.

[cdholden]

One of my old German photography books states rather categorically that "13x18cm is the smallest format for serious photography". :)

While I have smaller cameras, 5x7 is my favorite format because it's the smallest contact print that is comfortable to view (in my opinion). I could embrace 13x18 if I moved across the pond and had to source metric film sizes.