4x5 or 8x10

Hi,

I'm new to LF but have experience in 35mm and MF, also in developing these films and printing. I have a darkroom with 2 Durst enlargers that go up till 6x7.
I wanna take the next step and get into LF. I'm wondering if I should get into 4x5 first or just skip that and go straight to 8x10. 4x5 would allow me to scan the negatives with my epson scanner, but since I don't have a 4x5 enlarger, and I really like the printing process, I'm afraid I won't get 'hooked'. The format more portable than 8x10 and probably much cheaper as well.
On the other hand, 8x10 would give me contact prints of decent size, would allow me to get into wet plate stuff and other nifty things like polaroid 8x10's. I really dig the 8x10 look which imho is much more special than 4x5. Any advice? Would 8x10 be too difficult to make the jump straight from Medium size?
What if I want to make larger prints later on? How difficult is it to make your own 8x10 enlarger, let alone finding one which doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

Feedback and mentorship are much appreciated.

Thanks and stay safe in these corona times,

F

Welcome!
Learning to shoot LF is less costly with a 4x5.
Used 4x5 enlargers aren't terribly expensive.
If you want to make 8x10 contacts, that is certainly do-able right out the gate if you have the moo-lah,
as the cost of camera, film, film holders, lens and amount of chemicals used does go up.
Are you interested in B&W or color?
If you want to shoot in color, then I'd suggest 4x5 would be the format to start with.

IMHO 8x10 is no more difficult to learn than any other format. You have the same sheet film and depending on the camera, the same movements.
Managing the size and weight of the physically larger gear is the biggest difference I can see.
Do you want to whet your 8x10 appetite? Make an 8x10 pinhole camera and go play with it before investing a lot of $$ in the format.
8x10 negatives are the crack cocaine of the camera world.

Good luck and keep us posted on your adventure!

Totally agree with John's advice. If you go the 8x10 route (my personal favorite format), EVERYTHING will be, well...more; generally, more expensive camera, more expensive lenses, more expensive film, holders, etc, and more weight to carry around. As I said...MORE! The cost of 8x10 color film will probably cause you to pause a bit; especially Velvia 50. You can mitigate the weight a bit by going with something like the 8x10 Intrepid, but, then, the light weight of that camera is problematic in wind.

All that said, 8x10 is no harder to learn and will provide "best in class" print quality. Personally, I became addicted to the 8x10 silver gelatin print 40 years ago!

Good luck and have fun.

I shoot 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and do b&w film, dry plates, wet plates. My advice is to start with 4x5. You will make a lot of mistakes starting out and that gets very expensive with 8x10. I thought it would be an easy jump from 4x5 to 8x10 wet plate but it is not. After two months of practice I'm just now beginning to get some good results after spending over $600 (not including camera and lenses--just materials.) Buying used 4x5 equipment will let you resell it again for about what you paid for it. The funny thing is I don't want to sell my Chamonix 4x5 because it's so light and portable and easy to use that I'm still using it. A 5x7 might be a good compromise in that it's big enough you can contact print, and I scan them on my Epson v700. Downside is few 5x7 enlargers (and they are getting big) and color film gets expensive. They don't make color film so you have to cut down 8x10 sheets. Those will cost you about $20 each by the time you pay shipping etc. I only shoot b&w film with large format though.


Kent in SD

I agree that starting with 4x5 is best. Of course it depends on one's ultimate goal in image quality and characteristics, but 4x5 satisfies the needs of many of us at a much lower cost than 8x10. Modern technology expands the potential of 4x5. After decades of darkroom printing, I quickly grew to appreciate the potential of digital editing and printing. Even if one eventually moves up to 8x10, retain a 4x5 kit for its obvious advantages.

5x7...:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kasaian

Welcome!
unt of chemicals used does go up.
Are you interested in B&W or color?
If you want to shoot in color, then I'd suggest 4x5 would be the format to start with.

Good luck and keep us posted on your adventure!

---

Thanks for the warm Welcome!

I'm primarily a B&W shooter. I don't even have a clue on how color processing 8x10 and printing would work (besides what I saw on youtube with the polaroid/impossible stuff).
I was thinking to get a Svedovsky 8x10. They have a reducing back and wet plate holders as well... Chamonix is a bit expensive (but a lot lighter).
I can sell a couple of Leica Camera's to finance my new adventure ;)

Thanks for all the tips and feedback. It seems large format is still very much alive!

5x7 plus a 4x5 reducing back, then 8x10 and, and, and...

My decision was to go with 4x5. It was the right compromise for me between a larger negative, having movements and portability.

I like 11x14-inch and larger prints. Enlarging 4x5 beats contact-printing 11x14 or enlarging 8x10 as far as logistics go for me.

I hike, bike and travel a lot with my camera gear. A lightweight and versatile kit was really important for me. My 4x5 field camera with 4-5 lenses, 6 holders, meter and accessories weighs in at less than 20 pounds. A can go places with it that I would never dream of going with an 8x10 kit.

Still, there are those that get out and about with larger cameras (Vaughn for instance). I once ran into a guy in Death Valley working with 12x20. He had his gear in two backpacks. He'd park his rig, don one pack and hike till he found a suitable photo possibility. Then he'd stash the pack, hike back to the car, get the other pack and hike back to his chosen location. He'd then set up, wait for the light or whatever and make one exposure. Then it was pack everything up and make two trips back to the car... I had hiked 13 miles and made six exposures when I met him back at the parking area later that day; he'd made one. It depends on how you like to work.

FWIW, 8x10 negatives enlarged to 16x20 or 20x24 are really beautiful; I just don't have room and resources for an 8x10 enlarger..

Best,

Doremus

I don't recall 4x5, 5x7, or 8x10 as being more problematical but I will say that it is difficult (in my experience) to scale back from 8x10. I stopped shooting 8x10 about twelve years ago because of weight and cost and after all these years I still have difficulty adjusting to the smaller ground-glass image. I would not shoot 8x10 if I had no means to enlarge the negatives - I tried contact printing with 8x10 but just didn't like it! As for 5x7, I simply didn't like the format nor the dearth of available films. I still shoot 4x5 more than any other format.
Joel

Bigger is NOT better.

Each film format has it's advantages and limitations. Film format choice strongly depends on the intended goals of any print.

~What are your print goals?~

IMO and experience, 8x10 and larger is best when contact printed. Once you're at 8x10 sheet film there are serious limitations on choice of optics, overall size and mass of all hardware involved and more. Add film cost and all post camera related to 8x10 makes it a rather serious commitment.

Step down one sheet film size to 5x7 or 4x5, the difficulties completely change in every way. Choice of optics for 5x7 is extremely wide and easily available, enlarger reasonable for a home dark room, makes very reasonable contact prints with camera and all related being slightly more physically than 4x5.

That said, 4x5 is the better choice to begin with. Once up the view camera and sheet film learning curve with 4x5, the transition to a larger film format size is easier in many ways.

It is very possible to upgrade the current enlarger in your darkroom to a 5x7 floor standing enlarger (Durst 138 or De Vere 507) allowing prints to be made from film size up to 5x7 & 13x18cm with not much more darkroom real estate demands. Both Durst or De Vere enlargers are extremely good at projecting-enlarging smaller film formats to 35mm or smaller with the proper add-ons. Doing the same with a 8x10 enlarger is going to be an "interesting" experience and expense.

Essentially, skip looking at film format size alone and consider all involved with making the finished print. Larger film alone will NOT produce a better print.



Bernice

Hello Fwaeyten,

I had the same dilemma one year and half ago; I wanted to move up from many years working with mainly medium format (6x6 and 6x9) and some 35mm.
At first I was looking toward 8x10 with the idea of using Polaroid film (which wasn't and isn't available in 4x5).
A dear friend of mine suggested to start with 4x5 for cost and portability reasons and to avoid rail cameras and look for a field. I must say it was a good advice.
I went for an Intrepid. I waited for it months and then after many sheets of film it was clear that it has a very bad problem of light leaks; I got a Chamonix a couple of months ago, simply flawless and amazing crafted.
But now I'm thinking to go to the final stage and look for an 8x10 to use it only for b&w film with a 300 or a 360mm. The biggest difference in price is for the camera itself and the holders.
In conclusion me too I would advise to go for a 4x5 first. Later you can keep it or sell it for almost the same money and switch to 8x10.

Cheers

Roberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

Bigger is NOT better.

It is very possible to upgrade the current enlarger in your darkroom to a 5x7 floor standing enlarger (Durst 138 or De Vere 507) allowing prints to be made from film size up to 5x7 & 13x18cm with not much more darkroom real estate demands. Both Durst or De Vere enlargers are extremely good at projecting-enlarging smaller film formats to 35mm or smaller with the proper add-ons. Doing the same with a 8x10 enlarger is going to be an "interesting" experience and expense.


Bernice

---

I have 2 Durst 805 Enlargers. One B&W (Condenser) and a Color (Diffuser). Don't think they can be converted to 4x5. Parts for Durst are hard to find and (hence) expensive as well.
5x7 or even 4x5 might be an option if i can find an enlarger cheaply... I don't wanna go scanning LF prints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

Bigger is NOT better...

---

I disagree. I would also disagree if someone posted "Bigger IS better." Bigger is different. What make it better or not better are the goals and objectives embraced by each individual photographer, balanced against the costs -- monetary, handling, transporting, etc. -- a photographer must "pay" for "bigger."

8x10 Polaroid??????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianShaw

8x10 Polaroid??????

---

Yup, just google for it. https://eu.polaroid.com/collections/...d-8x10-cameras

5x7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fwaeyten

Yup, just google for it. https://eu.polaroid.com/collections/...d-8x10-cameras

---

Thanks very much for the education!

OK fine, if that works for you.

Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura

I disagree. I would also disagree if someone posted "Bigger IS better." Bigger is different. What make it better or not better are the goals and objectives embraced by each individual photographer, balanced against the costs -- monetary, handling, transporting, etc. -- a photographer must "pay" for "bigger."

---

Give up the table top enlarger thing.. (both of them) You'll be FAR better off in the long run replace both with a single Durst 138 or DeVere 507 and move on.

As for expense, SO many Durst 138 were junked due to no takers. Had several offered as free, just come haul it away. These were complete with condenser set and all. They had to be take whole, no parting out. Problem being, already have one.

I'm not convinced Durst 138 or DeVere 507 (not as common) are expensive or difficult to find even today. IMO, best to get and set up a 5x7 enlarger system as it will allow print making to that size film negative. As for larger, ponder what is the largest B&W print paper size that is any good that can be easily ordered?

Those two considerations can help decide where ya might wanna go with all this.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fwaeyten

I have 2 Durst 805 Enlargers. One B&W (Condenser) and a Color (Diffuser). Don't think they can be converted to 4x5. Parts for Durst are hard to find and (hence) expensive as well.
5x7 or even 4x5 might be an option if i can find an enlarger cheaply... I don't wanna go scanning LF prints.

---

5x7.

4x5 just doesn't seem that large to me anymore, and 8x10 is a bit much to carry around. 5x7 or 4x5, a few holders and an extra lens or two, both fit in a messenger bag. Also, 5x7 is like looking at a real picture on the ground glass in that the viewing distance under the focus cloth is just right for 5x7. I can't get far enough from 8x10 outside to feel like I'm composing the picture as a whole unit, but it's OK in a dark studio. 4x5, too small again. Also 5x7 contacts are sweet--the size I always printed 35 mm anyway. Again 4x5, not so much--too much like prints from the drugstore.

Thus, 4x5 or 5x7 on the run, 5x7 or 8x10 in the studio; 5x7 either: perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec

5x7 plus a 4x5 reducing back, then 8x10 and, and, and...

---

and, and,...8x10, with 5x7 and 4x5 reducing backs!

Actually my first camera was a copy of a Deardorff Special -- revolving 4x5 back and a 5x7 back. Great field camera for either format...it would be a sweet way for the OP to go. Not oversized for 4x5 nor undersized for 5x7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vaughn

5x7...:cool:

---

Ye, me too!

Depends what you want to do. If you want to make big enlargements, 8x10 darkroom gear takes up a lot of real estate, just like the film size itself does! In the field, lugging around 8x10 is better exercise; you'll lose belt diameter as well as wallet thickness pretty fast. Film can get expensive. With 4x5, everything is one fourth as much.
I like doing both, as well as med format too, so have a serious addiction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

Depends what you want to do. If you want to make big enlargements, 8x10 darkroom gear takes up a lot of real estate, just like the film size itself does! In the field, lugging around 8x10 is better exercise; you'll lose belt diameter as well as wallet thickness pretty fast. Film can get expensive. With 4x5, everything is one fourth as much.
I like doing both, as well as med format too, so have a serious addiction.

---

The other thing is a tripod. I'm just now figuring out my big wooden Berlebach isn't quite up to 8x10 since I added a ries J-250 head to it. I need a bigger tripod and even used ones start at $500 when I can find one. I paid just under $300 for the used J-250 head. It's up to the job but is big and heavy.


Kent in SD

I use my smaller Ries for everything 4x5 and smaller, and my big Ries for 8x10 as well as long telephoto use with my P67. But I also have much lighter carbon fiber equivalents for each for sake of longer backpacking or inevitable old age usage. The sheer bully mass of the wooden Ries tripods is a distinct advantage. But as most here already know, I don't use any kind of tripod head for large format work. I don't know what SD is like, but being pretty much open, maybe you get a lot of wind like we do here on the coast. An 8X10 with a long bellows becomes a great kite! The more solid the tripod, the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Wiley

I use my smaller Ries for everything 4x5 and smaller, and my big Ries for 8x10 as well as long telephoto use with my P67. But I also have much lighter carbon fiber equivalents for each for sake of longer backpacking or inevitable old age usage. The sheer bully mass of the wooden Ries tripods is a distinct advantage. But as most here already know, I don't use any kind of tripod head for large format work. I don't know what SD is like, but being pretty much open, maybe you get a lot of wind like we do here on the coast. An 8X10 with a long bellows becomes a great kite! The more solid the tripod, the better.

---

Yes indeed there is a lot of wind. I've been blown clear off the road on several occasions. We've even had a train blown off the tracks by straight line wind! Today I was working in ~20 mph wind in the open. I do have a heavy duty Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber tripod. It's overkill for my Nikon D850, but since it's so light it just isn't a good choice for a Kodak 2D 8x10. The 8x10 catches a lot of wind and needs some serious mass to hold it steady. I'm looking for either a Ries A100 or J-250-2. There have been times the wind was blowing so hard that I couldn't use LF at all and had to lay on the ground and just use my Nikon.


Kent in SD

If you intend to contact print then go 8x10.

If you intend to make enlargements, realize that 8x10 enlargers can be huge and you need a tall ceiling to use one or rig up a way to print horizontally instead of vertically.

If you want to scan then some of the Epson flat bed scanners will scan up to 8x10.

If you decide to go 4x5 then never, ever look at an 8x10 ground glass. Once you compose on one you can't ever unsee it! ;)

If you like a more rectangular image then consider 5x7.

Welcome to the forum!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

If you decide to go 4x5 then never, ever look at an 8x10 ground glass. Once you compose on one you can't ever unsee it! ;)

---

+1

And, if you contact print, I swear there's something that happens to your brain, composition-wise, when looking at the gg at actual print size. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

If you like a more rectangular image then consider 5x7.

---

Paul Strand cropped his 5x7 negatives to 5x6!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philippe Grunchec

Paul Strand cropped his 5x7 negatives to 5x6!

---

I can see that. I prefer a more square or even square negative myself. Remember Hasselblad saying that square was the perfect format? :)

I think 5x7 stands alone, not as a viable alternative to 4x5/8x10.
The longer rectangular aspect is quite different from the other two formats, and that's why I've never much liked it.
Either you like 5x7 or you don't.
I prefer the aspect ratio of the other two formats, and like some here, cannot be reconciled to using a smaller screen than 8x10, so I've largely given up on 4x5.

4x10 and 5x14 are pretty cool. I like the proportions of 5x7, 4x5 and Rolleicords. I have made a couple of exposures of 11x11 but none printed yet.
One can see images for any format. Just a matter of preference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan Gales

I can see that. I prefer a more square or even square negative myself.

---

Ha, given your BBQ background, just think of 5x7 as a primal cut, with basically every aspect ratio you might use, from square to pano, having at least the same film area as a 4x5.:) (FWIW, for some reason 5x7 "landscape" orientation often doesn't strike me as too different from 1:1.25, while "portrait" shots are almost always too skinny.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CreationBear

Ha, given your BBQ background, just think of 5x7 as a primal cut, with basically every aspect ratio you might use, from square to pano, having at least the same film area as a 4x5.:) (FWIW, for some reason 5x7 "landscape" orientation often doesn't strike me as too different from 1:1.25, while "portrait" shots are almost always too skinny.)

---

;)

On the other hand, a person could go "whole hog" and shoot 16x20.

Knowing a bunch of folks shooting 5x7 I would go with that size and a second back, for 4x5.
Having shot with a Deardorff 5x7 it is manageable and covers both sizes with no problems.
Lens selection is easy if you check coverage before buying. That way you can work with either film size.

I started with 4x5, flirted with 8x10 and ended up with 5x7. I like the longer negative and while nearly 2x compared to 4x5 the holders are still manageable on the road changing in a dark bag. Camera size and weight difference are minor, lenses are plentiful and cheap and more than cover the format: 120, 210 etc in smaller shutters. Looking into that beautiful GG is a different experience. Film choices are limited though but I am happy with Ilford. Also you can get a 4x5 back for when you need it and then there is the Canham 617 roll film holder. I had an 8x10 for a bit and the wides where huge so I never used it on the road as intended. I made the mistake of justifying by buying a really light 8x10 thinking I could wear it on my back all day until I actually used it with the lenses, many Toyo holders, bigger tripod. The other stuff i didn’t think about in the beginning were bigger and heavier to be of use to me.