Why not 8x10?

[hamr22]

Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital. Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10? Does it matter if I never plan to print bigger than 20x30 (and generally much smaller)? Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

My apologies if this is a worn out question, my search of the forum didn't turn up anything. Thanks in advance!!

[DaveAlbano]

4x5 fits in my enlarger. If you are hybrid and scan I guess it don't matter.

[John NYC]

Gosh... there is a lot of stuff here on that topic. You need better search Kung Fu? To get you started...

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?28745-4x5-vs-8x10-camera&highlight=4x5+versus+8x10

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?86900-4x5-versus-8x10-portriats&highlight=4x5+versus+8x10

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?91810-Any-benefit-to-8x10-over-4x5-if-not-contact-printing&highlight=4x5+versus+8x10

[Corran]

If you've never shot LF I don't know any reason to jump straight to 8x10.

[welly]

I asked a similar question a while back and I ended up buying an 8x10 camera. It's not my primary camera though. It doesn't get as much action as my 4x5 cameras due to logistics of carrying that big lump about. But when I do shoot with it, it's amazing. When you're composing an image, it's like watching a movie. You kind of feel like a spectator in some ways, even though you're right there. It's quite surreal. I can only imagine how the ULF guys feel.

For me - as I don't own a car - if I only had an 8x10, I wouldn't get to shoot as much as I do with 4x5. If I had a car, it would be much easier and I think I could probably commit to 8x10 as my primary format but I really like 4x5, particularly with my new camera. One bag and I'm out and shooting. I can walk around the city with my 4x5 without any real effort. It would be impossible to do that with my 8x10 as it's a monorail. Perhaps you can buy a lightweight-ish 8x10 field camera but even still I can't imagine it would be anything less than a beast to carry around.

[Drew Wiley]

Things have changed. For one thing, darkcloths now attach with velcro tabs. These in turn
attach to a beard. Therefore a beard is just as relevant to 4x5 photography as to 8x10.
A bigger darkcloth needs a bigger beard. You'll notice that all the ULF shooters look like
geriatric versions of CC Top. I like the cloth to stick tightly around my head, so I only have
stubble.

[evan clarke]

No reason not to. All the principles are the same on all view camera sizes. With a small,one you'll think you're in focus and won't be..with a big one, you'll think the GG is fuzzy and you'll be in sharp focus..

[David Lobato]

"You'll notice that all the ULF shooters look like geriatric versions of CC Top."


You sure that isn't XX Top?

ZZ Top

[Ken Lee]

Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital.

It's not either/or. Each format has its own advantages and disadvantages. You can use them all.

There is no jump: You just use what you like, whenever you like. If you don't like it, you sell it. If you miss it, you buy it back. :cool:

[Leigh]

There's a much wider range of lenses and films available for 4x5 than for 8x10. I shoot both formats.

My standard 4x5 b&w film is Fuji Acros, which is not available in 8x10 here in the US.

- Leigh

[MMELVIS]

Find some folks who are local and see if you go out with them on an outing and see if 8x10 is for you.

[Ari]

Yes, start growing a beard.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 is more costly and more bulky, but many of us think the 8x10 contact of a good image is a thing of beauty.

[jeroldharter]

I shoot mostly 8x10 now. It is more expensive but slower and you shoot fewer shots. You spend more time composing shots and focusing. The film holders are very heavy. Everything takes 2-4 times as long to do. Enlargers are harder to find and expensive. You can do contact prints if you like. Depth of field is much less if you like. If you do portraits with artificial light focusing is more difficult and you need a major pop of light. Fewer options exist for very wide angle. Lenses generally cost more. 8x10 is a major nuisance for travel due to size and weight.

Had I never tried 8x10, I would beperfectly happy with 4x5 with prints 8x10 to 20x24. However, I can see the difference in my prints at 11x14 in terms of sharpness, detail, and tonality. So if I am going to the trouble of large format, why not 8x10. Formats larger than 8x10 are contact printed only.

[Two23]

A case can be made either way. For me, the lightness and compactness of my sweet little Chamonix 045n allows me to take it with me more often, gives faster set up time, there's more film to choose from, and it's much more economical. I've been shooting 4x5 for about 15 years now and have considered 8x10. The expense really turns me off though. Also, where I live is often windy and I think using 8x10 would be an exercise in frustration.


Kent in SD

[Cletus]

I "made the jump" to 8x10 not too long ago and still getting used to it. I've been shooting 4x5 for awhile now and the move to 8x10 seemed pretty natural. It is definitely a different way of working, even compared to 4x5, but mostly due to the size and weight of the camera itself.

If using a 4x5 view camera forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing, the 8x10 format does so to an even greater degree. That and the fact that contact printing opens up a whole new world of possibilities and very soon I'll be able to some alt process work, which broadens my horizons even more. I'm still working on getting over the fact that when an opportunity presents itself, I know it will take a fair bit of work and time to prepare the camera and compose the shot, but the results so far have been well worth the effort and drives me to keep going.

So, if I try to answer your question - moving up to a large format (whether 8x10 or 4x5) from a DSLR will be a BIG eye opener and, depending on what you like to shoot and your style of photography, could move you into a whole new world of seeing and of possibilities for your photography. Definitely worth a try! ...oh, and as Ken Lee said, there's no law on the books that says you can't keep your digital camera and shoot that too. It might show you an interesting contrast that you were unaware of until you start using a view camera.

[36cm2]

8x10 is more costly and more bulky, but many of us think the 8x10 contact of a good image is a thing of beauty.

But the cost is more than offset in razor savings and the weight don't matter when "She got legs"...

[ImSoNegative]

"You'll notice that all the ULF shooters look like geriatric versions of CC Top."


You sure that isn't XX Top?

YY top

[ImSoNegative]

I shoot 4x5 for landscapes and such, mainly because of the light weight of the shen hao ptb (just a hair under 3 pounds) easy to hike with, plus e6 film wont break the bank for me like if i was shooting 8x10 slides, for 4x5 i scan and print digitally, i use my 8x10 for portraits and still lifes, i like old uncoated lenses for the 8x10, petzvels things like that. i really enjoy contact printing with the 8x10 the tones are amazing, another plus f is i shoot xray film with the 8x10 it cost like 35 cents a sheet.

[Ed Richards]

If you watch the sales section, you will note that the larger the formal, the more likely the ad will say hardly used or unused. If you start with 8x10, you will find it harder to shoot the 2-300 sheets of film necessary to develop some competence.

[genotypewriter]

Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10?

Astia :)



Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

Nope... having reached puberty should be adequate!

[ImSoNegative]

If you watch the sales section, you will note that the larger the formal, the more likely the ad will say hardly used or unused. If you start with 8x10, you will find it harder to shoot the 2-300 sheets of film necessary to develop some competence.

good point

[John NYC]

Why not get a 4x5 for the times you want travel convenience, color film availability, optical enlarging ease, fantastic lens selection across all focal ranges, etc. And then also get an 11x14 and use it only for B&W contact prints.

[joselsgil]

Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital. Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10? Does it matter if I never plan to print bigger than 20x30 (and generally much smaller)? Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

My apologies if this is a worn out question, my search of the forum didn't turn up anything. Thanks in advance!!


If you plan on making 20x30 enlargements, you will need an 8x10 enlarger should you go with the 8x10 camera. Or you can have a commercial lab make the prints for you. With a 4x5 camera, you can find 4x5 enlarger for a few bucks.

If you go with an 8x10 camera, you can make some really nice contact prints and you don't even need an enlarger to do that.

One disadvantage of 8x10 over 4x5 is the cost of film holders.
Film cost can be offset with the 8x10 format by using X-Ray film. 100 sheets will run you around $40 bucks. 4X5 format has an advantage if you plan on using color film as there is a larger variety of films and processing the film is easier and less costly than 8x10.

You do not need a beard, but it helps as people will then take your work much more seriously. It gives you the homeless, tortured artist look. An eye patch can be worn, but that is just optional.

[pasiasty]

Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film
But this matters. Even if money aren't an issue, weight and size determine possible usage - e.g. I can't imagine hand-held 8x10 while all that Graflex-like cameras are almost pocket size. Another question is development - you can put 4x5 into simple Jobo tank, bigger formats require a drum or trays.

Re beard - what about 5x7? I've just started with this, but I'm shaved, so I'm afraid if it's right...

[Former Member 27732]

If using a 4x5 view camera forces you to slow down and think about what you're doing, the 8x10 format does so to an even greater degree.

Spot on.
I thought going from 4x5 to 8x10 would be a natural progression, but found the 4x5 felt more like a point & shoot after using the 8x10. Not that I'm complaining. The big camera really does force you to think more before making the decision to use it. If you are starting in LF, go with 4x5 first - options are so much greater. And if 4x5 doesn't work for you, I doubt 8x10 will.

/Frank

[Brian Ellis]

No reason not to but things to consider in addition to those you mentioned:

Film choices

Availability of film in the future (with many more 4x5 users than 8x10, 4x5 will probably be around longer and with more choices than 8x10)

Finding a lab that can process 8x10 and cost of having it processed if you don't do it yourself (I've never used a lab but I assume they charge more for 8x10 than 4x5)

All other things except focal length being equal, less depth of field with 8x10 lenses.

Possible difficulty of using long lenses (how long are your arms?)

Not possible to carry as many 8x10 film holders as 4x5 (at least it wasn't for me with my f/64 backpack, the most 8x10 holders I could carry was 4, I could carry as many as about 20 4x5s in the same backpack). This is obviously irrelevant if you work only in a studio.

Some scanners that will do 4x5 won't do 8x10 and if you work in a darkroom you'll obviously need an 8x10 enlarger. It and ancillary equipment (e.g. trays) take up more space than 4x5.

These are off the top of my head, there may be others. These aren't reasons not to use 8x10, just things to consider. I used both 4x5 and 8x10 but I enjoyed 8x10 more than 4x5. After using 8x10 a 4x5 camera seemed like what it used to be called in the old days, a miniature camera.

If you think you'd prefer 8x10 after considering all the downsides that are relevant to you, I don't see any reason to start with 4x5, just go ahead and try 8x10. If you buy used you probably can sell the gear if you don't like it about as easily as you can sell 4x5 though the market will be smaller.

[John Kasaian]

Which format do you really want to shoot?
Thats the one you should be shooting.:)

[Steve Barber]

Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital. Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10? Does it matter if I never plan to print bigger than 20x30 (and generally much smaller)? Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

My apologies if this is a worn out question, my search of the forum didn't turn up anything. Thanks in advance!!


As to 8x10, if it were not for the weight, size of the camera and the cost of the film, I would have nothing else.

Well, that is not quite true. It ignores the fact that I do not have an enlarger for 8x10 and my little darkroom, while fine for 4x5 and smaller, is never going to have the capability to enlarge an 8x10 negative. And, of course, while mentioning the size of the camera, it makes no mention nor gives any recognition of the added weight and bulk of the lenses, film holders, tripod and tripod head that will also be required.

To paraphrase the 1st rule of gun fighting, as promulgated by Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, if you would take a picture; first, have a camera.

As with everything else, there is a trade-off here. If you had a 4x5 kit that met your needs, figure on 3 to 4 times the weight and bulk for an 8x10 with similar capabilities. That is a massive increase in logistical difficulties and guarantees that, when you need your 8x10, you will, probably, not have it with you.

Start with a 4x5, you will find it much more useful. Later, if you find you have to have it, you can add an 8x10 for whatever it is that you think it will do that none of your other cameras can.

[Steve Barber]

I forgot, 20x30 what? Inches? A 4x5 with good lenses is perfectly capable of prints that size if you have an enlarger and comparable lenses that are up to the job.

[Drew Wiley]

A good compromise position starts with the lenses themselves. I'd get small lightweight lenses that are simultaneously crisp enough for 4x5, but with enough coverage for 8X10 too - things like G-Clarons, Fujinon A's, Fujinon C's, etc. That's your main investment anyway. Otherwise, shooting an 8x10 is obviously more expensive than 4x5, esp in color,
and esp if you want to equip a color darkroom. I wouldn't worry much about black and white, either regarding film availability in 8x10 or processing, but a big enlarger needs big
space. I really love both formats, and in the print size you're discussing, the end result will
be similar but not exactly equal. If you do choose 8x10 you should have a good back and
knees. They can be a workout - but sure beats being on a treadmill like a rat in a stinky
gym!

[Peter Spangenberg]

I really enjoy shooting 8x10 in the field. Having said that, you might want to consider a 5x7 camera with a 4x5 back. For me, the jump up in image size from 4x5 to 5x7 on the ground glass is significant. The contact print size difference feels significant to me as well. It also gives you two different aspect ratios whereas 4x5 and 8x10 are the same. A caveat is that I also print platinum, and often prefer an 8x10 negative. You could solve that problem by making digital negatives (that is a skill that I haven't yet attempted). Bottom line is that lenses are cheaper, tripod is cheaper, film holders are cheaper, film is cheaper, and you can find a 5x7 enlarger very inexpensively. Lighter weight, easier to travel, etc. Film availability for 5x7 is waning, but I shoot B&W so HP5 and FP4 cover my needs.

[Steve Smith]

You sure that isn't XX Top?

It's ZZ Top... but over here, we use the correct pronunciation!


Steve.

[ROL]

Do you need a beard to shoot 8x10?

Of course. A full pearly white beard, a booming voice capable of intoning the proper "810" incantation (which I do not recall and am forbidden from reciting as I do not so practice) upon exposure, and a black velvet cape (aka, the "focussing cloth") are all absolute requirements. Oddly though, specific age does not appear to be critical, as long as you can carry off the pomp of a golden ager.

[Freezer]

So here's another LF novice perspective: If you have limited time to do LF, would you rather be opening the shutter on a 4x5 or 8x10? My perspective is that if I can only make a few negatives a month, and I spend time selecting subjects and applying a thoughtful process to composition and exposure, I want the satisfaction of a big negative for my efforts. Otherwise, I'd just continue to shoot digital and MF film. It's a purely emotional perspective, but if you're not paying the mortgage with your pictures, isn't that ultimately the best perspective? Flame away; I've got the nomex on! :)

[Pawlowski6132]

Other than weight, size of the camera, and cost of film, are there any good reasons to shoot 4x5 over 8x10?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

[Ron Stowell]

O no we don't----- I'm bald

[stradibarrius]

I agree with Ken, I use both digital and several formats of film including 4x5. I don't shoot 8x10 but The jump to LF format is just the same.


Still trying to get the stones up to make the jump to LF from digital.

It's not either/or. Each format has its own advantages and disadvantages. You can use them all.

There is no jump: You just use what you like, whenever you like. If you don't like it, you sell it. If you miss it, you buy it back. :cool:

[C. D. Keth]

I think you'll develop better habits with 4x5. You'll think less about how big and heavy it is and more about taking pictures. You'll shoot more film with less worrying about how much it costs. You'll develop better focusing habits because enlarging will bite you if you don't.

Have you considered what will be needed to develop 8x10 film compared to 4x5? For example, I do 4x5 in BTZS tubes in my bathtub. If I went to 8x10, I don't know if it would be enough room.

I don't at all want to dissuade you from shooting 8x10 but I do think shooting 4x5 would be the better way to learn and, chances are, you'll want a 4x5 camera at some point anyway for the easier portability.

[Drew Wiley]

Although I like 8X10 the most, I still shoot 4x5 quite a bit. For one thing, I like really long
perspectives. I can tote and focus 4X5 with a 450 lens on it quite easily. On an 8x10 the
same view would amount to 900+ mm of bellows extension. As it is, the longest lens I own
for 8x10 is 600mm, which also happens to be about as long as I'd want it supported by a
single tripod; and anything longer would amount to a much heavier camera too. You have
less depth of field issues with 4x5 too due to proportionately shorter lenses, combined with
faster exposures due to wider stop-down. But 8x10 is sooooo nice to focus and to print
from!

[Carl J]

Interesting question. I'm new to LF and basically starting with 8x10 (although I shot a bit of 4x5 waaay back in college) and nearing my first 100 sheets exposed. It didn't take that long but you have to bring some energy to it. I think Ed makes an excellent point about needing to expose a fair number of sheets to get the basic hang of it. I'm still not there yet. Of course, 4x5 is cheaper, etc., but for any number of reasons (all of the above) I appreciate being able to use 8x10 as my main negative size when shooting LF. Being able to shoot X-ray film (which, afaik, doesn't come in 4x5 unless you cut it down yourself) can make a big difference here. I use single-sided emulsion X-ray film (the cheap stuff has emulsion on both sides) because I'm developing in print tubes, which comes to about .70 a sheet (100 sheet box for $70). I've also been using Freestyle Arista.EDU 400 as my normal panchromatic sheet film which is more expensive but still not bad (although lousy reciprocity characteristics). Still about half the price of Kodak sheet films. I always have both X-ray and regular film with me.

It's a hassle sometimes to carry 8x10 around but I have a backpack and I don't mind the workout. I started with a monorail which of course just like everyone says -- but we never listen because the price always seems right at the time! -- is bulky to transport (let alone find a backpack that will fit). I quickly saw the value of a folding camera. I'd probably avoid the 8x10 monorail if I could do it over again. Then again, it's good solid camera and movements are easy(ha!) to learn (not that I've mastered them but I have a fairly good idea of what they can do). If I need to go further from the car or wherever I may consider a Baby Jogger.

I got lucky and eventually found an 8x10 with a 5x7 reducing back and planning to shoot some with that once I get a few holders (not hard to find here on the forum or ebay, either) and I'm waiting for Freestyle to receive a shipment of Arista.EDU 400 in early November. Or I might just bite the bullet and order HP5 or FP4. Looking forward to shooting 5x7 as that 300mm normal lens becomes a good portrait length lens, and my 210mm which is wide on 8x10 becomes a normal on 5x7. I also happen to have a 4x5 monorail which I haven't even shot with yet but it was less than $150 and while no lightweight it's nothing compared to carrying the 8x10 (also I would think 4x5 is the way to go for color). Lenses are interchangeable (I have an adaptor board).

I think it's very good advice to choose lenses which can work across at least a couple of formats (preferably 8x10 to 4x5, but at least 5x7 and 4x5).

Regardless, don't worry about the format so much, just get going and keep at it! :)

[Richard Rau]

Although not an original question on this forum by any stretch of the imagination, I'm surprised it's taken 5 pages for someone to bring up the argument for 5x7. Double the size of 4x5, half the size of 8x10, and most 5x7 cameras are barely larger than 4x5's and film is much cheaper (although availability may be limited in some 'flavors') than 8x10, it's a viable alternative to lugging around an 8x10. And admittedly, it's not the quality of an 8x10 format, which is still considered the ultimate, unless you plan to move up to ULF, 11x14, 14x17, etc.

[Leigh]

Suggestion, if I may...

Buy an 8x10 field camera with a 4x5 reducing back. I have this combination with a Tachihara 8x10 field camera.

The only thing you lose as compared with a 4x5 field camera is you may not be able to use really short lenses.
But you gain the ability to use longer lenses than you can with a 4x5 body due to the longer bellows.

This approach has several advantages.
You can find 8x10 cameras probably cheaper than 4x5, and likely the larger cameras have seen less use.
You have the option of getting a 5x7 reducing back to shoot that format if you choose.

You can shoot 4x5 for practice and experimentation, which saves a lot of money in film and processing costs.
All of your results will be equally valid for the larger format(s).

If you need extreme movements with the 4x5 format you can use the 8x10 lenses with their larger image circle
coupled with the larger range of adjustments available on the 8x10 body.

- Leigh

[Roger Cole]

But this matters. Even if money aren't an issue, weight and size determine possible usage - e.g. I can't imagine hand-held 8x10 while all that Graflex-like cameras are almost pocket size. Another question is development - you can put 4x5 into simple Jobo tank, bigger formats require a drum or trays.

Re beard - what about 5x7? I've just started with this, but I'm shaved, so I'm afraid if it's right...

I think just a mustache is acceptable for 5x7.


It's ZZ Top... but over here, we use the correct pronunciation!


Steve.

Surely you don't refer to the American band as "Zed Zed Top?" That would just be wrong.

The argument against 5x7 is similar to that against 8x10, only not quite as much so - enlargers are much harder to find and apt to be more expensive, film is much more limited in availability (more limited than 8x10, actually, though you can cut down 8x10 with some care, or get one of the 5x8 cameras) and, against even 8x10, contact prints while they look nice are still too small for most people's taste.

[Leigh]

Surely you don't refer to the American band as "Zed Zed Top?" That would just be wrong.
Noone ever called me Zed Zed Top, though with a beard down to my waist I certainly resemble the band members. :D


enlargers are much harder to find and apt to be more expensive
With modern scanner technology, enlargers are only a concern for the real analog purists in the crowd.
I wet-print my 4x5s, but rely on the scanner for up-sizing the 8x10 negs.

- Leigh

[Ben Calwell]

I shot 8x10 for a while, but frankly it didn't blow me away as I thought it would. Perhaps it's a testament to my lack of skills, but my resulting contact prints (I never enlarged them) didn't look much better than a 4x5 neg enlarged to 8x10. For me, the added bulk, weight and expense wasn't worth the results I was getting. Composing on the big ground glass, though, was great.

[Roger Cole]

Noone ever called me Zed Zed Top, though with a beard down to my waist I certainly resemble the band members. :D


With modern scanner technology, enlargers are only a concern for the real analog purists in the crowd.
I wet-print my 4x5s, but rely on the scanner for up-sizing the 8x10 negs.

- Leigh

Call me a purist then I guess. I've toyed with the idea of a hybrid workflow and might do it for color just as the easiest way to print from color transparencies but for B&W I just have no interest in it. I learned photography when there was no digital and wet darkroom work is still near and dear to my heart and a large part of why I shoot film in the first place. If I were going to print digitally I might as well just shoot digitally from the start.

[Leigh]

If I were going to print digitally I might as well just shoot digitally from the start.
I agree. But anybody who's posted photos here is going digital at some point in the process.

I have full digital capability in 35mm and MF, but my LF work is as totally wet as I can manage.
I don't have an 8x10 enlarger, and no room to install it if somebody gave me one.

I'm working on the design of a ceiling-mounted 8x10 enlarger that could be folded up out of the way.

- Leigh

[welly]

If I were going to print digitally I might as well just shoot digitally from the start.

I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. In an ideal world, I would absolutely be doing wet printing but unfortunately space dictates otherwise. I only just about have room for developing my negatives, but for me I get a massive amount of enjoyment out of using my large format camera that I never did with digital. I do see what you're saying but it's the bit I have to compromise on due to logistics.

Hopefully in the future I'll get to wet print but I wouldn't go back to digital simply because I'm unable to wet print. That's my opinion anyway :) I could probably get away with contact printing but I think space dictates otherwise really. One day!

[pasiasty]

If I were going to print digitally I might as well just shoot digitally from the start.
Well, we don't have sensors even as small as 4x5... And if they were, they'd cost much than films and developer for the rest of my life :) On the other hand there is nothing wrong in being a purist.

[John Kasaian]

8x10 really pushes the performance envelope. Everything is bigger (including mistakes.) I can't shoot a sheet of film without thinking about how much it costs (and I don't even shoot stinkiin' expensive film like TMY!) Funny but I think this has really improved my photography by slowing me down and thinking more deeply about everything---composition, filters, exposure, you name it. I simply can't afford to waste film and if I don't like what I see on the ground glass, I'll pick up my kit and hunt for a better location. Bulky and heavy gear is a challenge for me rather than an impediment (I get a kick out of hearing someone ask "How did you get that big camera way out (or up) there?")
Yes, what you heard about the advantages of 4x5 is sound advice. 8x10 is for mad men.
Yes, sugar anting an 8x10 kit around the mountains is a pain, but pain is what weakness feels like when it's leaving your body.

[Leigh]

I can't shoot a sheet of film without thinking about how much it costs...
Very true. At $12 per shot I don't do 36 or 72 exposures at a time. :D

- Leigh

[hamr22]

Decided to try 8x10, contact print and/or scan, but having a hard time finding a camera. Ebay has only 1 or 2 at any given time and the price they ultimately sell for seems significantly higher than I woulda thought. Is there a better place to look for a good starter? Would love to find a Deardorff at some garage sale, but that's not going to happen. I don't mind if it looks ugly, but would like it to work without a lot of extra fuss. (Regular fuss is anticipated.)

[EOTS]

Honestly I am a relative greenhorn in large format, but doing it very intensely for almost two years...
LF really has changed my life ... besides my girl friend, there is nothing in my life which had been this much fun yet ...
It is heads-on what fits my shooting style ...

If you come from digital as I did, and all this film stuff (precise E6 exposure, development, precise movements, yada yada) is new to you as it was for me,
I would strongly suggest buying a 4x5 camera first. It's really a compact format ...
And you can do four times as much exposures for the same price ... which is useful at least at the very beginning,
but also later in cases where you can't predict the optimum circumstances and only are able to judge "local maxima" ...

I also have a 8x10 now, but you regret your faults a lot ... and the price of color film really hurts ...
So even if you're only doing B&W, which is cheaper film-wise, you want to learn the basics with the 4x5".
At the beginning, 8x10 will scare you off quickly and that's a shame because it really rocks ...

Best,
Martin

[Kodachrome25]

If I could find a 8x10 conversion kit for my 45MXT, I might consider it....

But, my 45N-2 with small & lightweight lenses is pretty much effortless. For example, I am going to be spending all Winter snowboarding while on a commissioned fine art project with the 45N, 3-5 lenses and 6 super light Chamonix film holders all season...I just can not see doing that with an 8x10 down 1,000-2,600 vertical of knee deep powder.

4x5 feels like larger medium format with lots of movements, pretty slick really and just stunning prints at 11x14 and above from the darkroom...

[AJ Edmondson]

Having used everything from 35mm through 8x10 for the last fifty (+) years I can only relate that (1) 8x10 is (for me) the greatest pleasure to use - without any doubt. The 8x10 ground-glass image is a thing of beauty and just seems magical for some reason and seems to be so easy to work with. It was my format of choice until about three years ago... so why don't I still use it? I suppose geriatrics may enter into it though I am not quite "decrepit" yet but economics was also a part of it. I have a pretty nice darkroom and finally I decided to do some comparison testing - nothing scientific mind you - between 4x5 and 8x10 (both enlarged to 11x14 which has always been my preferred print size). Took my 8x10 and 4x5 and the lenses with the nearest match in angle-of-view and headed for the Chatooga River in NE Georgia. At the end of the exercise (using TMY and TMX Dev) I printed both negatives 11x14 and compared results. I found that I actually preferred the 4x5 shot - so I repeated the test a couple of times with architectural subjects - with about the same results. In terms of quality I couldn't tell the difference! AGAIN... this wasn't scientific at all and perhaps you could do the same and have different results but for me, I then decided to "scale back" to 4x5 and have been satisfied that I made the right choice for me. If you have no experience with LF I would suggest "wading in" with 4x5 and see if it really is your "cup of tea" - with the economy as rotten as it is you can get in fairly inexpensively and give it a try... but I do warn you ... that 8x10 GG image is seductive as heck and can lure you onto the rocks faster than you can blink.

Joel

[premortho]

I have an 8X10, but I only do contact prints with it. I do paper negs with it also, and use green x-ray film. I use green e-ray film more because it's a real good Orthochromatic film than because it's cheap. Although cheap helps. I do most of my work in 5X7. I started with a 4X5 Speed Graphic in 1947. It was 10 years after that before I shot my first sheet of panchromatic film. Jeez...what a pain to develop. You have to do it in the dark. Sucks. But there are times when it is useful~~photographing girls who are either over about 23 or with freckles, other than that it's the most oversold product in the history of photography, or maybe studio strobes are about equal in the oversold business. 4X5 is really too small for contact printing...you gotta use binoculars to view them. I think a 5X7 is the smallest format that makes a decent contact print. And the dimensions are so nice...by comparison 4X5 and 8X10 are too square. I don't do color work...Iprefer black and white. I once in a while do a snapshot in color just for fun, but nothing serious.

[hamr22]

Just wanted to say thanks for all the advice. I bought a 8x10 B&J with a 5x7 reducing back on it. Have no idea what I'm doing including putting the film in the holders backwards, then watching youtube to get straightened out. Shot some cheap orthochromatic film, contacted printed on the floor of my kids bathroom by flicking the overhead light on and off. The end product looks much crappier than any digital pic I've ever shot, but for some reason I like it more than almost all of my digital images. The ground glass is ghostly and surreal. The possible (likely) mistakes are all around me, but when that image comes through on the paper I feel like I've won something. Now I need a better lens and quit my job to free up time to do more.

I'll try to attach the crappy scan of a print. I'm not proud of the way it looks, just proud that anything at all came out considering the odds stacked against success.

Anyway, thanks again for the advice and encouragement!87745

[Leszek Vogt]

Congrats, you're on your way. Forever you'll look at 4x5 as a point and shoot rig:D.

Les

[Cletus]

..."The end product looks much crappier than any digital pic I've ever shot, but for some reason I like it more than almost all of my digital images."..."The possible (likely) mistakes are all around me, but when that image comes through on the paper I feel like I've won something"...

hamr22 - Congrats on your move to 8x10. I've been reading through this post and I have just one more comment - In this 'sudden jump' up to 8x10 from small format digital, you have basically skipped over a big part of the typical path of progression that most people follow...small/medium format film for a period of time, learning the basic processes of developing film and darkroom printing, then 4x5 for a period of time to become acquainted with the view camera and then on to the larger and ultra large formats. For many, this is the time one spends learning and understanding the characteristics of film and other analog materials and building up ones darkroom.

Not that there's anything at all wrong with the path you've chosen, but it does appear that you've skipped right over many of the typical first steps where one learns what one is doing.

It's no surprise to me that the results you're getting with 8x10 aren't exactly what you were expecting, per your comments above. I'm certainly glad to hear you're happy with your choice, but I also hope you're prepared to spend some time "paying your dues" before you start getting results that really shine. At some point in the future (hopefully the near future) you'll start to see that your results are far better than anything you were ever able to get with digital, albeit completely different and it's only then that you'll be able to fully appreciate the difference between the large film negative and the digital file.

Be patient. Read, read, read. Practice, practice, practice. Print, print, print. Work on getting your darkroom established and fitted out. Craigslist is a great resource for this. If you keep at it for a while and are diligent and committed, you'll soon be looking back and laughing at your comment about "not coming close" to any digital "pic" you've ever shot. :)

[premortho]

Just wanted to say thanks for all the advice. I bought a 8x10 B&J with a 5x7 reducing back on it. Have no idea what I'm doing including putting the film in the holders backwards, then watching youtube to get straightened out. Shot some cheap orthochromatic film, contacted printed on the floor of my kids bathroom by flicking the overhead light on and off. The end product looks much crappier than any digital pic I've ever shot, but for some reason I like it more than almost all of my digital images. The ground glass is ghostly and surreal. The possible (likely) mistakes are all around me, but when that image comes through on the paper I feel like I've won something. Now I need a better lens and quit my job to free up time to do more.

I'll try to attach the crappy scan of a print. I'm not proud of the way it looks, just proud that anything at all came out considering the odds stacked against success.

Anyway, thanks again for the advice and encouragement!87745

What's wrong with the lens? looks fine to me. You have a lot of shooting to do before you will know what your lens is capable of. Also you will (I hope) joggle your developer to water ratio. I used to use D-72 at 24-1 for between 10 and 18 minutes. The more water you use, the less contrast. Your picture looks too contrasty to me. Try the same exposure with a more diluted developer. If you don't get the results you want, try less exposure. I use Arista Ortho 90% of the time. I've had good results at ASA 20, developed in 24-1 D-72. The negs looked too thin, but they printed really well. Ideally, you would shoot three at ASA 20, 10, 5. Develope them for 10 minutes in D-72, 24-1. You are using a red safelight, right? Keep the safelight 4 or more feet away. I cover the tray with a piece of cardboard for about eight minutes. The film is a lot less sensetive to the red light after it's been in the developer for a while. Continuous gentle agitation. Pull the neg out, and look through the non-emulshion side. When it's developed with good shadow detail that way, put in the stop bath. I use water, 2 changes. Let the water run off and into the hypo it goes. For three times as long as it takes to clear. Keep notes. Print 'em. You'll see which one you like the best. Hope this helps.

[John Kasaian]

Congratulations! :cool:

[DrTang]

I feel sorry for people just starting in LF now-a-days

used to be..you could get a 500 or 545, spend 80-100 bucks on some polaroid sheet film and just mess around till you figured it out


youtube how-to's help I guess... but nothing that like instant feedback for your mistakes

[Leigh]

The lens selection for 8x10 is much more limited than for 4x5.

There are hundreds of different 4x5 lenses available, at various qualities and prices.
The limited number of 8x10 lenses are either old or expensive.

I shoot both formats.

- Leigh

[uphereinmytree]

I've recently resigned myself to 4x5 and maybe 5x7. The camera is heavy and the film is expensive. Scans take forever. I try not to look at my 8x10 contact prints as I forget the drawbacks just mentioned when I see them.

[Roger Cole]

I feel sorry for people just starting in LF now-a-days

used to be..you could get a 500 or 545, spend 80-100 bucks on some polaroid sheet film and just mess around till you figured it out


youtube how-to's help I guess... but nothing that like instant feedback for your mistakes

You can still get a cheap 4x5 rig and a Polaroid holder and shoot Fuji 3.25x4.25 if you want.

There's nothing wrong with jumping right to 8x10, provided you don't get frustrated or go broke before you figure it out. Film is an entire learning curve of its own, and large format, any large format, provides a myriad of new and creative ways to screw up each shot compared to 35mm or 120, and with 8x10 each of those screw ups take a bit longer and cost a lot more. But if you have the budget and patience for it there's absolutely no reason it can't be done, and you should arrive at the point of producing 8x10 results you are satisfied with sooner than if you had stepped up - again, provided you don't give up in frustration or go broke.

[Roger Cole]

Reviewing this thread...


Call me a purist then I guess. I've toyed with the idea of a hybrid workflow and might do it for color just as the easiest way to print from color transparencies but for B&W I just have no interest in it. I learned photography when there was no digital and wet darkroom work is still near and dear to my heart and a large part of why I shoot film in the first place. If I were going to print digitally I might as well just shoot digitally from the start.


I'm not sure I agree with this entirely. In an ideal world, I would absolutely be doing wet printing but unfortunately space dictates otherwise. I only just about have room for developing my negatives, but for me I get a massive amount of enjoyment out of using my large format camera that I never did with digital. I do see what you're saying but it's the bit I have to compromise on due to logistics.

Hopefully in the future I'll get to wet print but I wouldn't go back to digital simply because I'm unable to wet print. That's my opinion anyway :) I could probably get away with contact printing but I think space dictates otherwise really. One day!

Well, that's the beauty, you don't have to agree with it. YMMV and all that. Me, I'm set up to print optically everything from 35mm to 4x5 save odd sizes and could be set up for those with just a negative carrier, and I love darkroom printing. If I could enlarge it I'd be looking for 8x10 gear but since I can't, I'd rather print my 4x5 optically than scan 8x10. Again, just me, and YMMV.

[Bernice Loui]

8x10 and I have a history..


When I first began using a view camera in the mid 1980’s, the camera was a 4x5 Sinar F with three lenses. After lugging it around that Sinar system for well over a year, burning several hundred sheets of film (color neg, color transparency, B&W) under the guidance of a friend who was a long time 8x10 Sinar user.

The post camera process back then was not that difficult for sheet film. One would simply drop off the E6 color film at the lab and two hours later.. it was done and ready to be looked at. For C41 color neg, this same process took a day or two to get the film processed and proof contact print done. The B&W film was soupped at home using the Nikkor tank purchased at the local photo swap for $20. The B&W negs were contact printed four up on AZO paper in a contact frame.

Color prints were equally easy, go to the preferred lab and order up the print as required. Notes were given directly to the guy who did the printing.. Which you had an ability to chat with and discuss what can or cannot be done.

B&W, the idea of setting up a darkroom came to mind after printing some of the 4x5 negs at a friend’s darkroom. Liked the prints from 4x5 to 16x20, and realized how good B&W sheet film prints can be compared to smaller formats. In time, the initial visual thrill of a B&W print from a 4x5 neg wore off after seeing some contact prints and 16x20 prints made from 8x10. The 8x10 prints just had MORE….. Definition, resolution, seamless tone and ….. There WAS a difference.

My photo friend who tutored me at the beginning of all this asked if I would like to try making some images using the 8x10 Sinar. Feeling confident enough with my abilities at the time to try, I took up that challenge. First time going from 4x5 to 8x10 was intimidating, that camera was HUGE compared to a 4x5. Not only was the GG that much bigger, the camera was heavier, lenses heavier and longer focal length for the similar perspective and more.. Overall it was more of a leap than a step. There was also the smaller f-stops required to achieve similar DOF unless the lens/camera was focused at infinity, the light requirements were just that much more and..

Lugging that 8x10 around was no easy chore. Eventually, we ended up with a Toyo 810M which was a BIG improvement in portability over the Sinar.. But it had limited bellows and flat bed travel which limited lens choice. Wide angle lenses on the Toyo was not was straight forward to use as the Sinar.


The 8x10 lenses I ended up liking:

*155mm Grandagon

*200mm Grandagon, to this day one of my favorite 8x10 wide angle lenses. It is a HUGE chunk of glass.

*12” Dagor.

*12” & 14” Commercial Ektar

*19” & 24” APO Artar.

*480mm Xenar.

Did not like the Sironar N, Symmar, (both had high contrast that appeared fake to me and when the color transparencies were examined using a microscope at 25X, they were no higher in resolution than the Goerz or Kodak lenses. Out of focus rendition was harsh) Nikkor M, Tele Nikkor,
It was also apparent lenses for 8x10 were much more limited compared to smaller formats and they cost more too.

Film flatness became an issue with 8x10. There was a time when I held the film holder upside down without the dark slide and marveled at how much the sheet of film sagged and pulled away from the backing. My technical back round told me it will be a leap to produce a truly sharply focused image on a less than flat imaging surface regardless of what lens is used.

The 8x10 post camera for color was the same for 4x5 back then (drop off at the lab and go from there). Processing 8x10 B&W sheet film was interesting. This was a matter or hangers, tanks and a lot of chemistry or in tray with the risk to scratching the film during this process.

Making prints from the B&W neg… on a Durst 184… which was more like using a large machine tool than a photographic enlarger was awkward and not what appealed to me. The amount of real estate required to make a reasonable working 8x10 dark room was more than what made sense to me. Yet the resulting prints was nice indeed.

At the time, more and more of the images I wanted to make turned towards B&W and fewer and fewer color images. Even so, all of the lens testing was done using color transparency film under controlled conditions. Save that story for another day.

Sizing up the post camera work flow real estate required, camera size and bulk, lens limitations, DOF limitations of images made with the lens focused at less than infinity convinced me 8x10 was not it. Yet the image quality difference between 4x5 -vs- 8x10 was un-deniable.

All this is what brought me to the 5x7 format. It delivered the improved image quality over 4x5 with a much, much broader range or lenses possible compared to 8x10, a much smaller post camera work flow area compared to 8x10, smaller and far more manageable camera and more. Eventually, I ended up with a Durst 138 which I love dearly as one of the best enlargers ever used. The other choice was a DeVere and another story.

So, when folks ask why 5x7.. Look at the overall camera to post camera and print work flow for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10… In the modern days of scanning post film processing, it may matter less.

For me, an 11x14 or 16x20 B&W print made from 4x5 is just not good enough and going up that one format size makes all the difference.

Bigger format size does not always mean high quality images; the reproduction ratios play a BIG factor in what could be ideal. When the lens is focused at infinity using the largest film possible with the best lens possible will net amazing image quality. Good examples of this would be the aero recon cameras used up to the cold war. The standard was 9” x 9” or 9” x 18” roll film using lenses with fixed aperture of anywhere from f2.5 to f8. These systems typically produced no less than 100LPM or resolved 6” at 70,000 feet. Fixed focus at infinity. This is where big film really works. On macro or close up images of 1x or more 8x10 becomes a serious liability unless the object being imaged is FLAT. Long focal length lenses really don’t work that well on sheet film, images of this kind work best in the smaller formats like 35mm or similar digital.

So, the bigger camera/film is not always the answer. Choosing the proper image making tool for the image in mind can make all the difference on the finished print.

Those were my days of learning and finding my way. Eventually, the focus shifted from the hardware and post process to creating images.. which is what really mattered. Or why I'm a bit apathetic about hardware chatter.. even if I can yak an awful lot about it.



Bernice

[Brian C. Miller]

hamr22, you are doing just fine! Trust me, it takes a while to get the initial kinks worked out. Sure, when I started out there was Polaroid, but Polaroid was only "cheap" in 4x5, not 8x10, and I never used it in 8x10. You are doing it right, use cheap film to figure out how the camera works mechanically, and then step up to some better stuff later on. Remember, there's quite a few folks here who use x-ray film in their 8x10s.

My first 8x10 contact print

87816

isn't that great, either. I used a Schneider 360mm telephoto, which I hoped would cover 8x10. Nope, I had to wait quite a while to save up for a real 8x10 lens.

I don't think of 8x10 as "seductive," I think of it as "right-sized." Unfortunately, there's no way it will ever be compact. Not like my Toyo or Graflex, anyways. But the film and how the camera is used is just "right" to me. I like it.

[premortho]

I don't shoot tons of 8X10, so I go with a minimalist attitude. I use a Rochester Optical Co. 8X10. It has a Turner-reich Triple Convertable lens...12, 21, and 28. The camera is light, the lens is light, and the Packard shutter is light. It does not require the eiffel tower for a tripod. It works fine for me. I almost always shoot Arista Ortho film. I tray develop in diluted Dectol (d-72). Around 10 minutes. I say around, because I develope by inspection, as I have, mostly, since 1947. I shoot landscapes and still lifes, and occasionaly, portraits. Contact print. But I usually use a 5X7...I like the proportions better. I have two. A Burke and James Comercial View for "studio" work, and a Seneca "black beauty" in the field. I use the same lens on both. A Baush and Lomb Tessar mounted in a Compound shutter. The Compound shutter is a real sweetheart of a shutter. Pnuematic shutters work fine on 5X7, and above. On 8X10 I also use "green" X-Ray film sometimes and paper negatives as well. It didn't matter to me that some people sneer at Turner-Reich lenses, some folks think that anything other than $1000-3500 lenses is not worth hanging on the front of an 8X10. They are entitled to their opinions, and so am I.
hamr22, you are doing just fine! Trust me, it takes a while to get the initial kinks worked out. Sure, when I started out there was Polaroid, but Polaroid was only "cheap" in 4x5, not 8x10, and I never used it in 8x10. You are doing it right, use cheap film to figure out how the camera works mechanically, and then step up to some better stuff later on. Remember, there's quite a few folks here who use x-ray film in their 8x10s.

My first 8x10 contact print

87816

isn't that great, either. I used a Schneider 360mm telephoto, which I hoped would cover 8x10. Nope, I had to wait quite a while to save up for a real 8x10 lens.

I don't think of 8x10 as "seductive," I think of it as "right-sized." Unfortunately, there's no way it will ever be compact. Not like my Toyo or Graflex, anyways. But the film and how the camera is used is just "right" to me. I like it.

[hamr22]

point taken about learning developing, which I've done before but years and years ago. I have to get better space than sitting crosslegged on the floor of the bathroom. My knees are probably too old for that. For portraits, I'm going to need a shutter that's better than squeezing the rubber ball and counting in my head for a few seconds. But until then it's a ton of fun. My friends think it's weird. My teenage kids think it's other-worldly. My wife is tolerating the fuss and clutter because it keeps me off the couch and there's so many things to do with your hands it's nearly impossible to drink wine at the same time.

I like it because I'm making something with my hands and my (little) brain. When I show people my photos, they don't know what to think of them, but they obviously don't like them, so I stopped showing them. Would like to find a way to get more critique from experienced people, like the developing tip. How do you do that?

[John Kasaian]

Your first photos came out way better than my first photos. In fact my portraits were the worst of the lot! Don't give up---the "Ah-hah!" Moment makes it all worthwhile.:)
If you can, find a local old time photographer who knows about sheet film---retired commercial photographers or newspapermen---and show them what you're doing.
They are a great resource and encouragment (and often enjoy the attention.)

[mike rosenlof]

I have been shooting 8x10 for only about six months now. For me it's great fun. 4x5 seems so tiny when I handle it now! Especially when developing the films.

My enlarger can handle 4x5, but I can only contact print 8x10. If I want larger prints, I need smaller negs, but I rarely want larger prints. That's been my preference for a lot of years.

Unless you're using slow contact printing paper, you'll probably find that typical bathroom lighting is way too bright for reliable exposure repeatability. A single 25 Watt (incandescent) bulb is probably closer to reasonable brightness.

A light box is a great way to make quick and dirty scans of 8x10 film. Drop the neg on the box and shoot with a digital camera. I wouldn't use this for serious prints, but it's good for the weed out level proof.

I have only one lens with a shutter that will cover 8x10 at infinity, that's a 360mm apo nikkor, a process lens I bought on the bay more than ten years ago for less than $100 (for the lens in barrel) and then spent a bunch to have S. Grimes mount it in a shutter. It's a good FL for portraits. Right now there are several low priced barrel lenses in the forsale section of this forum that would be great for non-moving subjects.

I'm using Ilford HP5 for everything, 35mm through 8x10. The cost of film and developing 8x10 makes you stop and think before pushing the button. Sometimes that's a really good thing!

[premortho]

Interesting comment on the use of air-operated shutters!! Every portrait photographer in my area used only one of three shutters. Over half of them used Packard shutters. The rest used either Wollensak Studio shutters, or Compound shutters. I would suggest that 8X10 is not the best format for the kind of modern portraiture with the model changing poses one after another. The Hasslebad technique. Portraits with 8X10 were leisurly. The photographer got ready, set the victum the way they they wanted, focused, loaded the film and walked a few feet away from the camera. The sitters eyes would follow him, and when he got the expression he wanted, squeezed the bulb. On more figgity (lens shy) subjects, he would drop the bulb on the floor, involve the sitter in conversation, and when everything was right, squeeze the bulb with his foot. Needless to say, he always used the same exposures, because with the hot lights the light was always the same. They used to take several (maybe 4) exposures.
point taken about learning developing, which I've done before but years and years ago. I have to get better space than sitting crosslegged on the floor of the bathroom. My knees are probably too old for that. For portraits, I'm going to need a shutter that's better than squeezing the rubber ball and counting in my head for a few seconds. But until then it's a ton of fun. My friends think it's weird. My teenage kids think it's other-worldly. My wife is tolerating the fuss and clutter because it keeps me off the couch and there's so many things to do with your hands it's nearly impossible to drink wine at the same time.

I like it because I'm making something with my hands and my (little) brain. When I show people my photos, they don't know what to think of them, but they obviously don't like them, so I stopped showing them. Would like to find a way to get more critique from experienced people, like the developing tip. How do you do that?