4x5 or 8x10

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.