Why no love for the 5x7?

[Shootar401]

I have a 5x7 speed graphic and a AGFA/Ansco 5x7 (currently under restoration) that I've shot a few times. I'm not a big fan of it because I only have one lens and that's on the long side. But why is 5x7 the bastard child of the LF world? So far it seems like a good compromise between 4x5 and the more expensive 8x10. Why did it never catch on?

On a side not, how well will 4x5 lenses work on a 5x7? I expect some vignetting and lack of movements but overall?

[paulr]

5x7 is my favorite format. But I've never had a 5x7 camera or used one. In the end, the advantages never outweighed (for me) the increased cost of film, film holders, lenses, enlargers, etc., and the reduced availability of film. But part of me wishes I'd made that plunge.

[Bernice Loui]

IMO, is nearly the ideal format for a host of reasons. When one considers the limits of optical design, film resolution / grain size finished print size, hardware size/weight, the dark room requirements and ....

5x7 / 13cm x 18cm is very much the ideal film size.

Unless one is making contact prints which 8x10 or larger is more suited to doing.

There is partly a bigger is better ideology that some get caught into and don't find their way out of.


Bernice


I have a 5x7 speed graphic and a AGFA/Ansco 5x7 (under restoration) that I've shot a few times. I'm not a big fan of it because I only have one lens and that's on the long side. But why is 5x7 the bastard child of the LF world? So far it seems like a good compromise between 4x5 and the more expensive 8x10. Why did it never catch on?

On a side not, how well will 4x5 lenses work on a 5x7? I expect some vignetting and lack of movements but overall?

[Ron Stowell]

Been shooting 5X 7 for the last two years and find it to be close to ideal.
I also shoot a Mamiya RB 67, which weighs a ton, but does give some fantastic negatives and I have an Ansco 8X10, again weighs a ton, but is fun to shoot.
Thus the 5 x7 is the camera of choise and there some other fans of the 5x7 that hang out here on the forum.

[Shootar401]

I've been shooting 4x5 for less than a year now and before that 120 with my RZ67. But I'm already thinking of taking out the 5x7 more and more. I now have tanks and racks so developing is no longer a problem and with Arista film costing what it does I can't see a reason NOT to shoot it. I'm just wondering how my 4x5 lenses will work with a 5x7.

[Jason Greenberg Motamedi]

... I'm just wondering how my 4x5 lenses will work with a 5x7.

It depends on the lens. A regular 70 degree 150mm f5.6 plasmat will barely cover, but a 210mm f5.6 or longer would be fine. Wide angle is harder, the modern 90mm f4.5 lenses generally cover with some movements, while the f8 (except the Nikkor) are pretty tight. All of the modern 120mm f8 lenses do fine.

[Ken Lee]

Click here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?57170-In-Praise-of-5x7-Post-em-!) for a few years worth of 5x7 images posted on this forum.

[Michael Clark]

5x7 enlargers are now a little harder to find and are pretty big, also with the newer and finer grain films of today and the availability of inexpensive 4x5 enlargers 4x5 format has a lot of advantages over 5x7. That being said I myself still like using 5x7 and like the smoothness of the older lens. The modern 4x5 lens that I have are the 120mm super Anglon and 210mm nikkor W are some of the lens that cover 4x5 and 5x7 with good movements. The older ones are 159mm wolly,10' Com. Kodak , 300mm Paragon and 14" apo f/10 Raptar. I'm sure there are others from the 4x5 family that have the large IC to cover 5x7. Check the home page of this forum to get more info on lens coverage.

Mike

[Andrew O'Neill]

Thought about it in the past but, quickly forgot about it when I started contact printing 8x10 negatives for alt processes. It is a nice format, though.

[Michael Clark]

OOP's should have waited to post,Ken hit the nail on the head with that post.

[Ed Bray]

I love my Canham Metal 5x7 it's only a little larger and heavier than a 4x5 field Camera yet has almost twice the amount of film area. Downside for me is the lack of film choice especially IR.

[Brian Ellis]

I used a 5x7 Agfa Ansco for a while. I really liked the aspect ratio but I didn't have a 5x7 enlarger so I was limited to contact prints (this was before I knew how to scan) and for me 5x7 was too small for most contact prints.

[Sal Santamaura]

...5x7 / 13cm x 18cm is very much the ideal film size. Unless one is making contact prints...Paul Strand didn't think 5x7 contacts were non-ideal, except he cropped off a bit of the long dimension. :)

Whole plate might be better, but I find 5x7 contacts are OK. They "read" well in the hand and, unless one has very large spaces to fill, are good framed on the wall too. After much trial and error testing, I settled on 9-3/4 x 12-1/2 inch mounts and had some custom frames made in that size. Works well for either the full negative or "Strand-cropped" versions.

[Ken Lee]

Why did it never catch on?

Paul Strand shot with only one lens - 300mm lens - normal length on 8x10, portrait length on 5x7 (masked to 5x6). Here are a few with 5x7.


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/masters/StrandMexico.jpg
The Mexican Portfolio
Paul Strand, 1967

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/masters/StrandFamily.jpg
The Family, Luzzara, Italy
Paul Strand, 1953

[Renato Tonelli]

Over the past year or so, I have been gearing up for 5x7. The biggest challenge has been the enlarger (a Durst, yet to be set-up). Almost all of my 4x5 lenses cover 5x7. This forum has a excellent article on the 5x7 format.

I really like the format's dimensions.

[Ironage]

Having started with 35mm, I love the dimensions on 5x7. Plus as mentioned contact printing is good. Old Elwood's aren't too bad for size for enlargement.

Why would you want any other format?

I think that any lens over 180 mm should cover both formats.

BTW, 4x5 contact prints just don't do it, and 8x10 is very expensive with only slight gains.

Long live the perfect format!

[andreios]

I'm using 13x18cm myself and contact print - good size in hand and even on the walls at home. However, sometimes I do get this pining for either a Durst enlarger or an 8x10 camera...

[ImSoNegative]

i enjoy 5x7, i have an old b&j 5x7 w/4x5 back that i just finished stripping sanding and refinishing, its a great format, all my 4x5 lenses will cover my 5x7 even my 90 though its too wide for my use on 5x7, i really like it on 4x5 though.

[Greg Y]

Count me in on the 5x7. I do have the Durst (138) & then sold the 8x10. The 5x7 does push me towards tempting the fates of 11x14....now that would be the lovely contact print size. A handful of G-clarons & old Dagors to cover both 4x5 & 5x7...

[Doug Howk]

As to contact prints, it depends on subject matter. I use a 5X7 reducing back on a KMV; and find that much of what I like to shoot (eg, architectural details) is better seen in the smaller aspect ratio. The savings with pt/pd printing is also an advantage. Film choices may be a problem, but Ilford's yearly ULF run enables a wider choice ( I use Ilford Delta 100, FP4, HP5 and Kodak Tri-X in 5X7). Also getting into Tintypes, and 5X7 is easier to handle than 4X5 or 8X10 in wet-plate Collodion..

[Gary Tarbert]

Hi 5x7 was already on the wane when i decided 8x10 was bigger than i really wanted to use on a regular basis , And i was looking at something beyond 5x4 , Then with the guidance of some members on this forum i purchased a Chamonix 5x8 and buy 8x10 and cut in half , Best decision of my LF life love the format love the camera ,the reason this format is so perfect for me is i like a 2 to 1 aspect to some of my landscapes which only requires a 1/2 inch crop top and bottom ,So far less lost area than on 5x7 , Have great xmas . Cheers Gary

[Jonathan Barlow]

I tend to like square images, such as the Hasselblad 6x6 look. I like 8x10 because it's "squarer" and also because I make contact prints.

[John Kasaian]

I've got a 5x7 Speed Graphic as well as a 5x7 Agfa Ansco. I think the format rocks. I'd love to add either a 5x7 Nagaoka or 'dorff some day.

[Pete Watkins]

It's a great format. I use my 4x5 / 5x7 B&J and if I dont need front tilt I've got a beautiful 1926 / 1927 Ansco with both backs as well. I just wish that my 90mm SA would fit them.
Pete.

[Shootar401]

All this 5x7 talk is making me take my 5x7 Speed out today! I'll post some pics after I get them scanned.

[Jim Noel]

The main reason people don't like 5x7 is they haven't tried it. The secondary reason is that to many people beieve, "Bigger is better" and they don't want to buy a 5x7 enlarger. My pre-1939 Deardorf has been my favorite camera since the 1960's.

[Vaughn]

When my 5x7 got ripped off, I used the insurance money to help buy an 8x10. But I now have a 5x7 that I hope to use.

I find 5x7 contact prints to be wonderful -- IMO, best possible size for viewing hand-held prints, though I can understand folks thinking that it is a bit small on a big wall.

[Shootar401]

My other 5x7 is still a work in progress. I'm hoping to get it complete by late February sometime.

86029

[Michael Cienfuegos]

I should have never opened this thread. After going through reasons why one should be shooting 5x7 and then seeing all the 5x7 images posted, I will have to start using my 5x7 2D more often. I found a source for 5x7 green xray film and bought a 100 sheet box, so I'm set. Now if the weather will cooperate I will get out and start using this old gem. :)

[mdm]

A 5x7 2D is a really lovely camera to use. Have fun.

[brianjnelson]

I think the Linhof 5x7 Technika is a great camera and I love the 5x7 format. Not to mention adding the Canham 6x17 back. It's quicker to set up and lighter than my Toyo 810M. And even though I find it a bit ridiculous, it's hand-holdable.

[ROL]

As it always turns out, jealousy.

[Peter Gomena]

Historically, 5x7 was a very popular format in the glass-plate era. In the heyday of photo post cards, photographers would shoot 5x7 loosely and crop to postcard size for contact prints. Portrait studios needed a bigger negative for retouching, so it was popular there. I think 5x7 and whole-plate formats lost favor when enlarging became practical and cheap. You can enlarge a 4x5" negative to 8x10 with little quality loss. 5x7 still was used in a variety of commercial applications, but it was kind of the in-between, neither here-nor-there format. A lot of portrait studios used 5x7 split-backs for sake of economy for things like business mug shots for the newspaper.

I personally like 5x7 for landscapes, but have hesitated to buy into a 5x7 kit because of the small and dwindling supply of film available for it. Also 5x7 enlargers are beyond my means and 5x7 contact prints seem a bit small.

My workaround has been to buy a 5x7 back for my whole-plate camera so I have a backup when I run out of WP holders on a shoot or photo-safari. Now I own a camera for two "orphaned" formats! What I like is that I can use either format in my aged flatbed scanner and get good-quality inkjet prints at 100% size or a bit larger. No need for a digital camera when I can get big files from big negatives.

[Ed Bray]

I've cemented my love of 5x7 today by buying a Devere 507 free standing enlarger. I am now going to concentrate on 5x7 with a backup of 4x5 and 6x17 for the odd types of film not available on 5x7.

Anyone want an 8x10 monorail?

[DrTang]

I love my 5x7 Linhof Tech

yes..it weighs a ton..but, the best part about it is that it isn't a 4x5


4x5's are a dime a dozen... and 8x10..well.. that is just too fancy

but 5x7 - just odd & different enough for me

[IanG]

The main issue is 7x5 is a US format and historically not used much outside the US, so in the UK half plate was more common and 13x18 cm in the rest of Europe.
In practice half plate fell out of use as film quality improved dramatically in the 50's, 60s & 70's, and half plate was dropped in the 1970's, photographers shot 5x4 or if really needed 10x8.

However Internatioanl standards mean the right type of back is compatible with 7x5, half frame, or 13x18.

Ian

[mdm]

A really big adavantage of 5x7 if you are interested in making books, is that a 5x7 inkjet 'contact' or even a gravure or a carbon tranfser (slightly cropped to 120mm x 170mm) will fit an A4 page size in the golden section. Probably in most places A4 and A3 are the standard size for inkjet paper. Even if you only want to frame a matted print, the proportions fit beautifully in an off the shelf A4 frame or if you like an A3 frame.

86059

[brianam]

I think for many, myself included, 5x7 is just a much more enjoyable compositional experience. (and therefore large format photography experience.) The 4x5 ground glass feels small and cramped by comparison. There is a step up in cost and complexity (e.g. lens selection) with 5x7, but it's marginal and a lot lower than say going to 8x10.
If you contact print, or scan your film in a hybrid analog/digital process, concerns about enlargers are eliminated. (though that's true of all formats)

[Leigh]

If I may suggest...

Lack of popularity does not reflect a lack of appreciation for the format.
I like the aspect ratio and presentation of 5x7 better than that of 4x5 or 8x10.

In my case, I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, but not 5x7.
I can contact print 8x10 satisfactorily, but I find 5x7 contacts look too small.

My enlarger handles up to 4x5.
Were I to buy a larger enlarger :D I would get an 8x10.

So I do like 5x7, and I follow that thread in the image sharing forum, but
I don't shoot the format, and I'm not likely to.

- Leigh

[mdm]

But dont forget, if you ever go hybrid it is the perfect format for scanning on a v700 flatbed and printing digitally. However cropping 4x5 is totally valid.

[largeformatguy]

The main reason people don't like 5x7 is they haven't tried it. The secondary reason is that to many people beieve, "Bigger is better" and they don't want to buy a 5x7 enlarger. My pre-1939 Deardorf has been my favorite camera since the 1960's.

The problem with "Bigger is better" is that it literally forces the viewer away from the photograph. Somehow there seems to be a greater intimacy, not just physically but emotionally when the viewer is nearer to the work, any work.

[ROL]

A really big adavantage of 5x7 if you are interested in making books, is that a 5x7 inkjet 'contact' or even a gravure or a carbon tranfser (slightly cropped to 120mm x 170mm) will fit an A4 page size in the golden section. Probably in most places A4 and A3 are the standard size for inkjet paper. Even if you only want to frame a matted print, the proportions fit beautifully in an off the shelf A4 frame or if you like an A3 frame.

Coincidentally, one remark made to me once upon a time was that 5x7 was for 'car guys'. It seems that 5x7 lengthwise covers automobile copy on a two page magazine spread.

I almost always crop 5x7, under my 5x7 enlarger, for reasons given here (http://www.rangeoflightphotography.com/index.php?p=pages&title=cropping-a-negative).

[Steve Hamley]

Folks,

Well David (mdm) gave an example I've never seen...

It's a great format. It's the smallest - to me - format that has a presence contact printed and framed on a wall. I have 4x5 contacts framed and hung, but 5x7 is noticeably better and still able to fit in smaller spaces, or for making a collage of frames on a wall.

But others did not mention the camera! A friend of mine once said the best 4x5 may well be a 5x7, and used a wooden Canham. A 5x7 can shoot 4x5 without being a size hog like a 8x10. I bought myself an Ebony 5x7 with 4x5 reducing back a few years ago, and it can handle my lenses from 55mm to 600mm without changing bellows. It isn't as nice as a 4x5 for short lenses, but it can be done. So I can shoot 4x5 and 5x7 with lenses from 55mm to 600mm, and if I want panos, I put a Canham 6x17 back on it. I can hike with it, but I'd rather have a 4x5 for hiking. And I can't carry all three formats and lenses for them, it just gets too heavy. But I can carry any one and quite possibly two formats if I'm not going too far in rugged territory. It's the most versatile view camera I've ever owned, and the Canham is specified very nearly the same. You could put something together Arca, but not I think, in a 9x10x5-1/2" space that includes both backs.

Cheers, Steve

[Vaughn]

Agreed, Steve. My first 5x7 was a Indian knock-off of a Deardorff Special -- bought as a 4x5 (w/ revolving back) but later I bought a Deardorff 5x7 back for it also.

[Andrew Plume]

The main reason people don't like 5x7 is they haven't tried it. The secondary reason is that to many people beieve, "Bigger is better" and they don't want to buy a 5x7 enlarger. My pre-1939 Deardorf has been my favorite camera since the 1960's.

that's an interesting point Jim, I initially felt that 10 x 8 just had to be the way to go (because of the size) but now, I'm pretty happy with 5 x 7

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

I love my Canham Metal 5x7 it's only a little larger and heavier than a 4x5 field Camera yet has almost twice the amount of film area. Downside for me is the lack of film choice especially IR.

likewise Ed, although I have the wooden 5 x 7 KBC

regards

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Paul Strand didn't think 5x7 contacts were non-ideal, except he cropped off a bit of the long dimension. :)

Whole plate might be better, but I find 5x7 contacts are OK. They "read" well in the hand and, unless one has very large spaces to fill, are good framed on the wall too. After much trial and error testing, I settled on 9-3/4 x 12-1/2 inch mounts and had some custom frames made in that size. Works well for either the full negative or "Strand-cropped" versions.

exactly Sal, PS was really fond of the 5 x 6 format, so much that his 5 x 7 Graflex was 'adjusted' to take that size into account

andrew