They say to start with 4x5, but...

...exactly how representative is it of 8x10?

I really would like to jump into a LF system for landscapes. 8x10 (and actually 4x10) is where I am fairly certain I'd like to end up, but I'm having difficulty getting clear answers on some threshold questions. Image quality ("resolution") is really paramount to me; I regularly print at 6-8 feet. The siren song of this 8x10 vs. Phase One comparison is haunting.

1. My understanding is that

Quote:

---

The rule of thumb is that resolution measured in line pairs/mm is limited by diffraction to 1500/f ratio. At f/1, the limit is 1500 lp/mm. At f/22 the limit is 68 lp/mm. And so on.

---

(from this thread).

Since larger formats generally require smaller apertures - especially for sufficient DOF - how representative will 4x5 film be of 4x10 or 8x10? Velvia 50 is spec'd around 160 lp/mm, so using the rough 1500 rule you'd have to be shooting at f/8 to avoid the diffraction limit. That is wide open for most lenses...at best one stop down. At what point does the smaller format actually yield technically better results due to these coinciding variables?

My frustration lies in the upfront cost of an 8x10 system. Cameras are fairly reasonably priced but the good modern lenses run around $5000 when you can find them (ie., the 150mm Schneider f/5.6). Getting real exposed film in my hands to answer these questions seems like it will cost north of $10,000. I'd have no real issue starting with 4x5 if I had a better read on how representative the comparison would be. (I'd also have no problem just diving into 8x10 if I could get better information up front.) Does image quality scale linearly with square inches? Or do these other factors reduce the benefit of increased film size?

Joe

Why not buy an inexpensive 8x10 camera and a 300mm Nikkor M and a couple film holders and try a few exposures?

You most likely won't lose money if and when you decide to sell it.

Light meter, dark cloth for focusing - just normal stuff. A solid tripod - like a used Gitzo Studex series with a head to handle it can be had for under $300. You can develop the film in trays in your home after dark. Very simple and low tech.

This will get you the 'feel' and let you know how it will work for you.

The rule of thumb doesn't seem right to me. Maybe Dan Fromm can add some details.

I rarely shoot 4x5 with an f-number less than f11. I rarely shoot a four-thirds digital with an f-number higher than f11.

For that rule of thumb to be meaningful, it would seem that there would have to be a magnification and focal length associated with it somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie

Why not buy an inexpensive 8x10 camera and a 300mm Nikkor M and a couple film holders and try a few exposures?

You most likely won't lose money if and when you decide to sell it.

Light meter, dark cloth for focusing - just normal stuff. A solid tripod - like a used Gitzo Studex series with a head to handle it can be had for under $300. You can develop the film in trays in your home after dark. Very simple and low tech.

This will get you the 'feel' and let you know how it will work for you.

---

That's fair. I suppose my hesitation with that course would be expressed in the feeling that I was buying a "disposable" camera. But they do seem to hold some value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeff Keller

The rule of thumb doesn't seem right to me. Maybe Dan Fromm can add some details.

I rarely shoot 4x5 with an f-number less than f11. I rarely shoot a four-thirds digital with an f-number higher than f11.

For that rule of thumb to be meaningful, it would seem that there would have to be a magnification and focal length associated with it somehow.

---

Interesting; I'm glad I requested advice then. It's difficult to know how reasonable my assumptions are, so this is good way to crowd source a sanity check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Willie

Why not buy an inexpensive 8x10 camera

---

+1

I think the recommendations around starting with 4x5 is to learn the basics of how to use a view camera. The whole workflow from loading film to understanding movements and (in your case) scanning is much simpler to learn with 4x5. But you can start with 8x10 if you like. In the same spirit of starting out more basic, start with an Intrepid 8x10 and a basic lens (210-300mm). Add some film holders and you could put that kit together for $1500 bucks. If you like the results, then you can invest in more equipment. No way you need to spend $10K out of the gate.

There are many threads in the forum about shooting 4x5 versus 8x10. Probably much more than you can get from a single question thread. Google Advanced Search works great for this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agregov

+1

I think the recommendations around starting with 4x5 is to learn the basics of how to use a view camera. The whole workflow from loading film to understanding movements and (in your case) scanning is much simpler to learn with 4x5. But you can start with 8x10 if you like. In the same spirit of starting out more basic, start with an Intrepid 8x10 and a basic lens (210-300mm). Add some film holders and you could put that kit together for $1500 bucks. If you like the results, then you can invest in more equipment. No way you need to spend $10K out of the gate.

There are many threads in the forum about shooting 4x5 versus 8x10. Probably much more than you can get from a single question thread. Google Advanced Search works great for this.

---

The risk is that if I go this route and I am not overly thrilled with the result, I will have to wonder how much of the problem is due to the fact that I cheaped out on the equipment. So I will either abandon 8x10 without full information, or be forced to double down to know for sure. Of course, I could also be amazed right out of the gate. I'm just trying to minimize the risk of the gamble.
I've been down too many thread rabbit holes prior to posting and my research led me to post this question. I've read everything from "don't enlarge 8x10 more than 4x" to "8x10 is king for big prints...do it and don't look back." The diffraction/film size issue is particularly vexing.

My experience in LF is that as the size of the format increases, everything else increases exponentially; weight, ease of transport, expense of consumable (film, chemicals), and so on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drew Bedo

My experience in LF is that as the size of the format increases, everything else increases exponentially; weight, ease of transport, expense of consumable (film, chemicals), and so on.

---

Thankfully none of those things are of particular concern. I’ve really just narrowed the inquiry to the comparability of 4x5 and 8x10 image quality in view of limitations inherent to the format.

The largest cost difference between 4x5 and 8x10 is film. But with the availability of x-ray film in 8x10 for less than the cost of 4x5 B&W sheets, I think the advice to 'learn the ropes' on 4x5 no longer holds. Yes the best of the best lenses are significantly more for 8x10, but since they're all used and already depreciated, it costs little or nothing to try one. If you're careful, you can even make a profit doing so.

The only reason I still shoot a lot of 4x5 is arthritis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jody_S

The largest cost difference between 4x5 and 8x10 is film. But with the availability of x-ray film in 8x10 for less than the cost of 4x5 B&W sheets, I think the advice to 'learn the ropes' on 4x5 no longer holds. Yes the best of the best lenses are significantly more for 8x10, but since they're all used and already depreciated, it costs little or nothing to try one. If you're careful, you can even make a profit doing so.

The only reason I still shoot a lot of 4x5 is arthritis.

---

The reason my 4x5's are gathering dust in favor of my larger cameas is arthritis. Those tiny little 4x5's just don't work for my 92 year old hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

The siren song of this 8x10 vs. Phase One comparison is haunting.

---

Specifically re 4x5 vs 8x10, you should look at Tim Parkin's earlier comparison too:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...at-vs-digital/

LF is a lot about slowing down. At the price you can’t machine-gun very much. Suggest you slow down right now and do some soul searching. What are you going to be shooting? How “portable” do you want to be? What are you going to do with the e negatives? Contact print or enlarge. Some of these answers may help you gain more insight to decide.

Regarding “how representative”… it’s the same… just smaller.

Why view camera sheet film, Why 8x10?
How can or might this sheet film format improve your image goals and intent?

What needs to be appreciated and fully understood, Sharper, Snappier and all those often sought after image ideals by plenty of photographers often does not result in a more expressive image or image of artistic significance. What makes any image significant, relevant, expressive, enduring tends to be much about content and not Sharper, Snappier and ...

Happened across that same Phase One -vs- 8x10 film comparison years ago, met with a Meh...
Skip the scanner drum scanner or what ever typically used film to digital image conversion device, replace it with a high quality optical macroscope/microscope with the entry level lowest $ Canon M3 mirrorless to record what is produced by the Wild/Leica macroscope/microscope.. This is a section of 5x7 Ektachrome imaged with a 1950's vintage 14" f9 Goerz APO artar in barrel on a Sinar C with a Sinar shutter at f16.

At 260x, the STOP sign is easily readable. with no color bleed between the white of the STOP lettering to the red of the sign's body. Resolution is down to the color film grains. The effective print size at 260x would be 1,248 inches or 104 ft x 1,768 inches or 147ft.
Attachment 217750

Note in that web post article none of the images posted results a clearly readable road sign, thus the Meh...

This is what a Epson 4990 flat bed scanner might do at it's highest resolution.
Attachment 217751

Previously posted:
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...420-microscope

Hows does any of this absurd amount of "sharpness-resolution" improve or result in a more expressive image?
Had the privilege to use some of the very best 8x10 production view camera lenses made (still own a few of them) with the some of the very best view cameras to use these lenses with. Never 8x10 again.. for a very long list of reasons. Film flatness is difficult, camera alignment and precision are no small challenge to achieve, trade off between taking aperture -vs- depth of focus/depth of view is always a tight rope balancing act (smaller the taking aperture-more the optical performance will be degraded). Essentially, larger sheet of film is not always better. Ideal trade-off film size depends on image goals and what needs to be achieved.

Cost per image is also a factor, seems these days each sheet of color 8x10 runs about $30 USD. Be assured more than a few sheets of film will be flamed before
moving far enough up the view camera learning curve to where each sheet of film is never wasted. Then there is the cost of 8x10 camera gear. As the popularity of film appears to be on the up-swing these days, many view and believe 8x10 to be the ultimate film size or camera for ? reasons. This has pent up the market for all things 8x10 view camera related. A good 8x10 camera is no longer low cost, typically a low four figures. Similar applies to 8x10 lenses, adding to this the number of good 8x10 lenses were never vastly to begin with. 8x10 had the smallest lens choices during the peak of the sheet film era with 4x5 and 5x7 far out numbering what view camera lenses were made and available. This is due to the user base and market reality of 8x10 being a very costly sheet film format with very real limitations.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

...exactly how representative is it of 8x10?

I really would like to jump into a LF system for landscapes. 8x10 (and actually 4x10) is where I am fairly certain I'd like to end up, but I'm having difficulty getting clear answers on some threshold questions. Image quality ("resolution") is really paramount to me; I regularly print at 6-8 feet. The siren song of this 8x10 vs. Phase One comparison is haunting.

1. My understanding is that

(from this thread).

Since larger formats generally require smaller apertures - especially for sufficient DOF - how representative will 4x5 film be of 4x10 or 8x10? Velvia 50 is spec'd around 160 lp/mm, so using the rough 1500 rule you'd have to be shooting at f/8 to avoid the diffraction limit. That is wide open for most lenses...at best one stop down. At what point does the smaller format actually yield technically better results due to these coinciding variables?

My frustration lies in the upfront cost of an 8x10 system. Cameras are fairly reasonably priced but the good modern lenses run around $5000 when you can find them (ie., the 150mm Schneider f/5.6). Getting real exposed film in my hands to answer these questions seems like it will cost north of $10,000. I'd have no real issue starting with 4x5 if I had a better read on how representative the comparison would be. (I'd also have no problem just diving into 8x10 if I could get better information up front.) Does image quality scale linearly with square inches? Or do these other factors reduce the benefit of increased film size?

Joe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

Specifically re 4x5 vs 8x10, you should look at Tim Parkin's earlier comparison too:

https://www.onlandscape.co.uk/2011/1...at-vs-digital/

---

This is highly interesting...not sure how I missed it.

Relevantly, they do point out that

Quote:

---

The sharpest aperture on 5x4 was f/16⅔ and on 8x10 was also f/16⅔ - this shouldn't completely surprise us as the most large format lenses perform best at the centre of their image circle at between f/16 and f/22.

---

...which has implications for the 1500 rule I quoted earlier. Although now the accuracy of that rule of thumb has been brought into question.

YES, or why the experience of view camera image making is a LOT more than just all those irrelevant things like "sharpness" and such that is often so admired by Fotographers. Been bitten by all that, with time all that passes or the Fotographer might completely grow out of all that.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianShaw

LF is a lot about slowing down. At the price you can’t machine-gun very much. Suggest you slow down right now and do some soul searching. What are you going to be shooting? How “portable” do you want to be? What are you going to do with the e negatives? Contact print or enlarge. Some of these answers may help you gain more insight to decide.

Regarding “how representative”… it’s the same… just smaller.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

Why view camera sheet film, Why 8x10?

---

Resolution. If someone made a 300MP 2:1 aspect ratio digital camera that I could rent right now, I almost certainly would not be considering this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

What needs to be appreciated and fully understood, Sharper, Snappier and all those often sought after image ideals by plenty of photographers often does not result in a more expressive image or image of artistic significance. What makes any image significant, relevant, expressive, enduring tends to be much about content and not Sharper, Snappier and ...Hows does any of this absurd amount of "sharpness-resolution" improve or result in a more expressive image?

---

Don't get caught up in that. Pretend I said I'm doing archival work or anything else that requires the highest degree of clarity and fidelity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

Had the privilege to use some of the very best 8x10 production view camera lenses made (still own a few of them) with the some of the very best view cameras to use these lenses with. Never 8x10 again.. for a very long list of reasons. Film flatness is difficult, camera alignment and precision are no small challenge to achieve, trade off between taking aperture -vs- depth of focus/depth of view is always a tight rope balancing act (smaller the taking aperture-more the optical performance will be degraded). Essentially, larger sheet of film is not always better. Ideal trade-off film size depends on image goals and what needs to be achieved.

---

I'm assuming this is a vote in favor of 4x5, but largely for practical reasons.

Microscope used yes, but not a good one and a lash up at that. That outfit does not have the optical performance required to reveal what is on film.
Attachment 217752


Wild/ Leica M420 specifically designed to produce photographic images does better and they did not impose film flatness by sandwiching the film between glass.
Film flatness is a absolute requirement.
Attachment 217753

Or use a microscope like this Leica Ergolux with the needed lighting set up and objectives.
Attachment 217755


Bernice

Gonna take a LOT more than 300MP to equal film done proper. Then there is the digital color question. Mandated by the current crop of single imager cameras with a Bayer array to produce color. From previous discussion, start at post# 24.
https://www.largeformatphotography.i...-and-now/page3

Yes indeediee on 4x5 for a very long list of reasons.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

Resolution. If someone made a 300MP 2:1 aspect ratio digital camera that I could rent right now, I almost certainly would not be considering this.



Don't get caught up in that. Pretend I said I'm doing archival work or anything else that requires the highest degree of clarity and fidelity.



I'm assuming this is a vote in favor of 4x5, but largely for practical reasons.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bernice Loui

Then there is the digital color question. Mandated by the current crop of single imager cameras with a Bayer array to produce color.

---

Bayer filters are also the bane of astrophotographers. We use monochromatic cameras with RGB filters (among others) that we combine in software. So that benefit is definitely not lost on me.

Matter of time before some _?_ introduces a three color_three solid state imager camera. It has been done before in the video world. Why this has not happened yet in the current digital camera world is surprising.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

Bayer filters are also the bane of astrophotographers. We use monochromatic cameras with RGB filters (among others) that we combine in software. So that benefit is definitely not lost on me.

---

I shoot 4x5, 8x10, and a Nikon D850 DSLR. I have some thoughts. Shooting an 8x10 is very expensive. I do about 95% wet plate with mine. How are you going to do the enlargement size you mentioned? I'm thinking you'll have to drum scan, and that's going to be really really expensive at that resolution. I shoot 4x5 as my "fun" camera or when I just want something versatile (shoots film, dry plate, wet plate) and easy to carry. I scan the negs/plates. I have an 8x10 mostly for the fun of it and to use really cool pre-Civil War lenses. I only shoot 8x10 wet plate tins with it but also plan on contact printing negs. For doing the kind of large prints you're talking about I'd only consider a high res digital camera. Doing it with film is going to not only get very expensive, but it's a ton more work. Just my thoughts and experience.


Kent in SD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

I shoot 4x5, 8x10, and a Nikon D850 DSLR. I have some thoughts. Shooting an 8x10 is very expensive. I do about 95% wet plate with mine. How are you going to do the enlargement size you mentioned? I'm thinking you'll have to drum scan, and that's going to be really really expensive at that resolution. I shoot 4x5 as my "fun" camera or when I just want something versatile (shoots film, dry plate, wet plate) and easy to carry. I scan the negs/plates. I have an 8x10 mostly for the fun of it and to use really cool pre-Civil War lenses. I only shoot 8x10 wet plate tins with it but also plan on contact printing negs. For doing the kind of large prints you're talking about I'd only consider a high res digital camera. Doing it with film is going to not only get very expensive, but it's a ton more work. Just my thoughts and experience.


Kent in SD

---

That's totally understandable. My large prints currently are almost all digital mosaics stitched in software. 300MP seems to be about the sweet spot for 8 foot wide Fujiflex prints. I have no problem sending off for drum scanning if I can't get something like an Epson V850 to produce acceptable results.

The ongoing cost of 8x10 is not really the problem, it's just the difficulty of finding out if it will live up to my expectations without having to dive in headfirst. Someone suggested looking into LF clubs - I'll check - but absent finding someone with equipment and technique that I can trust to be representative, I pretty much just have to go for it if I want to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

The risk is that if I go this route and I am not overly thrilled with the result, I will have to wonder how much of the problem is due to the fact that I cheaped out on the equipment. So I will either abandon 8x10 without full information, or be forced to double down to know for sure. Of course, I could also be amazed right out of the gate. I'm just trying to minimize the risk of the gamble.

---

My earlier point was mainly one doesn't need to purchase something like a used Ebony 8x10 and say a 600mm Fuji lens for a test (that could easily net you over the $10K range). A low price 8x10 and standard lens should give you all the information you need assuming you know how to use it. That said, it's hard to expect oneself to learn an entirely new camera system and format right out of the gate and find excellent results. Realistically, it takes years to get excellent results in any photo workflow one uses (analog or digital). With regard to equipment, most any view camera with a decent lens should provide outstanding performance. My Tachihara 4x5 ($500) takes equally good pictures as my Arca Swiss F line ($5K), with the same lens. Some cameras are more stable, some have more movements, some are lighter, etc. If you really decide to embrace large format shooting, you can decide on those advantages for yourself eventually. They will likely depend on the type of shooting you like (architecture versus landscape, etc). But you should be able to get an excellent quality image from something like an Intrepid 8x10 + Nikkor 300mm lens as a test system.

It's great you're trying to avoid a big purchase or equipment/technique rabbit hole. Perhaps another idea is to try to rent an 8x10 setup for some basic tests? I ran a Google search and found some options out there (might require some travel). Or maybe reach out to some 8x10 photographers and ask if they might send you a high res scan of a few of their images which you can run some resolution and printing tests? A lab that offers both drumscan and flatbed services might have some sample files too.

The OP mentioned using colour transparency film (why not colour neg?). How many years or months does he think this might be available for, together with the high-quality processing necessary for accurate results? I'm confident that black and white materials will stay around, but E6 . . . unlikely, sadly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MartinP

The OP mentioned using colour transparency film (why not colour neg?). How many years or months does he think this might be available for, together with the high-quality processing necessary for accurate results? I'm confident that black and white materials will stay around, but E6 . . . unlikely, sadly.

---

I just think its cool :) I'd probably try to stock up...Velvia 100 is obviously now dead here in the US, but I can get 50 from Japan for now at least. I'm cautiously optimistic that some of the resurgent interest in LF (driven by companies like Intrepid) will keep the supply chain open for a little while longer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

Image quality ("resolution") is really paramount to me; I regularly print at 6-8 feet.

---

There's way more to image quality than just simple resolution. But you seem to want just simple resolution. OK, but if that's all you want you're barking up the wrong tree. A cheap digicam and a good stitching algorithm can wallop 10x8 upside the head when it comes to resolution. Look up the Gigapixel project.

All you really need to make a reasonable job of it is a tripod and some sort of panning head. Most of this stuff is sold to people who want to make large panoramas, which are the easy thing to make -- if you level your camera and make one row of images to stitch together, you obviously limit the geometric distortion (because the film plane / imaging chip is level and plumb, no keystoning, etc.). But that's certainly not the only thing you can do. Nothing prevents you from tilting back/forward and making another row or two. Most stitching software can figure this out and make huge seamless files for you.

If you're going to do a lot of this there are ways to spend more money and improve your output. For example, you can get mounts that let you rotate around the entrance pupil of the lens (they are called, IIRC, nodal rails, but you want to rotate around the entrance pupil, not the front nodal point, although they are typically close together in SLR designs so it's often a distinction without much difference). There are also motorized mounts, and computer controlled mounts (will account for camera/lens automatically so you don't have to do much if any math). People have been doing this for a long time; it you can think of it it's probably already available.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTOH, if you really want to go the LF film route, what I can say about resolution is just this: To maintain the same DOF as 5x4 (say you're at f/22), you have to close down two more stops in 10x8 (to f/45). This will almost always put you in diffraction limiting with 10x8, and it will also more often than not push you into reciprocity failure somewhere on that big sheet of film.

Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, et.al. formed Group f/64 because they realized that getting everything in acceptable focus was more important than maximizing resolution. Think about that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

There's way more to image quality than just simple resolution. But you seem to want just simple resolution. OK, but if that's all you want you're barking up the wrong tree. A cheap digicam and a good stitching algorithm can wallop 10x8 upside the head when it comes to resolution. Look up the Gigapixel project.

All you really need to make a reasonable job of it is a tripod and some sort of panning head. Most of this stuff is sold to people who want to make large panoramas, which are the easy thing to make -- if you level your camera and make one row of images to stitch together, you obviously limit the geometric distortion (because the film plane / imaging chip is level and plumb, no keystoning, etc.). But that's certainly not the only thing you can do. Nothing prevents you from tilting back/forward and making another row or two. Most stitching software can figure this out and make huge seamless files for you.

If you're going to do a lot of this there are ways to spend more money and improve your output. For example, you can get mounts that let you rotate around the entrance pupil of the lens (they are called, IIRC, nodal rails, but you want to rotate around the entrance pupil, not the front nodal point, although they are typically close together in SLR designs so it's often a distinction without much difference). There are also motorized mounts, and computer controlled mounts (will account for camera/lens automatically so you don't have to do much if any math). People have been doing this for a long time; it you can think of it it's probably already available.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

OTOH, if you really want to go the LF film route, what I can say about resolution is just this: To maintain the same DOF as 5x4 (say you're at f/22), you have to close down two more stops in 10x8 (to f/45). This will almost always put you in diffraction limiting with 10x8, and it will also more often than not push you into reciprocity failure somewhere on that big sheet of film.

Ansel Adams, Imogen Cunningham, et.al. formed Group f/64 because they realized that getting everything in acceptable focus was more important than maximizing resolution. Think about that.

---

I put the word "resolution" in quotes because I understand it is quite the loaded term...and ironically has dubious applicability when it comes to film.

I have been doing digital mosaics ("panoramas") for years. They work well for stationary subjects when the light is not changing quickly. But when you have moving subjects (water, clouds, etc.) and quickly changing lighting conditions, stitching becomes anything from a nightmare to downright impossible. I've done relatively modest 12 panel mosaics during blue hour where the first exposure was 30 seconds and the last was almost 4 minutes. It's not a recipe for a seamless image.

Joe, it really depends on how you intend on using the photographs once you've made them. One of the only real advantages of working with 8x10 is to make contact prints, and the extra real estate makes for beautiful contact prints. But if you are scanning your film and post processing digitally, then there are fewer reasons to choose 8x10 over 4x5. As others have stated, working in 8x10 is considerably more challenging, and your skills must be more finely honed to get the best from the medium.
That said, there's no reason not to buy an Intrepid 8x10 and start with that. You CAN put together an 8x10 kit to learn on for under $1000, lens included, if you are willing to treat the investment like a learning kit. Some of my favorite large format lenses have been acquired for under $100, shutter included. You do NOT need to spend $1000 to get a very good lens. Even the Russian Industar-37 is a spectacular lens in the hands of a skilled photographer, and those can be had for $250 or less. (Yes, I own one and its wonderful)

I might have missed this, but to me the type of representative subject matter could be a factor. If you are typically shooting stuff usually from far enough away that you won't run into depth of field issues with reasonable apertures, 8x10 might make quite a bit more sense than if you are often going to be in situations requiring tiny apertures and/or depth of field compromises (both of which will obliterate resolution). Etc. For example, quickly browsing through the link you posted with the comparison, it seems like the usual sort of thing where they evaluate the resolution/sharpness of something in the object field on the plane of sharp focus or similarly at infinity.

Just some thoughts.

I sympathize with the predicament. Most often when it comes to LF decisions, we can't actually get our hands on anything without buying (based merely on specs, opinions, beliefs etc.). The only way out of analysis paralysis is usually to get stuff, and then hope you can sell it if it doesn't work out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbarden

Joe, it really depends on how you intend on using the photographs once you've made them. One of the only real advantages of working with 8x10 is to make contact prints, and the extra real estate makes for beautiful contact prints. But if you are scanning your film and post processing digitally, then there are fewer reasons to choose 8x10 over 4x5.

---

This is not the first time I've heard this, and it still confuses me. Is it really the case that the only real advantage of 8x10 is for contact prints? That seems so counterintuitive given the massive scans they yield. I make very large prints - in the realm of 6 to 8 feet. It seems like 4x5 would be stretching itself at that size.

Why don’t you ask if someone will send you an 4x5 and 8x10 neg and print them however you intend. Demonstration of which is most suitable might be better than discussion… although discussion sure helps.

Question: what’s the normal viewing distance for your huge prints? That, too, matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

This is not the first time I've heard this, and it still confuses me. Is it really the case that the only real advantage of 8x10 is for contact prints? That seems so counterintuitive given the massive scans they yield. I make very large prints - in the realm of 6 to 8 feet. It seems like 4x5 would be stretching itself at that size.

---

OK, if you are making prints on THAT scale, then you'll get better results from an 8x10 negative. However, you will still get an amazing print that size from a GOOD 4x5 negative made on a film like Delta 100 and using a very sharp, contrasty lens.

PS: are you married to the aspect ratio of 8x10? The camera I use more than any other is my 5x7: more real estate, more appealing aspect ratio, plenty of excellent, affordable lenses for that format, and it keeps materials costs down quite a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianShaw

Question: what’s the normal viewing distance for your huge prints? That, too, matters.

---

Roughly equivalent to the planck length. :p It's definitely not 8 feet away from behind a velvet rope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbarden

PS: are you married to the aspect ratio of 8x10? The camera I use more than any other is my 5x7: more real estate, more appealing aspect ratio, plenty of excellent, affordable lenses for that format, and it keeps materials costs down quite a bit.

---

Actually no, I've just been using it is a proxy for formats requiring a 300mm image circle. 4x10 is far more my style. Chamonix makes one with really nice size and weight specs.

Yes on 8x10 contact prints. 8x10 B&W contact prints are far more special when made from 8x10 negatives created by Soft Focus lenses.

In many ways 8x10 film for projected prints works against image goals. Based on having done 8x10 film for over a decade back when 8x10 was not that much extra effort or cost, never again. Challenges from keeping the film flat, apertures required to keep areas of the image in perceived focus _even with camera movements applied_ , IMO seriously restricted lens choices once the specific demands and limitations are applied and they are $$$$, the overall 8x10 outfit is heavy, bulky, MUCH slower to set up and work with than 4x5.. Overall, 8x10 often does NOT result in better image quality when projection printed. If scanned, how the 8x10 scanned becomes an issue.

What is IMO a far better film size choice is 5x7 _ 13x18cm, which has many of the advantages of 4x5 with far fewer disadvantages of 8x10. This opinion comes from using film formats from 35mm to 8x10. While each film format has it's place in the image maker tool box, 5x7 _ 13x18cm remains kinda special in the universe of sheet film image making.

Cut 8x10 down to 4x10, it become more viable again than 8x10. This is much about dealing with the very nature of sheet film and once the realities of what the ways of Nature will enforce with increasing sheet film size.

As for information on film, keep that macroscope-microscope 260x magnified image of the STOP sign from a sheet of 5x7 Ektachrome made using a circa 1950's Goerz APO process lens in barrel @f16 in mind. Extremely unlikely any "modern" lens could or would exceed that optical performance rendered on film.


Bernice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

This is not the first time I've heard this, and it still confuses me. Is it really the case that the only real advantage of 8x10 is for contact prints? That seems so counterintuitive given the massive scans they yield. I make very large prints - in the realm of 6 to 8 feet. It seems like 4x5 would be stretching itself at that size.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

I put the word "resolution" in quotes because I understand it is quite the loaded term...

---

In your post #17 above, in response to Bernice Loui's question "Why view camera sheet film, Why 8x10?" you responded: resolution. Without quotes. So I took you at your word.

Sorry about that. I am a terrible mind reader. Actually, most people here aren't that good at mind reading. Sadly most of us are fairly literal. We need you to be specific about what you are trying to accomplish so we can give you better answers to the question you actually want answered. I did try.

So, ignore the first part of my reply above. The second part still applies. I think.

As far as I know, 5x7 colour film is only available as special order from Kodak and OP stated they are interested in shooting slides.
Op has also mentioned that they want to shoot 1:2 ratio.

For me the obvious difference is that on a 4x5 camera OP would be able to achieve their desired 1:2 ratio on 120 film.
On the one hand, the much lower cost of 120 film, with many different emulsions available, no need to carry heavy film holders and the possibility to carry dozens of rolls in your bag without a significant weight increase… on the other hand a non standard format that OP would have to cut themselves from expensive 8x10 sheets and carry a bunch of heavy holders, a film charging tent… on top of an already much heavier camera and tripod…
For me the choice is a no brainer…. BUT I don’t print 8ft wide.

I shoot 612 format on 120 film, and I have an 8x10.
I wouldn’t be happy enlarging my 612 negs to 8ft wide.

But there’s no way I would carry my 8x10 to the places I can carry a 4x5.

So what about an in between solution :
OP gets a 4x5 with an extra 612 back… BUT they also make sure that their camera has at least 1.5inch of rear standard shift in each direction. :cool:
That way they can shoot a bunch of pictures on the cheap roll films, but when they encounter a scene that they know they have to capture large, they can use the rear shift to capture a 4x8*perspective on two sheets of 4x5.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce Watson

So, ignore the first part of my reply above. The second part still applies. I think.

---

It does. I just didn't want the thread to be derailed into film-digital comparisons. The differences between 4x5 and 8x10 in the context of their optical compromises is really what I was trying to focus on. Someone else linked a great article from 2011 that had a ton of great info on the subject, specifically accounting for diffraction limits. So this has been helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenicolas

As far as I know, 5x7 colour film is only available as special order from Kodak and OP stated they are interested in shooting slides.
Op has also mentioned that they want to shoot 1:2 ratio.

For me the obvious difference is that on a 4x5 camera OP would be able to achieve their desired 1:2 ratio on 120 film.
On the one hand, the much lower cost of 120 film, with many different emulsions available, no need to carry heavy film holders and the possibility to carry dozens of rolls in your bag without a significant weight increase… on the other hand a non standard format that OP would have to cut themselves from expensive 8x10 sheets and carry a bunch of heavy holders, a film charging tent… on top of an already much heavier camera and tripod…
For me the choice is a no brainer…. BUT I don’t print 8ft wide.

I shoot 612 format on 120 film, and I have an 8x10.
I wouldn’t be happy enlarging my 612 negs to 8ft wide.

But there’s no way I would carry my 8x10 to the places I can carry a 4x5.

So what about an in between solution :
OP gets a 4x5 with an extra 612 back… BUT they also make sure that their camera has at least 1.5inch of rear standard shift in each direction. :cool:
That way they can shoot a bunch of pictures on the cheap roll films, but when they encounter a scene that they know they have to capture large, they can use the rear shift to capture a 4x8*perspective on two sheets of 4x5.

---

I did consider 617 as an alternative. The Fuji GX617s are very cool, compact, and the benefits of roll film are obvious. But print size is the issue, which is why I started looking at 4x10 as essentially 6x17 on steroids. I get two shots out of an 8x10 sheet, and the camera size and weight is far more manageable than 8x10. Once I started down that path, the only question was whether to start out with 4x5 in accordance with conventional wisdom or just jump in and go for it. Turns out conventional wisdom may have shifted.

Coupla points. One I didn’t see stated yet and the other has been said but I’m not sure you are hearing it.

The one I didn’t see is that the diffraction you asked about in the initial post isn’t the only limiting factor. Other aberrations also must be controlled, as well as image circle. Large format lenses, unlike lenses for 35mm and smaller cameras, are not optimized for wide-open shooting. The typical high-end plasmat is optimized for f/16, and the typical biogon type (Super Angulon, Grandagon, etc.) is optimized for f/22. Partly this is because at larger apertures, the barrel occludes the aperture if movements have pushed to the edge of the image circle, and you get vignetting. Partly it’s because these are not the newest designs. So, you’ll likely have suboptimal results at f/8 even in the focus plane, because diffraction isn’t the thing limiting sharpness at f/8.

And the thing I’m not sure you are hearing is that f/8 has very little application in large-format photography in any case, for those who include “resolution” in their stated objectives as you have done. No aberration or any amount of diffraction causes fuzziness like being even a little out of focus. And at f/8, any three-dimensional scene with a foreground photographed using large format is going to have a lot stuff that is out of focus. That’s another reason lenses are not optimized for wide apertures—LF photographers use the wide apertures only for viewing and focusing.

8x10 suffers from this limitation more that 4x5. But for me, even using 4x5, I consider myself lucky when I can get sufficient depth of field even at f/22. And I use tilts and swings extensively to try and manage the focus plane optimally so I don’t have to stop down as much. LF exposures are often measured in seconds rather fractions of a second because of this, so those fast-moving things are still a problem

Finally, scanning. I find that Epson scanners produce the quality I want up to 4x enlargement. (My standard is sustaining the illusion of endless detail even viewed up close.) Thus, 16x20 prints for 4x5, and 30x40 prints for 8x10. The film will support much greater enlargements, of course, but will need a better scan.

I used a composite of three 6x12 negatives (in my 4x5 Sinar), scanned at twice the useful resolution of an Epson flatbed in a Nikon film scanner, to get a scan that would support a print of 5x8 feet and sustain the illusion of unlimited detail when viewed up close. I didn’t have time to send it out for drum scanning, but that would have made it easier.

(Judging from what I see in mural-sized ad photos these days, that is no longer the operative standard. But it used to be.)

Rick “don’t hire a cat to do a dog’s job” Denney

If you want to shoot 8x10 stop being a Nancy about it and shoot 8x10.
Life is too short to futz around.
It's only $$
If it's what makes you happy you'll only wonder why it took you so long to grab the ball and run with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rdenney

The one I didn’t see is that the diffraction you asked about in the initial post isn’t the only limiting factor. Other aberrations also must be controlled, as well as image circle. Large format lenses, unlike lenses for 35mm and smaller cameras, are not optimized for wide-open shooting. The typical high-end plasmat is optimized for f/16, and the typical biogon type (Super Angulon, Grandagon, etc.) is optimized for f/22. Partly this is because at larger apertures, the barrel occludes the aperture if movements have pushed to the edge of the image circle, and you get vignetting. Partly it’s because these are not the newest designs. So, you’ll likely have suboptimal results at f/8 even in the focus plane, because diffraction isn’t the thing limiting sharpness at f/8.

And the thing I’m not sure you are hearing is that f/8 has very little application in large-format photography in any case, for those who include “resolution” in their stated objectives as you have done. No aberration or any amount of diffraction causes fuzziness like being even a little out of focus.

---

I totally understand. Shooting at f/8 on 8x10 is not what I had in mind, but I referenced that aperture as the mathematical outcome of the resolution rule of thumb I quoted in the first post. That's the part that I didn't understand, but some things here have started to clear it up (even if the rule itself is questionable).

My operating knowledge at this point is essentially this: 8x10 has much more resolving power than 4x5, but due to the practical reality of counterbalancing of DOF and diffraction, it seems likely that it loses any advantage after about f/45. This is probably why there seems to be such a popular opinion that 8x10 is really only for contact prints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Kasaian

If you want to shoot 8x10 stop being a Nancy about it and shoot 8x10.
Life is too short to futz around.
It's only $$
If it's what makes you happy you'll only wonder why it took you so long to grab the ball and run with it.

---

You're ruining my foreplay.

The best advice so far is to have someone send you a well done 8x10 neg and see what can be done with it. I have an Epson scanner and know it's nowhere near up to what you want. You'll need a very high res drum scan. If it were me doing this I'd go for a digital medium format camera with something like a Leaf Aptus back and Zeiss lenses.



Kent in SD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Two23

The best advice so far is to have someone send you a well done 8x10 neg and see what can be done with it. I have an Epson scanner and know it's nowhere near up to what you want. You'll need a very high res drum scan. If it were me doing this I'd go for a digital medium format camera with something like a Leaf Aptus back and Zeiss lenses.



Kent in SD

---

I just sold my GFX100 :p

But I think you're right, I'm going to get in touch with some of the few remaining drum scanners out there and see if they have some demo files they can send me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jdk

I did consider 617 as an alternative. The Fuji GX617s are very cool, compact, and the benefits of roll film are obvious. But print size is the issue, which is why I started looking at 4x10 as essentially 6x17 on steroids. I get two shots out of an 8x10 sheet, and the camera size and weight is far more manageable than 8x10. Once I started down that path, the only question was whether to start out with 4x5 in accordance with conventional wisdom or just jump in and go for it. Turns out conventional wisdom may have shifted.

---

I hadn’t read the thread on onlandscape when I posted about 612 and roll films.
Based on that thread, if a Mamiya 7 can trounce the iq80 then one would think 612 has plenty of potential for huge enlargement.

I would definitely give roll film a chance before going into 8x10.
I’ve read all your comments that you’re not afraid of the weight or the cost, but I also know from experience that going from a small digicam such as your gfx to a large view camera makes a huge difference in the field. It’s easy to underestimate that difference until you’ve tried it.

I can try to digitise the center of a 612 neg to the point that film grain becomes detrimental, and send that file to you.
Then you could print that file at A3 and compare the detail to your 8ft prints.

Also at the risk of repeating myself, do not discard my suggestion of shooting 4x8 panoramas on two sheets of 45 via rear shift. (The Chamonix 45H-1 has enough rear shift to do this.)
It would give you the same enlargements as 4x10 on a much more practical sheet format.
Keep in mind that your lab and drum scanner operator will still charge you the price of 8x10 to process and scan your 410 slides…

jdk,

I understand you want to limit your wasted effort in buying the wrong camera system, but you haven't mentioned where you are located. Are there any rental options in your area? Is there anybody shooting 8x10 in your circle of friends? Or region? If you were in my area, I'd suggest getting together and shooting together for a day.

It's hard to explain how different each camera/format is to work with. 4x5 is different from 4x10, 5x7, 8x10 or 8x20. Each format brings different problems and rewards. Sometimes there is no better way of learning than just doing. It has been suggested, buy something and shoot with it. I agree. Working with a camera is the only way to find out if a format. But be careful, the wrong camera can turn you off of a format also.

The best advise I ever received was to buy an affordable used camera and give a new format a try. If it's not for you sell the camera and move on. I did this with 4x5, 8x10 and also 8x20. I still shoot all three formats on upgraded cameras, and have sold off my first cameras for each format.

With 6x12, the challenge is film flatness even more than with sheet film. I like my results, but my prints are not measured in many feet.

Rick “theory may not meet practice because of film flatness” Denney

More than just film flatness, camera alignment, camera stability or movement of any kind become non-linear difficult as the sheet film size goes up.

Stopping the lens down as the film format size goes up is NOT the proper cure. The actual cure is to assure film flatness in the film holder by adhesive, vacuum or other methods. Then there is the camera issue, front to rear standards to ground glass to film holder area MUST start out as parallel as possible (like 0.01" or better at each corner) before applying any camera movements and check for absolute focus with a proper magnifier (~7x) on the GG before the lens is stopped down and at lens taking aperture to. Then lens mounting and all related to the camera mechanics. Then comes keeping a BIG camera from moving in the real world of image making. This is one of the most often neglected then taken for granted aspects of view camera image making.

Yes larger lens apertures are used for view camera work, it is a image making style thing.. More on this later, and yes some view camera lenses are have remarkable optical performance at full aperture.


Bernice

Maybe try B&W and shoot glass plates?